[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10460-10462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 384, 
S. 2363.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The 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 other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I know my friend from Tennessee is on 
the floor and would like to make a few observations. I would just very 
briefly make the following point ahead of him.
  Another way of looking at the way the Senate is being run that 
affects Democratic Senators:
  Democratic House Members from Oregon have had 12 rollcall votes on 
their amendments, but Oregon's Democratic Senator does not have any--
none. Democratic House Members from Virginia have gotten 11 rollcall 
votes on their amendments, but Virginia's two Democratic Senators have 
gotten none--zero. Democratic House Members from Colorado have gotten 
seven rollcall votes on their amendments, but the Democratic Senators 
from Colorado have gotten none--zero. Democratic House Members from 
California have gotten 37 rollcall votes on their amendments, but 
California's Democratic Senators have gotten none--zero.
  So that is the condition of the Senate today. It is not just 
affecting the Republican minority, but the Democratic majority as well.
  I see Senator Alexander is on the floor. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, let me see if I can say something 
that contributes to progress, especially while the Senator from 
Maryland, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is on the 
floor.
  She has really done a terrific job in working with the Republican and 
Democratic leaders to try to get us back to the business of 
appropriating. We are not that far away. We have three bills ready to 
come to the floor. We have consent on the Republican side--which had to 
be unanimous over here to be able to bring it up in this way.
  Now we have a difference of opinion between the two leaders about 
whether all the amendments ought to be 60 votes. I would respectfully 
suggest that is not the norm.
  It is true that the Republican leader has said many times that an 
important amendment ought to be 60 votes. Recently when we were working 
on the Child Care and Development Block Grant or some other 
legislation, we would say the norm is 51 votes. But for a nongermane 
amendment, or if it was an especially controversial amendment, then 
maybe it would be 60 votes. That was a matter of negotiation.
  So my hope is that we could move through these appropriations bills 
in the normal way, which would mean most votes would be 51. 
Occasionally, there might be a 60-vote vote. That is what we usually 
have done. That is what we historically have done. The majority party 
has 55 members last time I checked. It has a President who can veto 
anything, and it takes 67 to override him. So they have plenty of 
advantages on their side.
  Now, let me conclude in this way--and I said it this morning in our 
Appropriations Committee. Last week I was visiting with some Senators 
and an Ambassador. We had dinner at the home of an ambassador from a 
country who greatly admires the United States. He was saying how much 
he envies this great tribunal--the Senate, and how other countries in 
the world envy it, and how it is the only tribunal like this anywhere 
in the world that is set up to have extended debate on important issues 
until we reach a consensus and stop debate and come to a result.
  That is the history of the civil rights bill, the Medicare bill, and 
the student loan bill last year, and bills even more recently than 
that.
  What that means in very simple terms is that the majority decides 
what we are going to talk about, the minority decides what amendments 
it would like to offer, and we keep talking and keep talking until it 
is time to cut off debate and try to come to a result. That is what we 
should be doing.
  I would respectfully say that this business of not being willing to 
vote on amendments because it might hurt some individual Senator is not 
really worthy of the Senate. It is not practical, and it really doesn't 
make that much difference in campaigns.
  The idea that only 9 Republican amendments have received votes out of 
more than 800 amendments offered since last July is probably a record 
in the Senate. What is even worse is that--according to the Senator 
from Wyoming, who has counted these--there were only 7 Democratic 
amendments voted on out of nearly 700 offered since last July.
  Now, why are we here if we are not here to speak on behalf of our 
constituents about Benghazi, about the new health care law, about 
whether we need a college rating system from Washington, DC, about 
fixing No Child Left Behind?
  I remember in Senator Byrd's book he talked about the Panama Canal 
Treaty that he and Senator Baker marshaled through. It took 67 votes--a 
very divisive issue. He said: We allowed nearly 200 amendments, 
reservations, and other codicils to the amendments, and we killed them 
all. We beat them all. But, he said: We never would have gotten the 
treaty ratified if we hadn't allowed Senators to have their say.
  So we have gotten to this level of distrust between that side and 
this side. And most of us are trying over here to say: All we want is 
an opportunity to have amendments offered in the regular order, a 
chance to debate them and a chance to vote on them, and if we are 
defeated, so be it. To impose a gag rule on us imposes a gag rule on 
the people who sent us here. This morning in the Appropriations 
Committee, that gag rule moved from the Senate floor to the 
Appropriations Committee.
  If the Republicans were in charge of the Senate, the Democrats 
wouldn't put up with that. I don't know why they are putting up with it 
today.
  I know there is distrust on both sides. But we are very close to a 
situation where we have three major appropriations bills which are on 
the floor. We have a disagreement only about whether all amendments 
ought to require 60 votes. That has not been the norm before. We should 
be able to work that out and use our time to represent the people of 
the United States so that ambassador, when he has another

[[Page 10461]]

group of Senators out there, can say: You belong to the tribunal that 
is unique in the world that every country in the world wishes it had, 
because it is a forum--the only one in the world of this kind--where 
you have extended debate on major issues until you get a consensus and 
come to a result.
  That is the only way to govern a complex country like the country 
that is the United States of America. We are getting back toward that, 
and I hope that our leaders and our Appropriations Committee members 
can make the next few steps and let us all go to work like we aim to 
do.
  We have some pretty talented people here. We have Rhodes Scholars and 
former Governors and people who have been here a long time and people 
who have been here a short time. It is not easy to get here, and it is 
not easy to stay here. So while we are here, we would like to work--
which means we would like to speak, have our say, vote, and, if we can, 
get a result.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my friend from Tennessee is a fine man. He 
has been a good Senator, a good member of a President's cabinet, and he 
really has tried to be a peacemaker all the time I have known him. But 
his speech that he just gave could be given by any Democrat about the 
obstruction, the delay, the diversions that have taken place during the 
entire time President Obama has been President.
  We have never had to file cloture on every motion to proceed as we 
did on this one, as we have done on everything that comes along.
  So we can talk about where we have been, but I think we should talk 
about where we are. Everyone knows that, because of the Republicans, 
there has been a threshold of 60 votes.
  But I say to my friend from Tennessee: I asked for my consent 
agreement. He says we are very close. With his skills of negotiating 
compromises, I am willing to listen to something else if he has a 
better idea to change the McConnell 60-vote threshold rule. I have some 
ideas myself, but perhaps they should come from him. I, on behalf of my 
caucus, am entirely agreeable to listen to any reasonable counteroffer.
  We have been trying really hard to get things done, but every step we 
take is a stalling tactic. My friend talked about ambassadors. I don't 
know the exact count--I haven't gotten it for a day or two--but the 
last count I had, 54 foreign ambassadors were held up. The continent of 
Africa, up to a third of the countries there do not have a U.S. 
ambassador. That doesn't count the scores of other people who are being 
held up. Why are they being held up? They are being held up because we 
are now able to move judges. Ambassadors related to judges is nearly 
empty. We have a few district court judges, and we have a circuit court 
judge. They will report some more out. But in an effort to--use 
whatever term you want--``We will show you guys. You are going to get 
your judges, and we are not going to give you any other nominations.'' 
So we are working through those very slowly.
  As much as I care and respect the Senator from Tennessee, he does not 
need to lecture me about stalling around here. We are not. If they want 
to beat the record of eight or nine amendments--however many it is--
move this bill. They will have lots of amendments. And we can start 
doing that this afternoon.
  So, Madam President, I repeat now for the third time: If my friend 
from Tennessee has a better idea on moving forward--he says we are so 
close--I am willing to listen to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to say to my friend from 
Tennessee that the majority leader has offered a way forward, and he 
has taken a page out of the book of the Republican leader, and he 
quoted him, and I have those quotes here: ``Matters of controversy 
always require 60 votes.'' And my friend knows. He knows.
  I stand here as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. I am so grateful I have moved some bills through here--
highway bills, water bills--but my friend knows that the two big 
amendments that his side wants to offer don't deal with ordinary 
matters. They deal with matters that have jurisdiction in the 
environment committee, and they deal with a repeal of parts of the 
Clean Air Act and a repeal of parts of the Clean Water Act.
  So my friend wants to move forward. I am sure he would agree that to 
repeal parts of landmark laws on an appropriations bill is legislating 
on appropriations and ought to require 60 votes. It is wrong.
  Now, I would say to my friend, why is the other side so determined to 
repeal two laws--one dealing with the Clean Water Act and the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and then the other one is this Clean Air Act--why 
are my friends on the other side continuing to go against these 
landmark laws--which, by the way, were signed into law by a Republican 
President? He has to explain, because I don't understand why people 
want to put children at risk and families at risk, pollute our rivers 
and streams, and suspend a plan that the President has announced is 
going to save thousands of lives, going after carbon pollution, making 
sure we don't go back to the days of smog and ozone. And we know these 
are the riders that my Republican friends want to offer. There is no 
secret.
  The Republican leader defined the 60-vote threshold for controversial 
amendments. I can assure my friend that if there was a tweak or two 
that was going to be made and Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby 
agreed with it, I would not demand 60 votes.
  We are talking about repealing basic, important landmark provisions 
of environmental laws, and that is exactly what this is about.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield, yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Because I was listening to what she said. Senator Reid 
proposed a 60-vote threshold on amendments to our appropriations bill. 
It was rejected. OK. The Senator said now she wouldn't object----
  Mrs. BOXER. To a 60-vote threshold, no.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. On all amendments? Could the Senator clarify?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would say----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. In other words, the Senator does want a 60-vote 
threshold or is it----
  Mrs. BOXER. I would go with the Mitch McConnell rule, which he has 
stated seven times, which is that on controversial amendments we have 
to have 60 votes. I am not going to stand here----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. So the Senator would want----
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to answer my friend.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Sure.
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend said we are trying to spare people tough votes. 
That is ridiculous. Members on your side, Members on our side--we are 
grownup Senators. We know how to win elections, cast tough votes. I 
want to protect the American people, and so do a lot of folks on our 
side of the aisle. And we don't want to see majority rule to repeal 
landmark environmental laws. We are not going to stand for it, and 
neither would the minority leader in the way he describes it. He said 
over and over that on amendments of controversy we have to have a 60-
vote threshold.
  So my friend, if he is sincere about this--he is sincere about this. 
But if the two chairmen can come up with a plan where amendments like 
this, controversial amendments, require 60 but amendments that both 
sides feel are not controversial can go to a voice vote, I will be a 
happy person. I have gotten bills through here before. I wasn't born 
yesterday, as you can probably tell, and we know a controversial 
amendment from a noncontroversial amendment.
  So I will close with this: I know my friend Senator Mikulski is an 
incredible chairman, and with Richard Shelby working with her, they are 
quite the duo. And I have seen their work--because every single Member

[[Page 10462]]

cares about the work they do--and it is stellar. But I am not going to 
sit here and see amendments come to the floor that would repeal clean 
air, clean water, safe drinking water, and just nod approval and say: 
Oh yeah, just take it away. No big deal. That is it.
  And that is why I feel the majority leader was right when he said 
let's move forward with a 60-vote threshold. That makes a lot of sense. 
I am sorry the Republicans objected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to continue 
and finish my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have been really interested in this 
debate. Let's just be honest about it. The Senate is being run in a 
shoddy fashion. I don't care which side you are on. I have only been 
here 38 years, and I have never seen a bigger mess than we have right 
now. I have never seen the majority stifling amendments by the minority 
like we have right now. I have never seen cloture filed almost 
immediately when a bill is brought up, like we are filibustering when 
we are not. All we want are amendments and to have a vote up or down--
something we always gave the Democrats on crucial bills like this one. 
It is pathetic, and it has to change.
  Frankly, if the American people really knew--we have had nine 
amendments since last July that we voted on. The Democrats have had 
only seven. Now, even some of my Democratic friends are up in arms 
about it. They are not able to act as Senators. They are not able to do 
the work. They are not able to be part of it. I mean, my gosh, is 
protecting your side from the election--is that more important than 
having the Senate run the way it should? The answer to that is a 
resounding no.
  This is pathetic. I have never seen anything like it. To come out 
here and act holier-than-thou about it, as if it is just normal around 
here, is just plain wrong, and everybody knows it. That is the thing 
that just kills me.
  If we were doing that, if we were in the majority, my gosh, the whole 
world would be coming down on us, especially with the beloved media we 
have in this country--and rightly so if we were pulling the kinds of 
the stunts that are being pulled on the Democratic side.
  Look, I am tired of it. I know Democrats who are tired of it. Every 
Republican is tired of it. We are being treated as though we don't 
count in this battle--in this battle between the two parties in the 
Senate. It doesn't have to be a battle every time. Both sides have been 
wrong from time to time but nothing like this. This is pathetic.

                          ____________________