Press Conference With Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell
Interview
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY)
SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
10:34 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2007
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Good morning.
Q Good morning.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Everybody get enough sleep? It's been an interesting week when it comes to normal sleeping hours in the Senate.
On Sunday we will be at the 200-day point of this session of Congress, and I'd like to make a few observations about that and then throw it open for whatever you'd like to discuss.
Unfortunately, instead of being able to end the second hundred days with accomplishments, we've actually spent the bulk of our time, if you look back over this 200 days, having Iraq votes and investigations of the administration. With these committee activities bogged down with political investigations and the Senate actually itself being also bogged down with repetitious Iraq votes, it's really not surprising that we haven't accomplished very much.
The defense authorization bill of this week is a perfect example. I believe it's the case that we haven't failed to pass a DOD authorization bill in 45 years. After spending a week and a half on it, the last 24-or-so hours devoted exclusively to the all-nighter on the Levin-Reed troop withdrawal amendment, the decision was made to take the bill down, leaving unaddressed such things as the military pay raise, the MRAP vehicles, and other important parts of this must- pass legislation.
The immigration bill is a good example. When we were within a couple of days of completing that bill, which subsequently we were unable to complete, we left it in order to have a Friday off, to have a Monday vote on the appropriateness of the attorney general continuing in office and a vote on getting rid of the secret ballot and labor union elections. That's something most Americans think is a perfectly horrible idea, including 80 percent of union members.
There's a cost to everything. When you use the floor in that way for that much of the time, it prevents the achievement of legislation. Many of you been around the Senate a while; I think we can stipulate -- you just can't do much in the Senate unless you do it on a bipartisan basis. So that would probably explain surveys from Zogby to Gallup showing this Congress down to historic lows in terms of its approval rating.
So what is the message? I think it's time to get back to work and to do it in the only way the Senate can possibly function, and that's on a bipartisan basis. And there are two good candidates for action that hopefully we can conclude before the August recess. I think we're going to get there on the lobby reform bill; I think that's an important piece of legislation. Senator Reid and I started that measure off with total cooperation at the beginning of the year. Regretfully, it's still around six months later, but I do think we've got a good chance of getting there.
We ought to also be able to pass the 9/11 bill before the recess. By "pass" it, I mean complete it, get it down the president for hopefully his signature. That's an example of how things can be done here.
And I would just conclude before taking your questions by reminding you that I said today I was chosen for the job that I have, that it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner. A divided government has frequently done important things -- Social Security in the Reagan period, when Tip O'Neill was speaker; welfare reform when Bill Clinton was in the White House when there was a Republican Congress. There's no particular reason why divided government can't do important things. We haven't yet, but it's not too late. And I think clearly the way to accomplish things is in the political middle, and I would challenge our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and take a chance on something big and important for our country.
With that let me throw it open.
Q Senator Reid pulled that defense authorization bill apparently without consulting -- (off mike).
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I mean, it's -- I wasn't offended by it. I think it was a mistake but I wasn't -- you know, I don't want you to think I was personally offended by it. I just think it's a mistake. I think we really need to do that bill.
And as you all may have noticed, we haven't done a single appropriation bill. The fiscal year ends September the 30th. They were highly critical of us, and we deserved the criticism for not getting our appropriation bills done last year. We were highly critical of them when they failed to get them done in 2002 when they were in the majority.
This is the basic work of government, and we haven't even started. And we have the month of September and maybe opportunity for one appropriation bill this month. We need to get down to work.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Q My question was what your relationship is with Senator Reid. Is it still as good as it was in January or is it a little more strained?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Oh, it's -- yeah, no, it -- no, no, it's fine, yeah. We don't have any personal problems. I'm -- my criticism here is not of him personally; it's of the decisions that are being made. I don't think that -- I think the fundamental reason this new Congress has such low approval ratings is failure to accomplish anything. And I've given you already why I think we haven't gotten much done.
Q Senator McConnell, the Democrats say that you all are raising the bar, that one of the reasons for the inaction is -- and they blame it on you obviously, not you personally but your party -- is that you're demanding too many 60-vote majorities, that you're raising the bar; you're making it too hard to get things done; you're delaying the 9/11 bill -- (off mike). I think you've heard this before, but -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: My cousin, Dave McConnell, over here. (Laughter.)
