[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2843-2845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have already apologized to staff and 
others for having to wait around so long, but sometimes it takes a long 
time to get from here to there.
  I, first of all, want to acknowledge the hard work of so many 
different people that allowed us to get where we are today, which 
certainly isn't the finish line, but it is a starting point.
  People have heard me on other occasions, on other matters, talk about 
the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. In my 25 years in the Congress--
and I say this without any reservation--I have not had dealings with 
anyone who better represents, in my mind, what a Senator should be. Not 
only does he look the part and act the part, but he is truly what our 
Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about this deliberative 
body.
  So I appreciate very much the bipartisan work of the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner. He has worked with other Senators--I don't know 
who he has worked with, but some I am aware of because I have read 
about them: Senators Collins, Hagel, Ben Nelson, Snowe, Biden, Coleman, 
and I am sure there are others.
  Today Senator Warner and others submitted a new version of his 
concurrent resolution regarding the increase of troop levels in Iraq. 
Senator Levin has taken that language, and tonight we will introduce it 
as a bill. It will be introduced as a bill because that is the only way 
we can arrive at a point where we can start a deliberate debate on this 
most important issue. We will introduce this as a bill which will begin 
the rule XIV process in order to get it to the calendar and allow the 
Senate to move to Senator Warner's legislation. We would prefer to do 
it as a concurrent resolution; however, that would only be the case if 
it would be open to complete substitute amendments, for obvious 
reasons.
  In order to permit the Senate to consider amendments which are 
appropriate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Senator Warner's concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 
7, on Monday, February 5, at 12 noon, and that the entire concurrent 
resolution be open to amendments and that a cloture motion with respect 
to S. Con. Res. 2 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I would say to my 
friend, the majority leader, about a week ago, the distinguished 
majority

[[Page 2844]]

