Adjournment Of Congress Research Articles

The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case, 1926–1929 by Jonathan Lurie

This meticulously researched and engaging book unravels the complex skein of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have interpreted the scope of the so-called “pocket veto,” which permits the president to disapprove a bill by not signing it or by returning it when Congress is not in session. Lurie uses these cases as a prism through which to explore “ongoing legal issues concerning separation of powers—a never-ending source of constitutional friction” (151–152). The book’s title is unduly modest because nearly one-third of the book explores cases between 1936 and 1987.Lurie focuses on Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States (1929), in which the Court held that a bill does not become law if a president is unable to return it to Congress because Congress is not in session, even if a Congress has not permanently adjourned. Although the Court’s decision addressed only the pocket-veto issue, the case itself involved claims against the federal government for more than $13 million by six indigenous tribes in the Northwest. After Congress voted by acclamation in 1926 to authorize the tribes to sue the government in the U.S. Court of Claims, the ever-frugal President Coolidge exercised his pocket veto to kill the legislation. The attorney for the tribes, William S. Lewis, contended that the bill had become law because there had been no final adjournment of Congress. Lewis insisted that it was unfair to allow the president to veto legislation in a way that prevented Congress from overturning his veto, an argument echoed in an amicus brief by Rep. Hatton W. Sumners, the powerful chair of the House Judiciary Committee. In his decision for the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes relied heavily upon precedent; presidents since James Madison in 1812 had killed legislation by refusing to sign it during intra-session recesses. One of Lurie’s themes is the broader question of the extent to which courts should elevate precedent at the relative expense of an analysis of the text and structure of the Constitution and consideration of public policy.Lurie also provides a detailed account of a later decision, Wright v. United States (1938), in which the Supreme Court modified Okanogan Tribe by holding that the president cannot kill a bill during a congressional recess if the house in which the bill originated has appointed an officer to receive his veto message. He carries the story forward into the 1970s and 1980s, when lower-court decisions further delineated the circumstances under which presidents could issue pocket vetoes.In telling his story, Lurie deftly leads readers through mazes of primary sources—including committee hearings, motions before various courts, hearings, re-hearings, briefs, memoranda, and judicial decisions—which culminated in various judicial decisions, particularly Okanogan Tribe. Even though the Court never adjudicated the claims of the tribes, the book provides an interesting and extended discussion of their grievances and laments the irony that these grievances ultimately were never addressed, much less remedied, in the morass of litigation about the pocket veto.To place the pocket veto cases in context, Lurie also provides a comprehensive history, almost a book within a book, about the creation of the Court of Claims, which was designed to replace haphazard congressional review of claims against the federal government. Lurie explores the Court’s formation in 1855 and the subsequent expansion of its jurisdiction, including 1881 legislation permitting it to adjudicate claims by indigenous tribes if Congress authorized such litigation.Lurie’s book is particularly important because Okanogan Tribe and other pocket veto cases have received virtually no other attention from scholars. This crisp, concise, and comprehensive book should become the standard authority for any historical study of the pocket veto. It also makes a significant contribution to the literature about the separation of powers.

