Presidential Veto Research Articles

More than a Farm Bill: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Every 5 years, Congress takes up legislation (the farm bill) that authorizes commodity, trade, marketing, and conservation programs, as well as those vital to the work of dietetics—including nutrition research, extension, and food assistance programs. Completion of the most recent farm bill was a roller coaster ride with weekly announcements of deals, followed by immediate criticisms and retractions of the agreements. After several months of haggling and wrangling, House and Senate negotiators finally reached agreement on a nearly $300 billion 5-year authorization. A presidential veto of the bill in May appeared a mere formality as Congress immediately overrode White House rejection. Then it was discovered that the farm bill sent to the President was missing an entire title. Several more votes, another presidential veto, and one more override later, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ( 1 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Pub L No, 110-246. June 19. http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/Legislation/110/FB/Conf/CRlang.pdfDate: 2008 Google Scholar ) became law.

Congress Overrides Veto on Medicare

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderPolicy Analysis1 Aug 2008Congress Overrides Veto on MedicareLaw Brings Gains for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists Ingrida Lusis Ingrida Lusis Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.PA1.13102008.1 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Medicare beneficiaries and providers were affirmed resoundingly on July 15 when Congress, in a show of bipartisan support, voted to override President Bush’s veto and passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008. The House override vote was 383 to 41; the Senate vote was 70 to 26. The margins far exceeded the two-thirds vote necessary to block a presidential veto. MIPPA reinstates the original 2008 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) rate retroactive to July 1 and calls for a 1.1% increase for 2009. The law also extends the therapy cap exceptions process through December 2009; recognizes speech-language pathologists as suppliers of services, allowing them to bill Medicare from private practice; and allows audiologists to participate in Medicare’s Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI). By failing to pass Medicare legislation before June 30—when short-term Medicare legislation expired—Congress allowed the scheduled 10.6% cut to take effect July 1 (see The ASHA Leader, July 15). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began payment at the reduced MPFS rate on July 15; it has announced that it will reprocess claims retroactively to adjust the payment. CMS immediately issued initial guidance to physicians and non-physician providers regarding fee schedule payments from July 1 to Dec. 20, and about the Medicare therapy caps exception process. Medicare contractors will continue to process claims that have been on hold on a rolling basis (first in/first out) for payment at the 10.6% reduction. After a local contractor begins to pay claims at the restored rate, the contractor will begin reprocessing claims paid at the lower rates to the extent possible. MIPPA did not address, however, the underlying problem of the sustainable growth rate, the statutory reimbursement formula that ties fee schedule changes to an actual growth rate based on real gross domestic product per capita. Unless that issue is addressed, payment rates likely will be cut dramatically in 2010. SLP Supplier Status Effective July 1, 2009, SLPs will be allowed to enroll in the Medicare program and bill from a private practice. ASHA has pressed Congress for years to gain private-practice status for SLPs under Medicare, which will bring SLPs in parity with other professions. Over the next year, ASHA will work with CMS to develop and promulgate regulations to guide private-practice SLPs. The regulatory process is expected to take close to a year to finalize; ASHA will provide information to members on enrollment and other Medicare policies throughout the year. Audiology Eligible audiologists who report recognized quality measures under the PQRI program can receive a 2% bonus payment from Medicare. ASHA will work with CMS to develop and endorse appropriate quality measures for use by audiologists and to ensure that audiologists will be able to start reporting quality measures in 2009. Therapy Caps The therapy cap exceptions process allows Medicare beneficiaries with medically necessary therapy needs above current caps ($1,810 combined outpatient speech-language treatment and physical therapy, and an additional $1,810 for outpatient occupational therapy) to receive services. Although the exceptions process has been reinstated, it is a short-term solution that must be reauthorized by Congress every year. CMS recently issued a five-year contract to Research Triangle International (RTI) to develop therapy cap alternatives; ASHA is working closely with CMS and RTI on this project. MIPPA reinstated the exceptions process as of July 1. Claims submitted with the therapy cap exception modifier will be processed as soon as the payment rates have been activated. Claims submitted without the modifier, and rejected or denied, can be resubmitted with the modifier for reimbursement. To the extent possible, claims under the therapy cap limit paid at the lower rate will be reprocessed automatically. More information about therapy caps is available on the HHS Web site. MIPPA pays for the postponed decrease in the MPFS through reductions in reimbursements to insurance companies that serve Medicare beneficiaries under Medicare Advantage, the managed care program of private fee-for-service-plans. The White House had opposed the legislation over funding concerns. For more information on the implementation of these Medicare provisions, contact [email protected]. Author Notes Ingrida Lusis, director of federal and political advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 13Issue 10August 2008 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Aug 1, 2008 Metrics Current downloads: 116 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2008 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

