House narrowly defeats motion agreeing to Senate VA bill

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill

The House on Thursday narrowly defeated a Democratic motion to instruct House conferees on the Department of Veterans Affairs overhaul to simply adopt the Senate-passed bill.

The motion offered by Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) was rejected in a close 205-207 vote, with 13 Republicans voting in favor. All 207 no votes were from Republicans.

The 13 Republicans voting in favor of the motion included a number of moderates, such as Reps. Jeff Denham (Calif.), Charlie Dent (Pa.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Candice Miller (Mich.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).

An aspect highlighted in the Peters motion to instruct directed House conferees for the VA overhaul to agree on Senate provisions allowing veterans to receive in-state tuition benefits regardless of their home state under the GI bill.

-snip-

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/213295-house-narrowly-defeats-motion-agreeing-to-senate-va-bill

[davidpdx]

1. The party of "No" strikes again

[Schmice2]

2. I hope people remember this and stop voting against their own interests as they always seem to do.

[rickyhall]

3. There are still moderate repugs?

[totodeinhere]

5. In the case of these guys that term is very relative. And this was probably

a case where they allowed a few so-called moderates to vote against the caucus for political reasons in their home districts. But if the caucus had needed their votes then they would have gone the other way. It's an old political game.

[Deepunder]

8. Question

Years ago I had a brother that worked for a Congressman. From him I learned the process you described has an actual Name for what you have described in your posting. If you don't know the name does anyone else know. We have a congressman in my district who has voted the way his party wanted him too unless its on a an issue that could have an impact on his reelection. Then when the elections come around he is quick to say "see I don't always vote the way my party wants me too". For example on close votes the only time he can vote against the wishes of his party is when he gets permission to do so because the party agrees if he doesn't it could have a major impact on his reelection. Now if his party feels they could lose the vote no matter how important it is to his district he would not be allowed to vote against his party.

[totodeinhere]

10. You describe it well but I don't know exactly what it's called either. Sorry. n/t

[George II]

4. Of course the republicans rejected this - it would have eliminated one of their campaign issues!

[silvershadow]

6. Why do Republicans hate our veterans? nt

[Roy Serohz]

7. The Bumper-Sticker Patriots Strike Again

[yuiyoshida]

9. Wouldn't it be amazing if in a near future election

Most Republicans were thrown out of office? What a difference that would make, ne?