What: All Issues : Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad : H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims (2005 house Roll Call 77)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
H.R. 1268. Appropriations/Vote on Final Passage of H.R. 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill to Fund U.S. Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to Provide Relief to Tsunami Victims
house Roll Call 77     Mar 16, 2005
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

In this vote, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1268, an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide relief to tsunami victims in Asia. (Each year, Congress appropriates the funds necessary for the running of the country for the coming fiscal year. Later in the year, Congress also generally considers an "emergency supplemental appropriations" bill to fund activities or areas of need that were, arguably, unanticipated at the time of the year's original appropriations process.) The measure provided for more than $80 billion in spending, most of it military-related. In addition, it included Republican-backed immigration legislation designed to make a number of broad changes to U.S. immigration laws, including restricting standards for those claiming asylum and standardizing procedures for obtaining driver's licenses amongst the states. Progressives expressed dissatisfaction with a number of aspects of the bill, including what they viewed as its failure to address the problem of federal contractors' abuse of American taxpayers' dollars in Iraq. They also objected to what they saw as the bill's inadequate provisions for veterans health-care and job-training assistance. Other Democratic concerns included a belief that funding for the war on terror ought to occur in the context of Congress's ordinary budget process, not in this "emergency" context, because these needs could be foreseen and ought to be considered at the same time as the country's other needs. Finally, a number of Progressives and other Democrats opposed the immigration-related provisions of the bill, in part, they said, because they were "unrelated" to the rest of the bill and because they would "allow millions of people to drive our streets and freeways without insurance or a driver's license [by denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants]." (Joe Baca (D-CA).) Republicans countered that the emergency funds in the bill were absolutely critical to support U.S. troops and ongoing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they supported the immigration-related provisions because they "seek[] to prevent another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel." (Christopher Cox (R-CA).) The House passed the Emergency Supplemental bill by a vote of 388 to 43, handing the Progressives a defeat. 162 Democrats voted "yes" with Republicans for this additional funding to support ongoing U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, the House sent a bill that had the House's overwhelming support to the Senate to spend nearly $80 billion in additional funds (beyond expenses already budgeted for Fiscal Year 2005) for U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Y N L
Issue Areas:
Key: Y=Yea, N=Nay, W=Win, L=Loss