SCIENCE FUNDING House okays supplemental war spending bill

The House of Representatives has passed a revised supplemental war appropriations bill (H.R. 2642) that includes $400 million in additional 2008 federal funding for science programs. At C&EN’s press time, the Senate was expected to take up and pass the legislation. The Administration has indicated that President George W. Bush will sign it into law once it clears Congress. The revised legislation comes about a month after the Senate passed a version of the bill that would have given science agencies nearly $1 billion in additional 2008 funding (C&EN, June 2, page 16). Threat of a presidential veto, however, forced congressional leaders to develop a compromise version of the legislation. Under the revised House bill, NIH is set to receive $150 million to be distributed across the agency’s 27 institutes and centers. NSF, NASA, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science will each receive $62.5 million for various science programs. For NSF $22.5 ...

Dynamics of the presidential veto: A computational analysis

We specify and compute equilibria of a dynamic policy-making game between a president and a legislature under institutional rules that emulate those of the US Constitution. Policies are assumed to lie in a two-dimensional space in which one issue dimension captures systemic differences in partisan preferences, while the other summarizes non-partisan attributes of policy. In any period, the policy choices of politicians are influenced by the position of the status quo policy in this space, with the current policy outcome determining the location of the status quo in the next period. Partisan control of the legislature and presidency changes probabilistically over time. We find that politicians strategically compromise their ideal policy in equilibrium, and that the degree of compromise increases when the opposition party is more likely to take control of the legislature in the next period, while politicians become relatively more extreme when the opposition party is more likely to control the presidency. We measure gridlock by (the inverse of) the expected distance of enacted policies from the status quo in the long run, and we show that both gridlock and the long run welfare of a representative voter are maximized when government is divided without a supermajority in the legislature. Under unified government, we find that the endogeneity of the status quo leads to a non-monotonic effect of the size of the legislative majority on gridlock; surprisingly, under unified government, gridlock is higher when the party in control of the legislature has a supermajority than when it has a bare majority. Furthermore, a relatively larger component of policy change occurs in the non-partisan policy dimension when a supermajority controls the legislature. We conduct constitutional experiments, and we find that voter welfare is minimized when the veto override provision is abolished and maximized when the presidential veto is abolished.

Why Do Governors Issue Vetoes? The Impact of Individual and Institutional Influences

Studies of presidential veto use advance two competing theoretical perspectives: the “president-centered” approach and the “presidency-centered” approach. We assess the applicability of these approaches to gubernatorial veto activity. Our analysis of forty-eight states between 1971 and 2002 provides strong support for the institutional perspective and less support for the individual perspective. The governor's formal powers, the partisan alignment of the legislature, and the electoral cycle all contribute to veto activity. The results suggest that conflict between the legislature and the governor is a product of systematic forces and that governors who face similar institutional constraints will behave in similar ways.

In The Shadow of Antilabor law: Organizing and Collective Bargaining 60 Years After Taft‐Hartley

The essays and commentary in this issue mark six decades since an overwhelming majority of Congressional Republicans and Democrats joined forces to vilify and castigate the specter of "big labor" haunting the postwar economy. In June of 1947, the U.S. had a new labor policy when both houses of Congress handily overrode Harry Truman's presidential veto to pass the Taft-Hartley Act amending the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Future amendments to federal labor law have not mitigated the fundamental antilabor impact of Taft-Hartley. Despite tumultuous shifts in the U.S. and world economy and the precipitous decline in private-sector union membership, Taft-Hartley's amendments to the NLRA remain integral to the legal framework for twenty-first century labor relations. This regime of antilabor law provides the thematic backdrop for the essays and commentary in this special issue of Working USA.

