The 39 S.O.Bs!

Be sure to send the following senators an email of hate and disgust:

Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA

Why you may ask? These are the 39 Senators that voted against the troops to get better humvee armor. I shoe a great disgust in their decisions. The bill was only asking for $213 million to improve the armor. This in my opinion is nothing close to the value of 1 life!

Send thanks to the following 61 senators:

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Wyden (D-OR)

Proof once again republicans dont give a crap about the troops! I have a friend in Iraq and he was shot and injured due to having no armor.

If (most) Republicans could make money by giving the soldiers more armor, they'd be all over it. Unfortunately, it costs money, and they don't want to have to give any more of theirs up.

I am happy to see that the one I voted for was for it.

Good choice

Yup im happy to see Nelson of Florida vote for it too! I personally met him and hes a very Genuine guy! But id never expect the nays to be at such a high count!

Was this bill part of a budget package in another bill? Or was it a stand alone, 'should we finance troop armor?'

Heres a little more info for you:

www.usatoday.com...


It should clear things up a bit.

Once again proves the Dems support the troops and the Reps support the War for Oil. How sad, is Bush gonna shoot it down too? Or did he pass sign it?

Here is the score

16 Rep YEA! We aren't mindless greedy drones, we actually like our troops/people.
38 Rep Kill/Slaughter everyone for oil/money!
1 Dem No, have a big ass deficit as it is, even though this little bit is nothing compared to the amount Haliburton has Stolen.
1 Ind YEA! I don't matter, I am one guy...
44 Dem YEA! Damn it, how could we lose to these people who just proved again they want oil/money and don't care about our troops?

More then TWICE as many Reps said no then yes. Close to three times the amount of Dems said Yea then Reps.(missed it by 4, not to bad when Reps are the majority)

[edit on 29-4-2005 by James the Lesser]

I sent an email to Pete Domenici (R-NM) asking for an explanation of his vote. There is always more to a story, especially when it comes to congressional legislation. Personally, anything sponsored by Teddy Kennedy is suspect. I'll post Domenici's response.

Grady,

I like others look forward to the response you recieve.

I would have thought that this should have gotten more press coverage.

I guess the Liberal Press just dont want the public to know what the Republicans are up to.

Or perhaps the Press is not Liberal at all!!!! (I am now donning my fireproof suit in anticipation of the flames from the right-wing echo chamber)

Cheers

BHR

Thanks to Bill Hicks for bringing this up to my attention.

Personally, I think all our Senators have sold us up the river...both Republican and Democrat. I find it hard to beleave Republicans would vote against extra protection for our troops and Im sure there is another side to this story.

Could the Democrats have attached in a measure that they knew the Republicans would vote down??

Maximu§

You mean like the republicans have been doing for the past 4 years? Like the time Kerry voted against armor for troops, when he wasn't. The bill had over 30 billion to be spent, less then a billion was going to armor for troops, most of it was going into Haliburton pockets/republicans they own.

But yes, maybe the minority got something added on that the majority didn't like and instead of removing using the power of majority they just voted against.

ALso, I know why the Hawaiin democrat voted no, there are only 12 letters in the Hawaii alphebet, he didn't have enough to spell yes so he spelled no.(joke)

LA-Max,

You are welcome for the heads up on this thread.

I look forward to you changing your signature to "Elected Officials Make Me Sick!!"

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I sent an email to Pete Domenici (R-NM) asking for an explanation of his vote. There is always more to a story, especially when it comes to congressional legislation. Personally, anything sponsored by Teddy Kennedy is suspect. I'll post Domenici's response.

I got a phone call today from a Mr. Clint Taylor of Pete Dominici's (R-NM) office. According to Mr. Taylor the Senators who voted against the Kennedy/Bayh amendment did so because the funds for the requested Humvees had already been allocated and that the total number of requested Humvees will be met by June with the already allocated funds. Moreover, the money to be allocated by the Kennedy/Bayh amendment was not requested by the Army. Besides, the Army is ordering a new, safer vehicle called the Striker and allocating more funds for the Humvee would only take funds from the Striker, according to Mr. Taylor.

The email, including an excerpt of the the Senate debate, is quoted below. A link to the Congressional Record is also provided.

