[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12797-12800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-125)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 6124, the ``Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.''
  The bill that I vetoed on May 21, 2008, H.R. 2419, which became 
Public Law 110-234, did not include the title III provisions that are 
in this bill. In passing H.R. 6124, the Congress had an opportunity to 
improve on H.R. 2419 by modifying certain objectionable, onerous, and 
fiscally imprudent provisions. Unfortunately, the Congress chose to 
send me the same unacceptable farm bill provisions in H.R. 6124, merely 
adding title III. I am returning this bill for the same reasons as 
stated in my veto message of May 21, 2008, on H.R. 2419.
  For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress 
pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has 
failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income, 
this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues 
subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than 
$20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase. 
It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade 
negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American 
farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of 
government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be 
good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates 
that fundamental commitment.
  In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible 
farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and 
move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill 
before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
  At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than 
$28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to 
subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up 
to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is 
irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops, 
subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort 
markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill 
eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.
  Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee 
that could cost billions of dollars more than advertised. This is on 
top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion 
over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to 
prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
  This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill-
considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 6124 provides: $175 million 
to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-
acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the 
noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382 
million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the 
expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no 
place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated 
with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds 
for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.
  The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable 
provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food 
aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The 
bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the 
developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill 
raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined 
above, I must veto H.R. 6124.
  I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm 
bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is 
not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on 
principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control 
of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower 
wrote in his veto message, ``Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I 
would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and 
good for farmers and the nation.'' For similar reasons, I am vetoing 
the bill before me today.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                        The White House, June 18, 2008.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill 
will be printed as a House document.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'm not going to take a lot of time because I think people have heard 
enough about this issue, and we apologize. I guess we have to be in 
this position, but what we're doing here today is overriding the veto 
hopefully for the final time on the farm bill because of the enrolling 
error that was made on the initial override or veto that happened a few 
weeks ago.
  At the time, we made a decision to move ahead. Even though the wrong 
bill was vetoed, we moved ahead to override that veto, which we 
prevailed on the floor here by a substantial margin. I think in 
retrospect that was a good idea because 14 titles of the farm bill have 
been law since then.
  We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary to talk about 
implementation. So the work has been going on within the department to 
get ready for implementation. We have gained a couple or 3 weeks in 
that process. Just a couple of days ago, the administration Secretary 
put out the loan rates and target prices for this crop year. So that 
process is moving along.
  What this bill does, the 14 titles are now law. The trade title was 
left out. What this bill does is reenact the entire 15 titles as they 
were passed by the original conference report and does it all as one 
complete whole. And in the bill, what it does, it vitiates the 14 
titles that have been law for the last 3 weeks I guess, or so.
  It cleans up the technical problem that we had created by the 
enrolling office and puts into law what was intended by the conference 
committee.
  This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress, as we have 
seen by the number of votes that we've had here on the floor. It is not 
perfect, but it does address all of the issues that have been brought 
to the Agriculture

[[Page 12798]]

Committee by the various different groups that have been interested in 
this piece of legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to override 
the veto.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the farm 
bill veto. Currently, 14 of the farm bill's 15 titles have been enacted 
into law, and the passage of the veto override will ensure that the 
whole bill, including the trade title, becomes law.

