WASHINGTON — Senior senators say they have reached agreement on a bill creating a congressional review of any deal over Iran’s nuclear program — but they are stopping short of predicting it will clear committee.
Key Senate Foreign Relations Committee members on Tuesday reported significant progress on a path forward to consider “dozens” of Republican and Democratic amendments to the measure during a mark-up later in the day.
“We have kept the process 100 percent in place, the integrity of the process. It ends up being, all in, about a 52-day process, assuming it more clearly defines how that process works,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “What I’m proud of is we have kept the pure integrity of the process in place, and the president cannot lift while Congress is reviewing … the congressionally mandated sanctions, which is what they’ve been trying to … do for the last couple of weeks.”
As crafted, Corker’s bill would require President Barack Obama to submit to Congress, by the fifth day after reaching any deal with Tehran, the text of the pact. Obama also would have to submit a report that would be prepared by Secretary of State John Kerry assessing the ability to verify Iran’s compliance.
Included in that “verification assessment report” would be a list of any sanctions the White House intends to waive, something opposed by many Republicans and causes great skepticism among many Democrats. The bill would require a presidential certification that any deal would not allow Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon or “constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security.”
Committee member Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who took part in weeks of negotiations ahead of the mark-up, told reporters minutes earlier that “dozens” of amendments have been filed.
Coons said he “is optimistic” the committee will be able to approve the bill on Tuesday.
But, notably, he warned “several” of them would “pull this bill to the right.”
If those GOP amendments are added to the bill, Coons said of his going-in support: “I would drop off in a second.”
Democrats, who are talking to White House officials, are aiming for what Coons called “a midpoint.”
That perceived legislative sweet spot is language that would prevent any deal with Iran over its nuclear program from being treated in the Senate like a treaty. Instead, Democrats are aiming to lock in language that does set up a congressional review process.
He also said the agreement brokered ahead of the mark-up would require a 60-vote threshold on the Senate floor to approve the Corker bill.
But should the president veto the bill, and should it also pass the House, the pact would require a 67-vote threshold to override Obama’s veto.
Coons and Corker offered different descriptions for the length of the review process the chairman’s bill would establish. Coons said he will offer an amendment to take the measure’s current 60-calendar day review period and shrink it to a 30-day process.
Corker told reporters shortly after that the agreement would set up a 52-day span for lawmakers to assess any deal.
A Corker aide provided more detail about the review period under the freshly minted agreement.
“There is an initial review period of 30 days, 12 more days are automatically added if Congress passes a bill and sends it to the president and an additional 10 days if the president vetoes the legislation,” the aide said. “If the deal is submitted late, after July 9, the review period reverts to 60 days.”
However long, during the review period, the Foreign Relations and other committees would hold hearings and take other steps to fully understand the deal six world powers reach with Iranian leaders. It also seeks to limit the sanctions Obama could waive during that span.
Coons suggested the White House and Senate Democrats favor a 30-day period “so there is less of a risk that this drags on.” Democrats are concerned a longer review window would allow Republicans to use appropriations bills and other legislation to try to cut off funding to implement any potential Iran deal.
Asked to forecast whether the Corker bill passes the committee later in the day — or during a possible follow-on session Wednesday — he chuckled.
“It’s the Senate,” Coons said, noting over the past few years the chamber has shown “a repeated inability to reach agreement on what was perceived as an agreement.
“You don’t know,” he said, “until the final votes are cast.”
Corker also was hesitant to predict passage.
“Around here, everything that you do is difficult,” the chairman said. “So, we’ll see.”
Following a classified briefing for all senators with three Cabinet officials, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it is “very clear” the White House does not want Congress to vote on the Corker bill.
Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, a Democratic leadership member, said he is encouraged by developments on altering the bill.
Durbin also said he believes there is a chance the White House could even support the final version.
The committee’s embattled former ranking Democrat, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, told reporters the briefing “raises more questions than answers,” while also reaffirming his belief that congressional oversight of any Iran deal is necessary.
Continuing his pattern of breaking with the White House over the Iran nuclear talks, Menendez said of the White House: “If they were smart, they would support this.”
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter: @BennettJohnT