leader indicated that we were going to follow the regular order, that 
the Biden resolution coming out of the Foreign Relations Committee 
would be the vehicle for our debate, and I gather, in listening to the 
distinguished majority leader--if I might ask, without losing my right 
to the floor, what is the status of the Biden resolution that came out 
of the Foreign Relations Committee?
  Mr. REID. A motion to invoke cloture was filed on that. After we 
complete work on the minimum wage bill, automatically we will vote on 
that. I say to my distinguished friend, cloture will not be invoked on 
that. What I would like is unanimous consent that we not have to vote 
cloture, that we just vitiate that vote and move to the Warner 
resolution and do that Monday. But, as I know, the distinguished 
Republican leader has only seen what I have given him, the last little 
bit, not because I didn't want to give it to him but I didn't have it. 
I certainly want the leader to think about this during the night. I 
think it would be an expeditious way to get to this.
  It has taken a lot of time. I haven't been involved in any of the 
negotiations. It was tempting, but I thought I would do more harm than 
good. I haven't been involved in any of the negotiations with the 
Senators whom I have mentioned here. I think it would be to the best 
interests of the Senate, majority and minority, to start Monday, as I 
have suggested, and allow Senators--I will say, at a subsequent time, 
when the distinguished Republican leader yields the floor, I am going 
to say that I want to work with the Republican leader in setting up a 
process for making sure people have the ability to offer reasonable 
amendments to this S. Con. Res. 7. That is my feeling. That is where we 
are with the Biden-Hagel-Snowe-Levin resolution that is before the 
Senate, or will be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reclaiming the floor, reserving the right to object, 
so the Biden proposal which came out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee--I hear the majority leader--is no longer in consideration. 
If I understand the process correctly, it, too, could have been called 
up and an effort could have been made to turn it into a bill as well. 
If we were to stay in bill status, would it be the intent of the 
majority leader to fill up the tree?
  Mr. REID. I will work with the Republican leader to take any 
suggestion the Republican leader would have as to how we can begin a 
debate. I would say in response to the statement, the reason I didn't 
put the Biden-Hagel matter in a rule XIV posture is that is not what we 
want to start debate on. There is a bipartisan group of Senators who 
believe the more appropriate matter is the Warner amendment. I don't 
know what happened in your caucus yesterday. In my caucus, there was 
near unanimity for the Warner resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, 
Senator Warner has been working diligently on this issue and cares 
deeply about it. We have had some discussions, but I had not seen 
Senator Warner's proposal until just tonight. I am not complaining 
about that, but the text of it is new to me as well as to the 
Democratic leader.
  It is still my hope that we could, as we discussed over the last 
couple of weeks in anticipation of this debate, enter into a consent 
agreement under which we would have had several different proposals in 
their entirety, realizing the difficulty of amending a concurrent 
resolution--several different proposals in their entirety that the 
Senate could consider. Maybe this is a better way to go, but it 
occurred to me that was probably the best way to go forward with this 
important debate.
  Given the lateness of the hour and the newness of all of this, I am 
going to be constrained to object and will consider--I know we will 
continue this conversation in the morning in hopes of reaching some 
agreement that is mutually acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield to me for a minute?
  Mr. REID. I will yield to the Senator from Virginia, just making one 
brief statement. I hope we can still do that. We still would like to do 
that. I think this will be, as I said, a good place to start. I also 
want the record to reflect tonight that the mere fact that this is in 
bill form is as a result of meeting the very stringent rules of the 
Senate to get it to the floor so we can have a vote on this matter on 
Monday; that at any time we would agree to take this not being bill 
language and would be strictly a concurrent resolution language. We can 
do that anytime. The reasons for that are quite obvious. We don't want 
this--a concurrent resolution, the President doesn't have to sign it, 
whatever happens on it. We will be happy to work on that, too.
  I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank both leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I join my leader in the objection because I do hope we 
can work it out, that we do not have to resort to a bill status. 
Everybody knows what the rules are and how that would then involve the 
President in a bill status. This should be a matter handled by the 
Senate and the other body, should they so desire.
  I say to my distinguished leader, I did mention this afternoon that I 
was going to take these steps--basically the changes from the original 
one, which we filed a week ago. Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and 
myself are still there. There is no major significant changes. We added 
a provision regarding the serious problem I and other Senators see--and 
we learned of it in the open session on Friday in the Armed Services 
Committee and again this morning in closed session--of the need to 
clarify this question of how a dual command can take place in each of 
the nine provinces of Baghdad between the Iraqi military and the U.S. 
military. And, General Keane, on Friday, said he is going to urge 
General Petraeus to try to work with that. I think that can be handled, 
but it has to be clarified.
  The other thing is that some colleagues thought maybe we were laying 
the foundation of this body of the constitutional right of curtailing 
funds. That was never the intention, and that is made quite clear. The 
rest of it are changes that I believe are not ones that in any way 
affect basically the thrust of the original resolution, which was to 
try to put before the Senate as an institution the viewpoints of a 
bipartisan group--now 11 in number and others I think desiring to 
join--such that if the Senate speaks in some way on this eventually, 
after a debate, it represents to the American public the best efforts 
of this institution to reach a degree of bipartisanship on an issue 
which I think is one of the most important that I have visited in my 
now 29th year in the Senate.
  So I thank both leaders, and I join my distinguished leader at this 
time in the objection because I do hope we do not have to resort to 
legislative need of a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if we can't get such consent, then we will 
have to have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Senator Levin's 
bill on Monday at 12 noon. As for consideration of an amendment, as I 
stated in our colloquy, and I state now to the Chair, we will work with 
the Republican leader on an orderly process. He is an experienced 
legislator, as we all are, working on this bill. The problem we have is 
a narrow window of time because of the absolute requirement--absolute 
requirement to finish the continuing appropriations resolution by 
February 15 to avoid a total closure of the Federal Government--a total 
closure of the Federal Government. There would be more time to debate 
amendments, and I know the distinguished Republican leader is looking 
at this legislation tonight.
  We didn't have to go through the cloture process on the motion to 
proceed to Senator Warner's legislation. We simply want the Senate's 
will for the

