Heads Up...Vote now on the Senate Floor on the $87B Appropriations bill!

[goobergunch]

RealPlayer

Windows Media Player

Senators Voting in the Negative: Boxer, Byrd, Edwards, Graham (FL), Harkin, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Sarbanes.

Yeas 87
Nays 12
Bill Passed.
:puke:

Edited to add Sarbanes. And further edited to add vote tally.

[IkeWarnedUs]

1. The money isn't even needed for troops support

MoveOn.org sent this out yesterday in an afternoon edition of their e-mail alerts, the Daily MisLead.

A report released October 15, 2003 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the defense department budget has sufficient money to fund the troops in Iraq through May 2004!

From the Daily Mislead:

<snip>

The (Congressional Research Service) CRS study released yesterday suggests that the recently-passed $368.2 billion 2004 Defense funding bill plus the emergency funding Congress passed at the start of the war provides the Army alone with $37 billion in funding for personnel and operations and maintenance, enough to fund operations through early May.2

President Bush requested the money in September, saying, "We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq."3 But even prior to the CRS survey's conclusions, Republican aides said that the administration inflated its budget request in part to avoid having to ask for additional funds the following year -- during the election season.4

more: http://www.misleader.com/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df10162003.html

Here is a link a pdf of the CRS report. Note it is provided by Jan Schakowsky's House site:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/04-Supp-availability_of_Army_funds-memo-15Oct03.pdf

[TSIAS]

2. Thanks

Watching now

[realFedUp]

3. into conference....

really disgusted with this country...

[TSIAS]

4. It passed 87-12

with one Senator not voting.

[goobergunch]

5. I'm surprised

I thought that there would be more.

:puke:

[NewJerseyDem]

8. You mean voting no?

I would guess that a few senators voted yes because that loan amendment passed. However, if that is taken out in conference as it likely will be, perhaps a few senators will change to voting no.

[rucky]

6. Why do representatives even bother Speaking on the floor?

despite GREAT speeches from Byrd & Kennedy, did any votes switch over to "no"? Does anybody pay attention on the senate floor, or is it just some stage time for the airbags?

Anybody else itching to clean house?

cockroaches

[NewJerseyDem]

7. Speeches rarely affect votes

I'm sure that it has happened before but in recent times those speeches are usually just speeches that explain the opinion of the senator speaking. I don't think they change many votes though.

[jokerman93]

9. Aren't the speeches mostly for the congressional record?

For historical purposes?

[Bertrand]

10. Rather than fighting the entire package which was going to pass anyways

the dems should have made an organized argument against the 20 billion to gain the political ground since that would have been more feesable, i think, especially with a majority of the public against it in the first place. The sad truth is many didnt want to vote against it and look like they are anti-troops when the GOP plasters the forgetful public with their propaganda.