Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 4 p.m. today. During morning business, Senator Byrd is to be recognized for up to 60 minutes. At 4 p.m. we will resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 470, the sense-of-Congress language relating to Iraq. Last Thursday I moved to proceed to that bill and filed a cloture motion. That vote is slated to occur today at 5:30.

Order of Procedure

I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 4 to 5:20 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the final 10 minutes prior to 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the last 5 minutes.

Mr. President, all across America this past weekend, and even this morning in schools, cafes, pool halls, I am sure, churches, synagogues, military bases, and all offices, people are talking about this war in Iraq. They are talking about President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq--or ``augment,'' as the amendment of the Senator from Virginia talks about. But if you look in the dictionary, ``augment'' and ``escalate'' have the same definition. So every place in America people are talking about Iraq--every place, that is, except in the Senate. I say that because in press conferences held, in statements made by the Republican leader, they have stated there will be no ability to proceed to the debate on this most important issue.

According to my counterpart, the Republican leader, the Republican Senators are going to say no and, he says, without exception. What does this mean? That we are not going to be able to move to proceed to this debate? What is more important than what we are trying to do here today; that is, move forward on a debate on Iraq? As I said, they are doing it every other place in America. Why shouldn't we be able to do it here in the Senate? We learned on Friday--it was continued over the weekend--that the minority is going to do everything in its power to block an Iraq vote. Are they so worried that a bipartisan majority of Senators might voice their opposition to this escalation; so worried that these Senators are going to prevent any Iraq debate?

Remember, this is a very delicate time in the history of our country. Not only do we have the Iraq debate to worry about, but we also, because of the mess, frankly, that was left by the prior majorities in the House and Senate, have no ability to fund this Government after February 15. We have to do that. This has to be completed by a week from this Friday.

I received letters from Republican Senators. They are going to filibuster the continuing resolution, which

means I have to move forward on this to keep the Government from shutting down. Our inability to go forward on the Iraq debate means we may not have the Iraq debate. Remember, we have lost, already, several days. We should be debating this right here today rather than having to vote at 4:30 on whether we can proceed on it.

What is the excuse--and I say excuse--that they are not going to let the American people hear the Senate debate the escalation of the war in Iraq? This claim--and I might say, it is a feeble claim--that they haven't been guaranteed a vote on amendments is not credible. It is simply not true. They have rejected, through their leader--they, the Republicans--three compromises that would have permitted the Senate to vote on the President's plan. I have done this privately. I have done it publicly.

I offered to schedule an up-or-down vote on McCain--that is a resolution supporting the President's plan--and on the Warner-Levin resolution in opposition. That is votes up or down on these two amendments. This offer was rejected.

We then offered the Republican leadership up-or-down votes on those two resolutions I just talked about and they had another one. The Republican leader had another one. I read it. It is the Gregg amendment. So we said let's go ahead and vote on that. I was turned down there also.

I don't know what more we can do. I even went one step further and said we will hold supermajority votes, 60 votes, on Warner and on McCain, two separate votes, 60 each. What more could we do? These were rejected. I have said this publicly, but I said it privately--and there were all kinds of witnesses to my conversation with the Republican leader--the Republican leader obviously can't take ``yes'' for an answer. They have been given all they asked. It is clear their actions are not driven by getting votes on Republican proposals, they are not being driven by getting votes on Republican proposals; they are driven by a desire to provide political cover.

The majority can't rubberstamp the President's policies on Iraq anymore so they decided to stamp out debate and let the actions in Iraq proceed unchecked. America deserves more than a filibuster on the President's flawed plan to add 48,000 troops to Iraq. It is not 21,000. The war in Iraq has taken a great toll on our country. Well more than 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, 24,000 or 25,000 of them wounded, a third of them missing eyes--head injuries. We have 2,000 who are missing limbs.

The war has strained our military. I have been told by leaders at the Pentagon that we do not have a single Army unit that is nondeployed that is battle ready.