Cost Pressures Increase Odds That Health Reform Will Pass

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessCost Pressures Increase Odds That Health Reform Will PassRich DalyRich DalySearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:2 Oct 2009https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.44.19.0010Kirsten Beronio, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Mental Health America, tells congressional staff at a September briefing that health care reform could help control the future growth in costs if the final measure includes the mental health and substance abuse prevention, detection, and treatment provisions of some bills under consideration.Credit: Rich DalyAlthough the exact size and scope of a final health care overhaul measure remains unclear, many experts continue to view as inevitable enactment of some type of reform legislation this year.The ability of President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress to get a health care reform measure passed this year was cast into doubt because of massive cost estimates released in July by the Congressional Budget Office and raucous town-hall meetings in August dominated by constituents opposed to reform proposals.But those developments have not altered the basic realities that employees expect employers to provide health insurance and that health insurance is becoming increasingly unaffordable for both parties.“When push comes to shove, even if it ends up just being the interest groups with the Democratic Party, I think you will in fact see something that is relatively comprehensive” this year, said Dallas Salisbury, president and CEO of the Employee Benefits Research Institute, at a forum sponsored by the Alliance for Health Reform last month in Washington, D.C.His belief that Congress will enact some type of health reform was based on his research indicating that employers know their workers need insurance coverage but are increasingly unable to pay for it. For instance, he found that 35 percent of employees identify their employer's health insurance policy as the most important reason they sought their job.The same inexorable cost pressures led Gail Wilensky, who once headed the agency now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to agree that it is inevitable that Congress will pass a bill this year that not only reforms health insurance but also overhauls how health care is provided.“We need expanded coverage and reforms of the health insurance market, but sustainability in spending and improving the quality and clinical appropriateness are even more important,” she said.Among the key reforms to reduce costs that Wilensky expects Congress to enact are incentives to reduce unnecessary hospital readmissions and cuts in“ generous” Medicare nursing home reimbursement rates. Halving the number of unnecessary hospital readmissions—which demonstration projects have attained in some locations—would reduce Medicare spending by $100 billion over 10 years, according to Glen Thorpe, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University.Thorpe also expects a reform measure to be passed this year; however, he suggested that an incremental approach is possible. It could take several years of passing small reform packages to meet the two general goals that have drawn broad consensus: universal insurance coverage and cost control to slow health care spending growth.The two main cost-control approaches that Thorpe expects to be part of a reform law will aim to reduce the number of clinically obese Americans and improve care for people with chronic illness. He hailed several pilot programs to improve care coordination for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illness, who now have almost no such integrated care, even though 95 percent have multiple chronic conditions. Effective reform would identify which approaches—such as programs that assign one physician as a patient's coordinator—are most effective and then quickly expand the use of those approaches throughout Medicare.Mental health advocates also remained very optimistic about enactment of a health care overhaul before Congress adjourns for the year.Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) told congressional staffers and advocates that the public would become more supportive of reform if it was framed as a way to expand Americans' freedom to obtain needed care and independence from the burden of untreated illness. Advocates should stress that the lives of all Americans would be improved by having access to high-quality medical care, he suggested.“We're going to define health care in the broadest sense so that [Americans] are able to live long lives that are not impeded in any way,” Kennedy said.Information on the Alliance for Health Reform forum is posted at<www.kff.org/ahr090409video.cfm>.▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Pay Relief Tied to Unrelated Funding Issue

Pay Relief Tied to Unrelated Funding Issue

Patent Politics: Intellectual Property, the Railroad Industry, and the Problem of Monopoly

As winter descended on Washington in December 1878, the Forty-fifth Congress gathered for what promised to be a hectic third and final session. Emotions ran high. In this era, Congress habitually reserved much of its business for these brief, intense “lame duck” sessions that fell between the election of legislators in November and the adjournment of Congress the following March. Compounding the usual sense of urgency was the startling result of the recent election: the Democratic party had gained control of the Senate and, when the next Congress convened, would control both the Senate and the House for the first time since before the Civil War. Senate Republicans well understood that they had but a few precious months to close ranks and enact legislation on some of the burning issues of the day: civil rights, the currency, the tariff. Yet when the session opened, none of these issues made their way to the floor. Instead, and despite howls of protest from senators eager to move on to what they plainly regarded as more urgent concerns, the Senate assembled on many afternoons for several weeks to debate a completely different matter: a proposed law concerning the rights of inventors. At this critical juncture in American politics, the Senate found itself embroiled in a long and complex discussion of the virtues and deficiencies of the patent system.

