Unanimous-Consent Request

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST -- (Senate - February 06, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to understand what has happened over on the other side, the Republican side. Is it my understanding they have asked now to drop the McCain-Lieberman amendment?

Mr. REID. I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.

Mr. DURBIN. If I might continue through the Chair to ask the Senator from Nevada a question, on the issue that I think is before America today--whether we should escalate the number of troops into this war in Iraq--we had offered to the Republican side a choice between two Republican amendments: Senator Warner's amendment, which said the President's policy is wrong, and Senator McCain's amendment, which says the policy is advisable and should be followed. Even given the option of two Republican amendments, the Republican minority, yesterday, voted to deny any opportunity for the Senate to debate two Republican amendments?

Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage, and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand and tell the American people how they feel about it.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might ask the Senator from Nevada whether this resolution being offered by Senator Gregg really is focused not on the major issue of escalating the war but somehow is focused on supporting the troops. Even the Warner resolution, a Republican resolution, has the identical language of the Gregg resolution when it comes to that support of the troops; is that not true?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might also ask the Senator whether it appears to him now that the Republicans, at this point, don't want to debate either of the Republican amendments and want to change the subject; that they want to move to a Gregg resolution, which deals with, as the Senator has just said repeatedly, support for the troops, which is not an issue?

We all support the troops. It appears to me that we have made no progress in the last 24 hours, and I would ask the Senator from Nevada if he has a different conclusion.

Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage, and now on this Iraq issue.

I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation' guy this year. I would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will change.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada the following question: If I follow the inquiry of the Senator from Arizona, it leads me to this conclusion--and let me add my voice in chorus commending his service to our country and commending his courage. I share the admiration, and I mean it sincerely, I say to the Senator from Arizona. But his argument goes something like this: If you are not loyal to the policies of the Commander in Chief, then you are not loyal to the troops. If you are not prepared to say you will stand behind the policy, the military policy of the President, whether you agree with it or not, then you do not respect the troops and don't have confidence in the troops. Nothing is further from the truth.

I ask the Senator from Nevada, does he think it is possible to disagree with the President's policies and still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say the President was wrong in not bringing more countries in as allies in this conflict before we invaded and still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say we didn't send enough soldiers when we should have and still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say disbanding the Army of Iraq was a bad decision and still be loyal to America's troops? Is it possible to say the situation that is grave and deteriorating in Iraq is evidence of a need for a new direction and still be loyal to the troops?

I just don't buy the premise by the Senator from Arizona that if you question the policy of the President, somehow you are disloyal to the soldiers. They are the ones following orders from the Commander in Chief. We have a special obligation to them--I think a loyalty to them--far and beyond any Chief Executive.

I would ask the Senator from Nevada if he believes you can be loyal to the troops and still disagree with the President?

http://thomas.loc.gov/