Democratic leaders in Congress dispute President Bush’s contention that he has the authority to use a pocket veto to kill the fiscal 2008 defense policy bill and may attempt a veto override later this month.

Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., have signaled that they plan to treat Bush’s Dec. 28 memorandum of disapproval on the bill (HR 1585) as a normal veto, and have left open the possibility of veto override votes.

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” a Pelosi aide said Wednesday.

When asked if the House would hold a veto override vote, the aide said, “We are exploring all legislative options and no action has been ruled out.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley also said the legislative branch would interpret Bush’s action as a normal veto.

“There was no pocket veto because Congress was available to receive the veto message,” Manely said, adding that the Senate would “wait and see what the House does” before determining whether to attempt to override the veto.

Because the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly in both chambers last month, originated in the House, that chamber is required to act first on a veto message from the White House.

Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, declined to comment Wednesday on whether Republicans would support a veto override.

Bush - under intense pressure from the Iraqi government- vetoed the bill over a provision that the White House contends could have rendered Iraqi assets vulnerable to a freeze by plaintiffs seeking redress in U.S. courts for acts committed under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The Iraqi government had threatened to withdraw $25 billion worth of assets from U.S. capital markets last week if Bush signed the bill.

What Kind of Veto?

The White House, which did not threaten a veto of the bill until after Congress cleared the legislation, contends that Bush had the authority to invoke his constitutional power to pocket veto the bill because the House had adjourned for the year, making it impossible for Bush to return the bill to the chamber that originated it.

“Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law,” Bush stated in his memorandum of disapproval. The pocket veto, the White House says, took effect Dec. 31.

But congressional Democrats dispute that claim.

The Senate has been holding pro forma sessions every few days, and both the House and Senate have empowered their clerks to receive communications from the White House when Congress is out of session.

Also, the adjournment resolution adopted by both chambers (S Con Res 61) would allow House and Senate leaders to call Congress back into session if need be.

The issue has been made even murkier by the fact that the White House also has returned the measure to the House in a procedure that is similar to a regular veto.

In his statement, Bush said he was returning the bill the House “to avoid unnecessary litigation” and to “leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.”

White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel characterized the move as an “extra step . . . to make sure that Congress, when it returns in January, can move forward quickly with a fix to that legislation.”

Pelosi’s office declined to comment on what specific legislative strategies the House might pursue.

Although the second session of the 110th Congress officially begins Thursday, the House is not slated to return until Jan. 15 and the Senate will not be back until Jan 22.

The disagreement about Bush’s nullification of the bill reflects a longstanding dispute between Congress and the White House about exactly when a president can use a pocket veto to kill legislation. Such a veto is not subject to an override vote by either chamber of Congress.

A federal appeals court ruled in 1985 that it is unconstitutional for the president to use the pocket veto between sessions of Congress, but the Supreme Court in January 1987 vacated that decision without addressing the underlying issue. The high court found that the bill in question, which had sought to limit aid to El Salvador as part of an annual appropriations bill, had already expired of its own and the dispute was thus moot.