What: All Issues : War & Peace : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a “continuing resolution” (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective) (2011 house Roll Call 80)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

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

(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a “continuing resolution” (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective)
house Roll Call 80     Feb 17, 2011
Progressive Position:
Yea
Progressive Result:
Loss

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a “continuing resolution” (which funded government agencies and programs for the remainder of the year) for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (which were assault vehicles designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps that could travel on land or water) and the V-22 Osprey (a military aircraft that has been criticized by some as expensive an ineffective). 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.)

Woolsey urged support for her amendment: “For years, the Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post-Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck. The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors rich but doesn't make our military strong…. According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV [Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle] breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water. Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well? And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing weapons for enemies that no longer exist.”

Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) argued the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was “good for the taxpayer, is good for the Marine Corps, and is good for the Marines.” He also argued: “The V-22 is a most effective weapon being used in Afghanistan. Because of the high mountains, because of the high altitudes, because of the weather, the V-22 is the vehicle of choice to move our war fighters from where they are to where they have to be….Here is an airplane--the Marines use this V-22 in Afghanistan on a regular basis…It has the ability for altitude, it has the ability for speed, and it is an outstanding aircraft today.”
 
The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 91-339. Voting “yea” were 85 Democrats—including a majority of progressives—and 6 Republicans. 234 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds provided by a “continuing resolution” for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles and the V-22 Osprey.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name