White House, Dems seek to water down Iran bill

Politico ^ | 04/08/2015 | Burgess Everett

[E. Pluribus Unum]

With Congress poised to take up a bipartisan bill the White House fears could scuttle its delicate nuclear framework with Iran, Senate Democrats on Wednesday sought to modify the legislation to assuage President Barack Obama’s concerns.

Democrats are hoping that Republicans will agree to their suggested changes to the measure that would give Congress review power over the nuclear agreement — and the GOP’s pursuit of a veto-proof majority in favor of the legislation may depend on it.

One proposed alteration would remove a requirement that the Obama administration certify that Iran isn’t directly involved in sponsoring terrorism attacks against the United States. Another would shorten — or potentially eliminate — a provision in the bill that would bar the president from lifting sanctions while Congress reviews the bill for 60 days, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The proposed modifications stemmed from administration officials who have been contacting senators in both parties to explain their opposition to the legislation, which was written by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and would give Congress an avenue to reject the nuclear framework after reviewing the agreement. Publicly, the White House is standing by its veto threat, but with support for the measure nearing a veto-proof majority in the Senate, administration officials are also hoping to alter the bill in a way they can live with.

Corker’s committee is scheduled to vote on the legislation Tuesday, and the bill appears increasingly likely to move to the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has filed an amendment removing the terrorism certification language and has spoken to Corker about incorporating it. Democrats spent Wednesday filing a number of additional amendments and are hoping to strike a deal with Corker to alter his bill, which they noted was written more than a month before the nuclear framework was announced last week.

As the new ranking member on the committee, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) is spearheading the effort to alter the bill in a manner that is more palatable to the White House, a sharp departure from the hawkish stance of indicted Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is on hiatus as the panel’s top Democrat but still serves on the committee.

“I want to make sure whatever review process we put in place is consistent with the terms” of the Iran framework, Cardin said in an interview late last week. He has not signed on to Corker’s bill but has expressed openness to it.

Corker said he is planning to have an open amendment process when his panel convenes to vote on his legislation. The measure was developed with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and is sponsored by a growing bipartisan group of senators that wants Congress to have the ability to reject the lifting of Iranian sanctions, a linchpin of the deal. Both Corker and Kaine argue that their bill is written to move in tandem with ongoing negotiations on the final technical agreement, not blow them up.

“The Corker bill does not tank or collapse the negotiations at all,” Kaine said in an interview this week. “I’m not proposing it because I don’t want diplomacy to work.”

The support of many Democrats — including some co-sponsors as well as a handful of undecided senators — hinges on assurances that Corker’s bill would not undo the fragile framework agreement struck by world powers and Iran after more than a year of talks. If Democrats are unable to marshal the votes to change the bill in committee, where it needs just a majority to pass, they will push on the Senate floor, where Republicans need at least 60 votes to pass the bill and 67 to override a veto.

For instance, a spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, who cosponsored Corker’s measure, said in an email late Tuesday that the Florida Democrat intends to “make some modifications that will be acceptable to the White House.” Nelson is not on the foreign relations panel.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest went public with the White House’s concerns about a provision in the bill that would mandate quarterly certification 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.” The White House believes that provision would alter the narrow nuclear focus of the administration’s negotiating.

“That’s an unrealistic suggestion because we’ve been very clear that this agreement is focused on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that it is not going to succeed in resolving the long list of concerns that we have with Iran’s behavior,” Earnest said. “Inserting a provision like this that essentially is intended to undermine the agreement in the first place is why we so strongly oppose, or at least have significant concerns, and oppose the current form of the Corker bill.”

Earnest noted a “number of concerns” with the Corker legislation but declined to elaborate beyond the terrorism language.

But Hill sources said another major sticking point is that the legislation would not allow Obama to waive sanctions during a 60-day review period. The White House views that provision as a major impediment to implementing a final technical deal with Iran by the end of June. Democrats may insist on shortening that timeline or scrapping that provision as a condition of moving forward.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on Democrats’ amendments. Democratic sources said that the White House will likely be supportive of changes that address its concerns with the bill but that the president’s threat to veto the bill would remain even with the modifications.

[DJ Frisat]

No problem. The usual gang of Republican idiots will side with the Dems & the WH, turning this into a meaningless exercise, while beating their chests about how ‘tough’ they’ve been.

I have so little hope for our future. Sigh...

[shalom aleichem]

Bunch of craven cowards.

We have NO representatives in Washington DC

[kidd]

“water down” shall make the following change:

Iran can have nuclear weapons in 10 years
= > change to =>
Iran can have nuclear weapons - never