Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 29 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 29 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1988-S1992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
convenes on Monday, February 26, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of H. Con. Res. 63, the House Iraq resolution; that there
be 12 hours of debate; that the debate be divided equally between the
two leaders; that no amendments or motions be in order; and that the
Senate vote on passage of the concurrent resolution at the conclusion
of that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, of course, I will object. This is right
back where we were a week ago. As the distinguished majority leader and
the distinguished majority whip have said on numerous occasions in the
last couple of years, the Senate is not the House. Senate Republicans
are going to insist on fair treatment on the most important issue on
the minds of the American people today; that is, the war in Iraq. The
Senate simply cannot--and I have heard Senator Byrd make these points
on numerous occasions--cannot operate this way. The Senate Republicans
insist on one or more amendments on the most important issue
confronting our country--the war in Iraq.
What I had hoped was that the distinguished majority leader and
myself would be able to work out a consent agreement that would allow
us to have--he would pick his amendment, and it is apparent the
amendment the majority would like to have is the House-passed
concurrent resolution, and then there would be an alternative, at least
one alternative. Many of my Members would like to have more than one
alternative in this extremely important debate, but at least one
alternative on this side of the choosing of the majority of
Republicans. So, therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have told the distinguished Republican
leader that when we get to the matter dealing with implementing the 9/
11 recommendations, that will be a vehicle which will be open to debate
and amendment.
The unanimous consent request I propounded would complete work on the
Iraq surge issue within a matter of hours, as I indicated, so that we
could move within a day, 1 day, to 9/11 and amendments--Warner, Gregg,
McCain, whatever amendments the minority wanted to offer; they would
certainly be permitted to do that.
We find ourselves in a very unusual position, Mr. President. We tried
to proceed to this matter before. Everyone has heard the arguments used
to stop us from going forward on this issue. Cloture was not invoked.
We need not go over all the reasons, some of which have been outlined
by the distinguished Republican leader just a few minutes ago. But
there have been those on the other side of the aisle who think we
should be in next week. Mr. President, speaking for this Senator, I am
happy to be in next week. If you want to be in next week, we can do
that. I have things in Nevada I have wanted to do for a while because I
have been here for 5 weeks, but that is OK, I can take care of that, as
everyone else can, if necessary. But we find ourselves in the same
position, that there is a hesitation on behalf of the minority to go
forward on now a very simple matter--a very simple matter.
The Warner-Levin amendment was a little more complicated than the
simple House measure which says we support the troops and we are
against the surge. That is what we think should be disposed of quickly.
We can move to 9/11, all the debates on other things people want to do
with Iraq and other issues. Certainly, they can do that. We can spend
considerable time on that. As long as progress is being made, there is
no reason to file cloture. There are other things we need to do the
following week during the work period.
We are anxious to go forward on this issue. We have, again, been
stopped from doing that. All the plaintive cries about not being able
to debate Iraq--there were opportunities to debate Iraq, and they were
turned down. I was disappointed, as I said earlier today, that the
people crying the loudest are the people against going forward on Iraq.
It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the order is Senator
Leahy has 1 hour right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is to be
recognized first for 10 minutes and then Senator Leahy.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are not here today, I assume, to
debate the substance of the Iraq matter, but it is important to
remember that both the majority leader and the majority whip in
December were saying a surge might be a good idea, and now they are
saying the only resolution we should have before the Senate is one
condemning a surge. Let me repeat, that is not the way the Senate
works.
So I would like to propose a unanimous consent request, Mr.
President.
I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, February 27, at a time
determined by the majority leader, after

[[Page S1989]]

consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed en bloc to
the following concurrent resolutions under the following agreement: a
concurrent resolution, if received from the House, the text of which is
at the desk; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution which is to be
discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; the McCain-Graham-
Lieberman amendment regarding benchmarks; the Gregg amendment related
to funding.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 12 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
provided further, that no amendments be in order to any of the
measures; further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to four consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent
resolutions in the following order, with no further action or
intervening debate: first, McCain-Lieberman-Graham, then Gregg, then
Warner.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on the adoption be
vitiated and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous
status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, again, this is an attempt to divert
attention from the issue before this body; that is, whether there
should be a surge in Iraq. That is it--an escalation. And this attempt
by my friend, the Republican leader, to divert attention from this very
important resolution--we support the troops, we oppose the escalation--
is now going to be obfuscated if, in fact, we agree to this request,
and therefore we will not.
This body is going to have the opportunity to vote up or down if, in
fact, we can proceed to the resolution. This body will have an
opportunity to vote up or down: Do you support the troops? Do you
support the surge?
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if this were to be allowed, this would
be the second bill in a row where no amendments would have been offered
to a 49-member Republican minority. I have been here a couple of
decades now, and I am having a hard time recalling a situation such as
this. This is the kind of thing Senator Byrd would get on his feet and
decry as inappropriate in a body that thrives on debate and
resolution. It is astonishing to me that it is being suggested, on the
single biggest issue confronting the American people, that we would
have 1 choice, dictated by a Democratic majority of 51 in a body of
100. That is simply unacceptable to this side of the aisle.

I think the message here from this discussion this morning is that
the majority leader and myself ought to sit down, work out a consent
agreement, a reasonable consent agreement to both sides, and structure
the debate for our return.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the minority leader aware of the
content of the measure that is proposed by myself, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Graham, and others? What it is, is a proposal to set up
benchmarks but also to support the surge or the change in strategy.
Can the Republican leader explain to me why it is we shouldn't have a
proposal that opposes the surge, with a vote on that, and a proposal
that supports it and a vote on that?
I have only been around here 20 years, not nearly as long as Senator
Byrd has, whom Senator McConnell referred to, but aren't we allowed to
have competing resolutions to debate, with time agreements, such as the
minority leader proposed? Why in the world would we not agree to a
resolution that would be in opposition to the resolution the majority
leader insists on voting on by itself? I have never seen the Senate
work this way. I have never seen the Senate only allow one proposal to
be debated and voted on. We have a proposal that we think deserves
debate and votes.
I ask the Senator from Kentucky, who has been here longer than I have
been, if he has ever seen anything quite like this on a major,
compelling, overwhelming issue before the American people?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Arizona
that I am as astonished as he is.
This side was willing, after considerable discussion back and forth,
to go down to one alternative, and the Senator from Arizona graciously
agreed that his would not be the one, that we would offer the Gregg
amendment. Even that was an astonishing concession on the part of the
minority, an astonishing concession on the part of the minority to a
rather narrow majority to get the debate going. The vote we had a week
or so ago was to continue the debate.
The message is clear: The majority can gridlock the Senate over this
issue with its insistence there be no choices or the majority leader
and I can sit down and do what we should do, which is to reach a
reasonable consent agreement for the consideration of alternatives on
the single biggest issue confronting America today.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the minority leader yield for a
question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield to the Senator from Kansas for a
question.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I just wanted to make it clear to myself
and others what we are facing here; that is, there would be only one
vote we would have on the resolution that was passed in the House,
which I feel I could not vote for because it is nonbinding--it is,
again, to support the troops but not the mission, which I think is
certainly unique in regards to how people feel about this--and that,
basically, the McCain resolution, which I support, which sets out the
benchmarks to give to General Petraeus and to give to Prime Minister
Maliki to gain some kind of catalyst or effort that would say: Look,
this is where the Senate stands, and hopefully we can get these things
done so that we can see some progress, to see if it is possible to
achieve some security in Iraq and give that Government a political
settlement. And the second amendment I am talking about is the one of
Senator Gregg, as I understand it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators are allowed to yield for questions.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would just ask what the play is, if I
can do that?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kansas that the
status of the majority here is that we would have no alternatives at
all.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the one I would ask about, if I can ask a
further question, is that of Senator Feingold. It seems to me, if we
are going to have a full debate, all choices need to be considered, and
the amendment offered by Senator Feingold should be considered and
should be made in order. That has taken a lot of courage for him to
offer such an amendment in a very forthright manner. I will say that I
don't agree with it, but in discussions about the ramifications of all
of these resolutions, which are nonbinding and which I call confetti
resolutions because they do not do anything except send very difficult
messages to everybody, I think that ought to be made in order and that
ought to be a choice.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would certainly agree with my friend
from Kansas that it might be in order to have multiple amendments on
the other side, but certainly that would be up to the other side to
decide.
Let me just conclude before yielding the floor that the message here
is clear: Senate Republicans are going to insist on being treated
fairly. Secondly, I am hoping the majority leader and myself can
structure an appropriate consent agreement so that we can consider this
matter in the near future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wrote down the plaintive cries from my
friends on the other side of the aisle: never seen the Senate work this
way.
I say to my friend, the distinguished senior Member of this body,
Senator Byrd, who has a fine memory, we have memories. Now, there are
10 Senators

