[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3027-3028]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3028]]

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: 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.

                          ____________________