I see the merit in having some sort of conscious, affirmative periodic review of the huge morass of agencies we have in the Federal Government; but I have some concern here that if a President disagreed with the Congress, you could have 289 Members of the House and 66 Members of the Senate who thought this agency should be reestablished, but the President could veto the bill that would reauthorize it; and, therefore, it would not come back into existence.
John Spratt: “I see the merit in having some sort of conscious, affirmative periodic review of the huge morass of agencies we have in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about agency reauthorization and presidential veto power.
Share
More from John Spratt
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic legislation, arguably the most important vote we here today will ever take in this Chamber. Today fulfills a promise made 100 years ago by Theodore Roosevelt when he first called for…
If we have entitlements that we already can't pay for, shouldn't we not be adding new entitlements?
Mr. Speaker, beyond the walls of this Capitol, there are millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance and they live in fear of getting sick. Millions more are discriminated against by insurance companies because they have…
Mr. Speaker, the reconciliation bill before us does more than advance the cause of health care. It makes a landmark investment in education, one that will make college more affordable for millions of students, and all without adding a dime…





