[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.

                          ____________________