February 5, 2007: Republicans Filibuster Warner Iraq Resolution

[18:06]
The vote is 49 yea to 47 nay.  So, no cloture on the Warner resolution; it has been filibustered.  The Republicans were unhappy that Democrats would not agree to consider a Gregg Amendment to the resolution (an amendment stating "that the Constitution gives the president the responsibility for deployment and assignment of missions of U.S. military forces, and that Congress has the responsibility to fully fund those missions").


[17:58]
The motion to proceed to further debate on the Warner resolution will not pass.  What's happened is that Republican senators have voted as one against the motion, even those senators who are sponsoring the resolution (e.g. Warner, Snowe, Hagel, etc.)  Briefly, the Republicans have banded together in protest against the Democrats' refusal to allow an up-or-down vote on the Gregg Amendment, which states that the Constitution gives the president the responsibility for deployment and assignment of missions of U.S. military forces, and that Congress has the responsibility to fully fund those missions..  Of course, Gregg is not calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops but he wants to put the Democrats on record regarding troop withdrawal.  Reid offered to open the Gregg amendment to a 60-vote test but this was not enough for Repubs, they want it subject to a 50-vote test.  Only Collins and Coleman among Repubs has voted to let debate proceed.


[16:51]
Joe Lieberman, CT.  Lieberman speaks on minority time.  This resolution will not stop the troop surge, he says.  It will compromise our nation's security.  Our debate here will be heard by Iraqi moderates trying to decide what to do in Iraq.  What we say here will be heard by the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria; by the leaders of al Qaeda.  This is a resolution of irresolution on the part of Congress, on the "eve of a decisive battle."  Lieberman opposes the motion for cloture and urges those who believe Gen. Petraeus has a chance in Iraq should also oppose the resolution.  And, if you do want to cut off funding for Iraq, then vote on a binding resolution that would do just that.


[16:42]
Joe Biden, DE.  The President has not put forth a plan but a "tactic."  The Warner resolution is a bipartisan effort that will prevent escalation of the war in Iraq.  The way to get the Iraqis to reach a political solution is to start to draw down our troops, he says.

Let me clarify that at this point, the Warner Resolution is in the form of a bill.  It urges political settlement; it urges dialogue with regional neighbors; and it opposes the surge.


[16:40]
John Cornyn, TX.  He doesn't like polls, he said, and they shouldn't be used to govern our duties here, but he will take the time now to quote a poll that says Americans by 2 to 1 do not think a resolution in Congress will be helpful in our Iraq war effort.


[16:25]
Arlen Specter, PA.  The senior senator from Pennsylvania opposes the troop surge but will vote against cloture on the Warner resolution.  He disagrees with the way debate is proceeding in the Senate in that, post-cloture, the number of amendments that senators can offer will be fixed as per an agreement between the majority and the minority.  The majority can "fill the tree," a technical maneuver that prevents further amendments from being offered on a bill.  When senators want to offer an amendment post-cloture they cannot do so when the "tree is filled," and will therefore vote against cloture.  That is the position Specter says he finds himself in.  Thus, this is a senator who opposes Bush's plan for Iraq but is also opposing the Democratic effort to limit the scope of debate on Iraq.  Specter notes that there is only an hour and a half to debate a monumental issue.  He is right on this.  There are countless senators on the floor seeking time.  Everyone wants to talk yet there is only a 90-minute block set aside to allow for Iraq debate.

The problem, as Reid hinted at it earlier, is that he wants the Senate to start working on budget bills by Wednesday (because our government has not had a budget since FY 2006).  In order to speed the Iraq debate along, Reid and his minority counterpart, Mitch McConnell (KY) are trying to work out some kind of deal where the Warner resolution will get an up-or-down vote as well as perhaps two other Republican resolutions.  This leaves someone like Specter in the lurch, who wants to offer a resolution himself, but who would be prevented from doing this under the deal.


[15:05]
Robert Byrd, WV.  The senior senator from West Virginia is making a speech about the mine health safety act and is criticizing the Dept. of Labor and the White House budget office. [15:20]  Forty-seven coal miners perished, died, dead last year, half of them in West Virginia.


[14:57]
Trent Lott, MS.  Wants to get a word in.  If the senator from WV uses the next 60 minutes we will be out of morning business without our side having a chance to respond to Durbin or Schumer.  Byrd says he is reasonable and yields five minutes without losing his right to the floor.

