Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) listens as State Department officials testify in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iran on Jan. 21. (Photo by Andrew Harnik for The Washington Post) (Andrew Harnik/For The Washington Post)
1:28 PM
Key senators said Tuesday they have agreed on terms for bipartisan legislation that would give Congress the power to review and possibly overturn a potential nuclear deal with Iran that could be struck in the coming months by President Obama and America’s foreign allies.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), its ranking member, said they have agreed on a package of changes that would establish a procedure for an orderly congressional review of the deal while softening provisions that the Obama administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill say could derail negotiations.
“I think this is a really sound piece of legislation, I’m really proud of it, and it’s my hope that it will pass overwhelmingly . . . and then we’ll move to the floor and we’ll be able to generate a veto-proof majority,” Corker said Tuesday after emerging from a closed-door morning briefing given by Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and other administration officials.
[Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers]
The agreement comes as the debate over the proposed Iran deal moves from TV studios and op-ed pages to Capitol Hill, with the Foreign Relations Committee set to debate the bipartisan review measure and possibly advance it to the Senate floor at an afternoon meeting.
Cardin said the negotiated changes to the bill — which would reduce the review period and jettison controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran has not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans — would provide an “orderly and thoughtful” review of the deal.
“I think this is the right way for Congress to take up this issue,” he said. “I would hope that the White House would recognize that this is congressional prerogative. . . . Congress can always take action, this gives us an orderly path forward. I would hope the administration would support that.”
In a White House briefing prior to the Senate meeting, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the “kind of compromise that the president would be willing to sign” would include a bill with no link to a terrorism certification, a shortened review period, and assurances from lawmakers that the bill would be “the one and only mechanism for codifying precisely what the Congress’s oversight is into this matter.”
The bill, he said, would have to be “specific about the way Congress would vote on the sanctions that Congress put into place,” a provision that the White House considers “critical to making sure that there isn’t an untoward effort to insert” different provisions into “must-pass” future legislation that “could gum up the works” of ongoing negotiations or future implementation of an Iran agreement.
Earnest said that the bill could only be a “a vote to vote later” on congressionally-imposed sanctions, “not a specific vote about the decision to enter into an agreement,” which was constitutionally reserved for the president. “That’s an important clarification,” he said.
[Could the Corker-Menendez bill kill an Iran deal?]
Corker said Monday evening there is broad agreement on the basic process set out in the bill: the establishment of a review period during which congressionally imposed sanctions would remain in place, the ability of Congress to approve or disapprove the deal and, if the deal is approved, the creation of an ongoing congressional role in overseeing Iranian compliance. But some provisions have brought sharp opposition from President Obama and, more importantly, Senate Democrats who are otherwise inclined to support congressional review.
Aides said the compromise negotiated between Corker and Cardin would shorten the initial review period from 60 days to 30 days after full details of an agreement are submitted to Congress, though more time could be added in certain circumstances. If the agreement is submitted well after the June 30 deadline, the review period would double so it does not encroach on the congressional summer recess.
“We believe that 30 days is adequate for review by Congress,” Cardin said, while Corker said that should be “ample time” for hearings and a proper review.
Corker has agreed to remove language requiring the president to certify that “Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or a United States person anywhere in the world” every 90 days after a deal is ratified.
Explaining the administration’s opposition to the measure Monday, Earnest said that negotiators “do not anticipate in the context of this agreement being able to resolve all of our concerns about Iran’s terror activities.”
“In fact, that’s the reason that we’re pursuing this agreement,” he continued, “to ensure that Iran can’t obtain a nuclear weapon and then share either that nuclear weapon or some of the technology or those materials with a terrorist organization.”
While the certification would be eliminated, the president would instead be required to report to Congress on Iran’s support for terrorism every 90 days.
One key Foreign Relations Democrat, Christopher Coons of Delaware, said Monday that he would “have difficulty supporting the bill” with the certification requirement inserted.
“It’s not that we’re suddenly unconcerned with Iran’s acts of terrorism; it’s not that I don’t believe Iran to be a major state sponsor of terrorism,” he said. “It’s that it isn’t centrally at issue in this negotiation and shouldn’t be centrally at issue in this legislation.”
While the Corker-Cardin compromise would seem to pave the way for broad bipartisan support for the review bill, complications remain. Among the more than 50 proposed committee amendments are changes that would create new and perhaps unworkable conditions for the deal’s approval.
The Foreign Relations panel includes two presidential candidates, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.),who are eager to burnish their national security credentials and establish a sharp contrast with a Democratic nominee’s likely support for the negotiations.
Rubio, for instance, has filed an amendment that would require Iran to formally recognize Israel’s right to exist, echoing the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Obama told NPR last week that such a condition would be “akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms, and that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.”
[Why Obama says Iran does not have to recognize Israel as part of a nuclear deal]
Coons suggested any change to the bill “clearly designed to prevent negotiation and to scuttle a deal if there is one” would become a poison pill, tanking Democratic support for the final legislation.
A Republican panel member, David Perdue of Georgia, acknowledged the tension in securing a veto-proof, 67-vote coalition in support of the bill. But he said he was wary of “watering it down” to address Democratic concerns.
“The ultimate goal is not to have a nuclear Iran, not now, not ever,” Perdue said Monday. “I’d rather it be stronger than weaker, for sure.”
The White House campaign to prevent congressional opposition from scuttling a deal — which has included personal phone calls from the president and cabinet members to Capitol Hill leaders — is set to continue Tuesday morning, when Kerry, Moniz and Lew detail the framework agreement in a classified session to which all 100 senators have been invited.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Monday that congressional input has shaped and will continue to shape the Iran talks, but she maintained that establishing a formal review could be problematic.
“What we’ve said is, we want to hear what your concerns are, we want to hear what you’re focused on, but it needs to be up to the negotiating team and the experts inside the room to determine what substantively meets their bottom lines, meets our bottom lines, meets their concerns,” Harf said.
Tuesday’s Senate briefing follows a similar closed-door session held Monday evening for House members.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Monday his chamber would take up the review bill as soon as the Senate passes it. A strong showing of support from Democratic senators, he said, “would make it much stronger in the House and veto-proof.”
Karen DeYoung, Colby Itkowitz, Paul Kane and Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment