Kuhl mystery solved: two degrees of Davis-Bacon
Fighting29th has solved the mystery of why Kuhl voted against the new Homeland Security bill (after saying he’d vote for it):
As reader Zabriskie noted yesterday, the key to Randy Kuhl’s last-minute change of heart on H R 2638 is apparently President Bush’s veto threat. According to the OMB’s statement of policy [pdf], the White House objection is twofold: the bill contains $2.1 billion more in spending than requested in the original budget, and it requires that all wages paid for federal projects must be paid at the same rate as prevailing wages in the area. (In other words, Homeland Security projects must follow the Davis-Bacon Act.)
Thus, Kuhl continues his tortured relationship with minimum wage laws.
Gannett finally picked up on this story. Here’s a bit (Star-Gazette version, D&C version) a bit from Erin Kelly:
Spokesman Bob Van Wicklin said he e-mailed reporters a correction to the original news release Friday saying Kuhl had voted against that bill, but that correction was never received by Gannett News Service. Van Wicklin said he had gotten bad information from another Kuhl aide and that it was simply a matter of “miscommunication.”
But Kuhl’s Democratic opponent, retired naval officer Eric Massa, said he believes Kuhl changed his mind after being pressured by House Republican leaders, who opposed the bill. Kuhl is a Republican whip, a member of the GOP leadership team who works to round up votes for the leaders’ positions.
“This is the ultimate flip-flop,” said Massa, who lost a close race to Kuhl in 2006. “Mr. Kuhl’s press secretary didn’t accidentally mistype a yes for a no, this was a researched, thought-out position, and as soon as George Bush threatened a veto, Randy Kuhl abandoned his responsibility to his constituents and flip-flopped to support the president.”
Fighting29th notes that the faulty press release the press release “has finally been taken down from Kuhl’s website.”
I guess this shows that Representative Kuhl is NOT a man of his convictions. He is a man who can be strong-armed by the White House (and presumably, by others).
I don’t think he requires much strong arming… a “pssst, vote no, pass it on” seems to do the trick
Bush threatened a veto a week before this vote. Your banter suggests there was some relation between the two. There wasn’t. Randy is actually a consistent supporter of Davis Bacon; if the facts such as recorded votes on the issue don’t sway you, ask any of the construction trades why they support him. The fact is this homeland security bill was not improved by the amendment process, so he voted no, and there was a miscommunication. Plain and simple. Gasp, somebody made a mistake. You should pick another issue for your pontifications. It’s shocking, I tell you, shocking that this character Massa doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but then again he’s not known for letting the facts get in his way.
Thanks, Bud. We’ll post your reply.
“somebody made a mistake” ??? No kidding… that’s the problem. Van Wicklin issued a press release contridictory to his boss’s vote. If it was Van Wicklin’s fault, he would likely be fired right now. If Randy changed his mind at the last second, then it’s Randy’s fault.
I can’t wait for the town hall meeting where Congressman Kuhl tries to explain this one (or just goes on to say “next question” as he always does when challenged).
Mr. Zabriskie may want to switch to de-caf. Fire someone over an errant press release? Please.
I agree with you, Bud.
And, Zabriskie, I’d rather we not talk about things like people getting fired in the comments here.
Bud, your amendment explanation doesn’t hold water. The amendments Van Wicklin referenced were withdrawn by Kuhl immediately after he offered them. One of them was withdrawn because Kuhl himself acknowledged it had legal issues. The other was withdrawn because the minority ranking member disagreed with it.
You need to come up with another way to spin this. My source for the post Exile referenced was the OMB. One of the OMB’s reasons for the veto was Davis-Bacon. The other was that the bill was bigger than Bush’s budget request. If the best you can do is that silly amendment story, then I guess I’ll go with Bush’s reasons, because Randy’s vote against the amendment gave Bush’s veto threat some credibility.
I meant to say “Randy’s vote against the bill”
[...] Wanted for RochesterTurning * Flash Animator (at least give us some pointers) * Internet movie making skills * Someone who can answer a friggin Drupal question for me Progressive Infrastructure Heroes of RT ncroc ______ ______ ______ ______ « Kuhl mystery solved: two degrees of Davis-Bacon [...]
[...] Wanted for RochesterTurning * Flash Animator (at least give us some pointers) * Internet movie making skills * Someone who can answer a friggin Drupal question for me Progressive Infrastructure Heroes of RT ncroc ______ ______ ______ ______ « Kuhl mystery solved: two degrees of Davis-Bacon [...]
The two amendments that were offered and withdrawn when a “point of order” was raised is the big part of the story — if you followed the debate, there were many, many worthwhile amendments rejected. Check the record for details. This bill has significant shortages that may be worked out as it winds its way through the process (remember How a Bill Becomes a Law — House passes, Senate considers and hopefully passes, they conference or work out the differences between the two versions and vote on it yet again before it’s sent to the President). The point is, voting against an imperfect bill at this point in the process is not a vote against protecting Americans, it’s a vote to say that many people were not happy with the final product, so process, please improve it. To suggest that this is some political White House driven vote is absurd, to the tenth power.
The point of order was offered by Hal Rogers, ranking minority (R) member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. In other words, Randy’s amendments weren’t shut down by the Democrats.
Since those amendments had zero chance of passage, I have to assume they were offered to allow Randy a little floor time. Now, there’s nothing wrong with giving a little speech about some issues close to the hearts of the voters at home. But Van Wicklin shouldn’t be blaming the “No” vote on amendments that were offered for the purpose of speechifying. That’s my point - new spin needed.
Anyway, I agree with most of the rest of your comment. Randy will probably vote for what comes out of conference and much of this little dust-up will probably be forgotten.
However, whether or not the vote was driven explicitly by the White House, Randy’s “No” is going to be perceived as a loyalty vote. Since the vote was pretty close to being veto-proof, Randy’s vote helped give Bush’s veto threat some teeth. If Randy and a few other R’s had voted the other way, Bush’s threats would be so much whistling in the wind. So this vote made the White House happy, whether that was Randy’s intention or not.
[...] was an interesting conversation between Rottenchester and Bud (a Kuhl staffer) in the comments section of one our posts about Kuhl’s vote against the recent Homeland security bill. Rotten [...]