We do not have a single, nondeployed Army unit that is ready to go to war. We have depleted our Treasury over $400 billion-- some say $500 billion.

Look at this. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan entity set up by this Congress. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a surge of 21,500 combat troops really means up to 48,000 more troops when support personnel are counted. And, remember, the 3,180 American soldiers who were killed were not all combat troops. They were truckdrivers, they were working in commissaries, they were doing all kinds of things to support the combat troops.

So we are saying it is not 21,500, it is 48,000, and it is going to cost, this little surge, an additional $27 billion. If the President wants to escalate the conflict and send, according to CBO, 48,000 more troops, given these costs alone--that is $27 billion in addition--it is important the Senators have an opportunity to vote up or down on escalation.

But it is even more important because there is widespread opposition in Congress and the country to the President's plan. Those we trust the most do not believe escalation is the right way forward. America's generals don't support this. What does General Casey say? When he was in Iraq he said, I don't think this is going to work. General Abizaid said the same thing. Many others have told us the same thing.

More troops will not bring stability to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group sent this project in another direction. They made very different recommendations. America's generals--of course, they do not support this. The American people do not support the escalation. Look at any public opinion poll--Democrats, Republicans, Independents. The President has heard from the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, that he doesn't want more troops in Baghdad; he wants American troops to leave Baghdad. He told the President that to his face. This is the message President Bush has heard from the generals, the people, the Iraq Study Group, even the Iraq Prime Minister. Now the President should hear from Congress. But is he going to? Perhaps not. The President must hear from Congress that he stands alone. A loud bipartisan message from this body will give him another opportunity to listen and to change course to a plan that gives our troops the best chance for success and gives the country of Iraq the best chance for stability.

Is there anyone who does not think this is an important debate? Is there anyone who believes the Senate should remain silent on the most pressing issue facing the country today? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. According to the Republican leader, all Republican Senators will vote not to proceed.

We are running out of time to find a new way forward in Iraq. That is certainly clear. Americans and our troops have waited 4 years for the Senate to get off the sidelines on this issue. They shouldn't have to wait longer for a new direction in Iraq because the minority wants to protect their politics at home.

We have seen politics in this war before. Politics gave us ``Mission Accomplished.'' Remember that? On the aircraft carrier, the President dressed in a flight suit said: The mission is accomplished; we have won in Iraq. Politics gave us the Vice President who said the insurgency was in its last throes, and the President saying: There are insurgents? Bring them on. Politics gave us a Vice President who promised America we would be greeted as liberators. So we have had enough of this politics for 4 years into this war--4 years.

What we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq, a strategy that is not an escalation. Last week, America's intelligence communities provided their latest estimates of conditions on the ground in Iraq. The picture they painted was bleak and was backed by events this past week in Iraq. Every day, with rare exception, this is what we see out of Iraq: More than 200 people killed--more than 200 people. Hundreds and hundreds injured. It was a 2,000-pound bomb in a marketplace. The Iraqi Interior Ministry, which has been very conservative, said last week that at least 1,000 were killed in Iraq. Two million, it was reported over the weekend, have left Iraq--2 million Iraqis have left Iraq.

We don't need the unclassified assessment of our intelligence community to know things aren't going well in Iraq--and that is an understatement--that the present strategy has failed and there are only nonmilitary solutions to address Iraq's problems. That is why the military surge makes no sense.

Again, the National Intelligence Estimate came out last week. It was months overdue, but it did come out. Here are some of the things it talked about. This is from our own intelligence agencies:

Even if violence is diminished, Iraqi leaders will be hard-

pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the

time frame of this estimate.

Listen to this next one:

Iraq has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle.

This is not Harry Reid. These are the finest, the people who are doing their very best to make America safe. The National Intelligence Estimate:

The term ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements of

the Iraqi conflict, but does not adequately capture the

complexity of the conflict.

I have been saying, and the American people have been saying, for months this is a civil war. It is a civil war, but it is more than a civil war.

The National Intelligence Estimate:

The involvement of these outside actors, Iran and Syria and

Iraq's neighbors, is not likely to be a major driver of

violence or the prospects for stability.

In effect, they are saying the President is now sending battle carrier groups off the waters of Iran because

he is trying to blame them for everything that is going on in Iraq. That is not credible.

Am I saying Iran is the good guy on the block? Of course not. But let's not say they are the cause of all the trouble in Iraq because they are not.

The National Intelligence Estimate:

A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse

the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory. They

include, again, military solutions. Broader Sunni acceptance

of the current political structure and federalism,

significant concessions by the Shia and the Kurds, a bottom-

up approach, mend frayed relationships between tribal and

religious groups.

Mr. President, we need to work to come to a political solution for the problems in Iraq.

Surging U.S. military forces is not a development that is going to help in Iraq. That is because there is no military solution. Military escalation would not end this conflict that is more complex than a civil war. Military escalation would not make it easy for Iraqi leaders to achieve political reconciliation. Military escalation would not bring an end to Iraq's internal sectarian struggle.

Mr. President, as I said when I started, all over America today people are talking about what is going on in Iraq--every place you want to talk about, whether it is the water cooler at the office or truck drivers on their CBs talking back and forth to each other. It is in schools all over America, from elementary to college, talking about what is going on in Iraq. But in the Senate, are we going to have a debate on it? We have been told ``no.''

The problems in Iraq are long term. Yet military escalation is a strategy that is shortsighted. This is the message President Bush has heard from the generals, the people, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Iraq Study Group, and now he must hear from Congress. I hope this afternoon my Republican colleagues will do what is right and allow this important debate to go forward.

I don't know if the Republican leader wishes to be recognized, but I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

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?

Sure.

Mr. President, nearly everything we do in this body--and I will be happy to respond to the distinguished Republican leader--nearly everything we do in this body is determined by unanimous consent. We have matters that come before this body--and that is how we get here, is with unanimous consent. I can't imagine why there would be anyone who would require 60 votes unless they didn't want us to go forward-- unless they didn't want us to go forward. That obviously is the message we are giving around the country. Look at any newspaper: ``GOP Threatens to Block Vote on Resolution.'' That, Mr. President, is USA Today. That is only one newspaper. They are all over America, the same thing.

This is an effort to stop. For every day we are not able to debate the Iraq resolution means one less day, and maybe we would not be able to get to it because of the continuing resolution. As I said earlier, we have been told by letters I received from Republicans that they are going to filibuster the continuing resolution. Today, starting today whenever we came in--and we came in late because we knew we had this procedural vote--we should have been debating Warner and McCain, but we are not. And now, if cloture is invoked, there is 30 hours after that before we can get to debating this and by then, frankly, it is too late. We will not be able to do it because of the continuing resolution.

Of course.

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.

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.

Where does this fairness come in? Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? They have to get everything they want? I cannot imagine how we could be more fair. The American public would see a debate on Warner, see a debate on McCain. One is for the surge, one is against the surge. Why not have that debate? There will be lots of other times to debate other issues dealing with Iraq. We have the September 11 recommendation coming up; we have the supplemental coming up. Iraq is not going to leave the Senate. But it will leave this Senate if we are not allowed to proceed in this manner because--again I say that is because of bad housekeeping and the Republicans just simply leaving town after they lost the majority--we have to pass a continuing resolution. We have to. We have no alternative. We have to start on that by Wednesday.

My offer has always been an up-or-down vote on McCain, on Warner, on Judd Gregg, and the Democratic alternative which basically says we are against the surge. It has always been the same. And the 60- vote would be on McCain and on Warner.

I would also say I appreciate my friend talking about the ethics in lobbying reform and the debate we had on minimum wage. However, I don't want to start a battle that is already over. But one reason we were able to get those two bills passed--we thought stopping debate on these was not the right thing to do. We spoke out loudly, and the American people said: Let's get on with those two issues. They held it up for a little while but not for very long.