[[Page S1990]]

here who may not, but we remember, on a multitude of issues when we
were in the minority, when we had no opportunity to debate anything or
to offer amendments on anything.
One of the other words issued was ``astonished.'' Mr. President, we
are in the U.S. Senate. Anyone with any memory whatsoever understands
how we were treated before, but when I became the majority leader, I
said that I believed in the Golden Rule. I said I would treat people
the way I want to be treated, that this is not any time to retaliate.
In fact, I have followed the Golden Rule. We have had bills, such as
the matter dealing with ethics or the matter dealing with minimum wage,
and, of course, the CR we just finished had input from both sides or it
would not have passed.
So I would say this: We can go with the unanimous consent request I
have propounded, and within a few hours, when that day ended, the 12
hours ended, we could be on whatever amendments they wanted to offer to
the homeland security measure.
I will go one step further than that. My friend from Arizona has
suggested that he be allowed to offer his amendment. I would accept
that, that we do the House-passed resolution and we do the McCain
amendment and we spend 12 hours on those two matters the minute we get
back here after this break, or if they want to do it tomorrow or
Monday, I would agree to that.
So my proposal, without a lot of fancy words here, Mr. President, is
we would take up the House measure that is now before this body--it is
going through the process and is at the desk--and also do the McCain
amendment. Those two matters, those two resolutions, one opposing the
surge and one in favor of the surge. No other amendments would be in
order. We could do that. We can have a debate on that, and then still,
just a matter of hours later, we can move to homeland security, and the
people who believed they had been left out of the debate could offer
whatever amendments they wanted to on homeland security. That is my
proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, and I will object
momentarily, once again the majority leader seeks to choose the
Republican amendment. We were there last week when the majority leader
indicated that he would agree to an amendment on each side but that he
wanted to pick our amendment. So I am constrained to object on the
basis that we on this side would choose, if we were to only have one
resolution, what it would be. I, therefore, object.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, February 27,
at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with
the Republican leader, the Senate proceed en bloc to the following
concurrent resolutions under the following agreement: a concurrent
resolution, if received from the House, the text of which is at the
desk; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution which is to be discharged
from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-Graham regarding
benchmarks; and Gregg related to funding.
I would further ask consent there be a total of 12 hours of debate
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided
further that no amendments be in order to any of those measures;
further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed
to four consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions
in the following order, with no further action or intervening debate:
the Gregg amendment; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution; the House
resolution; and the McCain-Lieberman-Graham benchmarks.
Finally, I ask consent that any resolution that does not receive 60
votes in the affirmative, the vote on the adoption be vitiated and the
concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the request be modified to say
that the amendments that would be in order would be the House measure
to which we referred, where we are in favor of supporting the troops
and against the surge, and the McCain amendment.
I would say editorially, Mr. President, that is what the Senator from
Arizona asked, and we will give it to him. We will have that debate,
one in favor of the surge and one against the surge.
I ask my friend to modify his request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Republican leader modify his request?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think the majority has already
offered this suggestion just a while back.
Mr. REID. I am asking if the minority leader will modify his request.
Mr. McCONNELL. I, therefore, object.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate has heard this song before. We
heard it 2 weeks ago, and we have listened as seven or eight Members on
the other side have come to the floor repeatedly day after day. They
have sent letters and held press conferences saying they earnestly want
us to move forward on this issue, though they voted against it. They
voted against the motion for cloture that would have brought us to a
debate on the issue, and it is on their own legislation.
We offered them two Republican amendments, the Warner amendment and
the McCain amendment, one opposing the surge and one supporting the
surge. They wouldn't accept it.
Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. When they did not accept this, a cloture motion was filed
on a motion to proceed, and they voted against it. They have come back
since saying they want the opportunity to debate. They can't have it
both ways.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order to proceed is called for. Under
the previous order, the Senator from Pennsylvania is to be recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had requested 10 minutes to speak on
the judges, but I want to use a few moments here to talk about what is
on the table.
We have just seen the Senate, for the better part of an hour, with a
majority of the Senators on the floor, demonstrate gridlock and
paralysis. I have an observation to make--and perhaps it would be an
admonition or a warning--that the Senate is about to become irrelevant.
We have, on the other side of the Rotunda, the House of Representatives
taking up the issue of Iraq, which all Members here, with the speeches
just made, agree is the most pressing issue facing the country, but the
Senate can't address it. And the Senate can't address it because the
majority leader has exercised his right under rule XV to fill the tree,
which precludes any action by the Republicans, unless we Republicans
exercise our right to withhold cloture.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield but on additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I will yield to the Senator from West Virginia for a
question.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I just want to interpose a point here.
I think I heard the Senator make reference to the majority leader
having the right to fill the tree. No, he doesn't. He does not. He has
the right if no other Senator seeks recognition. But once the majority
makes a motion or sends an amendment to the desk, at that second he
loses the floor until the Chair states its business, and while he has
lost the floor, another Senator can seek recognition. I merely make the
point the majority leader does not have ``the right.'' No other Senator
has ``the right'' to fill the tree. If other Senators do not intervene,
then of course he will fill it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may regain the floor because I have
a very limited time, my observations after being here for 26 years-plus
are that when the majority leader then seeks recognition again, he gets
it.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And when he makes the amendment in the first-degree and
then he seeks recognition again, he gets it, an amendment in the second
degree, and he does fill the tree.
Last week I proposed to change the rule. This rule has been exercised
by Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, Senator Byrd, and all the majority
leaders in the last two decades. I think it is time we change the rule.

