|
Back Issues |
|
Puzzling
Evidence
.
The
first Congressional dissent ... On the night of September 14th, 3 days after the attacks, less than an hour before midnight, Rep. Barbara Lee (D- California, 9th) was the sole member of the House of Representatives who voted 'nay' on Roll Call 342. The roll call was on House Joint Resolution 64 [H.J.RES.64], a bill to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." The Joint Resolution -- a Joint Res. is little different from any bill, except that it can originate in either house of Congress -- was introduced by House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas, 26th) earlier in the day and referred to the House Committee on International Relations. In fact, while the House had not taken up its discussion of H.J.RES.64 until almost 6:00 p.m. on the 14th, earlier that day, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.Dakota) had introduced an identical version [S.J.RES.23], which the House received at 2:24 in the afternoon. At 5:50 p.m., Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Florida, 21st) resumed the discussion in the House. He proposed an Order of Business which stipulated that the House would proceed on its consideration of H.J.RES.64 "without intervening motion." But he did leave room for two exceptions:
As far as House clock-watchers are concerned, what ensued was in itself nothing less than historic. Less than a half hour past the five-hour limit Rep. Diaz-Balart had proposed, at 11:17 p.m., 204 Democrats and 2 Independents joined 214 Republicans to pass H.J.RES.64. The only 'nay' was cast by Rep. Lee. One minute later, at 11:18, the Senate commenced its vote on Senator Daschle's S.J.RES.23. Before the clock struck 11:19, it had passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0. They also tabled H.J.RES.64, since, in accordance with Diaz-Balart's proposal, the House vote effectively adopted the Senate-labeled version of the identical Joint Resolution. Writing later of her vote against H.J.RES.64, Rep. Lee said she had done so because it "ceded Congress’s future authority to the President regarding the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks." She went on to note ...
Of course the vote of 420-1 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate left a few members of Congress unaccounted for. Obviously, two Senators did not vote. They were Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Senator Jesse Helms (R-N. Carolina). On the other side of the Capitol, 10 members of Congress did not vote, evenly split between 5 Republicans -- Cass Ballinger (NC, 10th), Pete King (NY, 3rd), Thomas Petri (WI, 6th), and Heather Wilson (NM, 1st) ... and 5 Democrats -- John Conyers (MI, 14th), Sam Farr (CA, 17th), Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI, 15th), William Lipinski (IL, 3rd), and Loretta Sanchez (CA, 46th). Conyers name would come up again in the context of H.R. 3162. In the succeeding days and weeks, a number of other bills and resolutions came to the floors of Congress. Most of them breezed through the legislative process. Trade restrictions and sanctions, imposed upon countries whose human rights or other less-than-stellar records had precipitated the measures in the first place, were eased or lifted altogether as we sought their support to go after bin Ladin, al Qa'ida, and the Taliban, and wage the unofficial 'War on Terrorism' elsewhere. Taxes were suspended, grants were made, loans were offered -- to the airlines, to New York City, and to others directly affected by the attacks. A crack in the united front? ... Not long after, Vermont's Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came home with Vermont's other, and still newly independent Senator, Jim Jeffords. They held a Town Meeting at St. Mike's that seemed, among other things, to be intended to reassure the home crowd that they would be keeping a watchful eye on President Bush's proposals in order to provide precisely the kind of checks and balances the Constitution provided for, especially when it came to protecting civil rights and liberties. The administration's proposal which Ashcroft had delivered to Capitol Hill was taken up in both houses of Congress, and by both sides of their respective aisles. So it hardly made it onto the floor for a vote before the weekend had rolled around, as the administration had wanted. Nonetheless, a revised bill was forthcoming -- a version of a House bill shepherded through by Rep Sensenbrenner [R-Wis.], Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who earlier in the month had introduced a related bill [H.R.2975]. Sen. Daschle had also introduced a related bill [S.1510] earlier in the month, on Oct. 4th, which, one week later, passed in the Senate without amendment by a vote of 96-1. However, on October 30th, the Senate vitiated Sen. Daschle's bill in light of what was to follow. . ******* ******* If you have a puzzle you'd like to submit to our Monthly Puzzle feature, let us know by e-mail at We'll look it over and, if we use it, you can receive a small honorarium for your trouble. {See our Freelancers Wanted page for more info. ******* ******* . |
|
*******
******* ******* ******* For more information, contact DownStreet Magazine by ...
Phone
(802) 453-5124 All
material copyrighted © 2000-2001. All rights
reserved. |