Mr. President, I have offered 60 votes on McCain and Warner.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, the vast, vast, vast majority of legislation passed out of this Senate is done by a simple majority. That is a fact. All one has to do is look at the Congressional Record. So with this new direction of the minority, it is very clear what is happening. They are trying to avoid debate on this matter. They want a new set of rules.

We have offered them votes, up-or-down votes on McCain, Warner, Gregg, and they turned that down. I said: OK, fine, we will have 60- vote margins on McCain, Warner. They turned that down. So I object, Madam President, and I will continue.

Madam President, it is also very interesting--and I have the greatest respect for my friend from Virginia and my friend from Nebraska--but with all due respect to them, how could they vote against a motion to proceed? How could they vote against a motion to proceed saying let the two leaders work this out? What more could we give them than what they asked for last week? But now they want to throw in the Gregg amendment with a 60-vote margin.

Earlier today, the minority leader said: This vote is ``about getting fair treatment for the minority here in the Senate.'' He was half right. This vote is about fairness but has little to do with being fair to the minority. The vote is about being fair to 132,000 troops already in Iraq by making sure they have the strategy they need to complete their mission so they can come home.

This vote is about being fair to the 48,000 American men and women who would be sent to Iraq should President Bush be permitted to escalate this war.

This vote is about being fair to the bipartisan majority of Senators who seek to voice their opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war.

This vote is about being fair to the American people and the millions of voters who chose a new direction last November.

As Senators, we owe it to our troops and our people to have a real debate about the way forward in Iraq. For 4 years, this body, under the control of the Republicans, sat silent on the most pressing issue facing our country--Iraq. As thousands of our soldiers were killed and tens of thousands wounded, the Senate, directed by the Republicans, sat silent, no debate on Iraq. As hundreds of billions of dollars were spent, the Senate sat silent. Republicans were in charge--no debate. They said no.

As Iraq fell into chaos and civil war, it became increasingly clear that the President's plan was flawed and failing. The Senate sat silent. The Republicans who were in control of the Senate said: No, no debate on Iraq.

As Senators and Americans, we cannot permit the silence to continue. This Democratic majority will not allow it to continue.

The administration's failures have dug us into a deep hole in Iraq-- we all know that--and we have an obligation to find a way out. Our troops, most of all, need our help. They need a policy that is as worthy as their heroic sacrifice. They need a legislative branch that will finally exercise its constitutional responsibilities.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, I wasn't able to hear all of his speech, but I did hear this that caused me to take note: He said words to the effect: What are the Shia politicians going to think? What are the Sunni politicians going to think if, in fact, Warner passed? I wonder what the Sunni politicians thought, and I wonder what the Shia politicians thought when the Iraqi Prime Minister, duly elected, told the President of the United States that he wanted American troops out of Baghdad. So let's not direct this to Senator Warner.

A ``no'' vote on the motion to proceed is a green light to George Bush to continue down the same failed course of almost 4 years.

A ``no'' vote is an endorsement of escalation, sending 48,000 more troops to Iraq and spending at least an extra $27 billion--$27 billion extra--when this war has already cost almost a half a trillion dollars.

A ``no'' vote is a vote in support of this President continuing the same policy of failure in Iraq.

We have been told by our intelligence experts that the war is not going to be won by the military; it is only going to be won politically. That is what the

Iraq Study Group said. That is what all people say, with rare exception. Those are the people holding hands with the President.

We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people. We must change course, and this change starts with this next vote.

This side--Democrats--have offered the minority everything they have asked for. Remember: Vote on Warner, vote on McCain; you want a simple majority; you want a supermajority; we will go along with that. We have been fair to them. Now the Senate must be fair to our troops, their families, and the American people. We must proceed with a debate about Iraq and send a clear message to President Bush that escalation is not the answer.

Some say let the leaders work it out. Part of this stall has been a stall for obvious reasons. If not tonight, tomorrow? I must file a motion to invoke cloture on the continuing resolution because the Republicans said they are going to filibuster it. I have gotten letters to that effect. We should have been debating the Warner, McCain resolutions today, but they have not allowed us. They wouldn't allow us to proceed on this matter.

