February 15, 2007: Iraq Vote Scheduled for Saturday After Snowe & Hagel Object to Adjournment

[18:48]
The Senate has adjourned for the night but it will be back tomorrow at noon eastern.  Beyond that, the Senate will be in session Saturday for a 13:45 cloture vote on the House Iraq resolution.  Majority Leader Reid acknowledged that there was no good time for the Saturday vote.  He said that the vote will begin at 13:45 but it will be treated as beginning at 14:00 so that senators have an easier time fitting it into their schedules.  The cloture motion will need 60 yeas to pass.  The reason for the Saturday vote is that votes on cloture motion cannot take place earlier than 30 hours after they've been filed; Reid filed the motion today.


[15:38]
C-SPAN2, in the midst of quorum call, is replaying remarks from Olympia Snowe (ME), who has been unusually outspoken on this issue of debating Iraq.  She says, the Senate is about to adjourn for 12 days without first having taken a vote on Iraq.  She and Chuck Hagel (NE) have written a letter to the leadership (of both parties) voicing their disapproval of such scheduling.


[15:33]
I am watching C-SPAN2 and it sounds like the Senate is going to have another cloture vote on Iraq today.  A reporter from the Congressional Quarterly is saying that the Republicans objected to going home early and the Dems called their bluff.  The CQ reporter says that there is a Senate vote on Iraq scheduled now for Saturday.  More details when they unfold.


[15:22]
The Senate is in a quorum call right now.  I've been away from the television so I'm afraid I cannot account for the last three and a half hours.  I am surprised to find the Senate still in session at this hour before the Presidents' Day recess.


[11:51]
Specter, PA.  We are about to cede to the House our title of 'World's Greatest Deliberative Body.'  The rule in question is Rule 22.

OK, now Stevens (AK).  I cannot remember a time when we tied together the convept of first degree and second degree amendments and cloture and completely shutting off the minority.  He refers to maybe one other time, where Byrd was majority leader.  He refers to the majority as a 'majority of one,' and how they majority is making the minority irrelevant.  They ought to think again, we're only one vote away here.  This is a defining moment for the Senate, he says.  He says we are sending the wrong message to Iraq, even to Afghanistan, which he refers to as 'coming back.'  No amendments is not right, it's not the Senate, and I am not going to sit back and watch the Senate become a rubber stamp for the House.  That's the course we're on.

Senate goes into a period of morning business.  Leahy, he's going to talk about Iraq.

[11:40]
The debate moves on.  Arlen Specter (PA) has the floor.  He is scheduled to talk about upcoming judge votes but he wants to talk first about what is au currant.  He says what we have before us is the senate in paralysis.  And what we're going to see, he says, is the U.S. Senate about to become irrelevant.  We've got the House on the other side of the rotunda debating the major issue facing our country.

Byrd asks Specter to yield, which he does.  Specter said something about Reid having he right to "fill the tree."  Byrd says, no, he does not have the right.  He only has such right if no other Senator intervenes.  This is an argument about Senate rules, filling the tree, seeking recognition.  Specter says he has sought a change in the rules, he wants to end the business of "filling the tree."  We are in real danger of becoming irrelevant, he says.  We need not be dominant over the House but we ought to at least be equal.  Byrd wants to get in but Specter says he wants to finish.  The Senate is in anarchy, he says, while the House is in despotism.  He says he can't explain to his constituents what the Senate is doing.  We had 50 senators on the floor just now, having a debate about having a debate.  He made a joke about filling the tree that other senators laughed at but which went over my head.  He is calling on the majority to allow the minority to vote on its resolutions.

Now the Senate is finally caught, he says, where America and the world see what we're doing.  Specter has only four minutes left, and he still has to talk about judges.  He yields back to Byrd.

Byrd.  He congratulates the Senator from PA, observes his concern.  We don't need any more rules, he says, we've got enough rules.  Senators need to insist on their rights as senators, they ought to speak up, and they ought to pay attention.  Senators should read the rules, he says.  Senators should observe that they are senators.  We need to understand the rules we have, and the chair ought to, as well, insist that the rules be observed.  This is about 'filling the tree.'  Byrd seems to be saying that a senator, any senator, can seek recognition in order to block the majority leader from 'filling the tree.'

