Media Stakeout With Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell
Statement
Media Stakeout With Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell
OHIO CLOCK CORRIDOR, CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
12:35 P.M. EDT, TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007
Copyright ©2007 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Jack Graeme at jack@fednews.com or call 1-800-211-4020.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, good afternoon everyone. I thought I'd make some observations about the last couple of weeks.
As I've indicated before to you and others, and I think the first six or seven months of this Congress have basically not been very productive. We've had excessive Iraq votes, excessive investigations, and not much legislating. We managed to keep the lights on and managed to do a troop funding bill that was important, but that's really about it for the first seven months.
Having said that, I'm somewhat optimistic going into the last two weeks that the majority may have figured out the way to get things done around here. We're about to pass a higher education bill on a bipartisan basis. That's a good thing. I think finally getting around to doing at least one of the appropriation bills is a good thing. We should have been doing them in June and July, in my view, because we're probably headed toward another appropriations train wreck, for which my side was severely criticized, if you recall, for not being able to produce appropriation bills last year, and here we are this year with a schedule for appropriation bills not distinguishable from the way it worked last year.
I think we've got a chance of getting there on the 9/11 bill. Democrats basically capitulated to our demands to eliminate collective bargaining for TSA employees. Having done that, I think that smooths the way to get a presidential signature there.
And I remain optimistic that we're going to finally pass a lobby ethics bill. I had hoped, as all of you know, that we'd be able to go to conference on that. That appears to be unlikely. But I think that a bill will be produced and in all likelihood, hopefully, be one that can pass on a bipartisan basis.
So I think if we do the kind of things I'm discussing here for the last couple of weeks, that's a good way to operate all year long, and I think it would be the best way to operate in the fall if we want to actually pass legislation rather than just be engaged in kind of endless partisan debates.
With that, let me throw it open.
Q Do you support -- I'm sorry. Do you support bringing the Wounded Warriors Act separately to the floor for approval?
SEN. MCCONNELL: I think one of the -- one of the casualties of taking down the defense authorization bill and running the risk of it not passing for the first time in 45 years was the loss of the Wounded Warrior provision. I'd be happy to work with Senator Reid to figure out a way to expedite that separately. He indicated this morning he'd like to do that. We'll be happy to work with him to achieve that.
Q What obstacles do you see -- (off mike) -- for the higher education reauthorization moving out of the -- (off mike) -- Senate?
SEN. MCCONNELL: My assumption is that's going to happen shortly.
Q But --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Oh, after the Senate.
Q Yeah, after the Senate.
SEN. MCCONNELL: I really can't handicap that. In the Senate, at least, it hasn't been a particularly partisan bill. There's been good bipartisan cooperation. As you know, we went to the bill under a consent agreement, which means that going in we had widespread agreement that this was a bill that ought to pass with a limited number of amendments. That's a good way to legislate. You actually pass things in the Senate when you do it that way.
Q So, Senator, if you leave here next week and you pass the conference report on the 9/11 bill and the lobbying reform bill, would you then say the Democrats are doing a good job?
SEN. MCCONNELL: What I would say is they have finally figured out, with two weeks left, the way to accomplish things in the Senate. I would say they've wasted the first seven months by being excessively partisan and creating unnecessary, in my view, disputes with a pretty robust minority of 49, and that that would be the best way to go into September if they want to have a chance to finish the appropriation bills, if there's any chance at all to finish those by September 30th, which I think is quite a stretch. They would all have to be done on a pretty strong bipartisan basis.
We've also got the DOD authorization bill hanging out there, desperately needs to be passed, wholly aside from the issue of how Iraq votes turn out. They'll have to crowd that onto the agenda. They're going to need a lot of bipartisan support in order to move all these items and to move them rapidly. Maybe these last two weeks will be an indication of how to do that.
Q Have you had any discussion with Mr. Reid about moving other spending bills in September?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, we've had a number of discussions about moving these spending bills as far back as June. It had been my hope that we would address appropriations beginning in June, and that would have given us a real likelihood of finishing in the Senate by the end of the fiscal year.
