Joe Biden: Vetoed legislation

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Biden Administration
Joe Biden • Kamala Harris
White House Logo.png
Administration: News • Joe Biden's Cabinet • Confirmation process for Cabinet nominees • Confirmation votes by senator • Executive orders and actions • Key legislation • Vetoes • White House staff • Ambassadors • Special envoys • Weekly addresses • Multistate lawsuits
Transition: White House senior staff • Agency review teams • Certification of electoral votes • 2020 presidential election

President Joe Biden (D) has issued nine vetoes during his presidency.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States gives the president of the United States the ability to veto a bill passed by Congress. A veto prevents a bill from being enacted into law. A presidential veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. When Congress overrides a veto, the bill becomes law without the president's approval.

Click the following links to see legislation vetoed by Biden's predecessors:

HISTORICAL FACTS
  • President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills, the most of any president.
  • Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Q. Adams, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James A. Garfield did not issue any vetoes.

    • Biden’s vetoes

    See also: U.S. presidents: Vetoed legislation

    President Joe Biden has issued the following vetoes:[1]

    Summary of Biden's vetoes

    S.J.Res.32 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)".

    On December 19, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed S.J.Res.32 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)".[2]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The resolution would have nullified a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule requiring financial institutions to collect and report small business credit application data to the bureau.[3]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "If enacted, this resolution would harm all those that stand to benefit from expanded transparency and accountability. By hampering efforts to promote transparency and accountability in small business lending, Republicans are siding with big banks and corporations over the needs of small business owners. Small businesses are the engines of our economy, and my Administration will not support policies that hurt their ability to thrive and grow."[11]

    U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate, said when proposing the legislation, "By collecting and publishing personal demographic and other information, the CFPB is putting small business owners at risk of having their private financial affairs exposed to a watching world. Reporting these personal details is an invasion of privacy and a waste of resources aimed at furthering the woke agenda. The practical impact of this rule could hamstring lending to Main Street."[12]

    The Senate voted 53-44 to approve the resolution on October 18, 2023, with three Democrats (John Hickenlooper, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester), two Independents who caucus with Democrats (Angus King and Kyrsten Sinema), and 48 Republicans voting in favor. The House of Representatives voted 221-201 to approve the resolution on December 1, with six Democrats (Ed Case, Henry Cuellar, Jared Golden, Kathy Manning, Mary Peltola, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez) and 215 Republicans voting in favor. Sen. Kennedy introduced the resolution on June 13.[2]

    S.J.Res.24 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat".

    On September 26, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed S.J.Res.24 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat".[3]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The resolution would have nullified a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule moving the northern long-eared bat from the threatened species list to the endangered species list.[3]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "S.J. Res. 24 would overturn a science-based rulemaking that follows the requirements of the law, and thereby undermines the ESA. Bats are critical to healthy, functioning ecosystems and contribute at least $3 billion annually to the United States agriculture economy through pest control and pollination. If enacted, S.J. Res. 24 would undermine America’s proud wildlife conservation traditions and risk extinction of the species."[13]

    U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate, said when proposing the legislation, "This decision will have serious consequences for ongoing infrastructure projects across the state. There is no reason to disproportionately increase regulatory burden and hinder economic development when this rule will not affect the primary cause of decline for the northern long-eared bat. I am strongly against one-size-fits-all regulation from Washington bureaucrats, and this is no different. We must stop this reclassification and ensure our state and other impacted states can continue efforts to protect this species without the heavy hand of the federal government getting in their way."[14]

    The Senate voted 51-49 to approve the resolution on May 11, 2023, with two Democrats (Amy Klobuchar and Joe Manchin) and 49 Republicans voting in favor. The House of Representatives voted 220-209 to approve the resolution on July 27, with two Democrats (Henry Cuellar and Jared Golden) and 218 Republicans voting in favor. Sen. Mullin introduced the resolution on March 30.[3]

    S.J.Res.9 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment".

