Support will fizzle if old language put back into Iran bill, lawmakers warn

Hours after a landmark bargain allowed a Senate panel to unanimously push through a bill that would give Congress oversight on a nuclear pact with Iran, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are warning of a possible battle over the measure’s final language as it moves toward passage.

At least one Republican who supported the watered down bill said he may seek to reinsert controversial language that had earned a promise of a presidential veto, while Democrats who backed the new language say changes could cause them to pull support.

Still, both houses of Congress are now likely to pass the bill, which cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 19-0, should it stay in its current form. It’s expected to come before the full Senate as soon as next week.

The vote came after panel chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and top Democrat Ben Cardin (D-Md.) struck a compromise on language in order to soothe concerns of the White House and some congressional Democrats.

Senator Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.), who announced his candidacy for president on Monday, said an amendment that would require Iran’s leaders to accept Israel’s right to exist and which was struck from the language, might still come up during a debate by the full Senate.

The bill allows US lawmakers, including those who fear the deal might not be strong enough, to weigh in and for Tehran to be afforded no sanctions relief until the review period is over.

Cardin and Corker were adamant that their bill would allow the talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany — to continue unimpeded by congressional intervention.

“It is clear we will only act after the administration presents us with an agreement,” Cardin said.

But he also stressed the White House would not be able to lift the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran without a congressional green light.

An earlier version of the bill sought to put any plan by Obama to lift sanctions on Iran on hold for up to 60 days while Congress reviewed the deal. The compromise approved by the committee shortened the review period to 30 days. During that time, Obama would be able to lift sanctions imposed through presidential action, but would be blocked from easing sanctions levied by Congress.

Under the terms of the bill, if a nuclear deal is submitted after July 9 — a short time after the final agreement is to be reached — the review period would revert to 60 days. The president would be required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with terms of the agreement.

The compromise also struck a provision in the initial bill that would have required the president to certify that Iran is not supporting terrorism and substituted weaker language.

The original provision’s author, Sen. John Barrasso, (R-Wyo.), tried Tuesday to add the requirement back in. But Corker and others said the amendment would be a deal-killer, and the panel rejected it.

“I think we’ve reached a balance here,” said Corker, who heads the Foreign Relations Committee.

Sen. Chris Coons, (D-Del.), said he felt confident that the compromises will hold, but said Democrats would withdraw their support if Republicans successfully push amendments that would pull the bill “sharply to the right.”

He was referring to amendments proposed by Republicans to make the administration certify that Iran is not supporting terrorism and had publicly renounced its threat to destroy Israel — two obstacles that would likely push the nuclear agreement off the table.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she opposed the bill in its original form, but now supports it.

“There’s no longer language in the bill tying extraneous issues to the agreement,” Boxer said. “That would be a deal breaker.”

“I supported today’s compromise after the administration assured me that the reworked bill would preserve our negotiators’ ability to do their jobs,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-Conn).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), who opposed the original bill as “harmful to the negotiations,” sent a letter to colleagues late Tuesday expressing support for the compromise.

The White House announced its support for the new language hours before the vote, after an intensive administration effort to prevent Democrats from signing on to legislation requiring Obama to submit any pact with Iran to Congress.

“Maybe they saw the handwriting on the wall,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after the White House dropped its opposition.

Boehner, who has been at the forefront of the push for congressional oversight over the deal, also called the pact with Iran “a deal with the devil” Tuesday, while speaking to reporters after arriving back in Washington after a trip to the Middle East, according to Bloomberg News.

“I don’t know how you cut a deal with the devil and think the devil is going to keep his end of the deal,” he told reporters.

President Barack Obama still retains his right to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle such a pact if the time comes. To override a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, meaning some Democrats would have to oppose their president to sink a deal.

Earnest said the White House would withhold final judgment on the bill while it works its way through Congress, wary that potential changes could be made in committee that would render it unpalatable. But he said the White House could support the compromise in its current form.

“Despite the things about it that we don’t like, enough substantial changes have been made that the president would be willing to sign it,” Earnest said.

Corker said Secretary of State John Kerry was lobbying against the legislation on Capitol Hill a few hours before the vote. The Republican said the White House’s sudden support was dictated by the number of senators — Republicans and Democrats — backing the measure.

“We believe it is our role to ensure that any deal with Iran makes them accountable, is transparent and is enforceable,” he said. “I am hopeful that the strong, unanimous vote in the committee will build even more bipartisan support for this legislation in the full Senate and in the House of Representatives.”

AFP contributed to this report