What: All Issues : War & Peace : Well-Being of America's Military Personnel : H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a Supplemental Spending Bill for Costs Associated with Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (2003 house Roll Call 562)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

H.R. 3289. Fiscal 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan/Vote on Final Passage of a Supplemental Spending Bill for Costs Associated with Military and Reconstruction Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
house Roll Call 562     Oct 17, 2003
Progressive Position:
Nay
Progressive Result:
Loss

The subject of this vote was final passage of the administration's $87 billion supplemental spending request to Congress for costs associated with military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental spending package included, among other things, $18.6 billion in grants for Iraq's reconstruction, $39.9 billion for military operations and equipment maintenance, $339 million for weapons procurement, and $412 million for military construction projects. The measure also contained provisions requiring the normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts involving work on Iraq's oil infrastructure (see House vote 557). Conservatives voted in favor of final passage based on their support for U.S. military operations in Iraq and the need to provide funding for those operations as quickly as possible. Progressives opposed the legislation on a number of grounds. First, they argued, U.S. taxpayers were shouldering too heavy a burden for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. In their view, President Bush's "go-it-alone" strategy had needlessly alienated potential allies who would have been inclined to help the U.S.-either financially or militarily or both-during both the Iraqi conflict and the post-war reconstruction. Second, Progressives argued that insufficient funding was included in the supplemental bill to protect the lives and health of U.S. troops. Only twenty percent of U.S. personnel had access to clean drinking water, they argued, and many front-line soldiers lacked basic combat necessities such as body armor. Third, Progressives were concerned that the Bush Administration lacked a clear policy for Iraq's post-war reconstruction and transition to democracy. Despite these objections by Progressives, the supplemental spending bill attracted strong support and was adopted on a vote of 303-125.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name