                              {time}  1530

  The content of the bill before us today is the exact same as it was 
when 317 of my colleagues joined me in May in support of the reform-
minded farm bill the House and Senate Conference Committee produced. 
The only things that have changed are the bill number and the title, 
all else remains the same.
  This farm bill has enjoyed significant bipartisan support in both 
Chambers. This bill was a collaborative effort crafted by Members on 
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol and is historic 
in the amount and degree of reform that it contains.
  We brought this bill a long way with a long list of reforms that 
lower cost to the taxpayer and increase the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the programs, yet retains the fundamental purpose for 
having farm programs to begin with, guaranteeing a stable, reliable, 
and affordable food supply for the American consumer.
  Unlike the last farm bill, which was signed into law by the President 
of the United States, this farm bill is less expensive and contains 
many of the reforms that the President requested. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the farm bill override and ensure that the very 
same farm bill that has garnered significant bipartisan support in this 
Congress already can finally become law in its entirety.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would just take one 
additional small amount of time to thank my colleague and friend, Mr. 
Goodlatte, for the work that he did with me on this bill. As he said, 
this has been a bipartisan effort; had it not been, we wouldn't be here 
today. So I very much want to thank him and the other Members on his 
side of the aisle as well as the Members on our side of the aisle for 
all their hard work through this process.
  And also, I want to mention our staff, both my staff and the minority 
staff. The amount of time that they put into this bill has been 
extraordinary, the patience that they showed, having to sit in meetings 
and not make much progress for a lot of time is what you really want to 
see in public service. Our staff went above and beyond the call of 
duty.
  So, again, I thank all of my colleagues and urge my colleagues to 
vote to override the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to say to the 
chairman of the committee that I also appreciate the very hard work 
that he put into this very bipartisan effort. And I want to thank the 
staff on both sides of the aisle.
  I do believe that this farm bill contains far more reform than any 
previous farm bill. And I think the track record in the future in 
preserving good farm policy to assure the American people, our 
taxpayers, our consumers of the opportunity to have a safe and abundant 
and affordable food supply is very, very important. And so I thank the 
chairman for his hard work for all this time. The two-and-a-half-year 
process it has taken has finally come to a conclusion. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. One minute is hardly time to speak against this bill.
  Let me just read a statement that was made by the majority leader a 
couple of days ago. He commented on the budget that was being passed at 
the time. He said, ``There is only one person in the United States of 
America that can stop spending in its tracks, the only person.'' He was 
referring to the President of the United States and putting a lot of 
blame, if you will, on the President for not stopping spending that I 
had argued was going on.
  Here we have the President standing up and saying, this bill is 
bloated; this bill is far too big; it spends far too much. Yet the same 
people who were blaming the President for not standing up to spending 
are voting now to override the President when he says enough is enough. 
This is wrong. We ought to stand up--as Republicans at least, if not 
the Democrats as well--to stand up and say enough is enough. This bill 
spends too much, far, far too much.
  This bill lacks real reform, overspends, hides its real costs with 
gimmicks, jeopardizes trade negotiations, increases size and scope of 
government, and is disservice to taxpayers.
  It contains more than $5 billion a year in handouts to millionaire 
farmers and landowners.
  It includes the Average Crop Revenue Election program in the 
conference report, a program that appears to serve the purpose of 
ensuring commodity farmers get federal hand-outs even though crop 
prices are soaring. The details of the potential liability to taxpayers 
only came out after passage.
  Under the supposed salary cap, married farmers could still be making 
up to $2.5 billion and receive direct payments.
  It weakened the payment limit for farm subsidies--lifting the limit 
on marketing loan benefits and increasing the limit on direct payment 
benefits.
  The gaming of the price support program allows farmers to lock in 
their loan rate when prices are lowest and sell when prices are 
highest.
  The bill adds target prices for additional crops and increases loan 
rates and target prices for others.
  The brand new and permanent disaster title costs $3.8 billion.
  Unfortunately, it includes the extension of marginally reduced 
ethanol production tax credits and the import tariff--thus continuing 
the failed federal ethanol program that is responsible at least in part 
for high food prices plaguing consumers.
  The bill includes hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees 
for the construction of advanced biofuels plants and a Biomass Crop 
Assistance Program to provide incentives to cellulosic ethanol crops.
  This bill forces USDA to sell excess sugar into ethanol production, 
even though sugar users would continue paying artificially inflated 
prices ($4 billion or more). (USDA has estimated that ethanol from 
sugar is twice as expensive to produce [as opposed to corn-based 
ethanol].)
  The bill included disclosed earmarks, plus an undisclosed and 
airdropped earmark that provides $170 million for commercial and 
recreational ``members of the fishing communities'' affected by missing 
salmon, and the ``forestry conservation tax credit bond'' to benefit 
the Plum Creek timber company.
  This bill represents the worst of legislative process: pandering to 
special interests, dark of night negotiations, airdropped earmarks 
worth millions of taxpayer dollars, opposition shut out of the floor 
process, and a $300 billion boondoggle bill.
  The cost of the bill is not fully offset: OMB says as much as $20 
billion in budget gimmicks and ``illusionary'' spending stops where 
funding for programs abruptly ends.
  Conferees waived PAYGO, and went ``baseline shopping'' (did not use 
the most current baseline). I have said from the beginning: no way to 
do a Farm Bill without waiving the PAYGO rules. I was proven right.
  The President has rightly vetoed this bill not once but twice. We 
need House Members to stand up for taxpayers.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the override of the 
President veto. As a conferee on the farm bill I worked hard to ensure 
that this bill includes significant improvements to the food assistance 
program via the nutrition title. A nation with the agricultural 
abundance we enjoy should not tolerate hunger among its people. This 
legislation makes important progress in that regard.
  Many of its nutrition provisions are important and deserve mention. 
In the interests of time, however, I will not go into them all. One of 
the positive aspects of the protracted process of passing the bill is 
that all Members have had

