Iran Bill Could Prompt Obama’s First Veto Override

Pro-sanctions Democrats could team with the GOP to overcome White House opposition.

US President Barack Obama clasps hands with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (2nd R), D-NV, while meeting with members of Congress on foreign policy on July 31, 2014 in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, DC. From left: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Bob Corker, R-TN. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
Jan. 20, 2015, 3 p.m.

A po­ten­tial show­down is loom­ing between Sen­ate Demo­crats and the White House over Ir­an, one that could lead to the first suc­cess­ful veto over­ride of Pres­id­ent Obama’s ten­ure.

On one side are Hill Demo­crats who—along with Re­pub­lic­ans—want to weigh in on Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram. On the oth­er is the White House, which has said that any state­ment from Con­gress would jeop­ard­ize a long-term deal to dis­mantle the coun­try’s nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­it­ies. Obama has vowed to veto any le­gis­la­tion that im­poses sanc­tions, ur­ging Con­gress to “hold your fire” while talks con­tin­ue.

Twelve Demo­crats in the Sen­ate have in the past co­sponsored le­gis­la­tion to im­pose sanc­tions on Ir­an. If they all con­tin­ue to call for the sanc­tions, it would put the Sen­ate close to the two-thirds ma­jor­ity ne­ces­sary to over­ride Obama’s veto; sup­port­ers would need just one more vote if all 54 Re­pub­lic­ans sup­port the bill.

Obama has ve­toed only two bills in six years, and neither was over­rid­den. More ve­toes are likely on tap now that Re­pub­lic­ans con­trol both cham­bers of Con­gress—on is­sues ran­ging from the Key­stone XL pipeline to Obama’s ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions on im­mig­ra­tion—but no cur­rent is­sue oth­er than Ir­an seems as likely to at­tract the num­ber of Demo­crats ne­ces­sary for an over­ride.

Demo­crats who fa­vor more sanc­tions on Ir­an say they need hard de­tails from the ad­min­is­tra­tion about the pro­gress it has made in two years of talks. How many re­act­ors are still func­tion­ing? How much urani­um do the Ir­a­ni­ans have?

“Are they al­low­ing full ac­cess? Just someone give me an up­date. Help us make a de­cision on the bill,” said Demo­crat­ic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Vir­gin­ia, who has sup­por­ted sanc­tions in the past but is un­de­cided on how he will vote when the Sen­ate takes up a sanc­tions bill later this month.

Demo­crats aren’t yet will­ing to dis­cuss buck­ing Obama in such a pub­lic fash­ion, ac­cord­ing to aides, but the pos­sib­il­ity is cer­tainly there. It’s dif­fi­cult for any law­maker to vote against a pun­ish­ment for Ir­an, and those who are frus­trated with how the talks are go­ing could egg every­one else on.

“I think there are some who are more anxious, want to cre­ate some in­cent­ive for the Ir­a­ni­ans to do the right thing, put­ting pres­sure on them pro­spect­ively,” said Sen­ate Minor­ity Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. “Oth­ers, like my­self, feel like this is once-in-a-polit­ic­al-life­time op­por­tun­ity. I just don’t want to jeop­ard­ize ne­go­ti­ations.”

Asked if a siz­able num­ber of Demo­crats would vote against Obama’s wishes on the is­sue, Durbin would only say, “The op­er­at­ive word there is ‘siz­able.’”

Sen. Robert Men­en­dez of New Jer­sey is lead­ing the charge among Demo­crats who want Ir­an sanc­tions. He will get the chance Wed­nes­day to lay out his ar­gu­ment for im­pos­ing sanc­tions if the talks with Ir­an fail. As the top Demo­crat on the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, Men­en­dez will have his best op­por­tun­ity yet to air his con­cerns that the talks have dragged on for too long (since 2013) with the United States hav­ing little to show for it.

The For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee will re­ceive a form­al up­date Wed­nes­day from State and Treas­ury De­part­ment of­fi­cials at a hear­ing on the Ir­an nuc­le­ar talks. Later in the day, the Sen­ate Bank­ing Com­mit­tee will have a clas­si­fied brief­ing on the same top­ic, ac­cord­ing to Chair­man Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Any Ir­an-sanc­tions bill must ul­ti­mately go through the Bank­ing Com­mit­tee, but the For­eign Re­la­tions pan­el of­fers the first peek at the in­tens­ity of the con­flict between Demo­crats who fa­vor sanc­tions and the White House. Men­en­dez, with Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, is pro­pos­ing new sanc­tions that would not take ef­fect un­til Ju­ly, a dead­line that the United States, Ir­an, and sev­er­al European coun­tries have already agreed to for reach­ing a deal.

