[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4104-4108]
[From the U.S. 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 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,

[[Page 4105]]

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.

[[Page 4106]]

  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 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

[[Page 4107]]

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.
  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

[[Page 4108]]

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 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?

                          ____________________