Below is an excerpt of the debate on the Senate floor regarding the Kennedy/Bayh amendment regarding up-armored humvees. I hope this is a helpful explanation.



Clint Taylor

Office of Senator Pete V. Domenici

202.224.6621



[Page: S4086] GPO's PDF

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I oppose the Bayh-Kennedy amendment on the uparmored humvees . The validated global war on terror requirement for this is 10,079. I do hope the Senate will listen. This is very serious.

We received a letter last week from two senior Army general officers, the Army's G-8 Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and the Army's G-3 Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, which states the total requirement for these vehicles is 10,079 and that industry will meet that requirement in less than 2 months with funds previously provided.

Keep in mind the pre-emergency throughput of these vehicles was 40 a month. We are now producing at the rate of 550 a month, and we will reach the maximum in June because we paid more to speed up this production.

We appropriated funds and reprogrammed to meet the total requirement. We have now met it. As a matter of fact, we produced 266 more vehicles than the Army wanted. This amendment is not about taking care of troops. I spent my career, and the Senator from Hawaii with me, to ensure the service men and women have the equipment they need, the support they need. This is about the production unit of a defense contractor, not about the people who are wearing the uniform in Iraq.

This manufacturer is currently producing these at the capacity, as I said, of 550 a month. Every month, 550 new humvees are going into Iraq. We will have more there by June than we need. There is no need for this. The sponsors want you to believe the Army wants and needs these, but that is not true. The Army's requirement will be met in June, and we have provided some money for all of them. In Iraq, we are meeting the requirements of the commanders in the field, and they have certified to that.

The additional funding of this amendment was not requested by the Department, and the commanders are receiving other vehicles now, for instance, the Striker, which is a different system and is providing more protection for the people in the field. They are going in there now.

Some people argue the need for these is going up. That is not true. The need for Strikers is going up, and we are sending Strikers in from Germany, from Hawaii, from Alaska, from Seattle. We are meeting the needs they demanded, and that is for the Strikers. This requirement is not increasing with the continued operations in Iraq.

A major difference now is, after February of this year, all vehicles operating outside the protective compound are armored, and we have met that need.

This is an emergency appropriations bill. I believe we should focus on the needs of validated requirements of the Department for the total global war, but this is not one of them.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield to my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, so he might be heard on the matter. I thank the Chair.


link

[edit on 05/5/19 by GradyPhilpott]
//ed to shorten link//

[edit on 21-5-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

1. Re: "...the Army is ordering a new, safer vehicle called the Striker..."

The Striker "locates and designates targets for laser-guided ordnance"; this is not in *ANY* way a replacement for the HMMWV. Indeed, it is based on just that vehicle. One might call it a specialized variant of the Humvee. You can, thus, ignore this part of thier reply as it is completely bunk.

2. Re: "...and allocating more funds for the Humvee would only take funds from the Striker, according to Mr. Taylor."

This is a tricky argument to follow... i have not read the entire ammendment, but it is likely that the funds are not being reallocated, but only added... in which case, the Striker argument is a moot point. However, even if this is not the case:
a) the Striker itself may simply be one (or several) states business opportunity (as was being suggested against the armor ammendment). not that i believe this, but if they are going to level the generic complaint, they must defend against the same complaint.
b) the Striker's mission is replicated elsewhere. special forces, clandestine services, army rotor wing aircraft, USAF manned / unmanned aircraft, the strikers already available... why not increase those capabilities?

Finally, some defense for this Clint character; i detest trying to get more business for one's own state at the expense of the nations defense... just like Trent Lott did so many times with C-130's. the AF did not request any more, but he just had to... "for the good of his state". if this is indeed the case here, and Clint is standing up for reason as opposed to personal acclaim, kudos to him.

but so many questions remain...

I think the debate transcript provides a good enough explanation of the issue and why so many Senators voted against the amendment. The partisan divide is another issue for another time. Clint Taylor is an employee of Sen. Pete Dominici (R-NM) and should not be held accountable for legislative action.

AndrewTB,

Having read as much as I can on this issue I am still concerned at the voting record of the Republicans on this.

I guess that that is something that will not be resolved.

Thanks for bringing this issue in the first place.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 21-6-2005 by BillHicksRules]