[[Page S1991]]

We are not going to change the rule now. But I do believe that the
Senate is in real danger of becoming irrelevant. I don't think we ought
to be dominant over the House of Representatives, but I think we ought
to at least be equal.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. No; I wish to finish. I think we ought to at least be
equal. What we have is that we are close to anarchy. We have been
debating the debate all week. The House has rules which we wouldn't
want, where the Rules Committee goes off and comes back and limits what
the House of Representatives can do. Sometimes that is despotism, and
between anarchy and despotism, it is a fairly tough choice. But right
now, I am finding it difficult--impossible--to answer my constituents
about what the Senate is doing. I tell them the tree is filled. They
think I am talking about an orchard. I tell them we are debating
whether we are going to have a debate, and they can't understand what
we are doing.
I counted the Senators on the floor during the exchange between the
majority leader and the Republican leader. We had more than 50 Senators
here sitting around on the debate for a debate without reaching a
resolution. I think Senator McConnell is correct. I do not say that in
the partisan sense, if I can attract the attention of the distinguished
Republican leader. I think he is correct. But I repeat I do not say it
in a partisan sense. There ought to be an accommodation and there ought
to be an agreement reached between the leaders. When you have the
proposal to have a variety of resolutions, that is the way of the
Senate.
Senator McCain has been here for 20 years. Senator McConnell has been
here for 22 years. I have been here for 26 years. Senator Byrd has been
here for--I can't count that high--48 years, going onto 49. This is not
the way the Senate ought to work. But it is the way the Senate has
worked, with all the majority leaders in the last two decades
exercising their right of recognition and filling the tree and tying up
the Senate.
Now the Senate is finally caught. We are finally caught where America
and the world sees what we are doing. It is a little ridiculous to have
this kind of gridlock and this kind of paralysis.
How much time do I have left, Mr. President? I have to talk about the
judges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 40 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Let me yield to the Senator from West Virginia who
wanted recognition--for a question.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for
yielding. I have this comment. First of all, I wish to congratulate the
Senator. He is very observant. He is concerned about the Senate. He
understands the rules. But while he understands the rules, we do not
need any more rules. We have rules. Senators need to insist on their
rights as Senators and they ought to speak up so they can be heard and
they ought to pay attention. We don't need new rules. We have rules
that have been here for many years, and they have been tried and tried
and tried again. We need to read the rules. Senators should read the
rules and Senators should understand that they are Senators and they
should be proud of that fact. We should demand that the rules be
observed. I could do that. Every Senator can. We don't need new rules.
We simply need to understand the rules we have. We need to insist on
those rules, and the Chair ought as well to insist that the rules be
observed.
No Senator needs to seek recognition to have the rules observed.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order. May I reclaim my time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a parliamentary
inquiry? What is the time situation? The Senator has 3 more minutes.
What follows the Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 hour in morning
business, succeeded by the Republican leader.
Mr. STEVENS. I have been around for a little while. I would like to
see if I could have 3 minutes following the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have
