EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E2197 

POCKET-VETO POWERS 

HON. NANCY PELOSI OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, October 2, 2008 

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I submit for 

the RECORD a copy of a letter signed jointly by 

myself and the Republican Leader, Mr. 

BOEHNER. It is addressed to President Bush. 

In it, we express our views on the limits of the 

‘‘pocket-veto’’ power. I also submit a copy of 

the letters referenced therein. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, April 14, 2008. 

Hon. GEORGE W. BUSH, 

The President, The White House, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is in response to 

your actions of December 28, 2007, on H.R. 

1585, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008, which you returned to 

the House of Representatives without your 

approval. In returning the parchment you 

transmitted a memorandum of disapproval 

stating your objections to enactment of the 

bill. This memorandum of disapproval included the following paragraph: 

‘‘The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the 

meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of 

the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes 

its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 

U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my 

signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to ‘pocket veto’ bills during an 

adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of 

Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid 

unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that 

the bill is being vetoed.’’ 

The circumstances surrounding the presentment and return of H.R. 1585 and the 

readiness of Congress to reconsider the bill 

in light of Presidential objections compel us 

to question the assertion that a pocket veto 

did or could have occurred. We think you 

agree that the pocket veto and the return 

veto are available on mutually exclusive 

bases and, therefore, during mutually exclusive periods. We think you should also agree 

that the constitutional concern that a bill 

not become law without the President’s signature when an adjournment prevents a return veto does not arise when the President 

is able to return the parchment to the originating House with a statement of his objections. Accordingly, we believe that your return of H.R. 1585 with your objections is absolutely inconsistent with this most essential characteristic of a pocket veto, to wit: 

retention of the parchment by the President 

for lack of any body to whom he might return it with his objections. Your successful 

return of H.R. 1585 establishes that you were 

not prevented from returning it. 

H.R. 1585 was presented to you on December 19, 2007. You returned the bill on December 28, 2007—the eighth of the ten days allowed under the Constitution. The Clerk was 

available pursuant to the standing rules of 

the House to receive your message. The Congress was in a position to reconsider the bill 

in light of Presidential objections, even in 

the first session of the instant Congress. Although the House had adjourned sine die 

(without specifying a day of return), it did so 

with provision for its reassembly. Moreover, 

both houses were to reassemble in due course 

for a second session of the instant Congress. 

After an enrolled bill is presented for Presidential approval, the parchment ultimately 

meets one of four ends. It might be tendered 

to the Archivist by the President because he 

signed it or allowed it to become law without 

his signature. It might be referred to committee by the first house to sustain a veto. It 

might be tendered to the Archivist by the 

second house to override a veto. Or it might 

be retained by the President because he 

‘‘pocketed’’ it. If the President returns a 

parchment to the Congress, then he has not 

pocketed it, and it therefore is subject to reconsideration. Either the Congress has prevented the President from returning the 

parchment with a statement of his objections or it has not. By returning the parchment a President is admitting that he is not 

prevented from returning it. 

The House has treated your message of December 28, 2007, on H.R. 1585 as a return veto. 

On January 15, 2008, the message—comprising the parchment and your memorandum of disapproval—was laid before the 

House. After the memorandum was read, 

your objections were entered in the Journal 

and the House obeyed the command of the 

Constitution to ‘‘proceed to reconsider’’ the 

bill. Rather than immediately considering 

the ultimate question on overriding or sustaining the veto, the House chose as its first 

mode of reconsideration a referral to committee. 

We enclose for your consideration copies of 

previous letters to President George H. W. 

Bush and President Clinton, respectively 

dated November 21, 1989, and September 7, 

2000. Those letters from Speaker Foley and 

Leader Michel and from Speaker Hastert and 

Leader Gephardt expressed the profound concern of the bipartisan leaderships over similar assertions of pocket vetoes. We echo 

those concerns and urge you to give appropriate deference to such judicial resolutions 

of this question as have been possible. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Best regards, 

NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House. 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

Republican Leader. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, September 7, 2000. 

Hon. WILLIAM J. CLINTON, 

The President, The White House, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is in response to 

your actions on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax 

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, and H.R. 8, 

the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. On 

August 5, 2000, you returned H.R. 4810 to the 

House of Representatives without your approval and with a message stating your objections to its enactment. On August 31, 2000, 

you returned H.R. 8 to the House of Representatives without your approval and with 

a message stating your objections to its enactment. In addition, however, in both cases 

you included near the end of your message 

the following: 

Since the adjournment of the Congress has 

prevented my return of [the respective bill] 

within the meaning of Article I, section 7, 

clause 2 of the Constitution, my withholding 

of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 

655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to ‘‘pocket veto’’ bills during an 

adjournment of the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am also sending [the respective bill] 

to the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I 

have vetoed the measure. 