Look, it sounds eerily similar to things that the minority always says. And when the roles are reversed -- I mean, you all surely have gotten a little cynical about this. The arguments are always the same on both sides. I think we can stipulate that for years, certainly as long as I've been in the Senate and as long as you all have been around covering it, and I don't -- most of you haven't covered it as long as I've been in it -- anything that's remotely controversial requires 60 votes. That ain't anything new.
Now what is the message from that? That the only way you can get things done is on a bipartisan basis. And you know, I've reached the age and stage of my career that I didn't come here just to play games. I would like to do things, important things, for the country.
It's not too late, and we ought to get about it. And at least the basic work of government, like the appropriation bills, if they'll ever turn to them, I think they're going to have substantial bipartisan cooperation.
John?
Q Senator, I want to get your reaction to the call from some Pentagon officials for waiting until November to (see on ?) progress in the surge. You yourself said in May that the writing was on the wall -- (off mike) -- September. So I wanted to get you reaction.
SEN. MCCONNELL: I'll say again that I think September is the critical month. People on both sides expect policy post-September to be based in large measure on what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to say. Now, I will -- again at the risk of sounding a little harsh on our political opponents, I'm not sure how many of our Democratic friends care what the facts are anymore. It seems to me they've largely made up their mind that we ought to leave, announce a day for leave -- to leave and leave.
My view is that facts are not irrelevant, and I think the majority of members of my conference do care what the facts are and are extremely interested in the Petraeus/Crocker reports in September. That is an important month, a critical month, and I think that those reports will determine which direction the president chooses to go and which direction Senate Republicans choose to go.
Q You've had a lot of erosion on your side of the aisle. You have a number of senators --
SEN. MCCONNELL: We lost fewer votes on the latest Iraq proposal than we lost on some earlier Iraq proposals this year.
Q (Off mike) -- Republicans have come out in degrees either to call for a withdrawal or call for --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Senator Reid apparently didn't want to have any more Iraq votes. He wanted to stop it on the troop withdrawal. So the only vote we know for sure was the Levin-Reed troop withdrawal, we lost four, and picked up one of theirs.
Q Senator, are you perhaps yourself -- (off mike). Are you willing to wait until November to reassess the situation in Iraq?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I don't want to be repetitious, but September is the month that we're looking at. There may be various generals or various politicians or others who want to mention some other key time. But I think the key time for the vast majority of my members is September, and it certainly is for me. I'm interested in what the actual facts are, what General Petraeus has to say about the mission, how he thinks it's gone and what he thinks his prospects are beyond that. And I know the president's interested in what he has to say. So that's the key month.
Q Can I take that as a "no," then, you're not wiling to wait until November?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, you -- I think you can take what I said as -- for me, and I believe I'm confident in saying for most of the members of my conference, September's the month we're looking to, and it's the Petraeus/Crocker reports.
Q Senator McConnell --
Q Senator --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah.
Q -- if there isn't progress in September, if the general doesn't know by then -- (off mike) -- do you think Democrats will reach 60 votes?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, you all love to ask hypothetical questions, and I almost never answer them, because we don't know how to speculate about all that.
Q Senator McConnell --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, Emily?
Q -- (inaudible) -- part of the week, including last night. How were you able to come to agreement, though, with Senator Reid on -- (inaudible) -- bill, but the higher ed reauthorization bill and homeland security? Do you think that that -- that there was -- that things broke down to a point where you could actually start to make some of these -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, you've proved my point. Even though we had some spirited discussion last night, we ended up finishing an education bill at the end of the evening. We're going to finish one Monday, and we're going to go to homeland security. I mean, there's no particular reason why we can't do things here, and I've just mentioned three examples of it, one occurring last night, even in the middle of a, you know, fairly contentious discussion of a variety of different things; nevertheless, at the end of the evening, we passed an education bill on a largely bipartisan basis. We're going to do that again Monday night and going to go to homeland security on Tuesday, and I'm sure we'll pass that. And we should. I mean, that'll be our first appropriation bill. It's high time we started doing those bills.
