« "Stay the Course?" No thanks | Main | In harmony, for the moment »
June 9, 2006
Holding ground in the House
This afternoon, after an hour of lively debate, the House of Representatives defeated an amendment that sought to reduce military and police aid to Colombia by $30 million. The measure, introduced by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts), Jim Leach (R-Iowa), and 5 other members of Congress, sought to transfer that $30 million to emergency refugee-assistance programs worldwide.
It lost by a vote of 174 to 229, with 43.2 percent of those in attendance voting in favor.
Votes on amendments similar to today's measure have happened at least once every year since 2000 (with the exception of 2004). During this period, nine amendments seeking to cut or limit U.S. military aid to Colombia have been defeated, and a tenth seeking to increase military aid succeeded.
This gives us a list of ten votes which we can use as a rough gauge of how supportively or skeptically the House, which has been dominated by Republicans during this entire period, has viewed the U.S. strategy toward Colombia.
Though no amendment has succeeded, congressional skepticism has been strong and steady. On average, amendments seeking to cut or limit military aid to Colombia have had the support of 43.8 percent of representatives who voted.
Today's vote was no exception. A 174-229 margin means that, of those who voted, 43.2 percent supported the McGovern-Leach-et.al. amendment.
To be only 0.6 percent below average is a perfectly acceptable result, if not a big step forward. To have held the same ground is an achievement in the wake of Alvaro Uribe's resounding re-election, and in the 109th Congress, which is the most conservative in the period being measured.
Today's vote shows that the U.S. Congress has not given an unconditional green light to the Bush and Uribe administrations. Many members of Congress are concerned about the lack of results against the drug trade, the grave human-rights situation, and the unbalanced U.S. strategy, which favors military aid over economic aid by a 4-to-1 ratio. The vote on today's amendment shows that, despite official claims of the policy's success, congressional skepticism remains healthy and robust.
Many thanks are due to the amendment's sponsors: Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts); Jim Leach (R-Iowa); Donald Payne (D-New Jersey); Zoe Lofgren (D-California); Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona); Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois); and Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota). Thanks are due as well to those who spoke on behalf of the amendment: Reps. McGovern, Leach, Schakowsky, and Lofgren; plus Ike Skelton (D-Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee); Sam Farr (D-California); Barbara Lee (D-California); and David Obey (D-Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee).
Vote | Yea | Nay | Percentage of those voting |
mar 00 (obey) | 186 | 239 | 43.8% |
mar 00 (ramstad) | 159 | 262 | 37.8% |
jul 01 (mcgovern et al) | 179 | 240 | 42.7% |
jul 01 (lee-leach) | 188 | 240 | 43.9% |
may 02 (supp) | 192 | 225 | 46.0% |
apr 03 (supp) | 209 | 216 | 49.2% |
jul 03 (for ops) | 195 | 226 | 46.3% |
jun 05 (for ops) | 189 | 234 | 44.7% |
mar 06 (supp, burton - reverse yea and nay) | 172 | 250 | 40.8% |
jun 06 (for ops) | 174 | 229 | 43.2% |
Average | 184 | 236 | 43.8% |
Key:
mar 00 (obey): Amendment introduced by Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin) to delay consideration of military aid during the March 29-30, 2000 debate on the "Plan Colombia" supplemental appropriation.
mar 00 (ramstad): Amendment introduced by Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota) to cut all aid to Colombia during the March 29-30, 2000 debate on the "Plan Colombia" supplemental appropriation.
jul 01 (mcgovern et al): Amendment, introduced by Rep. Jim Mcgovern (D -Massachusetts) and several others, that would have cut $100 million from the Andean aid to pay for increased assistance for anti-tuberculosis programs during the July 24, 2001 debate on aid for 2002.
jul 01 (lee-leach): Amendment, proposed by Representatives Barbara Lee (D -California) and Jim Leach (R -Iowa), to shift funding from the Andean Counter-drug Initiative to the Global AIDS Trust Fund during the July 24, 2001 debate on aid for 2002.
may 02 (supp): Amendment, introduced by Reps. Jim Mcgovern (D -Massachusetts) and Ike Skelton (D-Missouri), that would have cut language broadening the mission of U.S. military assistance in Colombia to include combat against illegal armed groups, during the May 22-23, 2002 debate on supplemental appropriations legislation.
apr 03 (supp): Amendment, introduced by Reps. Jim Mcgovern (D -Massachusetts), Ike Skelton (D-Missouri), and Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), that would have cut military aid for Colombia that was included in a supplemental appropriation, April 3, 2003.
jul 03 (for ops): Amendment, introduced by Reps. Jim Mcgovern (D -Massachusetts) and Ike Skelton (D-Missouri), that would have cut military aid for Colombia and transferred it to HIV-AIDS programs, July 23, 2003 debate on foreign aid for 2004.
jun 05 (for ops): Amendment, introduced by Reps. Jim McGovern (D -Massachusetts), Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) and Dennis Moore (D-Kansas), that would have cut military aid for Colombia, June 28, 2005 debate on foreign aid for 2006.
mar 06 (supp, burton - reverse yea and nay): Amendment, introduced by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) that added $26.3 million in military aid to Colombia to a supplemental appropriations bill, March 17, 2006. Yeas and nays are reversed on this table, because opponents of the current policy voted against this amendment.
jun 06 (for ops): Amendment, introduced by Reps. Jim Mcgovern (D -Massachusetts), Jim Leach (R-Iowa), and several others, seeking to transfer $30 million in military aid to Colombia to refugee programs worldwide, in debate on the 2007 aid bill, June 9, 2006.
Posted by isacson at June 9, 2006 3:55 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ciponline.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/247
Comments
It was something to be expected, but what you've pointed out is interesting from a political analysis point of view.
I wonder though, without knowing much about the internal workings involved, if it would have been better to propose an amendment to transfer those $30 million to emergency refugee-assistance programs in Colombia itself, not necessarily to a worldwide effort.
Posted by: jcg at June 9, 2006 9:15 PM
Yes, the ideal would have been a transfer to the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account, which pays for some aid to Colombia's displaced, as well as Darfur. But for complicated reasons that wasn't possible. (To meet House rules, the transfer would have had to be "budget neutral," taking into account the different rates at which accounts spend money. Apparently, adding $30 million to MRA would have required a cut of something like $300 million from the Andean Counterdrug Initiatve, which never would have had a chance.)
Posted by: Adam Isacson at June 10, 2006 8:21 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)