https://yarmuth.house.gov/press/house-democrats-vote-to-fund-rep-yarmuths-request-for-construction-of-louisville-va-hospital/ states that:

The appropriations package passed Tuesday by a vote of 227-194, with no House Republicans voting in favor of the measure.

HR 2745 is the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriation

HR 3055 is cited by the press release but is titled Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations. It passed 227-194 as the release states.

Why was this vote strictly divided along partisan lines?

  • The cynic in me says that this is the status quo for Congress.
    – Joe C
    Commented Jun 25, 2019 at 21:30
  • I did look for votes at clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/index.asp but I couldnt find the FY2020 Military appropriations bill HR 2745 listed
    – Freiheit
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 13:17
  • The site you list, yarmuth.house.gov/press/… clearly states that the bill is HR3055.
    – Karlomanio
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 14:18
  • @Karlomanio I made an edit but I still think I am misreading something. The press release cites HR 3055 by number but refers to HR 2745 by name.
    – Freiheit
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 17:32
  • HR 3055 is what I used for my answer because that was what was in the press release given in your link.
    – Karlomanio
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 18:21

2 Answers 2


It's fairly clear that most Republicans voted against it, but these statements from various Republican congressmen contradict the statement given above that no House Republicans voted in favor:

Rep. Zeldin Effort to Fully Fund Bulletproof Vest Program Included in Funding Bill

Reps. Hice, Allen Secure Full Funding for Cyber Instructional Facility at Fort Gordon

Additionally there are others that reflect positive sentiment toward the bill, but none actually state their intention to vote for the bill or not, so your quote could be accurate.

As far as the reasons given to oppose the bill is "irresponsible spending" and lack of spending on the wall, as stated by Congressman Doug LaMalfa (R) from California on his website:

LaMalfa said: “This spending package offered by House Democrats is an irresponsible and unrealistic use of taxpayer dollars. With no budget agreement seemingly in sight, these bills raise spending by $176 billion above current budget caps, which could lead to disastrous cuts to our military down the road. These bills willfully ignore our worsening border crisis by prohibiting funding to build any sort of physical barrier at the southern border. This package also prevents the Administration from recovering funding from the failed California High-Speed Rail project – a refund that I have introduced a bill to initiate – despite the fact that this project somehow grows more expensive and less practical by the day. I hope our colleagues in the Senate can offer a far more realistic and bipartisan appropriations package than what we voted on today.”

For a general discussion of this issue from various congressional offices, please see this site.

  • 2
    "prohibiting funding to build any sort of physical barrier at the southern border" - that's pretty much all you need to say right there. Any reason beyond that is pretty much icing on the cake, but that alone is enough to get Republicans to vote against it in force.
    – cpcodes
    Commented Jun 25, 2019 at 22:35
  • @cpcodes good point! I edited my answer to highlight that.
    – Karlomanio
    Commented Jun 25, 2019 at 22:39

This bill is to make appropriations for the Commerce and Justice Departments, NASA, the NSF, and other agencies.

In an appropriations bill such as this, usually the reason the minority party will vote against is because it contains something they don't like, or it doesn't contain something that they want.

For example, the last GOP speaker, Will Hurd (R-TX), spoke against the bill on the grounds that it doesn't provide what he sees as sufficient funding to deal with a backlog of immigration cases in the courts.

You can read the transcripts of other debate speakers on C-SPAN.

  • When you say "speaker" here, you mean a person actually speaking, as opposed to the Speaker of the House, right?
    – Joe
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 16:29
  • I do indeed, for lack of a better word.
    – Joe C
    Commented Jun 26, 2019 at 21:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .