Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.
And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP's letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.
Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton(R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.
That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.
"The letter's incredibly unfortunate and inappropriate," said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, a centrist Democrat who voted for the sanctions bill in committee and is a sponsor of the congressional approval legislation. "That doesn't diminish my support for the legislation that we introduced."
The president's challenge in Congress on the issue isn't limited to the 47 Republican senators who signed last week's missive arguing that a nuclear agreement could be revoked by the next U.S. president. In a letter released Saturday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough implored Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) not to push for a vote on his bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve of any deal.
McDonough argued that Corker's measure, which has nearly a dozen Democratic supporters, "goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran." And he asked Corker, who's sought to maintain a cordial relationship with the White House, to let the administration finish its negotiations with Iran, indicating it may take until the end of June. A framework is expected by the end of this month.
Corker shrugged off the request in response. And in an interview late last week, he said he hasn't lost the support of any Democrats despite the turbulent atmosphere surrounding Iran politics.
"Let a couple days go by. We think there's going to be really ignited momentum," Corker, who did not sign the Cotton letter, said on Thursday. "Nobody's dropping out. We've had reaffirmed commitment" from Democrats.
Indeed, a day after the controversy over Cotton's letter erupted, Sen. Michael Bennetof Colorado co-sponsored Corker's congressional review bill, the 11th Democrat to signal support.
Though the White House has seized on the GOP's "open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" in an effort to shift the politics of the nuclear negotiations in its favor on Capitol Hill, there's no evidence it's working so far. Nearly all of the 54 Republicans and more than a dozen Democrats in the Senate remain at odds with the president on the issue.
Meanwhile, the House will hold hearings this week to grill administration officials on Iran, a potentially troubling sign for the administration, considering the chamber passed a strict Iran sanctions bill in 2013 by a vote of 400-20 -- far above the veto override threshold.
"The letter was simply unacceptable, and it brought hyperpartisanship to an issue that we need to maintain our bipartisanship in," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), a supporter of sanctions that would not take effect unless talks fall apart or Iran backs away from the terms of any deal. "That doesn't change my support for that bill. ... I stay firm."
A group of 10 Democrats wrote to President Barack Obama this month and vowed not to support the bill that would allow Congress to reject a nuclear deal until after March 24. That followed a similar deadline set by 12 Democrats in a January message to Obama regarding the conditional sanctions bill. Aides in both parties put their vote counts for the bills in the mid-60s, but they're confident that if either comes to the floor, additional Democrats will back them.
The administration now appears to be asking for even more time: McDonough said in his letter to Corker that if a framework is reached this month and a "final deal by the end of June, we expect a robust debate in Congress." GOP leaders appear determined to move much sooner than that.
For a moment, Cotton's letter appeared to shake the bipartisan foundation undergirding both of the Iran bills. Democrats warned of a backslide into partisanship on a foreign policy issue that's united Congress for years. Capitol Hill has long pressed for additional economic penalties on Iran in hopes of forcing it to the negotiating table with global powers.
But Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who backs the sanctions bill, said, "The fundamentals for bipartisan action ought still to be there."
"This is a sad day in America when people are trying to kill negotiations that are underway," Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said of the Cotton letter. But would he back away from Corker's congressional approval bill?
"No," he answered, adding with apparent satisfaction: "I'm an original co-sponsor."
The Republican stewards of Iran legislation, who have jockeyed for the support of the party leadership, said several Democrats reiterated their support privately last week after the letter uproar. Corker's bill that would allow Congress to vote to override Obama's Iran deal is seen as the one Republican leaders are most likely to schedule for action on the Senate floor, probably sometime in April.
Another bill, proposed by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), could also be an option if Congress begins to doubt Iran's commitment to finalizing a deal or upholding one. Kirk's bill would trigger sanctions if Iran walks away from talks or reneges on a deal. He said 68 senators have signaled support for it, a number he predicted would grow "once we actually vote."
The White House and Obama administration officials are shrugging off Congress' still-strong bipartisan desire for weighing in on the delicate talks with Iran, and they declined to say whether the president will renew veto threats on either Iran bill after March 24. The view from Obama's orbit: firmly focus on making sure there's a deal first, regardless of the speculation on Capitol Hill.
"The administration is focused on achieving a deal that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," a senior administration official said. "If a deal is reached, we will make the case to the Congress and the American people as to why the deal we are negotiating is in the national security interests of the United States and our international partners."
In sharply divided Washington, it's possible that the bipartisanship on the bills won't last. In just the past month, the GOP enraged Democrats by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress about Iran without input from Obama. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) infuriated Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) by trying to vote on Corker's bill before it had passed committee, causing Democrats to turn on their own legislation.
And the Cotton letter, of course, further ratcheted up foreign policy tensions in Congress. Some are warning that any further divisiveness could cause support for the Iran bills to dissipate.
"I'd like to see them stop politicizing this issue," said Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, "and start talking about the merits."
No comments:
Post a Comment