Ask Your Lawmaker

rejecting resolution = not wanting to talk about it?

Posted by spigot on April 9th, 2008 at 12:18 AM

This was a non-binding resolution, a joint resolution that has no force of law whatsoever. Some other non-binding resolutions Congress has spent your tax dollars considering this session:

135. H.CON.RES.135 : Recognizing Pennsylvania hunters for their continued commitment to safety and for setting a new State safety record in 2006.

193. H.CON.RES.193 : Recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety.

Here's one in case anyone is unclear of the opinion of a United States Senator regarding the kidnapping of three of it's citizens:

53. S.CON.RES.53 : A concurrent resolution condemning the kidnapping and hostage-taking of 3 United States citizens for over 4 years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and demanding their immediate and unconditional release.

I don't see rejecting a resolution on the floor having anything to do with their interest in the religion. Lawmakers have better things to do than commemorate and congratulate and express their opinions about holidays.

Yes, it would be nice if legislators wanted to debate the religions of the world, and even better if they had time to on the floor of Congress, but they can't even schedule enough debate time for individual budget bills to be considered before the end of the session. Since that leads to huge omnibus budget bills weighed down with amendments traded for yay votes, and less time for floor debates about how we spend our federal budget, maybe they should prioritize. This resolution should never have been proposed, and neither should have most of the non-binding resolutions proposed and passed with our tax dollars.

170. H.CON.RES.170 : Expressing the sense of Congress that the International Olympic Committee should allow Taiwan (Republic of China) to participate in the 2008 Summer Olympics under the national name, flag, and anthem of its own choosing.

Noble, but if it's the sense of Congress, can't they just write a letter to the IOC? If it's the sense of the nation, isn't it the President's place, as a diplomat and our head of state, to express the nation's opinion internationally?

How is this about faith and not about politics? Why would US Representatives believe a debate on Ramadan is important when it doesn't relate to any specific piece of legislature being considered? What place, then, does the debate have on the floor of the Legislative branch when it is hopelessly overworked and behind schedule? More to the point, how is Rep. Ellison's comment not about politics?

By the way, the answer to this (mis)leading question is yes. These members didn't refuse to support the non-binding resolution, they voted "Present", which means "I want the record to show I was here, but I'm not going to vote yay or nay for whatever reason." Representative Ellison should explain why there weren't more members of Congress pressing on to more important issues on the legislative calendar.