In today's Gannett News Service article, Bob Van Wicklin, Randy Kuhl's spokesman, gives the following rationale for Randy's vote against H R 2638:
Van Wicklin said Kuhl voted against the bill because it did not include two northern border security amendments he was seeking, including one that directed federal officials to study the economic impact of the proposed Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The initiative would require Americans for the first time to show a passport or special PASS card when traveling across the U.S.-Canada border.
Sounds plausible. However, a look at the record shows that this is, at best, a transparently false excuse and, at worst, an exercise in deliberate obfuscation. But don't take my word for it. Let's take a look at Randy's statements [pdf] on those two amendments last Thursday on the House floor.
The first amendment Randy offered, Amendment 251, was a one sentence modification that instructed the GAO to conduct a study to determine the economic impact of the new requirement that all US travelers to Canada carry a passport. Seems reasonable, but, after making a short speech, Kuhl said the following:
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is potentially a legal problem with this amendment. Having actually put it before the Congress for its consideration, certainly the chairman, I believe it's appropriate to withdraw the amendment at this time, and I would do so.
Immediately after withdrawing his first amendment, Kuhl offered a second. This one asked for another study, this time of security conditions on the Northern border. After another short speech, Kuhl said this:
I also understand, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, the ranking minority member, has a problem with the correctness of this amendment.
So not dealing in wanting to further challenge this, I would withdraw my amendment and my statement addressing the needs that I feel are appropriate at this time.
In other words, another Republican had a problem with Kuhl's amendment, so he withdrew it.
Let's recap. Randy Kuhl's spokesman says that the reason he couldn't vote for the Homeland Security Appropriation Bill -- a bill that would provide billions of dollars to protect New York and the United States -- was because of two amendments [pdf] he introduced and withdrew. The first amendment violated the law, and the second offended another Republican.
That explanation is so weak that it doesn't even pass the sniff test. This was a loyalty vote, plain and simple.