[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 21 (Monday, February 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1547-S1548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ DEBATE
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Illinois. Mr. President, this
whole discussion can best be described as a bump in the road. The
majority leader and I had a number of discussions last week about how
to proceed with the Iraq debate. There is no reluctance on this side of
the aisle to have that debate. In fact, we had a number of different
Republicans who had different approaches to offer in anticipation of
the Iraq debate this week. We hear there are different approaches on
the Democratic side as well.
In an effort to reach a unanimous consent agreement, we pared down
our requests to two resolutions, one by Senator McCain and Senator
Lieberman that basically embodied benchmarks for the Iraqi Government
and one by Senator Gregg, a very important resolution that should be
voted on in the Senate that deals with the issue of whether the Senate
believes we should cut off funds for the troops. This vote this
afternoon should not be misunderstood. This is a fairness vote. This
vote this afternoon is a vote to insist that the minority have a fair
process in going forward to this very important debate. I think I am
safe to say every single Republican shares the view it is not
requesting too much of the majority to have a fair process. We could
have asked for many more than two resolutions. There were several other
Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle who had what they
thought were good ideas that should have been put in the queue.
With regard to what the vote should be, this is the Senate. With the
exception of the budget resolution, I can't think of anything in the
Senate we have dealt with in my memory, except some kind of consent on
a noncontroversial matter, that didn't require a 60-vote threshold.
That is routine in the Senate. That is not extraordinary; that is
ordinary. So what could be done and should be done--and I hope will be
done sometime today--is the majority leader and myself will sit down
and come up with a reasonable list of resolutions, all of them, as
everything else in the Senate, subject to a 60-vote threshold. In fact,
our good friends on the other side of the aisle in the previous
Congress went to great lengths to establish that there even ought to be
a 60-vote threshold for judges, something that had not been the norm in
the Senate. So it looks to me like where we are today is that
everything in the Senate requires 60 votes. Why would we not have a 60-
vote threshold for the most important issue in the country right now:
The Iraq war? So, of course, we think it should be dealt with in the
same way that other issues are dealt with in the Senate.
So make no mistake about it. This vote at 5 o'clock doesn't have
anything whatsoever to do with scuttling the Iraq debate. We welcome
the debate. We are happy to have it. But the minority will insist on
fair treatment, and our definition of fair has been pared down to two
resolutions. And all of the resolutions, as everything else we consider
in the Senate, would be subject to a 60-vote threshold.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Fairness. You start throwing the 60-vote number around when
you have something to hide or you want to stall, and it appears that is
the case here. We have offered the Republicans an up-or-down vote on
Warner, an up-or-down vote on McCain, and an up-or-down vote on the
matter relating to Senator Gregg. How much fairer could you be on that?
We have heard in this body from the Republicans for years now: Up-or-
down vote, up-or-down vote. We want an up-or-down vote.
That is what we want. Why should there be an arbitrary ruling by the
minority that this take 60 votes as to how people feel about the Warner
amendment or the McCain amendment?
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. McCONNELL. Isn't it true that any one Member of the Senate, just
one Member of the Senate could insist that there be a 60-vote threshold
on this issue?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, nearly everything we do in this body--and I
will be happy to respond to the distinguished Republican leader--nearly
everything we do in this body is determined by unanimous consent. We
have matters that come before this body--and that is how we get here,
is with unanimous consent. I can't imagine why there would be anyone
who would require 60 votes unless they didn't want us to go forward--
unless they didn't want us to go forward. That obviously is the message
we are giving around the country. Look at any newspaper: ``GOP
Threatens to Block Vote on Resolution.'' That, Mr. President, is USA
Today. That is only one newspaper. They are all over America, the same
thing.
This is an effort to stop. For every day we are not able to debate
the Iraq resolution means one less day, and maybe we would not be able
to get to it because of the continuing resolution. As I said earlier,
we have been told by letters I received from Republicans that they are
going to filibuster the continuing resolution. Today, starting today
whenever we came in--and we came in late because we knew we had this
procedural vote--we should have been debating Warner and McCain, but we
are not. And now, if cloture is invoked, there is 30 hours after that
before we can get to debating this and by then, frankly, it is too
late. We will not be able to do it because of the continuing
resolution.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Of course.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me repeat my question. Isn't it true, I say to my
good friend, the majority leader, that any one Member of the Senate
could ensure that a matter has to receive 60 votes?
Mr. BYRD. Could do what, may I ask?
Mr. REID. Could ask for 60 votes. I say to my friend, hypothetically
that is true, but that is the way it is with many things in this body.