I am telling everyone within the sound of my voice, a decision will have to be made whether to go further than tonight, but the time is very tenuous--very tenuous. If they stop us from going forward on this debate, this does not end the debate on Iraq. It may end the debate for a few days or a few weeks, but, remember, we have the 9/11 Commission recommendations coming and that is open to amendment and I can guarantee everybody there will be Iraq amendments involved in that debate.

The supplemental bill is coming. This is to fund the war in Iraq basically more than $100 billion. I think there will probably very likely be a number of amendments dealing with Iraq.

They can run, but they can't hide. We are going to debate Iraq, and they may have gotten all their folks to vote against the motion to proceed, they may stop us temporarily from debating the escalation, but they are not going to stop us from debating Iraq.

We have lost 3,100 soldiers, sailors, and marines. They are dead, Madam President. We don't know the exact number of how many have been wounded--24,000, 25,000.

We are not going to allow the situation in Iraq to continue. It is wrong. There can be no military solution. The President has been told that. I think it speaks volumes when he meets with the Iraqi Prime Minister who is elected, and the Iraqi Prime Minister says: Mr. President of the United States, get all American soldiers out of Baghdad.

That's what he said. I think it speaks volumes when military commanders say that it is not the way to go. We know what Casey said. His tune has changed a little bit since he was relieved of duty over there.

The families of the 3,100 soldiers who have been killed, the families of the 24,000, 25,000 who have been wounded demand we go forward with this debate.

We are going to start voting momentarily, and remember what the vote is. The vote is whether we can proceed to debate the escalation of the war in Iraq. And the Republicans have told everybody they are all going to vote no. If they think this can pop up real easily again, I think they may have another thing coming.

I repeat, the Republicans left town and left the Government without adequate resources to go ahead and complete funding of the Federal Government for this year. We have to take up the work they did not complete. They funded the Government until February 15, and now it is up to us to make sure the Government continues to run.

If they want to pull a Newt Gingrich and close down the Government, that is their responsibility. But I believe we should move forward and make sure the Government is funded, and there is not a lot of time for Iraq. That is a sad commentary on the situation because we lost days as a result of these parliamentary delays.

I ask unanimous consent that if we get to third reading of S. 470 it then be turned into a concurrent resolution and passage occur on the concurrent resolution and not S. 470. Before hearing how anybody feels about this, I said last week that we would be happy to consider this bill as a resolution. Everybody heard me say that. The American people heard me say that. So anybody who tries to hide under a procedural vote because this is a bill and not a resolution is not being fair because simply I have stated--and I know that everyone in this Chamber heard me say this, and I have said it many times--I ask unanimous consent that if we get to third reading of S. 470, that it be turned into a concurrent resolution and that passage occur on the concurrent resolution and not S. 470.

I add another unanimous consent request to this. I am willing to change it to a concurrent resolution right now, as I was willing to do last week.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider that vote.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, my goal as a boy was to be a baseball player. I loved to listen to those baseball games, and I could see myself in my mature years chasing balls down in the outfield and hitting doubles to bring in the winning run. That didn't happen in my life, but I have had the wonderful experience here in the Senate of being able to talk, as I was for a few minutes this morning, to a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, Jim Bunning.

I hope these pages here understand that they have a rare opportunity, to be able to be in the same room, to shake someone's hand who is a member of the Hall of Fame. It was my first time, during Thanksgiving, to visit the Baseball Hall of Fame, and I came away with the realization of how few people are in that Baseball Hall of Fame. Jim Bunning is one of them. We talked a few minutes this morning, and I asked him questions, such as: Who are the good catchers who caught you? And he said: Lots of them. And we talked today about Clay Dalrymple, the man who caught his perfect game, and Gus Triandos.

So just a little offshoot, Mr. President. We are so fortunate to be Members of the Senate for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that we are able to serve with a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. President, my goal as a boy was to be a baseball player. I loved to listen to those baseball games, and I could see myself in my mature years chasing balls down in the outfield and hitting doubles to bring in the winning run. That didn't happen in my life, but I have had the wonderful experience here in the Senate of being able to talk, as I was for a few minutes this morning, to a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, Jim Bunning.

I hope these pages here understand that they have a rare opportunity, to be able to be in the same room, to shake someone's hand who is a member of the Hall of Fame. It was my first time, during Thanksgiving, to visit the Baseball Hall of Fame, and I came away with the realization of how few people are in that Baseball Hall of Fame. Jim Bunning is one of them. We talked a few minutes this morning, and I asked him questions, such as: Who are the good catchers who caught you? And he said: Lots of them. And we talked today about Clay Dalrymple, the man who caught his perfect game, and Gus Triandos.

So just a little offshoot, Mr. President. We are so fortunate to be Members of the Senate for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that we are able to serve with a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:45 a.m. The first 30 minutes will be controlled by the Republicans, and the next 30 minutes will be controlled by the majority. There is additional time for Members to speak in morning business until the hour of 11:45, if they wish. At that time, the Senate will proceed into executive session to consider three judicial nominations. The debate time on the three nominations is limited to 10 minutes; therefore, Members can expect rollcall votes as early as 11:55 this morning.

The distinguished Republican leader and I have had a number of conversations about judicial nominations, which, in the past, have been a real dustup. We are going to try to avoid that this year. We hope to have the first circuit court nomination approved before the Presidents Day recess and will continue to work on district court trial judges and circuit court judges as soon as we can.

I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate the President not sending back four names that were really controversial, and I think it is better for the body that the President did not send up those names. I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at these nominations as quickly as we can. We are hopeful and somewhat confident the President will send us some good circuit court nominees.

Once we have disposed of the nominations, we will resume debate, postcloture, on H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill. A vote on this matter should occur this afternoon. I will discuss that with the Republican leader so that Members will have notice as to when that vote will occur.

After we complete action on the minimum wage bill, there will be an immediate cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution. Last night, I asked consent that we vitiate that cloture vote. We are still working on that to see if we can work something out with the Republicans as to whether we have that vote. Most Democrats will vote against going forward on that since there is now another matter that will come before the Senate, at the latest on Monday. But we are working on that. I acknowledged last night, as did the Republican leader, that the final language of the new matter, which Senator Levin introduced last night, was just finalized at 8:30 p.m., 9 p.m. last night, so I understand why we can't get anything definitely from the minority leader at this time.

I would also say that we have now in the Senate a continuing resolution which passed the House by approximately 290 votes. We are ready to move forward on that. We have to complete that legislation by February 15, the Presidents Day recess, or the Federal Government is closed, and no one wants that to happen. So we are going to move forward on that. What we would like to do is move forward on it by unanimous consent. I understand that is not something that is going to happen, or at least at this stage, but at least we are ready to move forward as quickly as possible. The more quickly we dispose of that, the more time we can spend on Iraq, if, in fact, we want to spend more time on Iraq. At the least, next week is set aside so that we can debate Iraq. What we hope is that we can have a number of competing resolutions, whether it is two, three, four, whatever it is, and to get consent that we would use these vehicles for debate.

Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:45 a.m. The first 30 minutes will be controlled by the Republicans, and the next 30 minutes will be controlled by the majority. There is additional time for Members to speak in morning business until the hour of 11:45, if they wish. At that time, the Senate will proceed into executive session to consider three judicial nominations. The debate time on the three nominations is limited to 10 minutes; therefore, Members can expect rollcall votes as early as 11:55 this morning.

The distinguished Republican leader and I have had a number of conversations about judicial nominations, which, in the past, have been a real dustup. We are going to try to avoid that this year. We hope to have the first circuit court nomination approved before the Presidents Day recess and will continue to work on district court trial judges and circuit court judges as soon as we can.

