An Analysis of Texas Veto Bill. No. 217 Of 2013 - 275 Words

An Analysis of Texas Veto Bill. No. 217 Of 2013 (Essay Sample) Content: Name: Institution: Course: Date: An Analysis of Texas Veto Bill. No. 217 Of 2013 The governors line item veto is the power of the governor to cancel (nullify) a bill or some of its specific provisions. A  bill should be passed by both houses before it is  forwarded to the governor so that it can approve or reject it. The rejection is what is referred to as a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"veto.' A bill that is approved by the governor becomes a law (Republican Governors Association (RGA) Press Conference, paragraph 2). If  the governor fails to approve or reject a bill within the timeframe given, the bill will automatically become law. A governor can veto whole or part of the bill. The parts that are not vetoed will become law. Governors' veto bills due to different reasons. For instance, the governor may veto a bill which he/she thinks has not be debated and analyzed by the houses. The bill that was voted for by members who have interests in the motives of the bill may also be vetoed. A bill that is contrary to the public policy is also subject to a veto by the governor. According to /legis/vetoes/, it appears that governor Rick Perry has vetoed many bills in the history of Texas. As of 2011, Rick Perry had used veto 273 times. He is the most successful governor. On the other hand, J. Pinckney Henderson vetoed the least number of bills (Governor Vetoes Major Changes to Texas Enterprise Zone Program, paragraph 2). Body The veto that I chose relates to the types of drinks and beverages that could be made available to public students i.e. bill HB 217 which was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry in 2013. The governor signed, and the seal of the state was affixed on the 14th day of June 2013. An analysis of this veto is relevant for a number of reasons. It is one of the most recent bills to be vetoed in the USA and has elicited mixed reactions from different individuals. I also found it worthy to study it because it concerns itself with issues that face students in the campuses. The Bill This bill (HB 217) was intended to facilitate the sale of certain beverages in learning institutions which include public elementary, middle and junior high schools. If this bill had been approved, the learning institutions listed above could have only been allowed to provide drinks which contain water and no sweeteners, milk with one percent or less fat content, fluid milk substitutions that are allowed by the department of agriculture and beverages that are purely made from fruits and vegetables. According to the proponents of the bill, there was no intention to harm the beverage industry in any way since the products were only targeted for learners in schools. It was a health initiative that could boost the health statuses of learners. There was also a guide on how the application of the requirements could have been approached. It was disclosed that the requirement on the kind of beverage to sell could not be applied in the following occasions: When schools were not in session, before the commencement of breakfast periods and after the completion of the last class. Sale of beverages to high school students on school campuses where the high schools are co-located with middle, elementary or junior high schools could not be affected by the law. The passage of bill number 217b did not take long. It was introduced in the house on 26th November 2012 and on 10th May 2013, it passed the house. It passed the senate on 21st May 2013 before it was signed. The subjects that could have been affected by the bill were Agriculture, Education and Minors. The bill was voted for overwhelmingly in both houses. Nine members of the house committee on health voted for it while no member was against it. Two members of the committee were absent. The committee on  education also voted for the bill overwhelmingly where 8 members approved the bill. There were zero nays, but one member of the committee was absent. Considering that this bill had been voted for by both houses, it was an expectation that the governor would approve it. Since it had fulfilled all conditions, it was sent to the governor for approval on 23rd May 2013. The governor's reason for vetoing the bill is available. The governor explained that even though the bill was intended to better the health of young people in Texas, the bill was unreasonable because it superseded what the law in place stipulated. The governor took his time to explain what the Texas Public School Nutrition Policy advocates. The Nutrition policy was enforced so as to ensure that unnecessary and unhealthy access to high sugar/calorie products such as beverages are controlled because the affects the wellness of students in a negative way. The governor further explained that by approving House Bill 217, it will become a challenge to access common beverages such as the 2% milk. Veto Override The governor's veto can be overridden provided that the constitutional procedure is followed. The overriding of a veto demands action by both houses. Before a bill can be overridden, it has to be reconsidered in the house where the speaker is expected to lay the message about overriding the veto before the house. The veto message is read, and it is entered in the House Journal. The house then debates on veto override. Normally, the chair of the committee with the jurisdiction over the vetoed bill is formed and is recognized by the speaker. Voting is then conducted, and if two thirds of the members present approve, the next step is taken. The constitution recommends the vote by the yes and nays. A successful override of the veto that originated from the senate is passed into law (2013 Texas Legislative Session Update). However, a successful override of a veto that originates from the house is sent to the senate for further action. Once sent to the senate, the senate may decide to reconsider the bill. Senators normally agree by unanimous consent. Senators are also expected to debate and vote for the veto. A successful override should receive more than two-thirds of the votes from the senate. Conclusion The veto will impact the public in different ways. Because the main reason why the bill was proposed was to improve the health conditions of young people who enjoy sugary foods, it is evident that the veto will subject the young people to adverse effects of sugar and sugary beverages. I will base my argument to the reactions that was given by different personalities in Texas and other parts of USA. Carol Alvarado argues that the bill came as a compromise between those who manufacture beverages as well as the medical community that have the power and resources to reduce cases of obesity in the country. As a result, the veto has given more responsibility to parents to watch and control what their kids consume. The representative explained that obesity has become costly in Texas, and the bill could have reduced such costs by a huge margin. Carol revealed that a whopping $9.5 million was spent on obesity in 2009 alone. He further explained that the cost will rise and perhaps the health condition may get out of hand in the near future. ...