More on What Happened in the Senate Yesterday

Here is what the Republicans wanted:

Senate Republicans yesterday blocked an up-or-down vote on the non-binding resolution offered by Sen. John Warner using a filibuster, a legislative maneuver that forces backers of the measure to round up 60 votes to end debate. The Los Angeles Times reports Republicans complained that Majority Leader Harry Reid "was giving preferential treatment" to the Warner resolution "to require benchmarks for Iraqi progress. The GOP asked for similar consideration for a measure by Sen. Judd Gregg." The AP notes "the 49-47 vote was 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain." The GOP-backed resolution, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, "says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces."

USA Today notes "all three Republican co-sponsors of the resolution opposed it in the 49-47 vote. The only Republicans voting for that resolution were Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins. The New York Times says the Republican "show of unity, with war critics including Mr. Warner of Virginia and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, siding with the leadership, lent some credibility to Republican claims that Democrats were being unfair." The Washington Times says GOP Sen. Arlen Specter "called Mr. Reid's squelching of resolutions 'an effort to short-circuit debate.'"

The Washington Post reports the Democratic leadership "gave Republicans a choice: Allow all...versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass." McConnell "wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle."

From the floor of the senate, the lies and the irony was piling up like so much bull cookies:

Mr. REID. Fairness. You start throwing the 60-vote number around when you have something to hide or you want to stall, and it appears that is the case here. We have offered the Republicans an up-or-down vote on Warner, an up-or-down vote on McCain, and an up-or-down vote on the matter relating to Senator Gregg. How much fairer could you be on that? We have heard in this body from the Republicans for years now: Up-or-down vote, up-or-down vote. We want an up-or-down vote.

That is what we want. Why should there be an arbitrary ruling by the minority that this take 60 votes as to how people feel about the Warner amendment or the McCain amendment?

[...]

Mr. McCONNELL. Let me repeat my question. Isn't it true, I say to my good friend, the majority leader, that any one Member of the Senate could ensure that a matter has to receive 60 votes?

Mr. BYRD. Could do what, may I ask?

Mr. REID. Could ask for 60 votes. I say to my friend, hypothetically that is true, but that is the way it is with many things in this body. But that person would have to come forward, identify themselves, and stand up and say:

I do not want the debate on Iraq to go forward. This is a little difficult to do with the situation where, as I said before, everybody in America wants this debate to go forward. So let's hear somebody on the other side stand up, akin to a Senator who believes in something, and say: I don't want this debate to go forward.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say that there are many Members on my side who would argue we should not be having this debate this week at all. I hope none of those watching this on C-SPAN or any people in the gallery are confused. A 60-vote threshold is routine in the Senate. It is the ordinary, not the extraordinary. There was really only one exception to that, and that was the consideration of judicial nominees. My good friends on the other side of the aisle spent an enormous amount of time in the last couple of years trying to establish a 60-vote threshold for that as well.

There is nothing the minority is asking for that is in any way extraordinary, nothing extraordinary about it at all. It is really quite ordinary. We are prepared to have a debate on Iraq this week. We look forward to having a debate on Iraq this week. What should happen is the distinguished majority leader and myself should agree, by consent, to a reasonable number of resolutions. As I have indicated, some of the Republican Senators have given up their opportunity to offer proposals in deference to my request that we narrow down the number of resolutions to a reasonable number for consideration this week.

I hope that one of two things would happen: Either we vitiate the vote this afternoon because it is completely unnecessary or we will defeat cloture and the majority leader and I, hopefully, will be able to sit down and reach agreement for a fair consideration of alternate proposals that could have been reached last Friday and I had hoped would have been reached last Friday.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, keep in mind what I offered the minority: up-or-down votes on Warner and McCain; up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. I also offered a 60-vote on Warner and a 60-vote on McCain. That was also turned down.

This thing about 60 votes is exaggerated. I have been in the Senate 25 years. I have been involved in two filibusters, and that is two more than most anyone in the Senate has been involved in. Filibusters are just talk. Rarely are filibusters ever necessary or do they occur.

Therefore, this ``everything is 60 votes'' is simply not valid.

They want a fair process? Up-or-down vote on McCain, up-or-down vote on Warner, up-or-down vote on Judd Gregg. Okay, don't want that? I tell you what, this has been stated publicly and privately long before today: We will give you a 60-vote on Warner, we will give you a 60-vote on McCain. Nope. Turned down.

That's an outright lie and he knows it. Just about everything in the senate needed 60 votes to move forward under the Democrats.

Let's have a full debate, offer all resolutions and make them really be tested with the 60 vote margin. If the senate is so against this surge, then it should pass with no problem. What are you afraid of Democrats? Put it to a vote, be who you are and let the political chips fall where they may.

Tags: senate, Iraq, war, resolutions