WASHINGTON — It was, for a moment anyway, the Senate in its platonic ideal. Bipartisan legislation to give Congress a voice in any nuclear agreement with Iran soared, over White House objections, through the Foreign Relations Committee and onto the Senate floor, a rare glide path to successful compromise.
Then along came Senator Tom Cotton.
Mr. Cotton, a first-term Republican from Arkansas, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida employed a rare procedural move to push amendments to end Iran’s nuclear program and call for Iran to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, which appeared to be a transparent effort to undermine the whole deal. That forced Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, to move to cut off debate on Tuesday evening and bring the bill to a final vote — perhaps as early as Thursday — without other amendments that members of his party strongly desired.
“I think it’s unfortunate that we got to this point,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. “Unfortunately, the maneuver left the majority leader with no choice on a bill that had bipartisan support.”
Asked if Mr. Cotton’s move was the wrong one, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who was among the 19 senators to vote unanimously to move the bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, “Yes.” He added, “I would have said he should wait for the leader before you offer your amendment.”
Mr. Cotton remained unapologetic. He berated his colleagues from the floor last week, saying if they did not want to vote on the amendments offered by him or Mr. Rubio they should “host a talk show” or find another occupation.
For his part, Mr. Rubio said, “The only thing blocking votes is the Democrats refuse to allow any votes on additional amendments.”
Democrats, who had worked with Mr. McConnell to accept hard votes on amendments to the bill, were giving no further ground. “The delicate compromise that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee is a really fine piece of work,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the minority leader. “We tried to offer as much as we could until we realized every amendment the Republicans offered was to denigrate and hurt and destroy that bill. We’re not going to do that. Senator McConnell has the ability to get that bill adopted. He’s got to do it. We’re not going to do it for him.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, deplored the lack of amendments that he said might have improved the bill. But the outcome could still be good for him if, as he predicts, the measure is approved overwhelmingly. “Look, we’ve got a bill that I think could end up having a 90-plus vote,” Mr. Corker said. “So I think we’re going to be successful.”
Unlike in the House, unanimous approval is needed to proceed with many aspects of legislation in the Senate; without it, delicate negotiations must occur to prevent the minority from derailing the process. Over the last several years, Senate leaders have often fought more bitterly over procedure and parliamentary rules than actual policy.
There are unspoken agreements within a party to let the majority leader — in concert with the relevant committee chairmen — decide how bills will be managed on the floor. Procedural stunts against a fellow party member are frowned upon. “I’m not going to tell you how I could advise another senator,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and the majority whip, adding that he could not surmise what Mr. Cotton was thinking in his strategy.
For Mr. Rubio, whom Mr. Cotton represented in his move to force an Israel vote, the stakes are relatively low. Mr. Rubio is leaving the Senate to run for the Republican presidential nomination and needs to curry favor with primary voters, not members of the Senate.
Mr. Cotton, who declined to comment Tuesday, has often operated as a caucus of one during his first four months in the Senate. As Mr. Corker worked on a bipartisan measure that would force the White House to seek congressional approval to roll back certain sanctions against Iran in the event of a nuclear deal, Mr. Cotton chose to circulate among his Republican colleagues a combative letter to Iranian leaders suggesting that Congress could undo any nuclear deal. That letter was at least a temporary success as 46 colleagues agreed to sign it, though not Mr. Corker.
Republicans — and many Democrats — have enjoyed the ability to attach amendments to bills in the Republican-controlled Congress, a luxury Mr. Reid generally did not allow. For example, during a vote this year to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, senators offered scores of amendments, carefully managed by members of both parties, said Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota.
But Mr. Cotton used a procedural sleight of hand to essentially jump ahead of his colleagues without warning. That upset Republicans and alienated Democrats, who had been going along with the process to get the bill off the floor. They already did not relish the idea of having to vote against things like an amendment to require the release of captive Americans, which sounded great on paper but would have caused the president to veto the bill if passed.
Two senior senators suggested Mr. Cotton’s arcane procedural moves could be used against him on the floor at some point, and they were watching to see if he proceeds as aggressively in the future.
However, some colleagues said Mr. Cotton and Mr. Rubio were well within their rights to use procedure to their advantage. “We’re all going to do what we think is right to make a bill better,” said Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado.
Mr. Corker, whose own amendments now seemed doomed, was sanguine Tuesday. “Around here, you kind of take it a day at a time,” he said. As for Mr. Cotton, he said, “There hasn’t been a harsh word between us.”
- http://bit.ly/1ILGMoJ
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu