Mike Enzi: “to clarify this, why would we have the debate on the overlying motion before we have the debate on the underlying motion…”

“to clarify this, why would we have the debate on the overlying motion before we have the debate on the underlying motion and then try to deny a debate on the overlying motion at the appropriate time? I would ask the chairman and the ranking member to consider this process. It will save a lot of time if the person suggesting a second- degree amendment do the debate on the second-degree amendment. Did anybody here hear the debate on the first-degree amendment? That was debate on the second-degree amendment. So we disposed with the debate on the second-degree amendment. Now we ought to have the vote on the second-degree amendment, not another debate on the second-degree amendment and then go to the first-degree amendment without debate--or even with debate. If we are going to limit the time, we need to limit the time each time. And if somebody is going to do a second-degree amendment, they ought to do their debate on the second-degree amendment, face the vote on the second-degree amendment, and move on. But you ought to get your time to debate your motion at the time of the vote on the motion, not an hour later. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.”