GAO Faults Medicare Insurers For Poor Communication With M.D.s

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessGAO Faults Medicare Insurers For Poor Communication With M.D.sKate MulliganKate MulliganSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:21 Dec 2001https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.36.24.0008aPhysicians who complain about problems in getting information about Medicare reimbursement policies and procedures have gained a valuable ally: the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).In September Leslie G. Aronovitz, director of the Health Care Program Administration and Integrity Issues at GAO, said, “Our ongoing work. . . shows that physicians often do not receive complete, accurate, clear, and timely guidance on Medicare billing and payment policies. We found shortcomings in print, electronic, and telephone communications that Medicare contractors use to provide information to physicians and respond to their questions.”Those comments were part of her testimony before the Subcommittee on Health of the House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee, which was considering the Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001 (MRCRA, HR 2768; Psychiatric News, December 7).Aronovitz described a series of specific shortcomings in the performance of claims-administration contractors who are responsible for providing information and education to health personnel and beneficiaries, as well as paying claims. GAO staff examined the communications activities of 10 of the 20 contractors that administer Part B claims.• Review of quarterly bulletins that provide information to health personnel revealed them to be “unclear and difficult to use.” Articles were “written in dense language and printed in small type.”• Only two of the 10 Web sites complied with all 11 content requirements established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Most did not contain features, such as navigation tools, that would allow physicians and others to obtain information they need. Five of the nine sites that had a required schedule of CMS workshops or seminars were out of date.• A test of five call centers established to provide information about Medicare billing showed that only 15 percent of the answers were complete and accurate. Fifty-three percent were incomplete, and 32 percent were entirely incorrect.According to Aronovitz, CMS “has established few standards to guide the contractors’ communication activities. For example, the agency requires that bulletins be issued quarterly, but requires little in terms of content or readability. Similarly, requirements for Web-based communication do little to promote the clarity or timeliness of information.”APA’s Help Line Director Karen Sanders said, “It is clear from the calls we receive from our members that they have been having great difficulty getting answers from their carriers. When APA Medicare specialist Ellen Jaffe makes follow-up calls to carriers, she encounters the same problems. But she finds going directly to the carriers’ medical directors to be effective.”Edward Gordon, M.D., chair of APA’s Medicare Advisory Committee, said, “The bulletins issued by carriers are dense and lack any indices or systems for organizing material by medical specialty. The material relevant to psychiatrists often is buried in a 40-page document.”GAO relates the inability of CMS to improve the work of its contractors to faulty procedures in granting contracts for claims administration.• There is no full and open competition for the contracts. The Medicare statute exempts CMS from competitive contracting requirements. Instead, participation has been limited to entities with experience processing Medicare claims, most frequently health insurance companies.• CMS uses cost-based reimbursement contracts that prevent the use of financial incentives to reward contractors for performance.• Contracts generally cover the full range of claims processing and related activities. Functional contracting, in contrast, would permit the granting of specialized contracts with multiple entities that have expertise in different areas.In early October the House Committee on Ways and Means approved MCRA, and on October 31 the House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a similar bill, HR 3046, the Medicare Regulatory, Appeals, Contracting, and Education Reform Act (RACER; Psychiatric News, December 7). RACER, which has been strongly supported by APA, includes provisions that would “improve efforts to educate physicians and other health professionals and providers to reduce errors and improve compliance with coding and other requirements” and that would require “prompt written responses from Medicare contractors,” according to Jay Cutler, director of APA’s Division of Government Relations.Cutler said, “Differences between the two bills will be narrowed before they head to the House floor. Action seems all but certain before Congress adjourns for the year.”APA’s Web site has a summary of RACER at www.psych.org/pub_pol_adv/dgrupdate11201.cfm and MRCRA at www.psych.org/pub_pol_adv/medicareregreform10901.cfm. Aronovitz’s testimony, Report GAO-01-1141T, is posted at www.gao.gov. ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

104th Congress adjourns in a flurry of activity.

104th Congress adjourns in a flurry of activity.