    On September 26, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed S.J.Res.9 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment".[4]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The resolution would have nullified a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule adding the Northern Distinct Population Segment (southeastern Colorado, western Kansas, western Oklahoma, and the northeast Texas Panhandle) of lesser prairie-chicken population to the threatened species list and the Southern Distinct Population Segment of lesser prairie-chicken (eastern New Mexico and the southwest Texas Panhandle) to the endangered species list.[4]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "S.J. Res. 9 would overturn a science-based rulemaking that follows the requirements of the law, and thereby undermines the ESA. The lesser prairie-chicken serves as an indicator for healthy grasslands and prairies, making the species an important measure of the overall health of America’s grasslands. If enacted, S.J. Res. 9 would undermine America’s proud wildlife conservation traditions, risk the extinction of a once-abundant American bird, and create uncertainty for landowners and industries who have been working for years to forge the durable, locally led conservation strategies that this rule supports."[15]

    U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate, said after Biden's veto, "We shouldn’t be shocked at this continued attack from President Biden on rural America. Despite bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, he continues to shut down our work to protect farmers and ranchers from more red tape and regulations on the Lesser Prairie Chicken – and on top of that, these folks back home have voluntarily conserved tens of millions of acres of potential habitat for the Lesser Prairie Chicken, which has had a rising population since 2014. Today’s actions show how out of touch Biden is with rural America and our successful conservation efforts."[16]

    The Senate voted 50-48 to approve the resolution on May 3, 2023, with one Democrat (Joe Manchin) and 49 Republicans voting in favor. The House of Representatives voted 221-206 to approve the resolution on July 27, with four Democrats and 217 Republicans voting in favor. Sen. Marshall introduced the resolution on February 7.[4]

    S.J.Res.11 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards".

    On June 14, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed S.J.Res.11 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards".[5]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The resolution would have nullified an Environmental Protection Agency Rule related to emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles.[5]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "The rule cuts pollution, boosts public health, and advances environmental justice in communities across the country. It will prevent hundreds, if not thousands, of premature deaths; thousands of childhood asthma cases; and millions of missed school days every year. [...] If enacted, the resolution would squander $36 billion in benefits to society — and an opportunity to lead on the defining crisis of our time."[17]

    U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who sponsored the resolution in the Senate, said after Biden's veto, "Today, President Biden chose to prioritize his extreme environmental agenda over bipartisan pushback from Congress. This veto is more than just a slap in the face to truckers, who transport nearly every consumer good. Pushing this excessive regulation forward will also raise prices for families already grappling with inflation. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues on ways to push back against these devastating government mandates"[18]

    The Senate voted 50-49 to approve the resolution on April 26, 2023, with one Democrat (Joe Manchin) and 49 Republicans voting in favor. The House of Representatives voted 221-203 to approve the resolution on May 23, with four Democrats and 217 Republicans voting in favor. Sen. Fischer introduced the resolution on February 9.[5]

    H.J.Res.45 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans".

    On June 7, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed H.J.Res.45 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans".[6]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of 1996. The resolution would have nullified the rule issued by the Department of Education on October 12, 2022, which suspended federal student loan payments.[6]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "The Department of Education’s action is based on decades-old authority, granted by the Congress. Multiple administrations over the last two decades have used this authority, following the same procedures as my Administration, to protect borrowers from the effects of national emergencies and military deployments. The Department of Education’s exercise of this authority has never previously been subject to the Congressional Review Act."[19]

    U.S. Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), who sponsored the resolution in the House, said after its passage, "I am pleased that my Republican colleagues in the Senate supported Sen. Cassidy and my efforts to overturn President Biden’s unlawful and unfair student loan transfer scheme."[20]

    The House of Representatives voted 218-203 to approve the resolution on May 24, 2023, with two Democrats and 216 Republicans voting in favor. The Senate voted 52-46 to approve the resolution on June 1, with two Democrats, one Independent who caucuses with Democrats (Kyrsten Sinema), and 49 Republicans voting in favor. Rep. Good introduced the resolution on March 27.[6]

    H.J.Res.42 - Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.

    On May 25, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed H.J.Res.42 - Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.[21]

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the terms of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, also known as the Home Rule Act, which allows Congress to vote to nullify D.C. laws within a certain review period.[22] The D.C. law this resolution sought to nullify was the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which "[set] forth a variety of measures that focus on policing in the District, including measures prohibiting the use of certain neck restraints by law enforcement officers, requiring additional procedures related to body-worn cameras, and expanding access to police disciplinary records."[7]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "While I do not support every provision of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, this resolution from congressional Republicans would overturn commonsense police reforms such as: banning chokeholds; setting important restrictions on use of force and deadly force; improving access to body-worn camera recordings; and requiring officer training on de-escalation and use of force. The Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s right to pass measures that improve public safety and public trust."[21]

    Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who discharged the resolution on the Senate floor, argued in favor of passing the resolution, saying, "Congress must exert our constitutional authority to keep our nation’s capital safe. It’s a disgrace that the capital of the most powerful nation on earth has become so dangerous, but this sad reality is exactly what we should expect when far-left activists are calling the shots."[23] After Biden vetoed the resolution, Vance said, "With today’s veto, President Biden rejected a bipartisan and commonsense effort to make our nation’s capital safer."[24]

    The House of Representatives voted 229-189 to approve the resolution on April 19, 2023, with 14 Democrats and 215 Republicans voting in favor. The Senate voted 56-43 to approve the resolution on May 16, with 6 Democrats, two Independents who caucus with Democrats, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), and 48 Republicans voting in favor. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) on March 9.