Men­en­dez is tak­ing a non­con­front­a­tion­al tone, ac­cord­ing to an aide, not­ing that his le­gis­la­tion would al­low Obama to delay the sanc­tions if he thinks they are close to a deal. He wants the sanc­tions to be “pro­spect­ive,” mean­ing a back­stop for the United States if Ir­an walks away be­fore the dead­line. Noth­ing hap­pens un­til then.

Men­en­dez is a feisty sen­at­or, un­afraid to dress down people who don’t of­fer com­pel­ling ar­gu­ments or can’t back up their re­quests with facts. He clashed with Obama at the Demo­crats’ re­treat last week over Ir­an. But if he wants to win over enough Demo­crats to send a mes­sage to Obama that the Con­gress should play an act­ive role in the ne­go­ti­ations, he needs to make sure every­one knows that his sanc­tions bill is re­spect­ful of the White House’s ne­go­ti­at­ing po­s­i­tion. At the same time, the glob­al situ­ation is chan­ging with a vari­ety of bold ac­tions from Ir­an, in­clud­ing the re­cent de­ten­tion of a Wash­ing­ton Post re­port­er, that could war­rant a state­ment from Con­gress.

The next step for the le­gis­la­tion will be the Bank­ing Com­mit­tee, which is ex­pec­ted to vote on it next week. GOP aides ex­pect the bill to be on the Sen­ate floor after the com­ple­tion of the Key­stone XL pipeline de­bate, which is likely to con­tin­ue through the month.

What We're Following See More »
GAVE COMMITTEE A “ROAD MAP” OF NAMES, PLACES, AND LEADS
Fusion GPS Founder Alleges Trump-Mafia Connection
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The House Intelligence Committee voted to release the November 14 testimony of Glenn Simpson, the man at Fusion GPS who oversaw the creation of the now infamous Trump-Russia dossier. Simpson's testimony includes a number of startling claims, including that Russia infiltrated conservative political groups prior to the election, and that Trump had "long time associations" with the Italian Mafia," and that he "gradually during the nineties became associated with Russian mafia figures." Simpson also testified that Trump called off a post-election meeting with Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank and a longtime member of the NRA, currently under investigation by the FBI for money laundering. Simpson said that the discoveries were so alarming that he felt compelled to go to the authorities. The full text of the transcript can be read here.

Source:
RYAN SAYS HOUSE WILL VOTE TONIGHT
Senate Dems Say They Can Block Spending Measure
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

House Speaker Paul Ryan says he has the votes to pass a short-term spending bill tonight, but "Senate Democrats said they're confident they have the votes to block the stop-gap spending bill that the House is taking up, according to two Democratic senators and a senior party aide. And top Senate Republicans are openly worried about the situation as they struggle to keep their own members in the fold."

Source:
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN SUSPICIOUS CHECKS FLAGGED
Mueller’s Team Scrutinizing Russian Embassy Transactions
15 hours ago
THE LATEST
PRO-TRUMP SPENDING COULD VIOLATE FECA
FBI Investigating Potential Russian Donations to NRA
15 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The FBI is investigating whether a top Russian banker with ties to the Kremlin illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency." Investigators have focused on Alexander Torshin, the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank "who is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA." The solicitation or use of foreign funds is illegal in U.S. elections under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by either lobbying groups or political campaigns. The NRA reported spending a record $55 million on the 2016 elections.

Source:
DISCLOSURES MORE THAN DOUBLED
Mueller Investigation Leads to Hundreds of New FARA Filings
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Hundreds of new and supplemental FARA filings by U.S. lobbyists and public relations firms" have been submitted "since Special Counsel Mueller charged two Trump aides with failing to disclose their lobbying work on behalf of foreign countries. The number of first-time filings ... rose 50 percent to 102 between 2016 and 2017, an NBC News analysis found. The number of supplemental filings, which include details about campaign donations, meetings and phone calls more than doubled from 618 to 1,244 last year as lobbyists scrambled to avoid the same fate as some of Trump's associates and their business partners."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login