Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

144 votes were needed to kill the War Bill. 12 Republicans and 102 Democrats didn't equal 144.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 09:41 PM
Original message
144 votes were needed to kill the War Bill. 12 Republicans and 102 Democrats didn't equal 144.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00176

H.R. 4899 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 )

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Not Voting
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
LeMieux (R-FL), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Not Voting
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Not Voting
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


Congress Passes War Bill Amid Afghan Policy Criticism
July 27, 2010, 7:11 PM EDT
More From Businessweek

By Brian Faler

(Adds vote breakdown in seventh paragraph.)

July 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress passed a $60 billion war-funding bill amid attacks on President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policies inflamed by leaked reports suggesting that Pakistan is aiding Taliban forces.

The House voted 308-114 to send the measure to Obama for his signature. It cleared the Senate last week after lawmakers in that chamber deleted $23 billion in unrelated spending.

House Democratic leaders who had sought that additional money said they wouldn’t delay the long-stalled war funds any longer with the Pentagon warning of impending furloughs.

“The reality is that time has run out,” said Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat. “We’ve got to do it now.”

Representative James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat opposed to the war, said lawmakers should have held up the funding “until we get some questions answered, until there is a full airing of all the stuff” raised by the leaked documents.

“It is a mistake to give this administration yet another blank check for this war,” McGovern said.

Republican Help

House Democratic leaders had to rely on Republicans to help produce a majority behind the bill amid growing opposition within their own ranks to Obama’s war policies. The bill was supported by 148 Democrats and 160 Republicans; 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against it.

The vote amounted to a surrender by House Democrats in their bid to attach the unrelated spending to the bill, including $10 billion in aid to state governments to prevent thousands of teacher layoffs.

Senate Republicans insisted on dropping those provisions. The White House also threatened to veto the plan because House Democrats wanted to finance it partly by cutting money for the Department of Education, including funds for a state grant program that is one of the agency’s top priorities.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, called the bill “true to form,” saying, “virtually everything we’ve attempted to do this year to address the economic crisis and emergencies on the domestic side of the ledger have fallen by the wayside.”

Obey’s Opposition

Obey, who in his leadership post was the chief author of the bill, said he would vote against it because he doesn’t support the administration’s war policies. “I cannot look my constituents in the eye and say that this operation will hurt our enemies more than us,” he said.

Obama said today the leaked war documents “don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate on Afghanistan -- indeed they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.”

The measure, requested by the Pentagon in February, includes $33 billion for Obama’s plan announced last year to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

Another $13 billion would pay for a Veterans Affairs decision to expand the number of ailments presumed to be linked to use of the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Lawmakers said they expected more than 86,000 veterans or their survivors to be eligible for compensation.

The measure also would provide $5 billion for disaster assistance.

Republican Complaints

Republicans complained the bill was identical to one passed by the Senate two months ago. “The delay in passing this legislation was caused by one thing and only one thing -- the House Democrat majority’s continuing and unwavering appetite for spending,” said Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates had warned lawmakers he might have to begin furloughing employees next month if the money wasn’t approved.

A series of attempts by war critics to attach provisions to the legislation targeting Obama’s Afghanistan policies failed following his threat to veto any legislation that would undermine his role as commander in chief.

The amendment that came closest to passing would have required the administration to submit a report explaining how it intends to end U.S. involvement in the Afghan conflict. The administration has said it plans to begin bringing troops home in July 2011, depending on conditions in Afghanistan. It hasn’t specified when the withdrawal would be complete.

The amendment won the support of most House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, though with 162 votes it fell well short of the majority of the 435-member chamber needed for approval.

Afghan war costs will top those in Iraq this year for the first time since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. Costs this year will total more than those in all but two years of former President George W. Bush’s administration. The bill would bring total war expenses to $1.1 trillion.

The bill is H.R. 4899.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-27/congress-passes-war-bill-amid-afghan-policy-criticism.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. surprised peace got that many votes.
It is very dangerous to vote against war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. They've used that filibuster threat way too much and I think it's time to call them out on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. senate rule 22
there is no calling out to do. The threat of a filibuster, demonstrated by less than 60 votes for cloture is the filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's unconstitutional. What happened to majority rule?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. which part of the constitution does it violate?
Majority rule is not actually mentioned although it certainly is implied that a bill requires a majority of votes to pass. This is not a question of bills passing with a minority of votes, it is a procedural issue regarding if and when a bill comes to a vote. Unfortunately, and for a very long time, the senate rules allow the minority to block bills from coming to a vote.

If you can find the constitutional issue here, please do provide the evidence.

Here: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Sadly there is no Constitutional protection for majority rule only representation.
For much of the early history of this country Congressmen were simply selected by state governments. There was no unified national election. The mechanism for selecting Congressional members varied from state to state but rarely had anything to do with majority rule.

The Constitutional allows each house to develop their own rules and the Senate developed a rule of 60 votes to invoke cloture (end debate). They could have made it 100 votes required and it would still be Constitutional (although not very practical).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-10 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Then they should stand there at the podium and yattter until their voices give out.
Edited on Wed Jul-28-10 07:22 AM by hobbit709
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. only the rules allow them not to do that
and changing the rules can be filibustered. So they don't have to stand there at all, they just have to defeat a cloture vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-27-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. What happened to all those deficit hawks
- including Ben Nelson?

No money for unemployment, but there's always plenty for war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-10 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. So we are now the war party and the Repukes are the doves?
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC