Tom Cotton’s Procedural Move Interrupts Smooth Sailing for Iran Bill

nytimes.com ^ | 5/5/15 | JENNIFER STEINHAUERMAY

[cotton1706]

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.

[TBP]

Thank you for your effort, Senator Cotton. Now vote no and then we’ll try bringing up your bill.

[Diogenesis]

The GOP always looks for ways GIVE OBAMA POWER (GOP).
It is who they are. It is what they do.

.... EVEN AS ISIS HAS INVADED AMERICA.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

A man among weasels=Tom Cotton

[dan on the right]

So, our Senate if afraid to demand that the deal include an Iranian statement that “Israel has a right to exist”.

Just think about that for a minute to see how weak we have really become for our allies. This group would have lost WWII.

If this amendment kills the Iran deal, so be it. Deal is weak and should not happen anyways.

Let it die. Then give Israel a wink and a nod to go with the bunker busters and destroy a few of the larger nuke facilities.

[matthew fuller]

"This group would have lost WWII."

No, these cowards would have surrendered.

[headstamp 2]

“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.”

What leader would that be, Jeff?

[Din Maker]

Give ‘em hell Tommy! Get his back Marco! Drop dead Mitch!

[skeeter]

Thanks sen Cotton.

I cannot believe the disgustingly low state of the establishment republican party.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I knew he was going to be great. We need about 40 more just like him.

[cornelis]

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. Aww, where's the clip?

[cornelis]

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.

That was originally stated by Rubio. Here's the clip: Here's the clip.

"We've been consistently blocked from bringing up amendments for a vote.

It's fine, if you want to vote no. If you think that Iran should keep an underground, fortified, military bunker with centrifuge cascades.

It's fin, if you think that they should not have to disclose the passed military dimensions of their nuclear program.

But we need to vote. We need to vote no. It's even fine, if you agree with those points.

But you think this is a delicate agreement, that has to be prevented from being amended in any way.

If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have come to the Senate. If you're in the Senate and you don't want to vote, you should leave.

As the senator from Florida said yesterday, "be a talk show host. be a columnist."

It's time that we hold a vote, with a simple majority threshold on all of these critical points.