I think both sides actually on this debate are using alternative arguments. I think supporters of the constitutional amendment are saying this is real teeth, real muscle; on the other hand, it is flexible. By the way, as I read the Senator's section in his constitutional amendment it has no restrictions on the use of 60 votes. He does not have a provision in here that is only in case of emergency or only in case of disaster. It is simply a 60-vote requirement. Is that correct?
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is discussing the implications of a proposed constitutional amendment regarding voting requirements.
Share
More from Carl Levin
Later today we will debate the PRO Act, and we will pass the PRO Act to free up American workers to form unions and bargain collectively just because they darn well please without interference from their employer. And when we debate the…
Let me just explain a little more for folks at home who may not be obviously reading all of the details of this, the many pages of this bill, what we are talking about. This is about who is eligible to apply for grants, certain grants…
Woman, I will close by saying that I really appreciate our ability to take this small step, but I think we ought to all dream big for this beautiful part of our country. Puerto Rico has been subject to misfortunes, and we can think about a…
I include in the Record a letter of support for the bill from the AFL-CIO. Legislative Alert AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, March 8, 2021. Dear Representative: On January 26, we wrote in support of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act…





