House passes Labor-HHS spending bill with veto threat looming

President Bush took aim at the Democratic-controlled Congress over spending Thursday, as the House approved the appropriations bill representing the starkest contrast between his and their budget priorities.

The bill passed on a 276-140 margin, not enough to demonstrate the two-thirds of those present and voting to override the veto Bush has threatened.

At $154.2 billion in total discretionary spending, the fiscal 2008 Labor-Health and Human Services measure is $12.5 billion, or 8.8 percent, more than Bush requested.

That is the largest difference between Bush and the Democrats among the 12 spending bills, with increases over the president's request directed to student aid, health care for the uninsured, worker training and other popular initiatives.

Overall, Democrats would spend roughly $23 billion more than Bush's proposed budget for fiscal 2008, about a 2.5 percent difference.

Visiting Nashville, Tenn., Thursday, Bush told a crowd that Democrats would raise taxes on small businesses to pay for the additional spending, and that he would veto any attempt to do so.

"I've got a better idea that I want to share with you and share with the American people. And that is, the best way to balance the budget is to keep taxes low, growing the economy, which will yield more tax revenue into the economy," Bush said. "And it works, so long as you hold spending down."

The Labor-HHS bill has traditionally enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the House, with its funding for biomedical research, low-income heating and cooling subsidies, education for disabled children and community service block grants providing basic services for the poor and elderly appealing to Republicans and Democrats.

One of the bill's chief backers was Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member James Walsh, R-N.Y., a former social worker and longtime proponent of bigger federal investments in public works, education and health care.

But this year's atmosphere is different, and with GOP leaders seeking to draw sharp distinctions between their party and the Democrats on fiscal matters, they were able to largely keep their troops in line.

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, was confident that in the end, Republicans could sustain a veto, noting a number of absences on his side on Thursday's vote. "We have other members who while they may have voted 'yes' here, will vote to sustain a veto. I'm not worried about it," he said.

Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., had a different take. "It was a damn good vote," he said. "With all of the Sturm und Drang, they couldn't find anything in the bill that they wanted to change [in the GOP motion to recommit]. I think that demonstrates that they think it's a pretty good doggone bill."

Democrats argue Bush's budget would have cut social services and education programs by $7.6 billion below current year levels when accounting for inflation and population growth.

By the same standards, the Democrats' bill contains 3 percent more spending than the current year and is still shy of levels appropriated two years ago.

"This bill is not a matter of accounting. This bill is not a matter of political theory or political party platforms. This bill, more than any other, meets the needs of all members of society that are not among the most connected or the most privileged," Obey said on the floor. "There is a reason why there were no votes expressed in opposition in committee: That's because this is the people's bill."

The measure provides healthy boosts over the current year for programs aimed at increasing access to health care for the uninsured.

That includes a 10 percent hike, to $200 million, for community health centers providing primary and dental care in underserved areas, expanding access to about 1 million more needy patients.

Programs aimed at discouraging women from having abortions, such as infant adoption awareness, abstinence education and domestic violence prevention would see a 5 percent increase above the current year, averting cuts proposed by Bush.

Education programs under Bush's signature No Child Left Behind law would see an 8.6 percent increase above this year, or about double the increase Bush sought.

That includes a 14.7 percent boost -- the largest ever -- for Title I assistance to low-income children.

Pell Grants for about 5.5 million college students -- 79 percent of which come from families that have annual family incomes of $30,000 or less, according to the committee -- would see a 14.1 percent boost, enough to raise the maximum grant to $4,700.

The bill must go to conference with the Senate, which might not consider it on the floor until October, before being sent to Bush for his expected veto.

At that rate, it increases the likelihood that the Labor-HHS bill will run out of time to move on its own and simply be wrapped into a year-end omnibus package, some Democrats privately acknowledge.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by Brocade

    Best of 2016 Federal Forum eBook

    Earlier this summer, Federal and tech industry leaders convened to talk security, machine learning, network modernization, DevOps, and much more at the 2016 Federal Forum. This eBook includes a useful summary highlighting the best content shared at the 2016 Federal Forum to help agencies modernize their network infrastructure.

  • Sponsored by CDW-G

    GBC Flash Poll Series: Merger & Acquisitions

    Download this GBC Flash Poll to learn more about federal perspectives on the impact of industry consolidation.

  • Sponsored by One Identity

    One Nation Under Guard: Securing User Identities Across State and Local Government

    In 2016, the government can expect even more sophisticated threats on the horizon, making it all the more imperative that agencies enforce proper identity and access management (IAM) practices. In order to better measure the current state of IAM at the state and local level, Government Business Council (GBC) conducted an in-depth research study of state and local employees.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    The Next Federal Evolution of Cloud

    This GBC report explains the evolution of cloud computing in federal government, and provides an outlook for the future of the cloud in government IT.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    A DevOps Roadmap for the Federal Government

    This GBC Report discusses how DevOps is steadily gaining traction among some of government's leading IT developers and agencies.

  • Sponsored by LTC Partners, administrators of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program

    Approaching the Brink of Federal Retirement

    Approximately 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age per day, and a growing number of federal employees are preparing themselves for the next chapter of their lives. Learn how to tackle the challenges that today's workforce faces in laying the groundwork for a smooth and secure retirement.

  • Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise

    Cyber Defense 101: Arming the Next Generation of Government Employees

    Read this issue brief to learn about the sector's most potent challenges in the new cyber landscape and how government organizations are building a robust, threat-aware infrastructure

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    GBC Issue Brief: Cultivating Digital Services in the Federal Landscape

    Read this GBC issue brief to learn more about the current state of digital services in the government, and how key players are pushing enhancements towards a user-centric approach.

  • Sponsored by CDW-G

    Joint Enterprise Licensing Agreements

    Read this eBook to learn how defense agencies can achieve savings and efficiencies with an Enterprise Software Agreement.

  • Sponsored by Cloudera

    Government Forum Content Library

    Get all the essential resources needed for effective technology strategies in the federal landscape.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.