[[Page 12799]]

ample opportunity to review the conference report and floor statements 
surrounding its passage. This is large and complex legislation, and the 
legislative history accumulated on its first passage and first override 
is an invaluable guide to Members.
  I found particularly helpful the statements of the distinguished 
chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Mr. Baca, and his distinguished 
fellow conferee from the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Berman. Among other 
things, they pointed out that this legislation takes decisive steps to 
preserve the longstanding ability of households on the food stamp 
program to seek help through the judicial system when Federal rules on 
how the program is to be administered are not being met. Specifically, 
the bill provides explicit recognition of applicants' and recipients' 
suits to enforce the Food Stamp Act, now the Food and Nutrition Act, 
food stamp regulations, and civil rights regulations.
  This is the right thing to do and it is important. In light of the 
Gonzaga and Sandoval cases, some have argued that Congress did not 
provide this right to injured households and that instead only USDA can 
require States to change practices that do not comply with the Act or 
regulations. Those cases were about different statutes and different 
programs. Nonetheless, recent decisions out of Ohio and New York either 
questioned the enforceability of Federal regulations or imposed special 
hurdles plaintiffs must surmount, such as showing a particular degree 
of egregiousness on the part of defendants. These cases are radical 
departures from the history of this program and Congress's oft-
demonstrated intent.
  I agree with Representatives Baca and Berman that the Food Stamp 
Program's needs are different from those in which private rights of 
action are narrowly construed. And, over the years Congress has 
recognized that. Individuals that received, or wished to receive, food 
assistance brought numerous cases against State and local authorities 
in the 1970s to enforce provisions of the Food Stamp Act, its 
implementing regulations, and even USDA's certification manual. They 
did this because USDA lacked the resources to force States to comply 
with its guidance and directives, including basic services standards 
such as emergency food stamps for the neediest. When Congress wrote the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977, it analyzed the results of that litigation in 
detail, approving some results and writing the statute to reach a 
different result from others. A similar pattern has continued to this 
day.
  We set high standards for the States, counties and localities that 
run these programs. We do that because they are serving our most 
vulnerable citizens with tens of billions of Federal dollars. The high 
standards of compliance that we apply to State and local administration 
of the program can be seen in our payment accuracy and quality control 
measurement system, one of the most extensive in the Federal 
Government. This system, however, does not give equal or adequate 
weight to improper denials of benefits as it does to payment errors to 
eligible households. And it does not at all address violations of the 
procedures set out in the statute and regulations. For example, quality 
control does not deal with a State's failure to operate a proper fair 
hearing system, with its improper disclosure of households' 
confidential information, or with its delay in processing applications 
beyond statutory and regulatory deadlines.
  Claimants' litigation has proven the ideal complement to the quality 
control system. Where a program is being run badly in a locality, or 
statewide, a court can issue a corrective injunction to require the 
State to come into compliance with Federal regulations. This is 
particularly important in cases where the violation may not have 
resulted in a denial of benefits, such as violations of privacy 
protections or of the requirement that only State merit systems workers 
make decisions about households' ability to receive benefits.
  Our goal has never been to punish States and so we do not concern 
ourselves with why the program is out of compliance. We merely seek to 
ensure that States comply with Federal rules when administering this 
program. Litigation has proven time and again that it is the ideal 
vehicle for that. Past Federal appellate decisions from places such as 
Virginia and Oregon have it exactly right: State and local 
administrators need to comply fully in every case.
  There is no half-way or partial compliance with the programs' rules. 
We agree with past federal appellate decisions from places such as 
Virginia and Oregon that state and local administrators must comply 
with the rules in each and every case. States must deliver benefits 
consistent with the program's regulations and law to ensure that the 
most vulnerable and needy are protected and supported as they seek to 
participate in the program. Litigation has proven time and again that 
it is the ideal vehicle to enforce compliance where States are only 
partially meeting program standards.
  In other programs, the solution to non-compliance may be reducing or 
terminating federal funds. That is still possible in these programs, 
but it cannot be a mainstay of enforcement activities. We learned that 
withdrawing Federal funding led to worse, not better, program 
administration, depriving States of the resources they needed to 
correct their problems at the worse possible time. Accordingly, in the 
last farm bill we modified quality control to place much less emphasis 
on reducing funding to states. USDA over the years has similarly felt 