I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate the President not sending back four names that were really controversial, and I think it is better for the body that the President did not send up those names. I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at these nominations as quickly as we can. We are hopeful and somewhat confident the President will send us some good circuit court nominees.

Once we have disposed of the nominations, we will resume debate, postcloture, on H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill. A vote on this matter should occur this afternoon. I will discuss that with the Republican leader so that Members will have notice as to when that vote will occur.

After we complete action on the minimum wage bill, there will be an immediate cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution. Last night, I asked consent that we vitiate that cloture vote. We are still working on that to see if we can work something out with the Republicans as to whether we have that vote. Most Democrats will vote against going forward on that since there is now another matter that will come before the Senate, at the latest on Monday. But we are working on that. I acknowledged last night, as did the Republican leader, that the final language of the new matter, which Senator Levin introduced last night, was just finalized at 8:30 p.m., 9 p.m. last night, so I understand why we can't get anything definitely from the minority leader at this time.

I would also say that we have now in the Senate a continuing resolution which passed the House by approximately 290 votes. We are ready to move forward on that. We have to complete that legislation by February 15, the Presidents Day recess, or the Federal Government is closed, and no one wants that to happen. So we are going to move forward on that. What we would like to do is move forward on it by unanimous consent. I understand that is not something that is going to happen, or at least at this stage, but at least we are ready to move forward as quickly as possible. The more quickly we dispose of that, the more time we can spend on Iraq, if, in fact, we want to spend more time on Iraq. At the least, next week is set aside so that we can debate Iraq. What we hope is that we can have a number of competing resolutions, whether it is two, three, four, whatever it is, and to get consent that we would use these vehicles for debate.

Mr. President, before I turn this over to the Republican leader, there are two bills at the desk for a second reading, is my understanding.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. President, before I turn this over to the Republican leader, there are two bills at the desk for a second reading, is my understanding.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings at this time with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and the vote begin.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back and the vote begin.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Enzi or their designees; that at 5 p.m., all time postcloture be considered yielded back; and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill, as amended; that upon passage of the bill, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that there then be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 2.

I would say to all Senators, prior to the Chair considering the unanimous-consent request, that we may not have the second vote. Unless there is unanimous consent that we not have it, we will have it. We will make that decision during the vote that takes place beginning at 5 o'clock.

Madam President, I want to say, Senator Kennedy is not here, and I am sorry that is the case. But he spent the last week or two on the Senate floor. I want to express how much I appreciate the attitude and demonstration of bipartisanship shown by Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi. I have said before they are an example of how people with different political philosophies can do things constructive in nature to get us to a point where we are today. They are both outstanding legislators, and they are very fine individuals, as indicated by their ability to get along on the most contentious issues.

A person does not have to be disagreeable to disagree. And these two gentlemen certainly epitomize, in my estimation, how we should all work together in spite of our political differences, to work toward a common good to do things that are good for the American people.

So, Senator Enzi, who is here, thank you very much.

Senator Kennedy, who is not here, I appreciate very much his work.

Madam President, Senator McConnell certainly jogs my memory that I should have mentioned my friend Senator Baucus. He and Senator Grassley also have an exemplary relationship. This bill is half from the HELP Committee and half from the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus certainly has lifted a big load for us over here.

Madam President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that the next cloture vote be vitiated.

Madam President, this next vote is not necessary. As a result of yesterday's breakthrough in negotiations, the base bill for the Iraq debate will be the Warner-Levin legislation and not S. Con. Res. 2. So I will vote against cloture and urge both sides of the aisle to do likewise.

The most important question that I have been asked, by popular demand, is when are we going to have a vote on Monday. I have conferred with the Republican leader on more than one occasion. We can still vote at 4:30 and complete the 30 hours prior to Wednesday, which would be our goal. So we are going to vote at 4:30 on Monday on cloture on the Levin-Warner measure, unless we work something out beforehand. Again, that is 4:30 Monday.

Madam President, we yield back our time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.