[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H14063-H14066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
   RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
                     PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 
3043.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I think we have an understanding that the other side 
will have two statements; we will have one. We do not expect to take 
anywhere near the full hour.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Madam Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend 
to take a lot of time since this is the sixth time this year that I 
have spoken on this legislation, twice in committee and now four times 
on the floor of this House.
  I would like to thank Chairman Obey and to thank his staff for the 
good, solid work product that they have delivered. I have enjoyed our 
work together this year, and as I said before, this bill, the people's 
bill, is a thoughtful piece of legislation.
  If Congress does not override the President's veto, I will look 
forward to working with the chairman to negotiate a good bill that can 
be enacted. If the veto is sustained, I would hope that all parties, 
the White House and both houses of Congress, will come together quickly 
and work in good faith to complete the appropriations process in a 
timely manner.
  There is no good reason why we can't compromise this bill. In times 
past, people in this body of good faith have overcome differences far 
greater than we have tonight.
  If the proposal is to split the difference, to reduce the amount of 
spending above the President's request by $11 billion, I would advise 
the President to take ``yes'' for an answer.
  Let's go home for Thanksgiving, thank God for all the blessings that 
He has bestowed upon this country, and pray for wisdom and good sense, 
and come back and get our work done in December.
  I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished ranking member of 
the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I had planned to make a 10-
minute, maybe even a 20-minute speech this evening expressing my 
concerns about the Labor-HHS conference report. However, given the late 
hour and Members' desire to join their families for the Thanksgiving 
Day holiday, I will submit my written statement for the Record.
  As I do so, Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the words of my friend 
Will Rogers, whose statue stands outside the door of this very Chamber. 
He said, ``Never miss a good chance to shut up.''
  With that, I urge a vote to sustain the President's veto, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, here we are on November 15th and only two 
appropriations bills have been sent to the President--only one of which 
was enacted. I must confess that I find it quite ironic that the 
majority party spent the better part of the beginning of this year 
criticizing Republicans for not getting our work done in a

[[Page H14064]]

timely fashion when now those same critics find themselves in an 
identical, or perhaps even worse, situation.
  For those of us who serve on the Appropriations Committee, this will 
be the sixth time we have voted on this bill this year. Six times! It 
is the fourth time the full House will have voted on it.
  The fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and Related Agencies bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion 
on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal government's 
role in education, health, and workforce programs. Regardless of that 
disagreement, House Republicans agree that many of the programs funded 
in this bill are vitally important. The majority party would have the 
public believe otherwise.
  The recent rhetoric we have heard with respect to the president's 
veto of this bill diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and 
it does not serve this Congress or our country well. It is targeted at 
raw, base emotions rather than fact. It is intended to mislead the 
American people. It is, in short, intended for political gain.