    This was the second Home Rule Act resolution related to D.C. criminal law that made it to Biden's desk during the 118th Congress. The first was H.J.Res.26, which sought to nullify a D.C. law that would make "a variety of changes to DC criminal laws, including by providing statutory definitions for various elements of criminal offenses, modifying sentencing guidelines and penalties, and expanding the right to a jury trial for certain misdemeanor crimes." Biden signed the resolution into law on March 20, 2023, marking the fourth time the federal government had nullified a D.C. law under the terms of the Home Rule Act since its passage in 1973.[25]

    H.J.Res.39 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to "Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414".

    On May 16, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed H.J.Res.39 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to "Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414".

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the terms of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) passed by the 118th Congress seeking to void a Department of Commerce rule titled Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414, which suspended some tariffs on solar panel imports.[8]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "I vetoed H.J. Res. 39 because we cannot afford to create new uncertainty for American businesses and workers in the solar industry. We can and must strengthen our energy security by maintaining our focus on expanding U.S. capacity that is ready to come on line as this temporary bridge concludes in June 2024."[26]

    Rep. Dan Kildee (R-Mich.), a sponsor of H.J. Res. 39, responded to Biden's veto, saying, "Our workers and businesses will never be able to compete globally unless we hold those who violate U.S. trade laws accountable. The Biden administration found, in its own investigation, that Chinese companies are violating the law. Yet the president’s position, and today’s veto, fails to hold China accountable and hurts American workers."[27]

    The House of Representatives voted 221-202 to approve the resolution on April 28, 2023, with 12 Democrats and 209 Republicans voting in favor. The Senate voted 56-41 to approve the resolution on May 3, with 8 Democrats and 48 Republicans voting in favor. The resolution was introduced by Reps. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) and Kildee on March 7.[8]

    H.J.Res.27 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'".

    On April 6, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed H.J. Res.27 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'".

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the terms of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) passed by the 118th Congress seeking to void the 2023 Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States" rule, which specified "which bodies of water fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act and are thereby under federal jurisdiction and protected."[9]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "The increased uncertainty caused by H.J. Res. 27 would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities. [...] The resolution would also negatively affect tens of millions of United States households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams."[28]

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy responded to Biden's veto, saying, "President Biden’s overreaching WOTUS [waters of the United States] rule jeopardizes the livelihoods of American farmers and small businesses. Government should make it easier to work and thrive in America, not harder."[29]

    The House of Representatives voted 227-198 to approve the resolution on March 9, 2023, with 9 Democrats and 218 Republicans voting in favor. The Senate voted 53-43 to approve the resolution on March 29, with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and 48 Republicans voting in favor. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) on February 2.[9]

    H.J.Res.30: Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights"

    On March 20, 2023, President Joe Biden (D) vetoed H.J.Res.30: Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights".

    The bill was a joint resolution of disapproval under the terms of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) passed by the 118th Congress seeking to void a Department of Labor rule that amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to allow retirement plans to consider certain environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investment-related decisions.[30][31]

    In his veto message, Biden said, "The Department of Labor’s final rule protects the hard‑earned life savings and pensions of tens of millions of workers and retirees across the country." He went on to say that, "There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses. But the Republican-led resolution would force retirement managers to ignore these relevant risk factors, disregarding the principles of free markets and jeopardizing the life savings of working families and retirees."[32]

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) responded to Biden's veto, saying, "President Biden’s first veto is against a bipartisan bill that protects retirement savings from political interference. It is clear that President Biden wants Wall Street to use your hard-earned money not to grow your savings, but to fund a far-left political agenda. That will hurt seniors and workers, especially after President Biden’s reckless spending caused record inflation and rapid interest rate hikes."[33]

    The House of Representatives voted 216-204 to approve the resolution on February 28, 2023, with 215 Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), voting yes. The Senate voted 50-46 to approve the resolution on March 1, with 48 Republicans and two Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), voting yes.[34] The resolution was introduced by Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) on February 7, under the full title "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 'Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights'".