But that person would have to come forward, identify themselves, and
stand up and say:
[[Page S1548]]
I do not want the debate on Iraq to go forward. This is a little
difficult to do with the situation where, as I said before, everybody
in America wants this debate to go forward. So let's hear somebody on
the other side stand up, akin to a Senator who believes in something,
and say: I don't want this debate to go forward.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that there are many Members
on my side who would argue we should not be having this debate this
week at all. I hope none of those watching this on C-SPAN or any people
in the gallery are confused. A 60-vote threshold is routine in the
Senate. It is the ordinary, not the extraordinary. There was really
only one exception to that, and that was the consideration of judicial
nominees. My good friends on the other side of the aisle spent an
enormous amount of time in the last couple of years trying to establish
a 60-vote threshold for that as well.
There is nothing the minority is asking for that is in any way
extraordinary, nothing extraordinary about it at all. It is really
quite ordinary. We are prepared to have a debate on Iraq this week. We
look forward to having a debate on Iraq this week. What should happen
is the distinguished majority leader and myself should agree, by
consent, to a reasonable number of resolutions. As I have indicated,
some of the Republican Senators have given up their opportunity to
offer proposals in deference to my request that we narrow down the
number of resolutions to a reasonable number for consideration this
week.
I hope that one of two things would happen: Either we vitiate the
vote this afternoon because it is completely unnecessary or we will
defeat cloture and the majority leader and I, hopefully, will be able
to sit down and reach agreement for a fair consideration of alternate
proposals that could have been reached last Friday and I had hoped
would have been reached last Friday.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, keep in mind what I offered the minority:
up-or-down votes on Warner and McCain; up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. I
also offered a 60-vote on Warner and a 60-vote on McCain. That was also
turned down.
This thing about 60 votes is exaggerated. I have been in the Senate
25 years. I have been involved in two filibusters, and that is two more
than most anyone in the Senate has been involved in. Filibusters are
just talk. Rarely are filibusters ever necessary or do they occur.
Therefore, this ``everything is 60 votes'' is simply not valid.
They want a fair process? Up-or-down vote on McCain, up-or-down vote
on Warner, up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. Okay, don't want that? I tell
you what, this has been stated publicly and privately long before
today: We will give you a 60-vote on Warner, we will give you a 60-vote
on McCain. Nope. Turned down.
Where does this fairness come in? Is fairness in the eye of the
beholder? They have to get everything they want? I cannot imagine how
we could be more fair. The American public would see a debate on
Warner, see a debate on McCain. One is for the surge, one is against
the surge. Why not have that debate? There will be lots of other times
to debate other issues dealing with Iraq. We have the September 11
recommendation coming up; we have the supplemental coming up. Iraq is
not going to leave the Senate. But it will leave this Senate if we are
not allowed to proceed in this manner because--again I say that is
because of bad housekeeping and the Republicans just simply leaving
town after they lost the majority--we have to pass a continuing
resolution. We have to. We have no alternative. We have to start on
that by Wednesday.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, with regard to the 60-vote
threshold, the majority leader and I both praised the bipartisan
cooperation we had in the Senate on both the ethics bill and the
minimum wage bill, both of which had a 60-vote requirement. That
demonstrates how extraordinary 60-vote requirements are. These were two
bills which were widely praised by both the majority leader and myself
as examples of bipartisan cooperation.
I heard the majority leader say up-or-down votes on McCain and on
Warner. If he would throw in the Gregg amendment for an up-or-down
vote--I am sorry, what was his offer?
Mr. REID. My offer has always been an up-or-down vote on McCain, on
Warner, on Judd Gregg, and the Democratic alternative which basically
says we are against the surge. It has always been the same. And the 60-
vote would be on McCain and on Warner.
I would also say I appreciate my friend talking about the ethics in
lobbying reform and the debate we had on minimum wage. However, I don't
want to start a battle that is already over. But one reason we were
able to get those two bills passed--we thought stopping debate on these
was not the right thing to do. We spoke out loudly, and the American
people said: Let's get on with those two issues. They held it up for a
little while but not for very long.
Mr. McCONNELL. A further illustration of how ordinary it is to get 60
votes around here, there have been 9 cloture motions filed in this
Congress alone, and we are now finally starting the second month. It is
really not in dispute that a 60-vote threshold is quite common around
here. It is ordinary rather than extraordinary.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have offered 60 votes on McCain and
Warner.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I understand he has offered 60 votes on McCain and
Warner. The Gregg amendment is also important and would have to be
included in any such negotiation which, hopefully, we will get back to
having later today.
____________________