Posted by
DD on Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:45:02 AM
Earlier this month Senator Feinstein sent a letter to Senator McConnel asking for his help in passing her Electronic Filing bill. According to the letter, a McConnell spokesperson said that a roadblock put up by an anonymous Republican Senator was used to give Senators more time to propose amendments. In response, Senator Feinstein said in the letter:
"If those amendments, like this bill, have broad bipartisan support and no one opposes them on the merits, we may be able to reach agreement to have them considered. If, on the other hand, they are controversial proposals and would threaten the ultimate enactment of this bill, I would ask that you allow the Rules Committee to consider them in the normal course and permit this bill to go through without amendment."
Apparently, Senator Feinstein believes that controversial amendments to important bills should be offered as separate legislation so as to not delay the bills they would amend.
Of course, there is a caveat the Senator doesn't mention in the letter. This rule only seems to apply to legislation she drafted. When a controversial amendment was proposed to the Fiscal Year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill establishing a timeline for troop withdrawal, Senator Feinstein supported it. She gave her support in spite of the President's promise of a veto were the amendment to be passed. This is exactly the type of amendment Feinstein said should be "consider[ed] in the normal course." The amendment was unqeustionably controversial and - considering the President's explicit veto promise - threatened the ultimate enactment of the bill. Senator Feinstein offered no reason why her belief that controversial amendments should not be offered in the case of her Electronic Filing bill but not with the Appropriations bill. There are no readily apparent reason to distinguish the two with respect to her views on appropriate amendments. To the contrary, the Appropriations bill involves vastly more important subject-matter, suggesting that, if anything, the controversial amendment she supported was more counter-productive than any modifying an electronic filing bill.