Inside the Water Resources Development Act of 2007

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 became law November 9, 2007 after both houses of Congress voted to override a presidential veto. A pork‐barrel bill by design, members of Congress seeking particular project authorizations exerted tremendous pressure to pass the bill. The legislation authorizes flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). If fully funded,WRDA 2007is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to result in about $11.2 billion of spending from 2008 to 2012 (CBO, 2007). An additional $12 billion would be needed over the 10‐year period beyond 2012, with some construction and operations costs continuing or commencing even after the first 15 years. This article describes the WRDA as federal legislation that is the main vehicle for authorizing water projects undertaken by the Corps. It is also the vehicle used to implement policy changes in Corps water resource projects and programs. The article discusses how WRDA legislation was developed, project funding, and the nine titles of the 2007 WRDA.

AMA Debates Coverage in SCHIP Legislation

AMA Debates Coverage in SCHIP Legislation

Presidential veto leaves NIH facing shortfall

Presidential veto leaves NIH facing shortfall

Willingness to Donate Frozen Embryos for Stem Cell Research

Moral concerns about the primary source of stem cells, human embryos, have prompted one of the most contentious public debates in the history of biomedical science. Following the announcement of a restriction of U.S. federal funding to research with about 20 cell lines isolated from embryos before August 2001 (1) and, more recently, a presidential veto upholding this restriction (2), there has been a clear message from the scientific community that the eligible lines are not only inadequate in number but also unsafe for translational research. There is also mounting evidence that American scientists are losing ground to other countries with lessrestrictive policies (3). Further, surveys of the American public indicate that there is widespread support for embryonic stem cell (ES cell) research that cuts across political, religious, and socioeconomic lines, with approval estimated at 66% of the public overall (4).

Work over welfare: the inside story of the 1996 welfare reform law

Work over Welfare tells the inside story of the legislation that ended as we know it. As a key staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, author Ron Haskins was one of the architects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. In this landmark book, he vividly portrays the political battles that produced the most dramatic overhaul of the welfare system since its creation as part of the New Deal. Haskins starts his story in the early 1990s, as a small group of Republicans lays the groundwork for welfare reform by developing innovative policies to encourage work and fight illegitimacy. These ideas, which included such controversial provisions as mandatory work requirements and time limits for welfare recipients, later became part of the Republicans' Contract with America and were ultimately passed into law. But their success was hardly foreordained. Haskins brings to life the often bitter House and Senate debates the Republican proposals provoked, as well as the backroom negotiations that kept welfare reform alive through two presidential vetoes. In the process, he illuminates both the personalities and the processes that were crucial to the ultimate passage of the 1996 bill. He also analyzes the changes it has wrought on the social and political landscape over the past decade. In Work over Welfare , Haskins has provided the most authoritative account of welfare reform to date. Anyone with an interest in social welfare or politics in general will learn a great deal from this insightful and revealing book.