President Bush similarly asserted a pocket-veto authority during an intersession adjournment with respect to H.R. 2712 of the 

101st Congress but, by nevertheless returning 

the enrollment, similarly permitted the Congress to reconsider it in light of his objections, as contemplated by the Constitution. 

Your allusion to the existence of a pocketveto power during even an intrasession adjournment continues to be most troubling. 

We find that assertion to be inconsistent 

with the return-veto that it accompanies. We 

also find that assertion to be inconsistent 

with your previous use of the return-veto 

under similar circumstances but without 

similar dictum concerning the pocket-veto. 

On January 9, 1996, you stated your disapproval of H.R. 4 of the 104th Congress and, 

on January 10, 1996—the tenth Constitutional day after its presentment—returned 

the bill to the Clerk of the House. At the 

time, the House stood adjourned to a date 

certain 12 days hence. Your message included 

no dictum concerning the pocket-veto. 

We enclose a copy of a letter dated November 21, 1989, from Speaker Foley and Minority Leader Michel to President Bush. That 

letter expressed the profound concern of the 

bipartisan leaderships over the assertion of a 

pocket veto during an intrasession adjournment. That letter states in pertinent part 

that ‘‘[s]uccessive Presidential administrations since 1974 have, in accommodation of 

Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto 

power during intrasession adjournments only 

by messages returning measures to the Congress.’’ It also states our belief that it is not 

‘‘constructive to resurrect constitutional 

controversies long considered as settled, especially without notice or consultation.’’ 

The Congress, on numerous occasions, has 

reinforced the stance taken in that letter by 

including in certain resolutions of adjournment language affirming to the President 

the absence of ‘‘pocket veto’’ authority during adjournments between its first and second sessions. The House and the Senate continue to designate the Clerk of the House 

and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, as their agents to receive messages 

from the President during periods of adjournment. Clause 2(h) of rule II, Rules of 

the House of Representatives; House Resolution 5, 106th Congress, January 6, 1999; the 

standing order of the Senate of January 6, 

1999. In Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 

(D.C. Cir. 1974), the court held that the 

‘‘pocket veto’’ is not constitutionally available during an intrasession adjournment of 

the Congress if a congressional agent is appointed to receive veto messages from the 

President during such adjournment. 

On these premises we find your assertion of 

a pocket veto power during an intrasession 

adjournment extremely troublesome. Such 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REMARKS
E2198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks October 2, 2008 

assertions should be avoided, in appropriate 

deference to such judicial resolution of the 

question as has been possible within the 

bounds of justifiability. 

Meanwhile, citing the precedent of January 23, 1990, relating to H.R. 2712 of the 101st 

Congress, the House yesterday treated both 

H.R. 4810 and H.R. 8 as having been returned 

to the originating House, their respective returns not having been prevented by an adjournment within the meaning of article I, 

section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. 

Sincerely, 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker. 

RICHARD A. GEPHARDT, 

Democratic Leader. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, November 21, 1989. 

Hon. GEORGE BUSH, 

President of the United States, The White 

House, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: This is in response to 

your action on House Joint Resolution 390. 

On August 16, 1989, you issued a memorandum of disapproval asserting that you 

would ‘‘prevent H.J. Res. 390 from becoming 

a law by withholding (your) signature from 

it.’’ You did not return the bill to the House 

of Representatives. 

House Joint Resolution 390 authorized a 

‘‘hand enrollment’’ of H.R. 1278, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, by waiving the requirement that the bill be printed on parchment. The hand enrollment option was requested by the Department of the Treasury 

to insure that the mounting daily costs of 

the savings-and-loan crisis could be stemmed 

by the earliest practicable enactment of H.R. 

1278. In the end, a hand enrollment was not 

necessary since the bill was printed on 

parchment in time to be presented to you in 

that form. 

We appreciate your judgment that House 

Joint Resolution 390 was, in the end, unnecessary. We believe, however, that you should 

communicate any such veto by a message returning the resolution to the Congress since 

the intrasession pocket veto is constitutionally infirm. 

In Kennedy v. Sampson, the United States 

Court of Appeals held that ‘‘pocket veto’’ is 

not constitutionally available during an 

intrasession adjournment of the Congress if 

a congressional agent is appointed to receive 

veto messages from the President during 

such adjournment. 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 

1974). In the standing rules of the House, the 

Clerk is duly authorized to receive messages 

from the President at any time that the 

House is not in session. (Clause 5, Rule III, 

Rules of the House of Representatives; House 

Resolution 5, 101st Congress, January 3, 

1989.) 

Successive Presidential administrations 

since 1974 have, in accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto power 

during intrasession adjournments only by 

messages returning measures to the Congress. 

We therefore find your assertion of a pocket veto power during an intrasession adjournment extremely troublesome. We do 

not think it constructive to resurrect constitutional controversies long considered as 

settled, especially without notice of consultation. It is our hope that you might join 

us in urging the Archivist to assign a public 

law number to House Joint Resolution 390, 

and that you might eschew the notion of an 

intrasession pocket veto power, in appropriate deference to the judicial resolution of 

that question. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS S. FOLEY, 

Speaker. 