[[Page 2845]]

American people. I know that is what the minority wants, that is what 
the majority wants, and we have to figure out a process to do that. I 
am open to suggestions, but all I know, as I have told my two friends, 
there is no other way to get to the Warner resolution than how we have 
done it tonight. If during the night we can work out something to move 
forward to a debate starting Monday, I think it would be to the 
betterment of the Senate and the American people.
  I repeat: It is done in bill form for the simple reason it is the 
only way to get it to the floor. I repeat now for the second time in 
front of the American people, at any time, either by unanimous consent 
or by a vote of the Democratic caucus, joining in with, I am sure, many 
Republicans, we will strip that language so it doesn't have to go to 
the President. We want this to be a resolution. This is something that 
is business within the family, the congressional family. The President 
doesn't have to be involved in this--only indirectly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just briefly, I got the Warner 
resolution language about 7 o'clock. There are others on our side of 
the aisle, including Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, 
and others, who are deeply involved in this issue and interested in how 
it is going to be disposed of. Senator Warner has done his usual 
thoughtful job. He is probably the Senate expert on our side of the 
aisle in these matters, and his views of which way the Senate should 
proceed carry a lot of weight in the Senate. But I cannot at this late 
hour agree to this proposal tonight.
  Having said that--and these will be my last thoughts, I believe, for 
the evening--I do think there ought to be a way to work this out. We 
have made considerable progress on our side of the aisle in narrowing 
down the proposals that we might want to offer. And I still think the 
preferred way to do it--and I think the majority leader believes this 
as well--is to have a number of different concurrent resolutions in the 
queue. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has made it clear that 
he is very uncomfortable, as he just expressed himself a moment ago, 
with taking the bill approach to this. The majority leader has 
indicated that is not his preference either. I think the message is: 
Let's see if we can't craft a unanimous consent agreement that is fair 
to both sides so that we can have this important debate on this 
exceedingly important issue next week.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that because I think the 
operative phrase is to let the Senate work its will. Those are the 
first words I used in connection with this resolution when I laid it 
down last week. It is essential. This is one of the most important 
historic debates, as the distinguished leader--both leaders--have said. 
We should let this body work its will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first let me commend the Senator from 
Virginia for his leadership and the contribution he has made to this 
historic debate, both for the Senate and for our Nation. Thank you 
because I think what you have presented in good faith is an effort to 
engage in a very important and historic debate. I thank you for that. 
The fact that you have drawn so much support from both sides of the 
aisle is a testament to the fine work you have done, and I am glad that 
you are here this evening in an effort to continue that work.
  I would say to the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, it is 
understandable that having been given this language and this 
information at this late hour that he wants a little more time to 
reflect on it, and I hope in the morning that we can come to the 
agreement that we all want. But to reiterate what the Senator from 
Nevada, the majority leader, has said, what we are seeking to do is 
what the minority leader has expressed, and that is to create the 
appropriate forum and the appropriate vehicle for the debate on this 
issue.
  We struggle because the procedures in the Senate make it difficult to 
take resolutions and amendments. It is clumsy, it is awkward, it is 
difficult to do. So what the majority leader has suggested is to treat 
this resolution as a bill for the purpose of amendment but then to 
remove that bill status so that there is no question as to whether it 
is going to the President. That gives us a chance to work our will, as 
the Senator from Virginia has said, using the bill-like approach to 
amendment and gives the majority and minority leaders a chance to work 
together to find a reasonable number of reasonable amendments so that 
we can, in fact, express our will on this critically important issue.
  But I say to the minority leader from Kentucky, there is no guile in 
this proposal. It is an effort to find a reasonable way for both sides 
of the aisle to address this historic debate.

                          ____________________