House Approves $368.7B Defense Bill

[goobergunch]

KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The House on Tuesday approved a $368.7 billion defense spending bill that lawmakers said would support the Pentagon's goal of developing a more mobile, high-tech fighting force while preserving older weapons systems that proved their value in the Iraq war.

The bill for the year beginning Oct. 1 represents an increase of about 1.3 percent over the amount approved for this fiscal year - not taking into account a $62.4 billion midyear spending bill that paid for the war in Iraq. The 2004 bill doesn't include the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which probably will be financed by another spending bill.

The bill was approved 399-19.

A similar bill was approved with bipartisan support Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Most details of that bill will be withheld until the full committee considers it Wednesday, but senators described it as supporting President Bush's defense spending priorities.

more...http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6260014.htm

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=335

Here's who voted "no":
Baldwin
Kucinich
Schakowsky
Brown (OH)
Lee
Stark
Conyers
Lewis (GA)
Watson
Farr
McDermott
Watt
Filner
Oberstar
Woolsey
Frank (MA)
Paul
Jackson (IL)
Sanders

[leftyandproud]

1. hmm

Here's who voted "no":
Baldwin
Kucinich
Schakowsky
Brown (OH)
Lee
Stark
Conyers
Lewis (GA)
Watson
Farr
McDermott
Watt
Filner
Oberstar
Woolsey
Frank (MA)
Paul
Jackson (IL)
Sanders

[Darranar]

3. Yes!

KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT 2004! We'll see who votes "no" in the Senate. My bet's NOT on Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, or Gephardt. Spineless senaotrs...

[bluestateguy]

2. "It's not enough! We must spend MORE!"

I'm sure the PNAC crowd will bitch and moan that the military is operating on a shoestring budget and our soldiers in Iraq are being bumped off because we spend too little on defense.