I know that's somewhat unusual, but it actually could have happened. Instead, we have not done any until now. And we may get one passed here before we leave; I had hoped we would be doing appropriation bills along the way. I mean, that is, after all, the basic work of government, and we paid a pretty -- (chuckles) -- we took a lot of grief for that last year, if you recall, a lot of grief. And we gave them a lot of grief when they did the same thing in 2002, right before we came back to the majority.
The best thing to do is to quit playing games with each other and just pass the appropriation bills. It's the fundamental work of government, the thing we know we have to do every year. When you can't even do that, that's approaching dysfunctional.
Q Have you seen the new lobbying and ethics bill?
SEN. MCCONNELL: I haven't.
Q And -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: I haven't. As you know, there is not a conference, and Republicans are not, as far as I know, not allowed to participate in the process.
I'm hopeful -- you know, this bill started off at the beginning of the year on pretty strong bipartisan footing; it was a Reid- McConnell bill in the Senate. But since we are not in conference, I really couldn't tell you. You may have better information about what's in it than I.
Q Senator McConnell, is it going to be easy for you to maintain the -- (off mike) -- to sustain the president's veto on appropriations bills when they come in, as they seem to be doing -- (off mike). Are you going to be able to hold the line with so many members -- (off mike)?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, it's a good question, but there is no immediate answer to that. We're going to have to look at the appropriation bills one at a time, and I think my members are going to assess them individually -- assuming we ever get to doing them -- and we are going to finally do one here, it looks like, before the recess.
Q Senator McConnell --
Q (Off mike.)
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, as I said, we're going to take these bills one at a time, and I think we'll see where my members are at the end of the debate as to, you know, whether they think they're going to support it or not.
Q Senator McConnell, what is your reaction to the military campaign plan -- the details that were reported today in The New York Times related to --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yeah, The New York Times story today? Yeah. There are a lot of different stories coming out of Iraq from various generals saying various things.
Let me just say as far as the Senate is concerned, September is the date we're looking to.
As you know, that was in the troop funding bill. It's a legislated date of significance. Most of my members are actually interested in what the facts are in those Crocker and Petraeus reports. It looks like the Democrats may have already made up their mind and may not be persuaded by whatever Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus say in September.
But for us, I think that's the key date. We're going to be looking to those reports. And I'm assuming the president is going to be guided by that as well in laying out some kind of strategy for the rest of the year and beyond.
Q Do you think your caucus or your conference would support extending the surge if that's what General Petraeus recommends?
SEN. MCCONNELL: As I indicated we're going to wait until September to hear what Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have. And I think it's going to be one of the most widely read and anxiously awaited military reports in American history. And I think most of my members actually care what's in those reports and what's actually said. And we don't know what he's going to say two months from now.
I'll take one more if there is one, yeah.
Q If I may, what do you see as the prospects for SCHIP being reauthorized by September 30th given the large divide between the House and the Senate chambers plan for this?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, the SCHIP program is very popular. There is concern, as you know, about waivers the administration has issued, which a lot of my members are not happy with, and also the size of the plan that came out of the Finance Committee and what that may portend for the future in terms of an entire government takeover of American health care and in essence, a single-payer system down the road. So that's going to be a very important debate.
The president's indicated, as you know, that he does not like the proposal that came out of the Finance Committee and would veto it. We're having lots of discussions inside my conference, because I have members who support the Finance Committee version and members who don't support the Finance Committee version. So we're having a vigorous internal discussion of that issue and trying to bring members who are not on the Finance Committee up to speed as to just what the Finance Committee bill proposes to do.
So I can't give you a definitive answer as to where we're going to end up here.
It looks like the president -- having said publicly he's going to veto it if it's the Finance Committee version, I think we know where he is. Now we have to figure out where we are.
Q (Off mike) -- the president was the governor of Texas -- (off mike). Why is it that -- (off mike) --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think the fundamental point here is this is a health care plan for poor children, and to the extent that it ends up being used for other purposes, I think that moves away from the original purpose of the legislation.
Source