Q Senator McConnell, you've referred several times to the low ratings --
SEN. MCCONNELL: I'll be right back.
Yeah.
Q Senator McConnell, have you decided what to do on Judge Southwick? It seems like -- (inaudible) -- solved for a little while, but it's not back on the calendar yet for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. I heard just a bit of Senator Cochran, I mean he -- (off mike) --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Senator Cochran made an excellent speech yesterday afternoon, a lengthy speech, about Judge Southwick's career. I know it won't surprise any of you to know that we think that whatever controversy there is about Judge Southwick is manufactured. I mean, it doesn't exist. An extraordinarily accomplished individual with a unanimous -- well-qualified from the American Bar Association -- the Democratic leadership of the Judiciary Committee has said that's the gold standard. They looked at 7,000 cases he participated in, and found two they didn't like the outcome of -- neither of which he wrote -- and I'm still hopeful that Senate Judiciary Democrats are not going to let this process deteriorate to such a point that we have a total malfunction on judges.
And I haven't given up on -- I certainly haven't given up on Judge Southwick, and I haven't given up on the possibility of getting back to some kind of normal process here. Because remember, it's important for our friends on the other side of the aisle to remember that are against the best efforts of people like me, they might be appointing judges 18 months from now.
And these lessons tend to be remembered, particularly in the short term.
And so if I were in the Democratic leadership right now, I'd be saying we need to process a fair number of judges. We know what that number is. Each of the last three presidents has ended their term with the Senate in the hands of the other party for the last two years. And the average number approved has been 17 -- of circuit judges approved have been 17; the low end was President Clinton with 15. We've done three, three, in the first half of the first year, where you would assume that it would be less difficult politically to move judges along. So it's not too late to keep the circuit judge situation from spiraling downward, and I think confirming Judge Southwick would be a good place to start.
The final thing I would say about this, that seat has been left open for the entire Bush administration. Remember first there was the Pickering controversy. And then Mr. Wallace was nominated; he was found to be unacceptable. The leadership of the Judiciary Committee has said what senators -- home state senators think about nominees is important. Why are the views of the Mississippi senators irrelevant? Southwick should move forward. I haven't given up hope that he may, and he's important.
Q Senator, are these low approval ratings for Congress a concern for Republicans as well politically, or should they be? Many of the poll-takers think that some of the forces -- (inaudible) -- is your own president and the war in Iraq. So I wonder whether you think that Republicans --
SEN. MCCONNELL: No, the president looks pretty good compared to Congress. In the Zogby poll, the president was 20 points higher than the Congress.
No, I think the American people have figured it out. They thought by changing Congress they were going to get more production. And they can get that production; I've just laid out how. It's pretty clear in the Senate how you get things done; you do it on a bipartisan basis. And we're happy to cooperate just as soon as they want to do that. And that would involve not spending all of our time voting on Iraq or investigating. We need to legislate. People sent us here to legislate.
Q On that note, Senator McConnell, would you say you're more optimistic about Republican chances in 2008 than you were maybe six months ago, when you were hoping to hold your own?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, if you look at the numbers -- (chuckles) -- holding our own is more -- you know, about all we could hope for. We've got 22 up; they've got 12. You know, our biggest recruitment challenge is the absence of retirements. And so far we've done well on that; we've only got one retirement. The numbers are against us. It would take an extraordinarily good day to get back up to 50. And so our goal is to stay roughly where we are. If we had a really good day, we might be able to get it back narrowly. But that's just a realistic assessment of where we are.
Yeah?
Q Senator, you mentioned this morning the possibility of changing the rules to avoid the kind of debate on amendments we saw last night. Do you --
SEN. MCCONNELL: (Chuckles.) That reminds me -- that reminds me of their effort to get the fairness doctrine back, you know, if you don't like the quality or quantity of speech, shut somebody up. That was one of the reasons I've been involved in the McCain-Feingold litigation over the years.
Look, nobody's going to shut anybody up in the Senate. There's going to be robust debate. You can just write that down. (Chuckles.) And I understand Senator Reid's frustrations, but we're not going to establish any "speech police" in the Senate -- not now, not ever.
