Fishing for a name

Rep. Deborah Ross referred to a proposal yesterday as a "catfish amendment."

The term refers to an amendment to a bill that is meant to kill it, either by making it unlikely to pass the legislature as a whole or by stirring up other opposition.

How does this relate to catfish? Your guess is as good as Dome's.

In 2006, bill drafting director Gerry Cohen speculated on a legislative Web site that it comes from fishing, since the amendment is akin to "ripping the guts out of the bill."

But Ross told Dome that she thought it was because the bill is meant to sink to the bottom, i.e. where catfish dwell in the muck.

And WUNC reporter Laura Leslie said it came from a federal amendment.

An etymological investigation after the jump.

—————

Cohen said he first heard the term when he came to the General Assembly in 1971.

However, the first reference we could find to the term in print was a May 14, 1995, editorial in The Durham Herald-Sun. State government reporter Danny Lineberry wrote that former House Speaker Dan Blue proposed making a term-limits bill retroactive:

Majority Leader Leo Daughtry, R-Johnston, was among those who smelled a "catfish amendment.'' That's one designed to kill a bill by making it so unpalatable that it cannot pass.

That gives us our first theory on the term's origins: Catfish as Inedible. The metaphor would depend on the speaker finding catfish to be unpalatable. Whether North Carolinians consider that to be the case is debatable, since the fish is widely eaten here.

Oddly, the second usage of the term comes from an editorial in The Charlotte Observer, five days later:

A "catfish amendment," in legislative parlance, is a provision whose real consequence is not to improve a bill, but to scuttle it.

That would seem to support Cohen's theory: Catfish as Gutting. However, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to refer to catfish instead of some other fish. This Web site, at least, indicates that catfish may actually need less gutting.

Nearly all of the other references to "catfish amendments" in the Nexis newspaper database were from North Carolina. However, there were a few references to an actual amendment on the fish in 2001.

Those stories referenced an amendment to a federal trade bill proposed by two Arkansas Democrats who were trying to force imported catfish to be labeled as such. A Sept. 10, 2001, article in The Washington Post had this to say:

The catfish amendment, also sponsored by Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.), was ruled out of order during the final markup of a new farm bill in July.

The third theory — Catfish as Catfish — can thus be disproven. Not only does it come long after the usage was popularized, it has no link to North Carolina politics and appears to have been a legitimate amendment, not a "catfish amendment." (Sorry Laura!)

Ross' theory— Catfish as Bottom-Dweller — also gets a little support from more recent stories.

A May 25, 2005, piece by reporter Scott Mooneyham for Up & Coming magazine, that favored that explanation:

Some committee members prepared "catfish" amendments, designed to take the bill down to the murky depths of defeat, that would stop drivers from eating, smoking and even combing their hair.

And a July 22, 2005, episode of "Legislative Week in Review," Winston-Salem Journal reporter David Rice explained the term similarly:

It will move those exemptions but it is, I think, what is known around here as a "Catfish Amendment," something that is designed to drag a piece of legislation to the mucky bottom of the legislative pond.

Based on news stories, Catfish as Inedible and Catfish as Bottom-Dweller seem to be the favored explanations among reporters.

Other, less likely derivations: Something to do with former Major League Baseball player Jim "Catfish" Hunter, the fact that catfish usually end up getting "fried," their "slippery" or "slimy" skin or the use of explosives in some kinds of catfish hunting.

The other references:

"Logjam breaks on clean-water bill," Charlotte Observer, July 30, 1997:

"You have to wonder if some of these aren't catfish amendments . . . to make the bill so egregious" it won't be approved, he said.

"Panel backs victims' rights in domestic violence," The News & Observer, July 1, 1998:

Rep. Dan Blue accused Ellis of running a "catfish amendment," an apparently friendly move that actually seeks to undercut a bill.

"Newspaper sales tax debated," The Durham Herald-Sun, July 18, 2001:

Such a move is called a "catfish" amendment in legislative parlance, Hoyle said. It can have the effect of killing a bill that was on its way to approval.

"National security," Winston-Salem Journal, Oct. 27, 2004:

These provisions were not part of the original Sept. 11 Commission report and many see them as catfish amendments — that is, as amendments meant to make the bill unpalatable to its original supporters.

"WNC storm relief victory shows what can happen when lawmakers pull together," Asheville Citizen-Times, March 1, 2005:

This allowed western lawmakers to avoid potential "catfish amendments" or changes to the bill offered from friendly opponents that could potentially kill the legislative intent.