Randy Kuhl's vote against H R 2638, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, is puzzling for at least three reasons.
First, the bill was part of a larger procedural victory by House Republicans. As part of earmark reform, Democrats have pledged that all appropriations bills would list earmarks and sponsors before passage. Because H R 2638 did not include information about earmarks, Republicans staged a number of protest votes that delayed action on the bill. Democrats argued that they lacked time to get earmark information into the bill, but the Republican protest led to a compromise. Both sides agreed that H R 2638 and H R 2642, which funded the VA, would be allowed to pass without earmarks listed. Ten other appropriations bills would list earmarks.
A good summary of the earmark controversy is available here. Even if Kuhl objected to the lack of transparency on earmarks in this bill, his leadership was able to use the bill to force more transparency in later bills.
The second aspect of H R 2638 that should have garnered Kuhl's support is the delay in implementation of passport requirements. Kuhl voted for an amendment that postponed the requirement that all travelers to Canada must present a passport. This is an important issue in a region so close to Canada, and the delay and expense involved in getting a passport has received a lot of press recently.
The final reason that Kuhl's vote is a surprise is that his website is full of press releases celebrating the arrival of Homeland Security checks at local fire departments. I can't believe he'd want his opponent to call him a hypocrite for, on the one hand, touting federal largesse with Homeland security money, while, on the other hand, voting against Homeland Security appropriations. But that seems to be what happened on Friday.
Comments
My guess... the president said he'd veto it... Kuhl is the deputy minority whip, and he couldn't vote against the president. So while he fully intended on voting for this bill and went so far as to have a press release written, he had to reverse course on the orders of Bush.
Not out of character for him
That might be true - the proof will be after the veto if Randy votes against an override. If so, I think this whole little episode will be very telling.