Thad Cochran: “the Senator asked if I would agree that he could have an up-or-down vote at a specific time or in a certain order. That…”

“the Senator asked if I would agree that he could have an up-or-down vote at a specific time or in a certain order. That in itself treats the Senator in a way that is different from the way every other Senator would be treated under the rules of the Senate. We have opportunities for making points of order against an amendment that every Senator has under the rules. Any Senator could move to table the Senator's amendment and get the yeas and nays. But he is insisting that his amendment be treated different from that required under the rules in that he wants an up-or-down vote and he wants it in a certain order. His amendment was not in the first order of business when the Senate started its work today. There were other amendments pending. But the Senator, by unanimous consent, proceeded with his offering of an amendment. All I am suggesting is, I cannot be the referee for the duration of the handling of this bill and decide whose amendments get up-or-down votes, whose amendment can be tabled or a motion to table can be made, whether parliamentary objections can be made to proceeding on an amendment. Any person can be recognized to debate the amendment and talk without interruption until 60 Senators vote to cut off debate of that Senator who is talking. So I am not going to make, I can't make, it is not appropriate for me to make rules that, in effect, limit all of the other Senators in the rights they have under the rules of the Senate.…”