Environmental bills die as Congress adjourns

Environmental bills die as Congress adjourns

Congress adjourns after frenzy of activity

Congress adjourns after frenzy of activity

Fate of Nursing Funds Uncertain as Congress Adjourns

Fate of Nursing Funds Uncertain as Congress Adjourns

Congress Adjourns with Solid Record

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVNewsNEXTCongress Adjourns with Solid RecordSome issues of chemical interest pushed aside as members get away to start election campaignsCite this: Chem. Eng. News 1964, 42, 41, 30–31Publication Date (Print):October 12, 1964Publication History Published online6 November 2010Published inissue 12 October 1964https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v042n041.p030Copyright © 1964 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETYArticle Views3Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (648 KB) Get e-Alerts

Third Session of the Seventy-sixth Congress, January 3, 1940, to January 3, 1941

The sine die adjournment of Congress on January 3 brought down the curtain on the longest and one of the most hectic and unique sessions in American history. As early as January 3, 1940, when the session began, the leaders of the House and Senate were looking forward to a program involving much controversy. But it is doubtful whether anyone anticipated a session drawn out over 367 days, during which $19,069,548,775 would be appropriated and 941 laws enacted. Many important bills were pending on the Senate and House calendars on the opening day, and measures on trade treaties, labor, agriculture, taxation, and debt limitation were certain to arise. Many congressmen rightly guessed that much defense legislation would be enacted. Around the Capitol during the opening weeks of the session, nevertheless, there was much sentiment for a more nearly balanced budget and for a curtailment of national expenditures. Barrages of criticism were thrown up against a continuation of the extensive executive powers previously conferred on the President, and particularly urging removal of certain governmental regulations on individuals or businesses. Pleas were made for a return to “congressional government.” And many members urged an early adjournment in order that representatives and senators might go home for campaign purposes.

Approval of Bills after Adjournment of Congress

The constitutional clause governing the approval of bills after the adjournment of Congress is as follows: “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.” The power of the President to sign after adjournment was not specifically established until 1932, in the case of Edwards v. United States (286 U. S. 482), and the failure of a bill unless signed within ten days after adjournment was not finally passed upon until 1929, in the Pocket Veto Case (279 U. S. 655).

Review of the Year 1934

NINETEEN thirty four, like nineteen thirty three, closed with business improving after a temporary recession. Both years showed alternate periods of advance and contraction, but in 1934 business volumes averaged higher and the fluctuations were less violent than in I933, when the dominant influences were the banking crisis and the initiation of a far-reaching program of economic legislation. The business curve of our Index of General Economic Conditions (page 25) reflects the improvement of the first half of I934, the subsequent recession as the effects of the drought and loss of confidence in the business outlook became evident, and the recovery late in the year. Business at the end of I934 was higher than at the beginning, and but little below the best of the year or the extraordinary peak of mid-I933 at the culmination of the movement arising from the nation's leaving the gold standard and the effort of business to act before government regulation became a fact. Speculation at the year end was at almost exactly the same level as a year earlier; it reached a peak last February, declined into the summer, and then advanced to somewhat above the summer's lowest level. Money remained extremely easy during the year, with a slight tendency to decline: a potentially stimulating influence for both speculation and business which failed to produce any great effects for reasons relating primarily to the unsettlement of business opinion during much of the time. Commodity prices rose as the result of increases in agricultural products and foods. The chief legislative measures of the year related to the currency (including silver as well as gold), though the law for control of the stock exchanges, the amendment of the Securities Act, and housing legislation were important. In respect to legislation dealing directly with industry and agriculture, the record of the year is of interest in what it shows regarding the working out of the Administration program rather than for new measures looking toward control or recovery. The Gold Reserve Act at the end of January and the accompanying presidential proclamation brought to a close -so far as I934 was concerned the episode of the depreciation of the dollar which began with the stoppage of gold exports in April I933 and had its most dramatic incident in the gold buying operations in the fall of I933. The Gold Reserve Act of I934 has been discussed from time to time in this REVIEW;1 and for our present purpose it is sufficient to point out that the undervaluation of the dollar in terms of foreign exchange has had the inevitable result of adding substantially to our gold holdings, thus tending to continue the maldistribution of gold among the various countries of the world. Devaluation could not have had such an effect if there had been widespread or persistent lack of confidence in the position of the devalued dollar, but, because it brought to an end the rapid depreciation of our currency, it was viewed in many quarters as a conservative measure. The most disturbing element in the currency situation was the action undertaken in regard to silver. The passage of the Silver Purchase Act before the adjournment of Congress and the nationalization of silver in August both unsettled confidence for a time, while the operations of the Treasury in the silver markets of the world produced serious financial disturbance in China. Concerning the effects of the recovery legislation in its non-monetary aspects, certain conclusions may be safely drawn from the record of the year. Undoubtedly the agricultural program has contributed to improvement in the condition of the farmers, though the severe and destructive drought of I934 meant that it operated under conditions far from normal. It was anticipated that economic improvement in the farming districts, by increasing demand for industrial products, would act favorably upon urban industry, while direct stimulus was to be furnished by the public works program and the measures taken under the National Industrial Recovery Act. These measures did not produce sustained industrial recovery in I934 2 The manufactures index in October was only two points higher than in the preceding November, when the I933 recession

