What: All Issues : Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful : Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. (2011 house Roll Call 63)
 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 eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
house Roll Call 63     Feb 16, 2011
Progressive Position:
Nay
Progressive Result:
Win
Qualifies as polarizing?
Yes
Is this vote crucial?
No

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated all funding (more than $64 million) for an environmental science research program. This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.   

Flake urged support for his amendment: “It's the intent of this amendment to zero out this costly [environmental science research] program for the rest of the year…Don't get me wrong. If we were printing money in a basement and if we had plenty of it, this may be something we'd want to spend some money on. I'm sure something good comes out of it, but we're not in that situation now. We have a debt of $14 trillion, and we have an annual deficit now of $1.5 trillion. When we're funding research like this…I think it's time to question whether or not this is the time we should do this or not.”

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) opposed the amendment: “It [Flake’s amendment] ends funding for EPA's [the Environmental Protection Agency] groundbreaking computational toxicology research effort, which enables us to screen literally thousands of chemicals at one time. I've seen how this works, and it's extraordinarily productive and cost-efficient. It screens chemicals for environmental health hazards, and it saves millions of dollars in the process. These innovative and cost-saving tools also offer the potential to greatly reduce our dependence on animal testing….Now, it's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of a program that works very well--a program that recruits, trains, and integrates some of the very best minds in preserving and protecting our environment.”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 199-230. Voting “yea” were 190 Republicans and 9 Democrats. 182 Democrats and 48 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated all funding for an environmental science research program.
Issue Areas:
MAKING GOVERNMENT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE RICH OR POWERFUL — Scientific Research & Technological Innovation Funding

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name