    Congressional Review Act

    See also: Congressional Review Act and Uses of the Congressional Review Act during the Biden administration

    Usage of the CRA under the Biden administration

    President Joe Biden (D) on June 30, 2021, signed three CRA resolutions into law, bringing the total number of rules repealed to 20. The CRA resolutions blocked the following three rules:[35]

    Biden as of September 2023 had vetoed seven CRA resolutions aiming to block the following rules:

    • "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights" rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (vetoed on March 20, 2023).[36]
    • "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States" rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers (vetoed on April 6, 2023).[37]
    • "Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414" rule issued by the International Trade Commission (vetoed on May 16, 2023).[38]
    • "Federal Student Aid Programs (Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program)" rule issued by the Department of Education (vetoed June 7, 2023).[39]
    • "Control for Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards" rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (vetoed June 14, 2023)[40]
    • "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment" rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service (vetoed on September 26, 2023).[41]
    • "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat" rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service (vetoed on September 26, 2023).[42]
    • "Small Business Lending under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)" rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (vetoed on December 19, 2023).[43]


    Overview

    Under the Congressional Review Act, a new final rule may be invalidated by a joint resolution of disapproval passed by Congress and signed by the president.[44] The resolution also prevents the agency from issuing a similar rule in the future unless authorized by new legislation, and it bars judicial review—meaning that a resolution of disapproval cannot be challenged in federal court.[44] The law requires agencies to submit new and interim final rules to both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in order to take effect.[44] The submission should include (1) a copy of the rule; (2) a general description; (3) the proposed effective date; and (4) cost-benefit and other analyses required by the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.[44][45]

    Joint resolution of disapproval

    Members of Congress may introduce a CRA resolution of disapproval within 60 days of a new rule notification by an agency.[44] That time period is counted as 60 continuous days of a single session.[44] The CRA incorporates the definition of “rule” used in the Administrative Procedure Act which, in addition to regulations, includes guidance documents and policy memoranda.[44]

    In the Senate, the CRA process circumvents a filibuster if the chamber acts upon the resolution of disapproval within 60 days of the agency notifying Congress of the rule.[44] In the House, the resolution is often considered under a closed special rule reported by the Rules Committee, according to the Congressional Research Service.[46] All votes under a CRA resolution are simple majority votes.[46] As with other legislation, Congress may override a presidential veto of a CRA resolution by a two-thirds vote of members.[46]

    If a resolution of disapproval passes, the targeted rule does not take effect.[44] In the event the rule is already in effect, the resolution blocks enforcement and the agency must act as though the rule never took effect.[44]

    The CRA does not apply to rules governing agency procedures, management, and personnel.[44] A CRA resolution cannot invalidate parts of a rule or more than one rule at a time.[44]

    Review of major rules

    See also: Major rule

    The CRA includes two additional provisions for rules that are designated as major—that is, rules expected to cost the private sector at least $100 million annually or that have significant impacts on employment, investment, competition or prices:[45]

    • First, the comptroller general at GAO is required to submit an assessment of the rule to the congressional committees of jurisdiction within 15 calendar days of the rule's submission or its publication in the Federal Register.[45]
    • Second, Congress may delay a major rule from taking effect in order to have more time to consider the rule beyond the standard 60 days under the CRA.[44]

    The law gives the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) the responsibility for determining whether a new rule is major.[44]


    Presidential veto

    Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States gives the president of the United States the ability to veto a bill passed by Congress. The president can issue a regular veto or a pocket veto.

    • Regular veto: "The regular veto is a qualified negative veto. The President returns the unsigned legislation to the originating house of Congress within a 10 day period usually with a memorandum of disapproval or a 'veto message.' Congress can override the President’s decision if it musters the necessary two–thirds vote of each house."[47]
    • Pocket veto: "The pocket veto is an absolute veto that cannot be overridden. The veto becomes effective when the President fails to sign a bill after Congress has adjourned and is unable to override the veto. The authority of the pocket veto is derived from the Constitution’s Article I, section 7, 'the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case, it shall not be law.'"[47]

    Article I, Section 7

    According to Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States,

    “ All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. 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.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.[48][49]

    		”

