Expressing the Sense of Congress on Iraq--Motion to Proceed

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 05, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Republican side of the aisle is ready for this debate. We are anxious to have it. There are different voices. We just heard from a couple of my distinguished colleagues who have a different view of this debate than I. What we are unified upon is a process that guarantees fairness for the consideration of what is clearly and unambiguously the most significant issue in the country at this moment.

The majority leader and I have been working in good faith on an agreement that provides for a structured debate on the various proposals and votes on each. The other side said we turned down three compromises but, frankly, that is not the full story.

The majority leader said he would agree to a consent that would allow votes on the McCain proposal and the Warner proposal. He also mentioned that he would agree to a 60-vote threshold on each of those. All we are asking for is the same agreement on the Gregg resolution. Now, in fact, there was demand among Republican Senators for additional alternatives. We were able to pair those down to two.

Why 60 votes? Let me remind all of our colleagues--and certainly the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia doesn't need to be reminded of that, having been here 29 years--that one single Senator can insist that a matter be subject to 60 votes. One single Senator. There are many Senators on this side of the aisle who would insist upon that. So it is a statement of the obvious that matters of consequence in the Senate over the years have developed in the following way: They are all subject to a 60-vote threshold. To suggest that is anything extraordinary really defies our experience here. It is ordinary, not extraordinary, for matters of great controversy--and even, in this day and age, matters of only a little controversy--to be subject to a 60-vote threshold.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle--and this was an issue the Senator from Virginia was very much involved with in the last Congress--were seeking to establish in one of the last areas where 60 votes was not customarily required--the confirmation of judges--that we should start requiring it there as well. That would leave virtually nothing the Senate would consider, except the budget resolution, not being subject to a 60-vote threshold.

So what we are asking for on the Republican side is not at all extraordinary. The term ``filibuster' has become a pejorative term for suggesting that one wants to stop something. Let me repeat, as I have said to the distinguished majority leader, to the Senator from Virginia, and to the Senator from Nebraska, we are not trying to stop this debate. We are trying to structure it in a way that is fair to the competing voices in the Republican conference who will band together shortly in a significant enough number to insist on a fair process.

So that is what this is about, Madam President. I have indicated to the Democratic leader--and I certainly wouldn't want to surprise him--that I intended to propound a unanimous consent request that would be acceptable to our side, and I will be happy to do that now, having given notice to the majority leader that I would do so.

But before doing that, let me say one more time, there is not a single Republican Senator seeking to avoid this debate. We have just heard from two voices that are in the minority in our conference--the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Nebraska--who don't share my view, who nevertheless will vote against cloture shortly to make the point that this Republican minority insists upon fair treatment on this important debate.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 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:

S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution which is to be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-Graham, regarding benchmarks; Gregg related to funding.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours--and I will be happy to pick whatever number might be agreeable to the majority leader--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 after the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions in the following order, with no intervening action or debate: first, McCain-Lieberman-Graham; second, Gregg; third, S. Con. Res. 7. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not achieve 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/