that withholding funding even for serious violations is often 
counterproductive.
  It should be clear that the long history of congressional approval of 
litigation by needy individuals supports the continuation of that 
regulation. The statute's entitlement is closely linked with States' 
obligation to comply with Federal regulations. Particularly with some 
States embarking on radical changes in their administration of the 
program, closing offices and turning key functions over to private 
contractors, it is crucial that the program's intended low-income 
beneficiaries have access to courts to test the legality of those 
changes. Although I would have preferred to have expanded the 
protections on public administration of the program, as the House bill 
would have done, our acceptance of the Senate package was a compromise 
that ensures households' access to the courts to test these States' 
practices under the current restrictions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the 
President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, otherwise 
known as the Farm Bill. I am pleased to say that, with this vote, we 
have finally put this legislation behind us.
  While I regret the problems that occurred with the formal parchment 
and the missing Trade Title of the Farm Bill, the time between 
consideration of the first veto override vote and this one allowed many 
Members of Congress time to read the floor statements of many of our 
distinguished colleagues and understand better this large, complex and 
important piece of legislation. I am particularly grateful that the 
distinguished Members from California, Mr. Baca and Mr. Berman, 
clarified several particularly important provisions in the Nutrition 
Title of the bill. I would like to fully associate myself with their 
remarks. Following those Members' lead, I will not waste my colleagues' 
time by restating points they previously made on this legislation.
  I want to emphasize, however, that if ever there was any doubt about 
Congress's continued support for the availability of judicial recourse 
for violations of food assistance statutes and regulations, this 
legislation makes that support unmistakably clear. The Food Stamp Act 
long has explicitly recognized the right of prospective applicants, 
actual applicants, and recipients to go to court to secure compliance 
with the statute and regulations. No court needs to guess about the 
view of Congress on this matter.
  This new legislation reiterates that Congress will regulate how such 
litigation takes place. But there can be no question that litigation 
should, in fact, be permitted to occur if necessary. Such suits 
historically have not been required to pass any special hurdles of 
procedure or proof; all that matters is whether the statute, 
regulations, or state plan has been violated. If such a violation has 
occurred, the courts can pursue correction in the most efficacious 
manner, provided that we have limited the availability of retroactive 
benefits to one year before the problem was or should have been 
discovered. Rules developed under statutes where congressional intent 
is unclear have no place under food assistance legislation where we 
have left no room for doubt about our intentions.
  As my colleagues from California made clear, the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act properly rejects two recent cases where courts, no doubt 
with the best of intentions, strayed from this long-time principle in 
the Food Stamp Program. This legislation clarifies that states are 
accountable for the results they achieve, namely a well-run food 
assistance program, and may be held judicially accountable for that. I 
trust this will eliminate any doubts other courts might have this 
score.
  As Members are aware, the Farm Bill conferees did not accept a House 
provision that would have shut down all efforts to expand private 
contractors' role in administering the Food Stamp Program. Serious 
concerns have been raised about initiatives in a couple of states. Part 
of the reasoning was that the statute already contains requirements 
that state civil servants make all decisions relating to a household's 
participation in the program. As of yet, the policies of those states 
have not been

[[Page 12800]]

tested in court. Without in any way seeking to prejudge what the 
results of such litigation might be, a judicial ruling on how these 
practices measure up against existing law would be of great help to us 
in determining whether that law needs to be modified, whether in the 
manner the House suggested or otherwise. As I understand there is 
considerable dissatisfaction with these programs, and I hope that the 
steps we are taking to clarify households' right to challenge the 
administration of the program in court will allow those concerns to be 
raised and addressed without further delay.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, 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 317, 
nays 109, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 417]

                               YEAS--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--109

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Granger
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bishop (UT)
     Gilchrest
     Harman
     Hulshof
     Meeks (NY)
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Stark

                              {time}  1557

  Mr. REICHERT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the bill was passed, the 
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the 
action of the House.

                          ____________________