Dianne Feinstein: “I rise in support of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada and to reiterate those concerns. Obviously, this is an…”

“I rise in support of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada and to reiterate those concerns. Obviously, this is an issue which is of predominant interest to my State, a State of 32 million people. In effect, it creates a very unbalanced situation. We have tried to make some of those arguments in the Chamber. Even more importantly than that, I think it will destroy, certainly for the rest of this session, what has been a measure of consensus on which this body essentially predicates its movement. Let me tell you why I believe that. As Senator Reid pointed out, the notation in the Executive Calendar is that, for everybody who submitted an amendment on the basis that it is relevant to the bill before it--we take their word for it. We take their word for it, that they are not trying to play a trick, they are not trying to put something that is not relevant before this body. In fact, there is a legitimate vehicle for this bill. Senator Burns' position prevailed in the Judiciary Committee. There is a bill which was passed out of the Judiciary Committee which is the proper vehicle on which to discuss this. So I think the claim that to get action we have to breach what is the word of a Member--a Member who has agreed that an amendment is going to be relevant--is a bad claim. To proceed with that amendment when it is found by the Chair on two occasions not to be relevant sets a dangerous precedent.”