On the recordNovember 13, 2013
I want to say a couple things about my objections. I know a lot of Senators, when they object, always use that phrase: reserving the right to object. But I think if you look at the Senate rules, there is no such provision for reserving a right to object. I have always made it my habit that if you object, you object, and then, when you get time on the floor, you explain why you objected. Thus, I am taking my time now to explain why I objected. The Senator from Louisiana propounded two unanimous consent requests. The first was basically that we go ahead and get to the bill, the compounding bill that we are on right now; that his amendment, which has nothing to do with the bill, by the way--and I think he would agree with that. It has nothing to do with it. It is not even relevant, not even germane to this bill. It has something to do with ObamaCare and whether we tell people whether our staffs are going on the exchange. So it has nothing to do with this bill. It seems odd that the Senator from Louisiana says he wants an inalienable right to be able to offer an amendment to this bill, but no one can offer an amendment to his amendment. It is kind of a double standard, to my way of thinking. He says that we vote on his amendment and that no second-degree amendments be in order. Why not? If amendments were allowed to be in order on the bill that were nongermane and nonrelevant, why shouldn't there be a second-degree amendment allowed on his amendment?…