Stem cells are on the House

The US House of Representatives recently passed a bill that will allow federal funding to be used to support research utilizing newly derived human ES cell lines. Current legislation, passed by President Bush on August 9, 2001, limits federal funding of human ES cell research to studies using ES cell lines collected from embryos that were destroyed before that date. However, researchers believe that the 21 cell lines that fulfill this criterion have various problems that might make them unsuitable for some studies; for example, several of these cell lines have been shown to exhibit genetic instability in certain conditions (1). The new legislation should overcome these problems because it would allow researchers to seek federal funding to use the many ES cell lines more recently privately derived from embryos discarded by fertility clinics. However, before the bill is passed into law it needs to be approved by both the Senate and President Bush. At press time, the Senate was set to debate this bill in February and, as it is identical to one passed in the last two years by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, most observers think that the Senate is likely to approve it. By contrast, President Bush vetoed the bill last year. And given that the White House response to the newly passed bill was negative, stating that “Whatever one’s view of the ethical issues or the state of the research, the future of this field does not require a policy of Federal subsidies that is offensive to the moral principles of millions of Americans” (2), it is possible that President Bush will veto the bill a second time. However, Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), cosponsor of the bill passed by the House of Representatives, told the JCI, “We brought this legislation back for a vote to give President Bush another chance to do the right thing. I would still welcome the opportunity to sit down with the President to discuss the importance of this life-saving research. It is not too late for President Bush to do the right thing and say yes to cures.” The number of affirmative votes that the bill received in the House of Representatives was fewer than the two-thirds majority required to override any presidential veto (although support for the bill had increased by 15 votes from last time), so the future of this bill looks set for more debate and political wrangling. However, what supporters of the bill are hoping, as articulated to the JCI by DeGette, is that because “the American people clearly support scientific funding and the use of ES cells to address some of our most debilitating diseases, it is time for President Bush to allow this groundbreaking research to move forward.” DeGette’s contention that the use of federal funding for ES cell research has the support of the public is substantiated by polls conducted last year, in which 50%–60% of those polled supported this initiative (3). Public support for ES cell research was also apparent in the November 2006 midterm elections, when senatorial candidates such as Claire McCaskill (D) in Missouri, whose campaign vociferously supported ES cell research, were elected to office and one of the biggest opponents of ES cell research, incumbent Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), lost his bid to retain his seat. Furthermore, voters in Missouri also approved a separate ballot measure that prevents lawmakers from barring work on ES cells. The passing of the Missouri bill was greeted with enthusiasm by researchers in the state because, as Steven Teitelbaum — an expert in bone research at Washington University, St. Louis, who campaigned for many years to get this bill on the ballot — told the JCI, “it removes the possibility that proposals discussed in the Missouri House and Senate that would criminalize both ES cell research and any patients that might receive ES cell–based therapeutics might become law.” Teitelbaum also expressed hope that this bill would help attract outstanding scientists to Missouri. However, Teitelbaum was keen to stress that, despite the approval at the ballot box in one of the most conservative states in the country, there is still a long way to go before ES cell research no longer generates such intense debate and division, adding that “it is essential that researchers do not hype the potential of ES cell–based therapeutics just to answer their critics,” an accusation he and other researchers have leveled at David Prentice, an opponent of ES cell research who often claims that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human illnesses (4). Although there is much work to be done before ES cell–based therapeutics are used in patients, the passing of this bill will align federal funding regulations with the law, which does not block ES cell research.

From the Demand for Sovereign National Conference to National Dialogue: The Dilemma of the Nigerian State

KEYWORDS National question; resource control; ethnicity; systemic contradictions; structural violence ABSTRACT The search for a viable, stable and justiceable polity in Nigeria has continued with the inauguration of a National Dialogue to engineer political reforms for the nation. The Dialogue is at variance with unrelenting calls by opposition parties, social and human rights advocates, sectional/ethnic groups for a sovereign national conference to address the national question bordering on systemic contradictions, distortions, marginalization and structural violence. Nonetheless, the imposed National Dialogue has generated dilemmas for the opposition and the Nigerian public alike. The problematiques, therefore, are: One, does the Dialogue has the capacity, competence, and legitimacy to address the fundamental national questions including agitations for justiceable fiscal federalism, systemic imbalance, self-determination, resource control, institutional decay, minority marginalization and power sharing? Two, can the Dialogue fundamentally re-invent and strengthen the nation's political future considering the fact that all the delegates are establishment nominees? Three, and flowing from the latter concern, is the apprehension that considering the idiosyncratic nature, pedigree and antics of President Obasanjo coupled with the sovereign limitations of the Dialogue, will the report of the conference not be subjected to presidential veto? Four, will the report of the Dialogue not suffer uncertainty and become moribund like such previous exercises as the Oputa Panel on human rights abuses? Lastly and more germane, what are the fears of government in convocating a sovereign conference? The study is saddled with the challenge of addressing these problematiques, and in addition, examine the external dimension of the nation's problems, which are not included in the Dialogue's agenda.

