A key Senate committee will start debating a proposal Tuesday to assert a congressional say in a nuclear agreement with Iran, prompting President Barack Obama to ramp up efforts to stop the legislation he said would scuttle the deal.
Obama met with Jewish groups at the White House on Monday, trying to talk them out of their support for congressional oversight of the Iran agreement.
Obama was to “make the case to them that this agreement is one that is clearly in the best interests of the United States of America,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “The president also believes it’s clearly in the best interests of our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.”
But in a sign of the hurdles the administration faces, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee renewed its support for the legislation ahead of the hearings, saying that “if the agreement achieves U.S. objectives, it will withstand congressional scrutiny, and the president should welcome congressional review.”
The Union of Orthodox Congregations of America also continued to actively support a congressional role. “We have many serious concerns about the proposed framework for the deal,” said Nathan Diament, the group’s public policy director. “The concerns remain for the most part because there are a lot of blank spaces in the pages yet to be signed.”
That includes, he said, whether the inspections regime will be as vigorous and intrusive as the administration says.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday begins reviewing a bill that would require Obama to submit the Iran nuclear deal to a 60-day congressional review and prohibit him from easing some sanctions against Iran during that period.
The bill is shaping up to be a test of wills between the White House and lawmakers in both parties. Republicans have been the most skeptical about the interim agreement forged with Iran by the United States and five other world powers.
But Obama faces a tough sales job among fellow Democrats. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Harry Reid’s choice to succeed him as Senate minority leader, strongly supports the bill.
So does Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who co-sponsored the bill with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn. Menendez stepped down as the committee’s ranking Democrat after he was indicted on unrelated federal corruption charges.
White House officials have placed more than 130 phone calls to lawmakers to make their case, Earnest said, and Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and senior intelligence officials plan classified briefings with members of the House of Representaties and the Senate over the next two days.
Republicans, and some Democrats, believe that there’s a veto-proof majority for the bill. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters Monday that if Corker “is able to get his agreement and get it out of the Senate, it’s my intention to bring it to the floor of the House and move it.”
But bipartisan support for the bill that Obama has threatened to veto is fragile. Several Democrats and independent lawmakers worry that the debate over the bill could devolve into a politically motivated partisan spat.
“And I have a real problem with that,” Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent, said Monday on MSNBC. “I’ve told Bob Corker, ‘I’m with you on this.’ But if this looks like this is just going to be used as a partisan issue, some way to embarrass the president, to deny him of foreign policy achievement, I’m out, man.”
Obama criticized Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over the weekend for suggesting Kerry had been misleading. The White House made it plain Monday that it considers some of the opposition to be politically motivated.
“There will be some members of Congress who, based on their rigid, partisan views will oppose this deal, no matter how good it is,” Earnest said.
Meanwhile, Democrats who support the bill and want to be supportive of the White House are seeking to soften some of the legislation’s language.
For example, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., has an amendment ready that would remove language requiring Iran to renounce terrorism as a condition of the deal. It was unclear Monday what amendments would be offered.
Earnest said Obama would “absolutely” veto the existing legislation and said it remains “unclear” as to whether a compromise can be reached.
He said administration briefers would make it plain that there are still details of the agreement to be worked out. Iran’s supreme leader last week underscored one hurdle yet to be cleared, saying the deal would be signed in late June only if economic sanctions are lifted at once – not in phases as the negotiators insist.
“That’s why the president wants Congress to ensure that our negotiators have the time and space that they need to try to reach an agreement by the end of June,” Earnest said.
Comments