Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - November 15, 2007)
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand that the majority may move to proceed to the supplemental bill passed by the House last night. That bill imposes at least two policy restrictions that will compel a veto: directing the readiness standard the Defense Department must follow before a unit may be deployed, and expanding the interrogation procedures established in the Army Field Manual over to the intelligence community.
The House bill will also compel the immediate withdrawal of forces, regardless of what General Petraeus's orders may be. Petraeus has established a reasonable timeline for the transition of mission and drawdown, and, frankly, we ought to support him. The Marine expeditionary unit identified by General Petraeus in September for withdrawal has left Iraq, and an Army brigade is headed home over the next month.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Secretary Gates stated clearly yesterday that the Army and Marine Corps will run out of operating funds early next year. This funding shortfall will harm units preparing for deployment and those training for their basic missions. We should not cut off funding for our troops in the field, particularly at a moment when the tactical success of the Petraeus plan is crystal clear. Attacks and casualties are down. Political cooperation is occurring at the local level. We should not leave our forces in the field without the funding they need to accomplish the mission for which they have been deployed.
The Pelosi bill, if it was to get to the President's desk, of course, would be vetoed, as was the supplemental bill sent to the President earlier this year that contained a withdrawal date. Because we have a responsibility to provide this funding to our men and women in uniform as they attempt to protect the American people, we need to get a clean troop funding bill to the President.
There is no particular reason to have all the votes that are likely to be coming our way tomorrow. I have indicated repeatedly to the majority leader--and we have at the staff level--that we would be more than happy on this side of the aisle to move both the farm bill cloture vote and whatever cloture vote or votes we end up having on the troop funding issue up to today. I hope there is still the possibility of doing that. I know Members on both sides of the aisle, in anticipation of the 2-week break, have travel plans. I am all for staying here longer if it makes sense, but under this particular set of circumstances, it doesn't make sense.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senate Republicans have time and time again voted to reform and repeal the alternative minimum tax, a stealth tax that was promulgated in 1969 to ensure some 155 wealthy Americans paid at least some level of Federal tax but which today threatens to entrap more than 20 million American taxpayers this year alone.
I know the majority leader shares my desire to fix the alternative minimum tax and to extend other expiring tax provisions later this year. In fact, as the IRS has told us, the inexplicable inaction at this point has already the potential to wreak havoc on the tax-filing season. I have been encouraging my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to do this for quite some time.
So both my friend, the majority leader, and I know this is an issue that must be addressed. That is common ground, and that is good. But let's be clear. Republicans want to extend the alternative minimum tax patch and expiring tax provisions without increasing taxes on other Americans. Furthermore, we want to protect 90 million American taxpayers, including small business owners, from a massive tax increase that will soon take effect if Congress does not act to extend rate reductions contained in the tax relief measures we passed in 2001 and 2003.
I would suggest that there are fundamental differences of opinion between the two parties on tax policy. This is not a surprise; we all know this. And it is a debate we have been having for years. But on this there is much we can agree on. Let's begin with a base bill that accomplishes what is noncontroversial, what we mutually agree upon; that is, extending the AMT patch for 1 year and extending expiring tax provisions for 2 years.
In view of the differences between the parties on tax increases, let's allow two amendments per side to be in order, each of our own choosing. I can tell you now that our amendments will be focused on ensuring tens of millions of Americans do not face tax increases. While I would not presume to tell my friend, the majority leader, what amendments his side should offer, I would suggest it would be an excellent opportunity for him to offer the tax increases that are included in the Baucus proposal and the Rangel AMT bill as passed by the House as the other. Since we object to the majority's efforts to increase taxes, as they apparently will object to our efforts to extend tax relief, let's require that all amendments be subjected to a 60-vote hurdle.
In summary, I propose we start with common ground and say controversial pay-fors and add-ons must get 60 votes.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of H.R. 3996; provided further that there then be a substitute amendment in order, the text of which is the 1-year alternative minimum tax fix with a 2-year extenders package without the tax-raising offsets; I further ask unanimous consent that each side be allocated four tax-related amendments to be offered to the substitute, and that each amendment under this order and passage of the underlying bill require 60 votes for adoption or passage as the case may be.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source