He said they need two more votes to complete the override process and enact a new budget.
The governor rejected the bill on Feb. 10, but lawmakers have 60 days from that date — or until April 11 — to override the veto.
The House on Wednesday voted on the override, but fell two votes short of the required two-third majority —14.
Rep. Stanley T. Torres, R-Saipan, abstained, saying he arrived in the middle of the roll call vote while Rep. David M. Apatang, R-Saipan, was absent.
“We need a new budget,” Palacios, R-Saipan, said in an interview. “This government cannot afford to overspend; we cannot afford to continue hiring nonessential employees — we must have a new budget — that’s our main job as lawmakers.”
In a separate interview, Rep. Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan, said she is glad that “we can reconsider an override.”
But she also wants to know what “deals” were made by the administration to secure the support of the six members who voted against the override — House Floor Leader Joseph N. Camacho, R-Saipan; House Minority Leader Oscar M. Babauta, Covenant-Saipan; Reps. Victor B. Hocog, Ind.-Rota; Edwin P. Aldan, Covenant-Tinian; Raymond D. Palacios, Covenant-Saipan; and Justo S. Quitugua, D-Saipan.
Hocog last week said 80 Rota employees would lose their jobs if the governor’s veto was overridden.
“Did they [the administration] threaten to do that?” Sablan asked.
Asked for comment, Press Secretary Charles P. Reyes Jr. said, “I am not aware of any such ‘deals’ and I wonder if such a notion might be a little cynical. Representative…Camacho, the floor leader, rumored to be the running-mate of [former Sen.] Juan [T. Guerrero] who is running against the governor, has already provided a compelling constitutional justification for his recent budget vote, which was also cited by the governor. This is the constitutional separation of powers doctrine.”
Reyes added, “I believe Representative Hocog understands the CNMI’s current financial realities, and more of our leaders should better appreciate the economic situation and support appropriate financial adjustments, accordingly. The governor does not want to make cuts; unfortunately, he (and every other responsible leader) has to operate within available resources.”
Speaker Palacios and Sablan said Camacho’s “reason” for voting against the override was unconvincing.
Camacho, during the session, declined to explain his vote, but later posted a statement on his Web site, www.camachocnmi.com.
According to Camacho, who voted for the passage of the budget bill, he did not vote for the override because the measure contained a provision requiring legislative approval of new hires.
He said he agrees with the governor’s argument that this provision is unconstitutional.
Speaker Palacios, however, said the bill has a “severability” clause — if any provision is unconstitutional, it will be severed from the legislation.
The speaker and Sablan likewise noted that after voting against the override, Camacho voted for the passage of House Bill 16-212, which restricts the governor’s ability to hire new government employees.
“So what is his real reason? Why is he against the override?” Sablan asked.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial said he vetoed the budget bill because it did not include austerity Fridays and no-pay holidays.
House leaders, however, believed that the budget bill’s hiring restrictions were the real reasons behind the veto.
The last time a budget bill became law was in 2006, the governor’s fist year in office.
