This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Senate Democrats Clear Way for Iran Nuclear Deal Senate Democrats Clear Way for Iran Nuclear Deal
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama on Thursday when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran, ensuring that the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House. WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, ensuring the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House.
A procedural vote fell short of the number needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate on the Senate floor and capped months of discord since the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China announced the agreement with Iran in July. A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate in the Senate and capped weeks of discord since the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China announced the agreement with Iran in July.
Debate over the accord divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and their constituents, especially Jewish ones, animated the antiwar movement on the left and exposed the waning power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent millions to prevent the accord. The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents, animated the antiwar movement on the left and exposed the diminishing power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the accord.
“Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, one of four Democrats to vote against the president, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.” “Regardless of how one feels about the agreement,” Senator Chuck Schumer, one of four Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama, said on the Senate floor, “fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.”
Acknowledging the tortured decision he and other skeptical Democrats traveled, Mr. Schumer said, “I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through,” adding, “I recognize for them, that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.” Acknowledging the tortured road he and other skeptical Democrats traveled, Mr. Schumer said, “I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through,” adding, “I recognize for them that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me.”
Yet President Obama’s triumph in securing the international agreement — without the support of a single member of the party now in control of Congress — is refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in an era of divided government. Mr. Obama’s triumph in securing the deal — without the support of a single member of the party now in control of Congress — is refashioning the definition of victory for a waning presidency in the era of divided government.
While bipartisan victories tend to be those most celebrated outside Washington, in the current political climate, success by the president is now often measured more by the scope of the policy achieved than by any claim of sweeping consensus. And losing has its own evolving meaning. Republicans will use Mr. Obama’s triumphs — as they did with the health care law — as a means to attack Democrats in anticipation of next year’s election. While bipartisan victories tend to be those most celebrated outside of Washington, success by the president is now often measured more by the scope of the policy achieved than by any claim of sweeping consensus. And losing has its own evolving meaning as well. Republicans will use Mr. Obama’s triumph — as they did with the health care law — as a means to attack Democrats in anticipation of next year’s election.
Mr. Obama may go down in history as a president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of uniting. As with the Iran accord, the health care law — passed exclusively with Democratic votes — was a policy achievement that has come to define his presidency, in part through the vehemence of its opponents in Congress. Indeed, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said Thursday that he would force the exact same vote again next week, just to make Democrats go through the exercise one last time. “If the President’s so proud of this deal, he shouldn’t be afraid,” Mr. McConnell said, as he stared at Democrats on the floor immediately after the vote.
“President Obama can claim that he found a way to move an extremely important, yet controversial, diplomatic agreement through the political process,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University. “For conservatives the deal fulfills every negative view that they have about how President Obama and the way Democrats handle foreign threats,” he added. “The narrative is built for the campaign trail — a Democratic president agrees to drop sanctions on a horrible regime that even most Democrats agree shows little signs of reform.” It is highly unlikely that any senator will change his or her vote.
With an ample majority of Republicans running the House but a narrow one in the Senate, Mr. Obama has learned to measure when and how he can hold congressional Democrats together when he needs them — as is the case with the use of the filibuster for the Iran disapproval measure — but also when he needs to turn to Republicans to help flatten his own party, as was the case with a major trade package over the summer. Mr. Obama is likely to go down in history as a rare president whose single biggest foreign policy and domestic achievements were won with no Republican votes, a stark departure from his 2008 campaign that was fueled by the promise of bridging Washington’s yawning partisan divide. As with the Iran accord, the health care law — passed exclusively with Democratic votes — was a policy achievement that has come to define his presidency, in part through the vehemence of its opponents in Congress.
But the sheer partisan nature of the Iran matter does not bode well for impending fights on Capitol Hill, including one over whether to raise the debt ceiling and how to deal with spending. “President Obama can claim that he found a way to move an extremely important, yet controversial, diplomatic agreement through the political process,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton. “For conservatives the deal fulfills every negative view that they have about President Obama and the way Democrats handle foreign threats,” he added. “The narrative is built for the campaign trail — a Democratic president agrees to drop sanctions on a horrible regime that even most Democrats agree shows little signs of reform.”
The president, in a statement, called the vote “a victory for diplomacy, for American national security, and for the safety and security of the world.”
To be sure, while Mr. Obama has shown he can build victories on the back of Democratic votes alone, he has occasionally built coalitions with Republicans, as was the case with a major trade package over the summer.
But the sheer partisan nature of the Iran matter does not bode well for impending fights on Capitol Hill, most notably fights over federal spending and whether to raise the debt ceiling.
On Thursday, senators came to the chamber floor to defend or excoriate the deal, evoking everything from Nazis to fissile material to the Syrian refugee crisis.
“I’ve never been more disappointed in the body than I am today,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has long protested the deal. “You won’t let us have a vote. You won’t let us have a debate. And please stop saying this deal makes Israel safer. That’s cruel.”
Many others said that the deal was the best that the United States and its negotiating partners could achieve. “This agreement is flawed,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine. “But this is the agreement that is before us, and the analysis cannot be strictly of the agreement itself within its four corners, but compared to what? That really is the basic question here.”
House Republicans tried to derail the deal this week by claiming that the White House had not disclosed secret side agreements of the accord, and, as such, had not given Congress the agreed-upon 60 days for review.
The House declined to vote on a resolution of disapproval, even though it would have easily passed, and instead will opt for a series of other votes intended to undermine the president and embarrass Democrats, including one to approve the Iran agreement to force Democrats to assert their support for the accord.
House Republicans were already scrambling Thursday to find ways to undercut the accord and maintain or restore sanctions against Iran. “This debate is far from over and, frankly, it’s just beginning,” said Speaker John A. Boehner. He added: “We will use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow, and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”
Late Thursday afternoon, the House voted 245 to 186 to declare Mr. Obama out of compliance with the Iran Nuclear Review Act, the law passed in April that gave Congress a say in the deal.
Representative Patrick Meehan, Republican of Pennsylvania, has introduced legislation — which could reach the House floor next week — prohibiting sanctions relief for Iran unless it pays damages it owes to terrorism victims. Representative Steve Russell, Republican of Oklahoma, is working on another sanctions measure and is promoting a letter to all 50 governors asserting that states are not bound by the accord.
Republicans are also hoping to use the issue against Democrats, especially those who may have appealed to their base but alienated broader constituencies by standing by Mr. Obama.
Within moments of the vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out news releases denouncing some Democrats who voted to filibuster the motion of disapproval.
While polls show that support for the deal around the country has been dropping in recent weeks, it is unclear how much political impact Thursday’s vote will have. Voters so far have largely kept their focus on economic issues.
“Our fellow Americans, allies and negotiating partners around the world should know that today’s outcome was clear, decisive and final,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the minority leader. “There is now no doubt whatsoever that the United States Congress will allow this historic agreement to proceed.”