Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 -- Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what we have just witnessed is an example of why the Senate is too often tied into knots. We have a bill that is critical to every one of our States that is pending, the postal reform bill. The leader tried to move this bill forward by saying: Let's stick to amendments relevant to the bill, which is a pretty broad standard, a lot broader than a germaneness standard. Then there is an objection to that because there is another matter which the Senator from Kentucky rightfully has an interest in. We all have an interest in various matters around here, many of which are $2 billion or more in terms of cost. But that amendment by the Senator from Kentucky is not relevant to this bill, and unless, he says, he gets his way and has a 15-minute debate on a $2 billion subject, he is going to object to us addressing a subject which involves every one of our States.
This is why we have so many difficulties, at times at least, moving forward in the Senate. Because any one of us at any time can object to moving legislation that is relevant and amendments that are relevant in order to get his or her way on a totally unrelated amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEVIN. I just wish to simply say that then what happens is that then the majority leader is forced to fill the tree. That creates problems on the other side because the tree is filled. But that is in response to an unwillingness on the part of the Senator to let us proceed on a bill which is important to every one of us with relevant amendments. So we have a response from that Senator to the determination of the majority leader to move forward with a bill that affects all of us. Objecting to a UC, the majority leader is forced to fill the tree, and we are off and running.
So for 2 days around here--for 2 days around here now--we are going to go through the same thing we go through almost every single week. We will have amendments which will be sought to be offered. We have to set aside amendments. We get to a cloture vote. We end up with a far more restrictive standard than if we were allowed to proceed with relevant amendments. We end up with a germaneness standard, a lot narrower than the relevance standard which was proposed by the majority leader.
This was a self-defeating action, I believe, in objecting to a unanimous consent proposal which would allow us to proceed with relevant amendments. It does not accomplish the aim of the Senator from Kentucky because we are not going to get to that subject, and all it does is restrict the rest of us who are trying to offer relevant amendments in the next few days. It is a real example of what the problem is around this Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Tennessee for his constructive comments. He and I have spoken about trying to work on a relevant standard at the beginning of a bill as a way of moving a bill forward with the greatest possible leniency, without getting into totally nonrelevant subjects.
I thought his comments were constructive. I wanted to thank him for it. I hope we can continue to work together on this relevance course, which is perhaps the best way to get us out of the kind of knots that we are frequently tied in. I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source