[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 98 (Monday, June 23, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3887-S3888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 384, S.
2363, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 384, S. 2363, a bill to
protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting,
fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes.
Schedule
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the
Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business
until 5:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to
executive session and proceed to a series of four cloture votes on
three U.S. district court judges from Florida and one from Vermont.
60-vote Threshold
We tried all last week--I am sorry to say unsuccessfully--to consider
three very important appropriations bills. These bills are very
significant because they provide this great government of ours with the
resources it needs to serve the American people.
I think we have had enough sequestrations and government shutdowns,
and I hope my Republican colleagues aren't headed in that direction
again.
Given the importance of the appropriations legislation and the need
to keep our government operating, I had hoped we could have a
cooperative amendment process and participation from all Senators.
Our vote last Tuesday on the motion to proceed was promising, as 95
Senators voted to move forward on these three important bills. However,
it is a shame we had to file cloture. If we had not had to file
cloture, which resulted in 95 Senators voting to move forward on very
important bills, we could have saved 3 days' worth of downtime and
doing nothing. But that has happened for many years now with
Republicans blocking, obstructing, and misdirecting basically
everything we do here.
On the bill we had before the Senate last week, unfortunately, the
Republican leader stalled the Senate's progress on these appropriations
bills with his recent conversion to the idea of insisting on simple
majority votes. He now insists on majority votes or nothing.
Over the past 5 years, virtually everything we have done here in the
Senate has been subject to a 60-vote threshold. Why? Because the
Republican leader has insisted on that.
Almost 50 times since President Obama took office, the Republican
leader has employed the 60-vote threshold in order to block
legislation--and good legislation. Bills pertaining to the treatment of
9/11 responders, funding our military, disclosure of campaign
contributions, and small business jobs bills all received majority
votes but were blocked at one time or another by the new McConnell
rule. Under the McConnell rule, everything that comes before the Senate
has to have 60 votes.
He has called himself ``the proud guardian of gridlock.'' He has even
gone to great lengths in defending the use of the 60-vote threshold.
Allow me to share, as I did last week--and I will do it again because
I
[[Page S3888]]
think it is worth repeating--a few of the Republican leader's past
statements on the importance of 60 votes.
The Republican leader said: ``Now, look, we know that on
controversial matters in the Senate, it has for quite some time
required 60 votes.''
Another direct quote by the Republican leader:
[R]equiring 60 votes, particularly on matters of this
enormous importance, is not at all unusual. It is the way
the Senate operates.
The Republican leader also said:
Matters of this level of controversy always require 60
votes. So I would ask my friend, the majority leader, if he
would modify his consent request to set the threshold for
this vote at 60?
On July 30 the Republican leader said again--I am running through the
months here:
For him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude, in a
body that requires 60 votes for almost everything, is going
to be done with 51 votes makes no sense at all.
Again he said:
So it is not at all unusual that the President's proposal
of this consequence . . . would have to achieve 60 votes.
That is the way virtually all business is done in the Senate
. . .
The Republican leader holds himself as the person who has established
this rule--the so-called McConnell rule--and is boasting about it. He
has insisted on the 60-vote threshold time and time again over the past
5 years. So it is without logic, and it would deviate from the norm,
that he, the Republican leader, has made. So I guess that is where we
are. We are now operating under a 60-vote threshold and that is the
norm that he, the Republican leader, has established around here.
The Republican leader's newfound support of the 51-vote threshold is
timely, given his proposal to curb EPA regulatory powers because of an
issue he thinks exists, even though there has been no rule promulgated
by the White House. He is looking way off into the future. We have had
months and months of people offering their opinions and suggestions as
to how, if at all, this proposed rule could be changed, but he wants to
do something about it even though there is nothing to change right now.
It is patently unfair to give the Republican leader a simple majority
vote on his amendment when there have been so many other pieces of
legislation he has blocked with the 60-vote threshold. However, we
Democrats are willing to meet the Republican leader and his caucus
halfway.
Here is the suggestion. We will agree to a simple majority vote on
the Republican leader's EPA amendment in exchange for a 51-vote
threshold on bills that are important to American families, such as an
increase in the Federal minimum wage. A vast majority of the American
people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--want the minimum wage
raised.
How about a vote on equal pay for working women? The vast majority of
American people want their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters to
have the same paycheck when they do the same work as a man.
How about legislation permitting student borrowers to refinance their
student loans? They blocked us on that legislation with the 60-vote
threshold.
How about energy efficiency legislation? They blocked that many
times.
How about a simple majority vote on the disclosure of campaign
contributions? How about a simple majority vote on updating voting
right protections that the Supreme Court did away with? How about a
simple majority vote for background checks on gun purchases? Eight-five
to 90 percent of the American people support that, and over half the
NRA members support that.
What I am saying is, OK, if the Republican leader wants to vote on
the EPA amendment with a simple majority vote, fine, we will take that.
But let's have a simple majority vote on these other issues we feel are
extremely important to help the middle class.
In exchange for a simple majority vote on legislation--I repeat,
legislation that is so timely--such as, minimum wage, student loans,
equal pay for men and women, energy efficiency legislation, and
background checks for gun purchases, we could have a simple majority
vote on the EPA amendment.
It is only fair that bills blocked by the McConnell rule be granted
the same treatment as the Republican leader's own legislation. To do
otherwise would be unjust to the many Senators who introduced
legislation that is important to American families.
I hope we can come to a quick agreement on this offer and move to an
open amendment process on appropriations bills, which should make
Republicans happy. They said they wanted amendments; they can have
amendments.
Reservation of Leader Time
Will the Chair announce the business of the day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________