  The primary difference between the parties on this bill is that 
Republicans believe we must balance the benefits of these worthwhile 
programs with the fact that the American taxpayer must pay for them.
  The vetoed bill that we are being asked to consider today is nearly 
$10 billion over the President's budget request and $6 billion over the 
fiscal year 2007 enacted level. It represents roughly half of the $22 
billion the majority party in this Congress wants to spend over what 
the president requested.
  When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith--a Democrat--presented his bill in 
1994, it totaled $65 billion. If you had predicted in 1994 that the 
very same bill--which largely covers the same agencies today as it did 
then--would increase by $85 billion over the next 13 years, the 
Chairman of the full Committee--who happened to be David Obey--probably 
would not have believed it.
  Let's put that into perspective. In 1994 the Defense bill spent $242 
billion. The Defense bill signed just this week spends $459 billion. 
That is an 89 percent increase over thirteen years for a function that 
is quite clearly and constitutionally the primary responsibility of the 
Federal Government--defending our home, our citizens and our way of 
life against foreign threats. This bill contains a 130 percent increase 
since 1994--it has more than doubled in size!
  By any objective standard--whether you are Jerry Lewis or David 
Obey--that is a healthy increase.
  And today, the House is being asked to override the president's veto 
and spend nearly $10 billion more than was requested and $6 billion 
more than last year under the mistaken notion that throwing money at 
our nation's problems will cause them to fade away.
  Under the mistaken notion that the Federal Government is the 
panacea--
  That government health insurance is the answer for the uninsured;
  That the judgment of bureaucrats in Washington who contribute only 9 
cents of every dollar spent to educate our children is superior to the 
judgment of parents and local school districts who face very different 
circumstances across our country;
  That job training is somehow the responsibility of the Federal 
Government rather than of schools, private employers and individuals.
  I contend that government is not the long-term solution. While 
government offers safety net programs that I support, these programs 
are and should be short-term solutions to help our fellow citizens move 
toward self-sufficiency. These programs are meant to be a hand up, not 
a hand out.
  As we move forward with consideration of these FY 2008 appropriations 
bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that voting to override 
the president's vetoes on this and other appropriations bills--in 
short, voting to support this majority's spending spree--will increase 
the average annual burden on the individual taxpayer by roughly $3,000.
  That is $3,000 that cannot be used to buy food, to save for college, 
to pay for health insurance, or, for that matter, to contribute to 
public television.
  Finally, I must express my dismay at remarks made by the chairman of 
the committee with respect to the fate of member projects if this veto 
is sustained. I would hope that my colleagues do not take the bait on 
what I consider an inappropriate threat that suggests that members care 
more about pork than they do about bad fiscal policy.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I recognize Members want to get out of here and, as I 
indicated, we are going to facilitate that. But this is an important 
issue, and it deserves a few minutes of discussion.
  As I said on the floor last week, in November I believe the American 
people sent two messages to this body and to the White House. Number 
one, they wanted a change in policy in Iraq; and, number two, they 
wanted a change in domestic priorities here at home.
  I think that the White House, by its insistence on no compromise on 
both the Iraqi front and on the domestic appropriations front, has 
indicated that it would prefer to tell the American people: We don't 
care what you thought you were telling us in November, we are going to 
do it our way; and, it is our way or the highway.
  Madam Speaker, it is simply not credible for a President who is 
asking us to spend $200 billion in additional money in Iraq, it is not 
credible for a President who is asking us to spend $50 billion to $60 
billion again this year on tax cuts for people who make over $1 million 
a year, to then say that we cannot afford to make basic investments in 
education, in health care, in medical research.
  The President insists that we follow his budget with respect to this 
bill. If we do, we would cut vocational education 50 percent; we would 
eliminate every student aid program except Pell Grants and work study; 
we would cut handicapped education by $300 million; we would cut mental 
health resources by $100 million; we would cut the training in 
children's hospitals by 63 percent; we would cut rural health by 54 
percent; and, we would cut low-income heating assistance by 18 percent.
  The gentleman from New York mentioned the need for compromise on this 
bill. We have already had incredible compromise. We have had compromise 
on virtually every item in this bill, on every issue ranging from 
family planning to special education, and the minority has been 
involved every step of the way. When the bill was reported out of 
subcommittee, every single member of the subcommittee signed the 
committee report, and yet today we face a Presidential veto.
  Madam Speaker, I want to make one thing clear. We have said from the 
beginning to the White House we would like to compromise. We have asked 
the White House, I have asked Mr. Nussle, I know our leadership has 
asked the President personally, to sit down and work out our 
differences. We have been told as recently as last Saturday by the 
press secretary speaking for the White House that the White House had 
no intention of compromising, and that all the Congress had to do to 
meet the President's standards was to submit a bill which was fully 
identical with his budget.

                              {time}  2115

  I'm sorry, this is an independent branch of government, and we have 
an obligation to do better than that.
  Now, I was asked by a number of members of the press earlier today 
why the Senate majority leader had released information indicating that 
I and Senator Byrd were in the process of trying to put together a 
split-the-difference appropriation bill for all of the remaining 
appropriation items that still have yet to be finished. I want to take 
this opportunity to explain why we've done that.
  People might like to cast a vote without having to take 
responsibility for knowing the consequences, but there are severe 
consequences for voting against overriding the President's veto of the 
Labor-Health-Education bill.
  If this veto is not overridden, the best that could happen is that we 
will wind up splitting the difference with the President's wholly 
inadequate budgets. If we were to do a 50 percent cut to the difference 
between the Labor-Health-Education bill and the President's budget, 
what will that mean for the programs that so many Members of Congress 
claim that they are for?
  For medical research into diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and 
diabetes at the National Institutes of Health, meeting the President 
halfway would put us $700 million below the bill we are considering 
today. That means 700 fewer grants for research to treat and cure all 
of the deadly diseases that all of us like to tell our constituents 
we're sworn to try to overcome. I don't want to have to go back home 
and explain that kind of cut in NIH, but that's one of the things that 
will happen undoubtedly, if this veto is not overridden tonight.
  For health care access, to provide 1.2 million more Americans with 
access to community health centers, this bill is

