[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 156 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S7664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3664

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 1:30 
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 3664, which 
is a bill regarding debt limit increases, the text of which is at the 
desk; that there be no amendments in order to the bill; that there be 
up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill 
be read a third time and the Senate proceed to passage of S. 3664.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what 
we are talking about is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to 
the President. 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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we 
have is a case of Republicans in the Senate once again not taking 
``yes'' for an answer.
  This morning, the Republican leader asked consent to have a vote on 
his proposal. Just now I told everyone we are willing to have that 
vote, an up-or-down vote. But now the Republican leader objects to his 
own idea. So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what just transpired deserves a word. 
Senator McConnell came to the floor this morning and offered a change 
in law that would help us avoid the kind of obstruction and the kind of 
showdowns that we have had in the past over the debt ceiling. In fact, 
the idea was not new. It was his original idea that has been the law of 
the land and followed. He offered and challenged Senator Reid to bring 
this matter for consideration in the Senate.
  Senator Reid just agreed to it. He said he would bring this to a vote 
in 20 minutes, and we would decide, up or down, whether the debt 
ceiling problem would be resolved once and for all under Senator 
McConnell's proposal. Then Senator McConnell objected--objected--
saying: No, no, we need 60 votes.
  For those who do not follow the Senate, 60 votes is the equivalent of 
a filibuster vote--breaking a filibuster vote. So this may be a moment 
in Senate history when a Senator made a proposal and, when given an 
opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal. 
I think we have now reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we 
have never seen before.
  I am going to ask the Parliamentarian to look into this. I do not 
think this has ever happened before. But it calls into question whether 
this was the kind of offer that one would consider to be good faith--if 
Senator Reid offered a vote on it, and Senator McConnell said, no, it 
has to be 60, it has to be a filibuster-proof vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague, the distinguished assistant majority 
leader, yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Is it also correct, basically, if we had voted, we 
would have guaranteed we would not place the country again in a 
situation of defaulting on our bills; that we would send a message that 
we can work together--the fact that we were willing to accept the 
Republican leader's proposal and be willing to send a message that as a 
Senate we want to make sure we have fiscal stability, we are paying our 
bills, that this could be one step forward in making sure we can 
resolve the fiscal issues for the country? Isn't that the Senator's 
view of this as well; that, in fact, it would be an important message 
about stability?
  I also have to say, I share the Senator's amazement that the leader 
would, in fact, object to his own proposal and now be filibustering his 
own proposal that we were willing to accept as a bipartisan, good-faith 
effort for the country. Didn't he just take us in a wrong direction?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say in response to the Senator from 
Michigan, the Senate Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has such a 
strong appetite for the filibuster that we have seen 386 or 387 
filibusters in the last 6 years, and now he has decided another good 
idea is to propose a bill and then filibuster your own bill. I do 
believe that is history in the making. But that is why this appetite 
for the filibuster in the Senate has to change.
  What an abuse, that we cannot have a majority vote on something the 
Republicans proposed and the Democrats were prepared to vote for. This 
would have been a true bipartisan measure, good news--maybe leading the 
news--across America. It really is unfortunate.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the assistant majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. If my friend will yield, I have business here and then he 
will get the floor right back.

                          ____________________