(Updated: 4:45 p.m.) House passes government funding bill; Virginia Republicans divided

By JR Hoeft | Friday, December 16th, 2011 | Policy

The House of Representatives has passed a bipartisan government funding bill that will keep our federal government operational until Sept. 30, 2012.

H.R. 2055, “The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act” passed 296-121, but ranks were broken with nay votes from Republicans Rob Wittman, Robert Hurt, and Morgan Griffith. (all the Democrats and Leader Cantor, Congressmen Forbes, Rigell, and Wolf voted in favor of the bill)

The bill “reduces the size and scope of our government, cuts discretionary spending for the second year in a row, provides for a strong national defense, and abides by the House Republicans’ pledge to ban earmarks,” touted Cantor. “Despite threats from Senate Democrats and the President to shut down the government, sensibility prevailed and both parties came together to responsibly finish our end of the year work as the people deserve.”

This vote was on the bill following the conference report and was not amended, so it should pass the Senate with equal ease and be en route shortly to the president for signature.

Joe Hack, Forbes spokesperson explained Forbes’ vote via email:

“Congressman Forbes supported the funding measure to avert the government shutdown. As leadership noted, House Republicans have cut discretionary spending for the second year in a row for the first time since World War II and rolled back non-defense spending to levels near those of 2008. Congressman Forbes recognizes that this is a step in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go. He continues to support a Balanced Budget Amendment as the key to reining in spending and will continue to work with his colleagues to cut wasteful spending and roll back regulations that stifle an environment for job growth.”

But Rob Wittman, who voted against the bill, said this afternoon on Facebook:

“I voted against this bill because I believe that making federal budget decisions should include the ability to openly debate and examine each of the areas of the budget in detail, not in a massive, quickly put-together bill. Also, the bill should’ve done more to reduce spending.”

Wittman later added in a statement:

“This bill is an unfortunate example of the broken budgeting process and lack of transparency in Washington,” Wittman said. “I voted against this bill because there was no opportunity for open debate and examination of each spending measure. While the bill contained worthy provisions that I whole-heartedly support such as military construction, defense, and veterans funding, I could not support this legislation that breaks promises of transparency and fiscal responsibility.”

Tags: