Senate Cloture Vote On #BadIranDeal Disapproval Set For This Afternoon

Today in Washington, D.C. - Sept. 10, 2015:
The House reconvened at 10 AM today. This afternoon the House is expected to decide whether to take up:
H. Res. 411 - Finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015;
H.R. 3461 - To approve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of Iran;
H.R. 3460) To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran."

No bills were passed yesterday by the House.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said today, “Republicans continue to do all that we can do to stop the president’s nuclear agreement with Iran. By putting party first, Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people and avoiding the judgment of history. But this debate is far from over, and frankly, it’s just beginning. This is a bad deal with decades-long consequences for the security of the American people and our allies. And we’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow, and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”

The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and resumed consideration of H. J. Res. 61, the vehicle for the Resolution of Disapproval of the president’s agreement with Iran.

At 3:45 PM, after another day of debate, the Senate will vote on cloture on the McConnell substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61, which is the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal. If cloture is invoked, there will be another 30 hours of debate before a vote on final passage of the resolution of disapproval.

This afternoon, after days of debate, the Senate will have its first opportunity to vote on a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s deal with Iran.

Democrats have been working for weeks to shore up enough tepid, partisan support in an attempt to filibuster the resolution of disapproval, thus blocking a straight up-or-down vote on the bill.

At 3:45 PM today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled a cloture vote to move towards a final vote on the resolution. If all the Democrats saying they support the deal vote against cloture, they’ll have succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote.

Politico notes, “Some rank-and-file Democrats have been wary of filibustering the measure for fear of being labeled obstructionists. Seeking to soothe those worries, Democrats devoted their first party lunch after the long August recess to assessing how the 42 members who back the nuclear deal’s substance would vote on a procedural step to take up the bill.”

If Democrats are concerned, they have an easy solution: vote for cloture and then vote their conscience on final passage.

William Galston, a supporter of the Iran deal, writes in a Wall Street Journal column, “With 41 Senate Democrats now lined up in favor of the nuclear deal, it is almost certain to go into effect. The remaining question concerns the process by which Congress and the president will arrive at that outcome.

“Until recently the answer seemed clear: Strong majorities in both houses would send a resolution of disapproval to Mr. Obama, who would return it to them with his veto, which would be sustained. But since then . . . the Senate Democratic leadership and the White House have opted for a new strategy: preventing a resolution of disapproval from ever reaching the president’s desk.”

Galston continues, “[L]et me pose a hopelessly old-fashioned question: Even if Democrats could get away with this ploy, would it be the right thing to do?

“I think not. The proposed deal with Iran represents one of the most significant U.S. foreign-policy shifts in many years. Its supporters, of whom I am one, should stand up and be counted—all the more so if they have been elected and sent to Washington to make such judgments. This is especially true for Mr. Obama, who has worked relentlessly to bring about a nuclear rapprochement with the Iranians, an outcome to which he has subordinated many other issues and relationships. Leadership—and above all presidential leadership—means taking responsibility for one’s decisions.

“The White House shouldn’t use procedural maneuvers to avoid a presidential veto. If it becomes necessary, Mr. Obama should issue that veto unapologetically, with a message explaining his reasons in detail and—I would suggest—a national address from the Oval Office.”

Also writing in The Journal today, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut who opposes the deal, urges Democrats no to filibuster the resolution of disapproval. “Much of the debate has focused on how Democrats will vote; nearly all Republicans have declared opposition. Yet even those who support the deal should agree: It deserves a straight up or down vote.

“As someone who has opposed the agreement, convinced that it will only further endanger America’s security, I acknowledge with regret that the deal will not be stopped by Congress. Of course, there could be some late-breaking change: Who knows what Iran’s leaders will say next, whether denouncing America or sympathizing with terrorists. More so-called side agreements could leak out. But for now there are enough votes to adopt a resolution rejecting the agreement—and not enough votes to override the veto President Obama has promised.