Showdown for Capitol Hill

Can science influence politics in the forthcoming US elections? Nature investigates how Democrats and Republicans are striving to win the hearts of voters. The stakes are high for November's mid-term congressional elections: the Democrats need to gain just six seats in the Senate and fifteen in the House to claim majorities. For President George W. Bush, it could mean the difference between a reinvigorated presidency or an unproductive lame-duck period. In a hard-fought election, both parties are occasionally and uncharacteristically turning to science to try to sway voters. The recent presidential veto against embryonic stem-cell research has provided fodder for Republicans and Democrats alike to try to distinguish their candidates. And candidates in three states are challenging incumbents largely on scientific issues — climate change, stem cells and (California, inevitably) on clean energy. A News Feature special this week looks at how scientific issues are playing in the campaign.

States, Foundations Lead the Way After Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHA bill to make more human embryonic stem cell lines available to federally funded researchers fell to a presidential veto on 19 July. But to many, the first-ever veto by George W. Bush is just the latest step into an era in which private entities and state governments assume greater responsibility for the funding of biomedical research. ([Read more][1].) [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5786/420

More Democracy, Less Constitution

I suspect that most Americans believe that constitutions ought to restrain majorities. There is broad acceptance of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality under the law, even though these freedoms and rights often result in thwarting majority preferences (and even though there are disputes about the content of those rights). Unlike the British, Americans conceive constitutions as documents whose raison d’etre is to limit the power of majorities. Professor Sandy Levinson’s stimulating and engaging book, Our Undemocratic Constitution, argues that we have too much constitution and too little democracy. More precisely, Levinson argues that we ought to eliminate a number of the federal Constitution’s basic features that he regards as undemocratic. Among other things, Professor Levinson wishes to consign to the ash heap of history the Senate’s equal suffrage rule, the Electoral College, the presidential veto, and life tenure for federal judges. Although I endorse Professor Levinson’s call for a constitutional convention, share his Jeffersonian enthusiasm for amending the Constitution, and favor some of his minor amendments, I remain unconvinced by many of his more prominent proposals. As discussed later, I am not so eager to toss aside equal state suffrage in the Senate, bicameralism, or the presidential veto. I think these constitutional features further worthwhile values, even as they undoubtedly restrain majorities. Professor Levinson’s book is interesting not only for what it proposes, but also for what it fails to recommend. The logic of his proposals, resting on the undemocratic features of the constitutional provisions he opposes, suggest far more radical solutions than Professor Levinson countenances. His arguments, based on the primacy of democracy, suggest that we ought to revamp the way we elect House members and end judicial review. At the extreme, his arguments suggest that we ought not to have an American style constitution at all because such constitutions necessarily limit the power of majorities. In short, if democracy is the overarching goal, we need much more democracy and far less—if any—Constitution.