Lott has five minutes.  This is all a bunch of show & tell, he says.  We know our leaders are gonna find a way to work this out, he says.  So why are we here calling this blocking and delaying.  This is the United States Senate, he says, we are gonna have a full debate, on this issue and others.  This is not an effort to block debate.  And when we do debate, we ought not to do so in the form of a non-binding resolution.  This is a lot of sound and fury.  And Byrd in the background finishes the quote.


[14:52]
Chuck Schumer, NY.  This is a filibuster by Republicans so that we cannot debate Iraq.  Yes, we filibustered judges, says Schumer.  We'll stand by that.  But are they (the Repubs) willing to stand by a filibuster of a debate on the war in Iraq?  How can we not debate a war that has no strategy, he asks.  He talks about how this war has "devolved" into a civil war, echoing the comments of Gordon Smith (OR) who has said that this war has "mutated" over time, going from being a war to dethrone to Saddam to a civil war.  Every senator who votes against cloture is a vote saying "I do not wish to debate this war."  The McCain resolution is getting its equal place under the sun.  It's yes or no.  Do you support this escalation or do you not?  The election answered that on behalf of the American people.  Here we are at this sorry moment, the most important issue to face this senate in quite a while, on which we will have no debate.  It is the very lack of debate that led us into this situation in the first place.


[14:47]
Dick Durbin, IL.  The minority is preventing us from having a debate in the Senate.  They are demanding that a couple more of their amendments be voted on before they will agree to let debate proceed.  We've shown good faith on our side, says Durbin.  We are already considering one Republican's resolution (Warner) and we have agreed to up or down votes on McCain's resolution and on a Gregg amendment.  What more do they want?  They are taking us into the maws of this wretched civil war and they should be able to stand up to face the debate.  Why are we here if we cannot debate the single most paramount issue facing our country?  The White House does not want this debate, he says.  This is not a vote of "no confidence" in our troops.  Do you think Senator Warner would offer such a resolution?


[14:37]
The Senators on the floor include: Byrd, Durbin, Schumer, Warner, Lott.  Byrd (WV) has 60 minutes reserved.  They are all talking abck and forth with the chair trying to figure out who is going to talk when.  Asst. Minority leader Lott (MS) is trying to secure the right to interject or respond to speeches by the majority.  Lott is now making a unanimous consent (UC) request that would line up Durbin then Lott then Byrd then Warner.  Byrd reserves the right to object and asks what the order is.  He hates UCs.  Byrd wants to know what order has been previously established.  There is no order already established, though.  Pryor (AR) is the chair and he is bamboozled.  Durbin has the first ten minutes and then Byrd has 60 minutes at some point.  He's got time reserved, he says, and no one else has gotten in line.  Lott is saying he wants time after Durbin and Schumer in order to respond; to establish a flow and some fairness.  Byrd is not happy.  He wants his hour, and the chair says you'll get your full hour.  Byrd objects to the request by the senator from MS.  Schumer offers a compromise but Byrd doesn't let that through either.  Durbin is just gonna start, now at 14:46.


[14:35]
There are several senators on the floor wanting to speak.  It appears as though the Warner resolution will not get 60 votes.  Reid is upset and talking about how it sucks not to get 60 votes to proceed with debate; that people across the country are talking about and debating Iraq; that the only place where people aren't talking about Iraq is in the U.S. Senate.


This afternoon the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to further consideration of the Warner Iraq resolution.  For this motion to succeed, it needs to garner 60 votes.  Senators Feingold (WI) and Dodd (CT) have already said that they will not vote for the resolution, because they believe it is too weak.  Lieberman (CT) will not vote for it because he believes it undercuts the President's plan.  (Down to 47 votes).  But Republican senators Warner, Snowe, Collins, Smith, Coleman, Brownback, Hagel, and probably Specter will vote in favor of the resolution.  That brings the total up to 55.

Other speculation wonders if presidential candidates like Obama may not vote for the resolution because it is not stern enough.  Likewise, 20 up-for-election in 2008 Republicans like Sununu (NH) and Alexander (TN) could support the resolution in fear of the political fallout two years from now if they appear complicit in something that is by then even worse than it is now.  Either way, this resolution is going to have a hard time passing.