Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding. I will not take long.

I have been in the Senate 4 years now, and I think my colleagues know I do not come down to the floor and spout a lot of hot air. But I have to be heard tonight.

I will agree with my friend the majority leader on one thing: This is no way to legislate. He said those words a few moments ago, and I agree.

We have become accustomed to a procedure, and I have disagreed with that procedure, but it has been the regular order during the time I have been here; that is, the usual practice is a bill is brought to the floor, and the majority leader immediately offers every amendment that can possibly be offered in a parliamentary way, thus filling the amendment tree and preventing other Senators from offering amendments.

Then cloture is filed and we don't have an opportunity to have a full hearing. I am told this has not always been the practice, but we have been accustomed to that practice.

What happened tonight is far different from that. I think that is why my friend from Tennessee propounded the question to the majority leader. We had a bill--and it may be a messaging bill, but if it were passed, it would be a significant piece of legislation. I think both sides acknowledge that. No amendments were allowed precloture and no amendments have been allowed postcloture. The majority leader, this very day, after the cloture vote assured the Senate that we would be operating under an open process. He said those words. Not only that--and perhaps the majority leader, when I finish in a moment or two, could correct me--I believe I heard the majority leader say we would be allowed to offer motions to suspend the rules on a number of amendments, and debate would be allowed.

What occurred was that Senator Coburn offered his motion to suspend the rule on his amendment. We assumed we would be able to do this on at least a few amendments. But the very first amendment that was offered, the majority leader suggested to the Chair, and made the point of order to the Chair, that it was dilatory--one amendment. That was deemed dilatory by the majority leader, and the Parliamentarian correctly instructed the Chair to overrule that suggestion by the majority leader, upholding the precedent of the Senate. And one by one, Democratic Members of this body had to march down and vote to overrule the Parliamentarian of this Senate for the very purpose of shutting down the chance to offer one single amendment, when the majority leader well knew he had the votes to win. But our rules have, I thought, been designed--and I think our society is designed this way--around the concept that the minority has an opportunity to be protected; the minority has an opportunity to be heard in this body, of all bodies.

What we have done tonight--unless we can remove that--is we have changed the rules of the Senate on a messaging bill, on a matter that the majority leader had the votes on. That is my objection. That is why I am so disturbed about the overreaction and heavyhandedness of this move.

This is not a matter of supporting the leader on one bill that he wants to get us out of town on. This is precedent. Unless we can change it, we have forever changed the right of the majority to be heard postcloture. I am saddened about that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source