“Yet apparently the White House and some Senate Democratic leaders aren’t satisfied. Minority Leader Harry Reid and others are reportedly planning to filibuster the motion of disapproval and are pressuring Democrats to vote for the filibuster. The endgame is to avoid a real vote on what is arguably the most important diplomatic agreement since the end of the Cold War. . . .

“The Obama administration might have put the agreement with Iran into place without any congressional approval. But both chambers almost unanimously adopted legislation earlier this year introduced by Sens. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D., Md.) that requires the administration to win a majority—51 votes in the Senate—to approve the agreement.

“Now, flying in the face of both this constitutional history and recent legislative action, some Democrats want to block a vote. . . . It is unfair and unwise for the administration to use a procedural tactic to stop a vote on an agreement that, according to recent public opinion polls, is opposed by about 60% of the American people. Filibustering will further convince U.S. citizens that even important national-security questions have now descended into partisan conflicts.

“It’s simple: The deal should be brought to a vote.”

Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged, “Just a few short months ago, Senators of both parties came together to pass a bipartisan bill based on an important principle: that the American people, through the Congress they elect, deserve a say on one of the most important issues of our time.”

“We rallied around that principle, voting 98-1 to ensure the American people would have a real say on any deal with Iran. What a tragedy it would be then if, at the very last moment, some of those same Senators decided to filibuster to prevent the American people from having a real say on this incredibly important issue.

“I know some of our colleagues are currently under immense pressure to shut down the voice of the people. But I ask colleagues to reflect on the gravely serious nature of the issue before us.”

Leader McConnell emphasized, “The American people will remember where we stand today. Let’s stand on their side.”

And according to the latest Pew Research Center poll, more Americans than ever oppose the president’s deal with Iran. Pew writes, “As Congress prepares to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, public support for the deal has declined. Currently, just 21% approve of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program reached between the United States, Iran and other nations. Nearly half (49%) disapprove of the agreement . . . . In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved . . . .”

Pew notes, “While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion.

“Republican support for the agreement, already low, has dropped even further (from 13% to 6%). Independents’ support for the agreement also has fallen (from 31% to 20%), although – as with Democrats – the share disapproving has held steady since July, at 47%.”

Further, “When opinion about the Iran nuclear agreement is based only on those who have heard a lot or a little about the agreement, opposition to the agreement exceeds support by more than a two-to-one margin (57% to 27%). Among those aware of the Iran deal, the share approving of the agreement has declined 11 percentage points since July, while the percentage disapproving has risen nine points.”

In addition, Pew writes, “The public continues to express little confidence that Iran’s leaders will live up to their side of the nuclear agreement. Just 2% have a great deal of confidence that Iran’s leaders will abide by the agreement, while another 18% say they have a fair amount of confidence. About seven-in-ten (70%) say they are not too confident (28%) or not confident at all (42%) in Iran’s leaders. These views are largely unchanged since July, though the share expressing no confidence at all in Iran’s leaders to abide by the agreement has risen slightly (from 37% to 42%).”

Yesterday, Leader McConnelll said, “The President famously suggested that if countries like Iran were willing to unclench their fist, they’d find an extended hand.

“From that hand the Iranians took concession after concession. On enrichment, on U.N. Security Council resolutions, on centrifuges, on missiles, on the conventional arms embargo, and on sanctions.

“Under the President’s deal with Iran, nearly every aspect of Iran’s national power will be strengthened: economic power, diplomatic power, espionage power, conventional-warfare power, and the power Iran derives from supporting proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime.”

He concluded, “Just this morning, we saw reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader had ruled out any real rapprochement with the U.S. after this nuclear deal. We saw the Supreme Leader state his desire to see Israel cease to exist in the coming years.

“And against that backdrop, we now have the President’s deal with Iran before us. Any objective net assessment of this deal must conclude that it will strengthen the Supreme Leader’s regime.

“Any objective assessment must also conclude that America and her allies will be made less safe by the President’s deal with Iran.

“This is the conclusion I’ve reached as well. This is the conclusion many Democrats have reached. This seems to be the conclusion the American people are reaching too. . . .

“I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the resolution of disproval.”

---

Tags: Iran Deal, The House, The Senate To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!