    Past presidential vetoes

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ United States Senate, "Vetoes, 1789 to President," accessed January 25, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.32 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to 'Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).'" accessed December 20, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.24 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat'." accessed September 27, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.9 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment'." accessed September 27, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.11 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards".," accessed July 7, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.45 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to 'Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans'.," accessed June 8, 2023
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.42 - Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.," accessed May 26, 2023
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.39 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to "Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414".," accessed May 17, 2023
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.27 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'".," accessed April 6, 2023
    10. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.30 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights".," accessed March 3, 2023
    11. ↑ White House, "Message to the Senate on the President’s Veto of S.J.Res. 32," December 19, 2023
    12. ↑ Office of Markwayne Mullin, "Kennedy introduces resolution to reverse burdensome woke Biden CFPB rule," June 13, 2023
    13. ↑ White House, "Message to the Senate on the President’s Veto of S.J. Res. 24," September 26, 2023
    14. ↑ Office of Markwayne Mullin, "MULLIN PENS BILL TO REVERSE UNPRECEDENTED AND OVERREACHING ENDANGERED CLASSIFICATION OF THE NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT," April 4, 2023
    15. ↑ White House, "Message to the Senate on the President’s Veto of S.J. Res. 9," September 26, 2023
    16. ↑ Office of Roger Marshall, "Statement on Biden’s Veto of The Lesser Prairie Chicken CRA," September 26, 2023
    17. ↑ The White House, "Message to the Senate on the President’s Veto of S.J. Res. 11," June 14, 2023
    18. ↑ Office of Deb Fischer, "Fischer Statement on President Biden’s Veto of Legislation Blocking Aggressive EPA Emissions Rule," June 14, 2023
    19. ↑ The White House, "Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res. 45," June 7, 2023
    20. ↑ WSET, "Senate passes Rep. Good's resolution to stop Biden's student loan forgiveness plan," June 1, 2023
    21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 White House, "Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res. 42," May 25, 2023
    22. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Congressional Disapproval of District of Columbia Acts: Overview of Selected Resolutions," April 20, 2023
    23. ↑ Office of J.D. Vance, "SENATOR VANCE TO FORCE VOTE ON DC COUNCIL’S ANTI-POLICING LAW," accessed May 26, 2023
    24. ↑ Office of J.D. Vance, "BIDEN VETOES COMMONSENSE & BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION, ALLOWS DC’S ANTI-POLICING LAW TO STAY IN EFFECT," accessed May 26, 2023
    25. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.26 - Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.," accessed May 26, 2023
    26. ↑ White House, "Statement from President Joe Biden on His Veto of H.J. Res. 39," May 16, 2023
    27. ↑ Office of Dan Kildee, "STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN KILDEE ON BIDEN VETO OF SOLAR CRA RESOLUTION," May 16, 2023
    28. ↑ White House, "Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res 27," April 6, 2023
    29. ↑ Twitter, "McCarthy on April 6, 2023," accessed May 25, 2023
    30. ↑ Federal Register, "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights," December 1, 2022
    31. ↑ Congressional Budget Office, "H.J. Res. 30, Providing for Congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights"," February 27, 2023
    32. ↑ White House, "Message to the House of Representatives — President’s Veto of H.J. Res 30," March 20, 2023
    33. ↑ Speaker.gov, "President Biden Uses First Veto to Prioritize Woke ESG Rule over Retirees’ Savings," March 20, 2023
    34. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.30 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to "Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights".," accessed March 3, 2023
    35. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named bidenjune
    36. ↑ The White House, "Message to the House of Representatives - President's Veto of H.J. Res 30," March 20, 2023
    37. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J. Res. 27," accessed April 13, 2023
    38. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.39 - Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to "Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414," accessed May 17, 2023
    39. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.45 - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to 'Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans'," accessed June 8, 2023
    40. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.11 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicles Standards," accessed June 15, 2023
    41. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.9 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment,'" accessed September 28, 2023
    42. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.24 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern Long-Eared Bat,'" accessed September 28, 2023
    43. ↑ Congress.gov, "S.J.Res.32 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)," December 21, 2023.
    44. ↑ 44.00 44.01 44.02 44.03 44.04 44.05 44.06 44.07 44.08 44.09 44.10 44.11 44.12 44.13 Congressional Research Service, "The Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions," November 17, 2016
    45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Congressional Review Act FAQs," accessed July 15, 2017
    46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named focus
    47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 History.House.gov, "Presidential Vetoes," accessed March 4, 2015
    48. ↑ National Archives, "Constitution of the United States," accessed January 11, 2016
    49. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    U.S. Executive Branch
    Elected offices
    President Joe Biden • Vice President Kamala Harris
    		Executive-Branch-Logo.png
    Executive departments
    Cabinet-level offices
    Federally appointed offices
    Glossary
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Joe_Biden:_Vetoed_legislation&oldid=9295046"