On the recordDecember 13, 2012
I thank the Senator from Tennessee for making this point. I have an amendment to this bill that I would like to have had heard. It strikes a middle ground between the unlimited per account liability and the $250,000 we have traditionally had. It is a modest compromise as well as an alternative, and it will not be considered because of the very practice my friend from Tennessee has mentioned. It is not only our amendments--I just came in on the tail end of the Senator's remarks--but there are Democratic amendments which deserve to be heard on this bill. Senator Udall has an amendment--he is a member of the majority party--and it is a well-reasoned amendment that deserves to be considered and heard. The distinguished majority leader has chosen to fill the amendment tree and offer only his select amendments, and now I am deprived from the ability that I think a representative of several States should have; that is, to bring forth an idea and have it heard. I might not be able to get a majority on it and Senator Udall may not prevail, but we deserve to be heard. This has been the greatest deliberative body in the world--at least that is what I heard before I came over from the House of Representatives--but it has not turned out that way. The majority leader time and time again fills the amendment trees, thereby preventing any of the other 99 Senators from offering amendments.…





