Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Sue's Unlabeled Cake And Eating It, Too: UPDATE
The saga about Sue's vote against the National Uniformity for Food Act gets curiouser. One of our members contacted Sue concerning the bill and Sue responded with the following letter (name removed to protect the guilty):
Dear _________________:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern over the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to your views.
I voted against the bill out of my concern with some important issues that were not resolved during floor consideration. As you may already know, this legislation seeks to put in place a measured, science based approach for establishing a single nationwide system that would integrate existing state and federal laws for all food safety standards and warning labels. While this is an important objective, it must be done in a way that ensures existing safeguards are not undermined. I feel the absence of any Congressional hearings on this matter and the failure of some important amendments on the House floor, resulted in a final bill that was not in the best interests of my constituents. While I voted against this measure, it was passed by a majority vote. Please know that I will continue to work on this issue so that important protections are not undermined.
I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. Once again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sue Kelly
Member of Congress
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern over the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to your views.
I voted against the bill out of my concern with some important issues that were not resolved during floor consideration. As you may already know, this legislation seeks to put in place a measured, science based approach for establishing a single nationwide system that would integrate existing state and federal laws for all food safety standards and warning labels. While this is an important objective, it must be done in a way that ensures existing safeguards are not undermined. I feel the absence of any Congressional hearings on this matter and the failure of some important amendments on the House floor, resulted in a final bill that was not in the best interests of my constituents. While I voted against this measure, it was passed by a majority vote. Please know that I will continue to work on this issue so that important protections are not undermined.
I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. Once again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sue Kelly
Member of Congress
But, Sue...you co-sponsored this bill!!! You are one of the Congress members who brought this bill to the floor. If you were so concerned about its flaws why did you put your name on it...and if it was so flawed, why didn't you offer any amendments to make it workable?
We note in your letter that the bill passed in spite of your opposition, and we can't help but think this is yet another famous Sue Kelly political flip flop vote that only seems to occur when outragous bills are assured of passage...when it's safe to show your constituents how "concerned about their well being" you are. But, when the votes are close, you always seem to be there for Tom Delay and Dennis Hastert to put them over the top, constituents be damned. See A Matter of Trust for some perfect examples.
Again, we ask:
"Why did you cast a vote against a bill you co-sponsored and brought to the floor of the House... a bill that was virtually unchanged since it was introduced (by you and others) and a bill to which you offered no amendments?"
Comments:
<< Home
Dafeetkelly--
Yup. We hear much ado about nothing while nothing gets done....but, it sure sounds good....
Post a Comment
Yup. We hear much ado about nothing while nothing gets done....but, it sure sounds good....
<< Home
