Yardley, A Little Help Please

[M&K's Retrievers]

It's been a long time since I took a Civics class. Why is it that the Senate (I assume the Majority leader) can tack on to a bill another item which has nothing to do with the original bill? Case in point is Reid adding the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Dream Act to the pending Defense Policy Bill.

I know why they do it but why is it allowed? It's probably done with every bill that's passed but with the Senate's reputation of not reading bills this may be where a lot of the crap comes from.

[YardleyLabs]

It's been a long time since I took a Civics class. Why is it that the Senate (I assume the Majority leader) can tack on to a bill another item which has nothing to do with the original bill? Case in point is Reid adding the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Dream Act to the pending Defense Policy Bill.

I know why they do it but why is it allowed? It's probably done with every bill that's passed but with the Senate's reputation of not reading bills this may be where a lot of the crap comes from.

In both houses. amendments are the norm. The more popular the base legislation, the more lkely it is to be amended. While there is no requirement that amendments be related to the underlying bill, a defense appropriation bill is clearly a legitimate place to consider an amendment affecting military procedures and law.

The amendment in question was submitted by Congressman Patrick Murphy -- my congressman -- last May. It was included in the Defense Appropriation bill adopted by the House. A parallel amendment was included in the Senate bill by committee vote (16-12). Since it has already been included in the House version of the appropriation bill, I would assume that Senate rules governing reconciliation bills would ultimately apply once a reconciliation bill emerges from Committee. That would limit the ability of Senators to filibuster the bill without rejecting the entire appropriation bill. The only involvement of Reid in this process is that he has stated that he will be bringing the appropriation bill up for a vote next week. Scheduling (or refusing to schedule) bills is something that the Majority Leader directs with fairly broad latitude.

The Murphy amendment does not repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. What it does is require a Pentagon study of the effects of changing the policy. If the Pentagon determines that a change to the policy would not negatively affect military readiness, and the President subsequently certifies that report, the policy would be reversed. This legislative approach is expected to proceed without regard to the court judgment reversing the current DADT law.

[Cody Covey]

In both houses. amendments are the norm. The more popular the base legislation, the more lkely it is to be amended. While there is no requirement that amendments be related to the underlying bill, a defense appropriation bill is clearly a legitimate place to consider an amendment affecting military procedures and law.

The amendment in question was submitted by Congressman Patrick Murphy -- my congressman -- last May. It was included in the Defense Appropriation bill adopted by the House. A parallel amendment was included in the Senate bill by committee vote (16-12). Since it has already been included in the House version of the appropriation bill, I would assume that Senate rules governing reconciliation bills would ultimately apply once a reconciliation bill emerges from Committee. That would limit the ability of Senators to filibuster the bill without rejecting the entire appropriation bill. The only involvement of Reid in this process is that he has stated that he will be bringing the appropriation bill up for a vote next week. Scheduling (or refusing to schedule) bills is something that the Majority Leader directs with fairly broad latitude.

The Murphy amendment does not repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy. What it does is require a Pentagon study of the effects of changing the policy. If the Pentagon determines that a change to the policy would not negatively affect military readiness, and the President subsequently certifies that report, the policy would be reversed. This legislative approach is expected to proceed without regard to the court judgment reversing the current DADT law.

Not sure how true it is (never went through the records and looked) but one interview i saw Bush do either near the end of his term or right after he was saying the reason he didn't veto more bills is because a lot of the spending he signed into law was attached to military appropriation bills. The idea being he wouldn't not sign a military funding bill so it would be easier to get their agenda through.

[dnf777]

The Constitution tells the legislative branch WHAT to do, but not very much about HOW to go about it. Both houses of congress establish their own procedural rules, and left to their own devices, is it any wonder they allow for such shenanigans? Of course, this makes it much easier for lobbyists to have a say in the process, which is the root of much of our problems on both sides of the aisle.

[M&K's Retrievers]

Perhaps this should be addressed.

[JDogger]

Perhaps this should be addressed.

Anyone? anyone? Bueller?

[M&K's Retrievers]

Not ever gonna happen, is it?

[dnf777]

Not ever gonna happen, is it?

As long as those who do the addressin' are making big bucks, don't expect any addressin'!