ROBERT H. MICHEL, 

Republican Leader. 

ON THE BIRTH OF JUDAH 

CHRISTOPHER CALLAHAN 

HON. JOE WILSON 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, October 2, 2008 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam 

Speaker, I am happy to congratulate Paul and 

Jenni Callahan on the birth of their new baby 

boy. Judah Christopher Callahan was born on 

September 30, 2008, weighing nine pounds. 

Judah joins an older sister, Charlotte. He has 

been born into a loving home, where he will 

be raised by parents who are devoted to his 

well-being and bright future. 

His father, Paul, serves as senior legislative 

assistant in the office of the Second Congressional District of South Carolina. 

I want to congratulate Judah’s grandparents, 

Gerald and Madonna Callahan of Greenville, 

South Carolina, and Steve and Pam Crowe of 

Greenville, South Carolina. On behalf of my 

wife Roxanne, and our entire family, we want 

to wish Paul, Jenni, Charlotte, and Judah all 

the best. 

f 

RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS 

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS 

MONTH 

HON. DANNY K. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, October 2, 2008 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I 

wish to take a moment to recognize October 

as National Breast Cancer Awareness month. 

Excluding skin cancer, breast cancer is the 

most common cancer among women, accounting for more than 1 in 4 cancers diagnosed in women in the United States. Breast 

cancer incidence and death rates generally increase with age. White women have a higher 

incidence of breast cancer than African American women after the age of 40. In contrast, 

African American women have a higher incidence rate before the age of 40. Of great concern is the racial disparity that exists in terms 

of breast cancer outcomes. In the United 

States, African American women are 37 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than 

Caucasian women, with 5-year survival rates 

being 77 percent and 90 percent, respectively. 

This discrepancy is unacceptable. 

Health disparities related to breast cancer 

exist primarily due to poor early detection of 

the cancer and limited access to high-quality 

treatment. A lack of health insurance usually is 

linked with one having a more advanced stage 

of cancer at the time of diagnosis. The presence of supplementary illnesses, lower socioeconomic status, unequal access to medical 

care, and disparities in treatment may contribute to the observed differences in survival 

between lower and higher income breast cancer patients, specifically between African 

American and white women. 

Many institutions are taking the initiative to 

understand and address these disparities. I 

am proud that a hospital in my Congressional 

district has accepted this challenge. The Sinai 

Urban Health Institute is the largest private 

provider of charity care in the State of Illinois, 

and it has helped raise awareness and care 

for breast cancer. Sinai recently completed a 

comprehensive epidemiological analysis of 

breast cancer mortality for African American 

and Caucasian women in Chicago. Strikingly, 

the study found that black women in Chicago 

had a 68 percent higher mortality rate of 

breast cancer than Caucasian women. Further, the study demonstrated that Caucasian 

women in Chicago had benefited from the incredible advancements in treatment over the 

past 2 decades, but that these treatment successes had no impact on the mortality rate for 

African American women. This report prompted the local health community to discuss solutions to the growing disparities. The experts 

involved centered their recommendations on 

three things: improve access to mammograms, the quality of mammograms, and the 

quality of breast cancer treatment. To do its 

part, Sinai developed a program to increase 

the access of low-income women to mammograms. I am impressed that Sinai’s efforts resulted in an amazing increase in the number 

of mammograms conducted at Sinai. Specifically, the number of mammograms increased 

60 percent from 2004 to 2007. 

I also am pleased that this session I helped 

pass legislation to extend the authorization of 

the semipostal Breast Cancer Awareness 

stamp till 2011. Through the sale of this 

stamp, we are able to raise awareness of this 

disease and directly raise money for needed 

research. Sale of the Breast Cancer SemiPostal stamp, first issued in 1998, has raised 

more than $54 million for breast cancer research. 

As policymakers, we must continue to work 

together to raise money, promote awareness, 

and advance treatment for a cancer that is 

devastating our communities. 

f 

EARMARK DECLARATION 

HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, October 2, 2008 

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, pursuant to 

the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD regarding earmarks I received as part 

of H.R. 7110: 

Requesting Member: SHELLEY MOORE

CAPITO. 

Account: RTDE Army. 

Title: MATRIC-Project National Shield Integration Center. 

Recipient: Keith A. Pauley, 3200 Kanawha 

Turnpike, Building 740, Suite 4300, South 

Charleston, WV 25314. 

Summary: To establish a nationally integrated system-of-systems framework that can 

effectively protect the nation against terrorist 

attacks, etc. 

Account: RTDE Defense Wide. 

Title: Tactical Biometrics Operating and Surveillance System (TBOSS). 

Recipient: STS International, 204 Sand Mine 

Road, PO Box 10, Berkeley Springs, WV 

25411. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REMARKS