What: All Issues : Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as “continuing resolutions, or “CRs”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. (2011 house Roll Call 78)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as “continuing resolutions, or “CRs”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
house Roll Call 78     Feb 17, 2011
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such bills are known as “continuing resolutions, or “CRs”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Heller urged support for his amendment: “…It is not our responsibility to create jobs in foreign countries. Our responsibility is to create jobs right here at home. And I choose America first. I think that's what our constituents are asking: In this process, do you choose America first over foreign aid to some of these other countries? I choose America first. I choose Nevada first. And I think when our nation is facing some significant budget crisis and many Americans needs are still unmet, the fact that Congress continues sending so much money overseas is unconscionable, and I believe the federal government is responsible to Americans before any other country.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) opposed the amendment: “I understand that it is quite easy in a time of fiscal belt tightening to offer an amendment to reduce funding for international financial institutions, but I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that voting in favor of this amendment has serious consequences for U.S. interests….The amendment would undermine the ability of the United States to meet its commitment to global debt relief efforts and to countries around the world that rely on grants and loans from these institutions to stabilize their economies….This would represent a major step back from U.S. engagement in these organizations and dramatically impact U.S. national security.”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 190-241. Voting “yea” were 180 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 59 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated $211.2 million in funding for international institutions that provide loans and grants to countries for economic development.

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