[[Page H14065]]

$200 million above the President's request. Under a split-the-
difference scenario, access for 600,000 Americans will evaporate.
  Likewise, this bill provides $95 million so that 200,000 Americans 
who can't get insurance because they are medically high risk will have 
access to health insurance at the State level. That insurance also 
evaporates for 100,000 people if we split the difference.
  Under the President's budget, vocational education would be cut by 50 
percent. This bill eliminates that cut, but meeting him halfway would 
still mean a 25 percent cut.
  My Republican colleagues worked hard to push funding up for special 
education, even beyond what I had proposed in committee, funding the 
program $800 million above the President's request. Defeat of this bill 
will slash that increase by $400 million.
  This bill provides $400 million above the President to serve nearly 
120,000 more low-income kids with title I grants. But 60,000 of those 
kids will be out of luck if we meet the President's budget halfway.
  For the LIHEAP program, this bill also helps around 1\1/2\ million 
more families to pay their energy bills by providing $630 million more 
than the President's budget. Anyone who votes against this bill will be 
making inevitable at least a $315 million cut. That means 750,000 fewer 
families will have help this winter.
  Now, please remember, everything that I've described is, at best, a 
best-case scenario if this bill is defeated and we have to pursue a 
split-the-difference alternative. In fact, as long as a sufficient 
number of Republican Members continue to follow the President's budget 
priorities, the result is likely to be even worse. Those who vote 
against overriding this veto will take full responsibility for the cuts 
in these essential investments.
  I would like to make one other point. I know most of you on that side 
of the aisle, and I recognize that there are probably 50 or 60 of you 
who are so indifferent to these programs that you could care less what 
happens, but I don't believe that that's true about the rest of you. I 
think you care about America's children as much as I do. I think you 
care about medical research as much as I do. And many of you have told 
me that you wish you could vote for this bill, but your party 
leadership won't give you a permission slip.
  I ask you to use your own judgment. I ask you to recognize that this 
issue may not be important to you, but it's important to the American 
families who are affected by what you do here tonight. It affects the 
quality of their education; it affects the degree to which we will 
protect the health and safety of American workers; it protects our 
ability to dig into the problem of serious disease across the board.
  You know in your hearts that this is a decent bill. This is a 
bipartisan product put together in a bipartisan way. It deserves a 
bipartisan vote.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I support this effort to 
override the President's veto of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations 
bill funding the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.
  After years of too little attention to our important domestic 
programs, this legislation makes important investments in our health 
care and education programs. Several years of flat funding and small 
increases have resulted in funding reductions for the health, education 
and labor programs that Americans rely on every day.
  I am pleased that the bill provides the National Institutes of Health 
with a 4-percent increase over current funding levels. The $30 billion 
in this legislation will help expand our nation's commitment to life-
saving medical research, much of which is performed in my back yard at 
the Baylor College of Medicine, the MD Anderson Cancer Center and many 
other impressive research facilities located in the Texas Medical 
Center.
  I also support the legislation's $225 million increase for the Health 
Centers program. I know the administration supports this program, but 
by vetoing this bill, the President puts in jeopardy our goal to expand 
the program to a level that will provide 30 million Americans with a 
health care home.
  H.R. 3043 also provides $200,000 in funding for Gateway to Care, for 
the Community Health Center Technology Improvement Program. Gateway to 
Care is the community health care access collaborative in Harris 
County.
  Gateway to Care will utilize this funding to help coordinate the 
deployment of health information technology among the county's health 
care clinics. This funding will allow Gateway to Care to offer 
technical support to the developing health centers in Harris Co. during 
the implementation of a common Management Information System.
  Additionally, this funding will allow Gateway to Care staff to lead 
workforce development and training activities at health centers to 
utilize technology to improve the business management and health care 
delivery in area health centers.
  In this bill, the appropriators also generously dedicated $415,000 in 
equipment funding for the Harris County Hospital District's Diabetes 
Program.
  This project would help the Harris County Hospital District procure 
the necessary equipment to establish a Diabetes Program, which will 
provide comprehensive diabetes care in an appropriate setting for a 
multi-ethnic, indigent population.
  The interdisciplinary program will include an outpatient referral 