Now Ted Stevens (AK), who's been here for a little while, wants three minutes.

See, the Senate is slated to vote on judges and it's clear that it wants to, needs to address its paralysis.  Leahy yields time to Stevens.


[11:19]
The Senate will adjourn today and re-convene at 10:00 on February 26th, a Monday.  Reid has just asked for the Senate to vote on the House Iraq resolution at that time.  If no one objects, this means no cloture on such resolution, 51 votes meaning passage.

But minority leader Mitch McConnell (KY) objects.  This is not the House, he says.  Our constituents want debate; our side wants to offer one or even two alternatives.

Reid wants to complete the Iraq surge debate on that Monday and then move on to debate about implementing the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Reid notes that some of the minority have said that we should be in session next week.  And I can be in next week, he says.  But he doesn't seem to be considering the idea seriously.

Now back to Mitchy Mac.  We're not here right now, I assume, to debate the merits of any Iraq resolution.  But he takes up the argument.  He is now proposing a unanimous consent request.  He is asking that the Senate proceed to: (1) The House Resolution; (2) The Warner Resolution; (3) The McCain/Lieberman Resolution; (4) The Gregg Amendment.  He is calling for four consecutive votes, one on each resolution.  Simple up-or-down votes, needing 60 votes for approval.

Reid reserves the right to object.  He says, the only issue we really need to address is Whether there should be a surge in Iraq, an escalation.  He says that these multiple resolution obfuscate the issue.  He objects.

Back to McConnell.  If this were allowed, this would be the second vote in a row where a 49-member majority would not be allowed to offer amendments.  This is the kind of thing that Senator Byrd would get on his feet and decry.  How can we only have one choice on the paramount issue facing our country.  The majority leader and I obviously need to sit down and craft an agreement.

Now John McCain (AZ).  He wants to explain his resolution.  It supports the surge, and it SUPPORTS the surge.  McCain says, why can't we have two votes: one on a resolution supporting the surge, one on a resolution opposing the surge.  I've never seen the Senate work this way, he says.  I've never seen the Senate consider only one proposal.  He asks Mitchy Mac, Have you ever seen anything like this?

McConnell.  I, too, am astonished.  The message is clear.  The majority can gridlock the Senate by refusing to offer choices, or we can sit down and work something out.

Pat Roberts (KS).  He could not support the House Resolution.  He supports the McCain resolution, the benchmarks.  Finally, some senators are weighing in, and there is some procedural tussling.  Perhaps this is sparked by the Iraq debate this week in the House.

Roberts says, Maybe we should consider the Feingold amendment, too.  It would propose that all troops be pulled out.  We oughta have that put in order, too, that oughta be a choice.

Reid has tried to get in but McConnell has the floor.  He will soon yield soon but he says the minority will insist on having some choices.  We haven't seen the Senate work this way?  Really?  I remember when we were in the minority, and this was how the Senate worked.  He cites the Golden Rule.  He says that he as Maj. Leader has followed the Golden Rule, on Ethics, on the Min Wage, even on the CR (or it would not have passed).  My friend from AZ has suggested that he be allowed to offer his amdt.  Reid is now proposing two votes: House resolution and McCain resolution.  We can do it tomorrow or even Monday.  He is offering it flat out, "those two resolutions."  With no other amendments being in order.  Take those two votes and then move on to Homeland Security, where Senators can offer any amdts. they want.

McConnell objects.  It's this Gregg Amdt. that they are insisting on.  They can't pick our amdt, he says.  If we only get one resolution, we want to decide what it will be.  He is now making his proposal again.  The Gregg Amdt, recall, says basically that the Senate agrees not to cut off funding for any military mission undertaken by the President.

Now Durbin steps in.  The Senate has heard this song before, he says.


[10:41]
The Senate is voting to confirm a new judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  This nomination is not controversial.  This will probably be the only vote of the day, and then the Senators will take the rest of the week and all of next week off to observe the Presidents' Day holiday.  All this talk by the Democrats about 'the end of the three-day work week' and 'more hours' in session appear to have been uttered in exuberance.