Many interesting votes in recent days. For example, the House of Representatives voted to recognize native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe allowing them to set up their own government. According to the bill, if one can trace back one's ancestry to a native Hawaiian from 1893, you too are a member of this "tribe." So this is something like the old Jim Crow "one drop rule." Apparently this bill is a response to a 2000 federal court decision striking down an attempt to create "native only" elections in Hawaii. This obviously violated the 14th and 15th amendments. So the reaction is to define natives as an "Indian tribe," thus allowing them to set up a racially separate government and hold their own elections. Rep. Herseth-Sandlin voted for this bill. In the Senate last year Republicans filibustered the bill. John Thune was for the bill's defeat, Tim Johnson against. President Bush has threatened a veto of this bill. The US Commission on Civil Rights has urged rejection of this bill. Commission member Peter Kirsanow has called it "the worst piece of legislation ever analyzed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights."
In the Senate, David "Ladies Man" Vitter proposed an amendment denying funds to organizations who perform abortions. John Thune favored the amendment, Tim Johnson opposed. Note, this is different from the Hyde Amendment, which denies federal funds for actual performing of abortions. This amendment would have denied funds to organizations who get federal grants for other matters but also perform abortions. Thus Planned Parenthood, for example, because it performs abortions, would have lost its considerable federal monies that go to "social services" that Planned Parenthood also provides.
Finally, Senator Tom Coburn offered an amendment "To require Congress to provide health care for all children in the U.S. before funding special interest pork projects." Tim Johnson voted against this amendment while John Thune was for it. I wonder if Coburn had said, say, 95% of children instead of "all children" the vote would have been different? Readers might recall that in the SCHIP debate President Bush's position was that states should be required to cover 95% of all eligible children before SCHIPs money could be used to cover non-eligible persons such as adults or those who make too much money to normally qualify for the program.
Recent Comments