yielded already to Senator Specter on my hour. So far I have been
dramatically changing and changing the schedule of my office to
accommodate everybody. The Senator from Alaska is one of the oldest and
dearest friends I have here. If he wants 3 minutes, I will not object
to him following Senator Specter for 3 minutes. But then I will insist
and will not yield on my hour after that because we created too many
problems already in my schedule.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the sequence of speakers, I ask that
following Senator Leahy's 1 hour, there be 5 minutes for Senator Crapo
and 5 minutes for Senator Craig to talk about a judicial nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. As a final statement, it is my hope that the majority
leader, Senator Reid, and Republican leader, Senator McConnell, before
the day is up, will come to terms and will announce some accommodation
so that there can be a fair resolution of the debate--so this body does
not become irrelevant and we do not present a picture to the American
people of gridlock and paralysis, but we show we are still the world's
greatest deliberative body because we are about to cede that title to
the House of Representatives which as we speak is deliberating, which
we are not doing--and that we take up the Iraqi issue and we show the
American people and the world we can reach an accommodation, we can
debate in accordance with the traditions of the Senate.
I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the resolution I introduced
to change rule XV.
I agree with Senator Byrd. We do not need more rules, but we need a
little modification of rule XV.
I thank my colleague from Vermont and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not been here as long as my good
friend from West Virginia, but I am the senior Member of this side. I
cannot remember a time when we tied together the concept of filing a
first-degree amendment, then a second-degree amendment, with cloture so
it entirely shut off any participation by the minority. It has been
stated here it has happened. I do not recall that. I do recall back in
the days of the Clinton administration, Senator Byrd had a proposal, a
similar proposal, but we had a big ruckus. I am sure the Senator
remembers. Senator Dole was our minority leader then.
This is a defining moment for the Senate. Because as the Senator from
Pennsylvania has indicated, if the majority of one can go to the House
and negotiate a bill and bring it back and there are not going to be
any amendments, we are going to file a first-degree amendment, a
second-degree amendment, and have cloture or else--the Senate is
totally irrelevant.
Having been in the minority and in the majority, I think the majority
ought to think twice. There is only one vote difference here right now,
two votes when our good friend from South Dakota comes back. But as a
practical matter, the rights of the minority--really the whole
country--depend upon the minority in the Senate having an opportunity
to voice some of the concerns about what has happened in the House.
I say, in all sincerity, this is a defining moment. I believe the
message we are trying to send on this Iraq resolution is wrong. I think
it is harming the people who represent us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even
Afghanistan is coming back. We are going to have to send a new group,
the 175th, over there to deal with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, again.
Our people need support, and we need to be able to articulate the
reasons why we support them. If we follow the outline of the majority
leader, we will not have that chance except by talking and talking. But
no amendments.
It is not right. It is not the Senate. I do not intend to stand by
and see the

[[Page S1992]]

Senate lose its role under the Constitution to be the second House of
the Congress. This is not a rubberstamp for the House. That is what we
will be if we follow the intention of the majority leader now.
Mr. LOTT. What is the order, Mr. President?

____________________