Q Mr. Leader?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah?
Q Mr. Leader, as you know, some of the proponents of the Iraq proposals that haven't had a chance to come up say they could get broad bipartisan support.
The Democratic leaders say they oppose that because it might give political coverage of those Republicans. Do you oppose that idea --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Doesn't that prove my point? Your question proves my point. Is the Iraq war only about making a political statement? Was it an accident that in the states of a number of people who are up in the `08 there were political commercials being run on TV during the week of the debate? Has not my counterpart said on several occasions, talked about the politics of this?
Look, I know we do politics in the Senate, but this is a serious fight against al Qaeda. This is a real war. It deserves a serious debate. And by shutting down the DOD bill and taking it off the floor, no one knows where people might have voted on alternate -- alternative proposals, and as you suggest, there were some. Maybe, if and when we get back to this bill, which we should get back to since we haven't failed to pass one in 45 years, maybe some of these other measures will be considered.
Q Would you be willing to argue for to Mr. Warner, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Alexander to have a chance to -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Sure. Yeah, no, I mean, you know, we have -- it's been my practice to always to the maximum extent possible try to give my members an opportunity to have their amendments. And you mentioned two that I know members of my conference would like to offer, the Warner-Lugar and the -- well, actually, the bipartisan Salazar-Alexander proposal.
Q Senator --
SEN. MCCONNELL: John, let me see if there's anybody else, and then I'll come back to you.
Yeah?
Q On the lobby bill, what is your reason for opposition if you could get it done before the August recess? And --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well --
Q -- (off mike) -- conference -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, we may not have a conference. It was my preference, as you all know, that we go to conference.
There is one member of my conference, who is interested in one particular portion of the bill, who prefers that we not. But I think whether we go to conference or don't go to conference, we really ought to try to complete it. I would rather have some impact on the bill right now. Without a conference, the minority won't have any impact on the outcome of the bill.
So from a leadership point of view, my preference would be to go to conference. There's at least one member of my group that doesn't share that view, so we may or may not go to conference. Either way, I think we ought to wrap the bill up. I'd rather have the Republicans at the table than not, but I do think it's time to act.
I'm sorry, John, I --
Q (Off mike) -- just following up on that.
SEN. MCCONNELL: If we don't go to conference, there's not an easy way for us to be at the table.
John?
Q We have a front-page story in The Post today about the White House (issuing a ?) sweeping claim on executive privilege, basically ordering the Justice Department not to (enforce ?) any contempt claims by Congress. I wanted to get your reaction to that. Do you find that troubling that the White House would -- the executive would assert that much authority to just ignore a contempt finding -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: I slept late this morning and I didn't read the article. So rather than give some kind of offhand comment about an article I haven't even read, I think I'll take a pass on that.
Stu (sp) says I've got one more. Who hasn't asked? Yeah?
Q I'd like to ask about -- the administration has said it wants to close Guantanamo, and it has identified military prisons like Leavenworth as a potential place to put some of the -- (off mike). Do you disagree with that position --
SEN. MCCONNELL: I'm sure you were intensely interested in the amendment I offered last night --
Q Well, I'm wondering if --
SEN. MCCONNELL: -- in which all but three senators went on -- I'm going to answer your question -- in which all but three senators went on record as opposing moving these prisoners into the United States, inside the United States. Only three senators voted that we should move them into the United States.
Now, with regard -- the amendment did not say whether we should or shouldn't close Guantanamo, but I'll give you my view. I think it's a perfect place for them. I've been there. Some of our soldiers down there say that they're getting better health care than they are. And nobody's being mistreated. And I think it is the perfect place for these terrorists to be adjudicated through the military system which we've set up in response to a Supreme Court decision saying that that needed to be done. We passed that. So my personal view is that Guantanamo is the perfect place for them. I'm not sure what the administration thinks about that, but the Senate, 90-something to --
Q Ninety-four to three.
SEN. MCCONNELL: -- 94 to 3, shares my view that they ought not to be mainstreamed into the United States.
Q If they do, Senator McConnell -- (off mike) -- will you -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. But I've just give you my view on it.
Thanks a lot, everybody.
Q Thank you, Senator.
Source