Constitutional Law. Power of President to Sign Act after Adjournment of Congress

Constitutional Law. Power of President to Sign Act after Adjournment of Congress

Constitutional Law in 1928–29: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1928

“Pocket veto” is the term applied to the killing of a bill by the President by the process of retaining it without signing it when Congress adjourns before the bill has been in his hands ten days. The Constitution provides for the pocket veto by stating: “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.” In the “Pocket Veto” case the Court decided that the word “adjournment” in this clause refers not merely to the final adjournment at the expiration of a Congress, but to any temporary or ad interim adjournment. In short, the President may effectively pocket veto a bill whenever Congress, by going home, prevents him from returning it within ten days. The Court thus gave judicial sanction to a practice which has been followed sporadically ever since the days of Madison.On June 24, 1926, a bill was presented to President Coolidge authorizing certain Indian tribes to sue in the Court of Claims. On July 3 the first session of the 69th Congress adjourned, and it did not meet again until December. It was not in session on July 6—the tenth day after the bill was presented to the President (Sundays excepted).

Constitutional Law in 1928–29: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1928

“Pocket veto” is the term applied to the killing of a bill by the President by the process of retaining it without signing it when Congress adjourns before the bill has been in his hands ten days. The Constitution provides for the pocket veto by stating: “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.” In the “Pocket Veto” case the Court decided that the word “adjournment” in this clause refers not merely to the final adjournment at the expiration of a Congress, but to any temporary or ad interim adjournment. In short, the President may effectively pocket veto a bill whenever Congress, by going home, prevents him from returning it within ten days. The Court thus gave judicial sanction to a practice which has been followed sporadically ever since the days of Madison.On June 24, 1926, a bill was presented to President Coolidge authorizing certain Indian tribes to sue in the Court of Claims. On July 3 the first session of the 69th Congress adjourned, and it did not meet again until December. It was not in session on July 6—the tenth day after the bill was presented to the President (Sundays excepted).

Constitutional Law: Approval of Bill after Adjournment of Congress

Constitutional Law: Approval of Bill after Adjournment of Congress

FROM WASHINGTON.

<h3>Medical Corps U. S. Army.</h3> —Ordered to Europe: Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph B. Brown and Major John S. Billings, surgeons, U. S. Army, will proceed to London (England) and to Copenhagen (Denmark) to attend the International Health Exhibition to be held at the former place in May next, and as delegates to the International Medical Congress which is to meet at the latter place in August next, and will include Berlin (Germany) in their route to or from Copenhagen. <h3>Medical Corps, U. S. Navy.</h3> —On account of the bitterness of the fight for the Surgeon-Generalship of the Navy, it is now thought likely that the President will not make an appointment to the vacancy until after the adjournment of Congress. <h3>Matters of Medical Interest before Congress.</h3> —On February 11 Mr. Blair introduced a bill (No. 1484) to the Senate, which provides for the study of physiology and the effect of intoxicating, narcotic,