center, diabetes specialists, educators, nurses, nutritionists, social 
workers, case managers and specialist services related to the screening 
and treatment of diabetes complications.
  Houston is the only large city in the U.S. without a single 
comprehensive diabetes program, which is why this funding is so 
important to our community. The establishment the diabetes program at 
the Harris County Hospital District would improve health outcomes for 
its 40,000 patients with diabetes.
  I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for all of their hard 
work on this bill. This piece of legislation provides critical and 
necessary funding for programs that all of our districts need.
  Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this veto override.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
veto override.
  The conference report includes funding for many important programs 
and I am disappointed that the President has vetoed it. I recognize 
that the conferees had a challenging task in shaping the report because 
of budget constraints, but Congress did a good job balancing critical 
health, education and labor needs with the tight budget.
  This conference report provides much needed funding for health, 
education and labor programs for the nation and for Colorado. For 
example, included in the overall increase for the Department of Health 
and Human Services is an increase in funding for essential research at 
the National Institute of Health (NIH) to increasing health care access 
in rural areas, as well as additional funding for the Center for 
Disease Control (CDC). It also includes critical funding increases for 
several important education programs, including No Child Left Behind, 
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), and Pell Grants. I am also 
pleased the labor provisions of this report reflect a new direction and 
commitment to expanding job training and enhancing the safety of 
workers, by increasing funding for a number of employment, education, 
and protection programs for the American workforce.
  I am encouraged that the report includes an increase in funding for 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is a 
critical program that helps many Colorado families, who are struggling 
to get by, avoid having to make choices between paying their heating 
bill and putting food on the table. The conference report will increase 
funding for this program by $250 million over the fiscal year 2007 
budget.
  There are also critical Colorado-specific funds in the report. The 
report contains funding for Children's Hospital of Denver to help build 
the North Campus Ambulatory Surgery Center, which will broaden access 
to pediatric care in the north Denver metro area. This new development 
will also add more convenient alternative to patients, families, 
pediatricians, and physicians while also decreasing the burden on other 
health centers in the Denver metro area.
  It also contains funding for Avista Hospital, a leader in the 
Electronic Medical Record field, to help Avista continue to implement a 
cutting edge system.
  The funding for programs included in this report is a cause for 
celebration, not a veto. The President's budget request underfunded 
many of these critical programs and I am pleased that Congress has 
crafted a much better appropriations plan. While I am disappointed in 
the President's veto of the conference report, I am encouraged that we 
are attempting to override that veto today. This report is good for 
Colorado, good for the country and I encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today Republicans in Congress ignored 
the will of the American people and rubber-stamped the President's veto 
of important funding for our domestic priorities. After 7 years of 
unrestrained spending and a ballooning deficit, the President and his 
Republican allies in Congress have, under the guise of fiscal 
responsibility, rejected a $6.2 billion funding increase

[[Page H14066]]

for education, health care, and workforce development, even as the 
President requests nearly $200 billion in unbudgeted, no strings 
attached funding to continue the Iraq War for another year. That is no 
way to balance America's checkbook.
  Under the budget passed by the New Democratic Congress, we can take 
care of America at home--increase funding for our schools, offer more 
student assistance for college, invest in biomedical research at NIH, 
expand health care access, and help Americans compete in the global 
economy--and balance the budget by 2012. These priorities are America's 
priorities, and Democrats in Congress will continue to fight for them.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield back the balance of my time.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page H14066, November 15, 2007, the following appeared: I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. OBEY. I 
yield back the balance of my time.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277, 
nays 141, not voting 15, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1122]

                               YEAS--277

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--141

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Everett
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lynch
     Mack
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  2141

  Mr. RADANOVICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the bill will be 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________