Congress's Hybrid Problem

No, you haven't accidentally picked up a copy of Oilman Today. The hybrid problem of which I write is a bump on the road toward the United States Senate's passage of a bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. It's a classic case of cutting-edge science signifying very different things to different observers, complicated by confusion about what the symbol at the heart of the controversy really means. Stem Cells on the Hill Redux The House passed its version of a bill to expand federal funding last year, after which Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), the majority leader who is also a cardiac surgeon, surprised observers when he announced that he supported the measure. These unexpected developments excited supporters of embryonic stem cell research. At one time, momentum looked rather favorable for majority passage sometime this summer. The politics of this issue give opponents of the research headaches. On the one hand, clear majorities of those polled by the Genetics and Public Policy Center last year favor expanding federal funding, currently limited to support for research with a limited number of approved stem cell lines. (1) With President's Bush's approval ratings hitting record lows, Republican candidates in some states where the stem cell issue has been especially heated don't need more to worry about. Democrats have said that stem cells might be the domestic wedge that can nationalize local races in their favor. One object of Democratic yearning is the seat held by Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who looks vulnerable and has said he opposes embryo-destructive research. A Senate vote would make it official, if nothing else. So the Senate leadership has some reason to want to take the issue off the table for the fall elections by approving the expanded federal funding, even if they later run into a presidential veto; at least they could tell constituents they tried. On the other hand, with the conservative base already potentially dispirited, Republican operatives don't want to hand them another reason to be annoyed and stay home in November by appearing to retreat from one of the battlegrounds in the culture wars. Better to focus on an issue that will keep conservative voters happy and perhaps take advantage of crossover appeal to conservative Democrats and independents. A good candidate for this role is a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which could well occupy whatever space there is for values issues in the coming months. The Minotaurs Are Coming Underlying much of the political and philosophical opposition to emerging biotechnology, including stem cell research, is of course popular anxiety about a slippery slope toward fundamental and unmanageable changes in the nature of the human person. Much of the work of the President's Council on Bioethics has given scholarly voice to this worry. A particular symbol of this concern is the chimera. A creature in Greek mythology, the chimera is a fire-breathing animal with a lion's head and front paws, a goat's middle, a dragon's rear, and a snake for a tail. Notably, the chimera was killed by Bellerophon on another chimera, the winged horse Pegasus. In modern medicine, the term chimera has been adopted to describe any individual with cells from more than one source. Unfortunately, this description is rather vague, so that a chimera can be anything from an animal with cells from another individual in that or another species, an individual that is the product of fused embryos, or a cardiac patient with a valve from a pig. Biologists mainly think of their lab animal models with tissues from different sources as chimeras. Chimeric laboratory animal models of human disease have become an increasingly important tool for basic biomedical research, even apart from the possibilities of creating them using human embryonic stem cells. …

Presidential Vetoes in Latin American Constitutions

A portrayal of the bill-to-law provisions of Latin American constitutions as extensive game forms shows presidential veto powers to be richer, more varied, and more regionally distinctive than hitherto appreciated. Small details and apparent redundancies are surprisingly consequential, the distribution of institutional advantages is both counterintuitive and incompatible with any simple pattern or overall measure of ‘presidential power’, and regional peculiarities turn out to have been rather well designed to encourage democratic responsibility and executive-legislative agreement more than executive dominance or interbranch deadlock.

Constitutional Deliberation in Congress: The Impact of Judicial Review in a Separated System

Constitutional Deliberation in Congress: The Impact of Judicial Review in a Separated System. By J. Mitchell Pickerill. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. 208p. 21.95 paper.J. Mitchell Pickerill's richly layered book shows the possibilities and limits of “constitutional deliberation” in Congress, defined as “reflection and debate over the scope of federal powers under the Constitution in the context of legislation” (p. 11). Pickerill says that such institutional introspection is rare until Congress is confronted with activist majorities on the Supreme Court, as witnessed in the beginning and end of the twentieth century. But even when using constitutional deliberation to rescue stricken laws and protect future ones, Congress incorporates, rather than “overrides,” the latest judicial doctrine on the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states. He compares the use and specter of judicial review to a presidential veto and concludes that such Congress–Court dynamics show bargaining and compromise. However, interpretive equality is not necessary in this view of a healthy separation-of-powers system.

EXPANDING STEM CELL RESEARCH

AFTER AN EMOTIONAL DEbate, the House of Representatives last week passed a bill that would lift: restrictions on federal funding for development and study of human embryonic stem cell lines derived from excess embryos in fertility clinics. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810) would repeal limitations that provide federal support only for embryonic stem cell lines derived before Aug. 9,2001. The White House pledged to veto the legislation if it clears both the House and Senate. Passed by avote of 238 to 194, the measure has strong bipartisan support in the House but currendy lacks the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Bill proponents Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) andlbm Harkin (D-Iowa), who are hoping to benefit from the momentum generated in the House, have called on the Senate leadership to bring the legislation up for a vote. By passing the bill, the House is moving to reassert America's ethical and scientific ...