What: All Issues : Environment : Wildlife/Forest/Wilderness/Land Conservation : (H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River. (2011 house Roll Call 131)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
(H.R. 1) On an amendment prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River.
house Roll Call 131     Feb 18, 2011
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) prohibiting federal funds from being used to carry out the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study (MRAPS--a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River. This amendment was offered to a continuing resolution funding the federal government through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.

Luetkemeyer urged support for his amendment: “MRAPS comes on the heels of another comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study completed in 2004…For river communities, few issues are as important as water supply, power, and navigation….MRAPS is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars….After 17 years, hundreds of public meetings, and countless lawsuits, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the current uses of the river are appropriate. It is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear, multimillion dollar study at taxpayers' expense, particularly given the dire state of our nation's economy.”

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) opposed the amendment, arguing that the study was already being phased out and that an abrupt elimination of funding for the study could jeopardize an “orderly termination”: “…The reason I oppose it is that this language…may impact the orderly termination of the study… we at least go through an orderly order with the funding that's available so we can have an orderly termination. He added: “…The few dollars that remain will only be used to terminate the study in an orderly manner. That's the proper way of doing it…”

The House agreed to this amendment by a vote of 245-176. Voting “yea” were 229 Republicans and 16 Democrats. 167 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the House agreed to an amendment prohibiting funds provided by a continuing resolution from being used to carry out a study examining the need for additional regulations with respect to flood control, irrigation, fish and wildlife populations, and water quality along the Missouri River.

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