<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>The Fighting 29th</title>
  <subtitle>All about New York's 29th Congressional District</subtitle>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2008/05/three-sticky-iraq-votes.html"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/node/4779/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/node/4779/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2008-05-16T07:10:35-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Three Sticky Iraq Votes</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.fighting29th.com/2008/05/three-sticky-iraq-votes.html" />
    <id>http://www.fighting29th.com/2008/05/three-sticky-iraq-votes.html</id>
    <published>2008-05-16T07:10:35-04:00</published>
    <updated>2008-05-16T07:10:35-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Rottenchester</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Analysis" />
    <category term="Votes" />
    <category term="WNYCongress" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Randy Kuhl voted on three Iraq funding amendments yesterday.  All of those votes will probably come back to haunt him this fall.</p>
<p>First, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll328.xml">voted present</a> on the main funding amendment as part of a Republican protest against the way Iraq funding was brought to the floor.  The Republicans were <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/House_fails_to_pass_war_funding_measure.html">trying to show</a> that a majority of Democrats opposed war funding.  That amendment failed, which means that the whole bill must go back to the Senate for a re-tool.</p>
<p>Second, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll329.xml">voted against</a> an amendment that would ensure, among other things, that all units were mission capable, that the US would not fund permanent bases in Iraq, and that all interrogations follow the Army Field Manual (i.e., no torture).  This amendment passed.</p>
<p>Finally, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll330.xml">voted against</a> a third amendment, which contained a hodge-podge of appropriations, including a provision  that would fund the GI Bill via a 1/2% tax increase on those making over $1 million in income.  This amendment garnered 32 Republican votes.</p>
<p>More information on all these votes is available from the <a href="http://www.rules.house.gov/announcement_details.aspx?NewsID=3333">House Rules Committee site</a>.</p>    ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Randy Kuhl voted on three Iraq funding amendments yesterday.  All of those votes will probably come back to haunt him this fall.</p>
<p>First, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll328.xml">voted present</a> on the main funding amendment as part of a Republican protest against the way Iraq funding was brought to the floor.  The Republicans were <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/House_fails_to_pass_war_funding_measure.html">trying to show</a> that a majority of Democrats opposed war funding.  That amendment failed, which means that the whole bill must go back to the Senate for a re-tool.</p>
<p>Second, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll329.xml">voted against</a> an amendment that would ensure, among other things, that all units were mission capable, that the US would not fund permanent bases in Iraq, and that all interrogations follow the Army Field Manual (i.e., no torture).  This amendment passed.</p>
<p>Finally, Kuhl <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll330.xml">voted against</a> a third amendment, which contained a hodge-podge of appropriations, including a provision  that would fund the GI Bill via a 1/2% tax increase on those making over $1 million in income.  This amendment garnered 32 Republican votes.</p>
<p>More information on all these votes is available from the <a href="http://www.rules.house.gov/announcement_details.aspx?NewsID=3333">House Rules Committee site</a>.</p>    ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
