I am a lonely, sick individual. Absent of a social life or any meaningful social contacts, I spent most of my day watching the ENDA proceedings on CSPAN today and I was struck by something that occurred towards the end of the debate over ENDA, at the point when Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) spoke passionately for her amendment that would have included transgendered Americans in the ENDA language and then promptly withdrew the amendment.
I was struck by how it seemed that ENDA was two breaths from dying a miserable death from bigoted Republicans and their Democratic enablers.
As the ENDA debate progressed throughout the day, I was interested in the many ways that Republicans argued against the bill. From arguing that it contained loopholes that would lead to a litigation nightmare to a strange domino theory that argued that it would lead to gay marriage by way of those evil "activist judges" and their pernicious "legislating from the bench." You could tell that they were carefully concealing their true objections, the fact that they opposed the bill b/c they wholeheartedly approve of discrimination against gays. The venom was nearly visible.
I believe it was Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ) who destroyed these arguments, especially over false semantic concerns over the use of the word "perceived" in the language of ENDA and using a ruling from Judge Mukasey, yeah that same Mukasey, against them. It was beautiful! Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was quite eloquent in explaining the real objections lay more in acceptance of discrimination than semantic word games.
Anyway, there were many impassioned speeches, and one of the main voices of opposition lay with Congressman Mark Souder (R-IN) who went off on strange tangents of talking about how he was slimed by being compared to Mark Foley and sleeping with underage boys, to claiming that he was offended that the Democrats were insulting and debasing his religious beliefs. That is one strange cat! Then things got interesting when Congresswoman Baldwin rose to speak out about her amendment.
Now, my understanding was that Baldwin was allowed by the Democratic leadership to present her amendment and speak out in favor of it, so long as she withdrew the amendment so there could be no vote. She agreed. The worry, especially from Congressman Frank, again as I understood it, was that an ENDA that included the transgendered could not pass. They didn't have the votes to pass it, but an ENDA that focused exclusively on gays, lesbians, and bisexuals had the necessary votes to pass.
Even though I agreed with the Democratic leadership and Congressman Frank, I have to admit that Congresswoman Baldwin spoke passionately and effectively in favor of a transgendered inclusive ENDA and her stirring words saying the fight would continue. I have to admire her conviction and agree that the fight should definitely continue!
Here is the interesting part, that same strange bigot, Congressman Souder, speaking for the opposition, rose to ask a parliamentary inquiry as to whether he had the right to speak last. As a matter of fact he made a point of asking this parliamentary inquiry again to clarify. Congresswoman Baldwin, with a little time left on her side to argue for the amendment, made it clear that since Congressman Souder had the right to speak last she was going to wait until he was done to withdraw the amendment. Congressman Souder, with approximately a minute and a half left, made a quick statement of opposition to the amendment and called for a recorded vote and yielded his time back.
WTF?!? My concern at this point was clear, it seemed as though Republicans, using House procedure, had managed to force a vote on the Baldwin amendment. But, why? Then it occurred to me that regardless of Congressman Souder's words that the vast majority of Republicans would vote against this amendment, I saw that the Republicans were going to vote nearly completely for the Baldwin amendment, and I knew that there were enough strident Democratic supporters of the amendment that it would pass and then Republicans would force the defeat of ENDA b/c of the number of Republicans and Democrats who refuse to vote for a transgendered inclusive ENDA.
However, none of this, thankfully, came to pass. After Congressman Souder yielded the Chair (I wish I could remember who this was) looked to the side at an aide and then down at a clearly flabbergasted Congresswoman Baldwin. The Chair then recognized Congresswoman Baldwin, who promptly withdrew the amendment and departed. Congressman Souder rose to ask a parliamentary inquiry as to whether he had the right to speak last. The Chair said yes. Congressman Souder then said, why was she recognized. The Chair said, b/c she had time left. Congressman Souder asked another parliamentary inquiry as to how that could be if he had the right to end the debate and had asked for a recorded vote. The Chair looked to the side again and, with a smile, stated that the Congressman had yielded. The coup was over and the vote proceeded for ENDA without the Baldwin amendment, and I see it passed.
However, I was still concerned. Had the Republicans nearly defeated the Democrats again on House procedure? Did the Democrats not forsee the possibility that Republicans would try and get the Baldwin amendment passed so as to defeat ENDA? The Chair had appeared confused when Congressman Souder had asked for a recorded vote and she frequently looked to the side as if for guidance.
My questions are these: is it the rule that time has to be yielded back when the speaker for the supporters or the opposition is done? Could Congressman Souder have spoken until his time was done, call for a recorded vote and then it would have had to happen? Or, would he even then have had to yield back and so allow Congressman Baldwin the chance to withdraw her amendment?
One of two things seem to have occurred:
- Democrats did not forsee this and by allowing Congresswoman Baldwin to at least present her amendment, they allowed Republicans the opportunity to kill ENDA. And, if this is true, they were nearly outmaneuvred by Republicans and were just lucky that Congressman Souder yielded.
- Democrats knew all along, and these seems to be confirmed by the triumphant smile the Chair gave Congressman Souder that he would have to yield and so, no matter what, Congresswoman Baldwin was going to be able to withdraw her amendment.
Or, let's add a third: did Congresswoman Baldwin, by being polite, nearly ruin the entire ENDA by letting Congressman Souder finish before withdrawing her amendment, or was she supposed to withdraw before he spoke?
I'm confused and concerned. Confused about how it seems that the Democratic leadership nearly killed ENDA by sheer ignorance, and that it seems that Republicans are running procedural circles around Democrats. Am I wrong on all this? Did the Democrats have complete control all along?