[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.
____________________