The Senate on Thursday passed bipartisan legislation that would require President Obama to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for review but also effectively require a supermajority to block an agreement from being implemented.
The vote was 98-1, with the “no” vote coming from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who opposes the ongoing talks. He and other conservatives had stretched out debate on the bill seeking votes on dozens of amendments, but supporters, backed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, were able to turn away attempts to change it.
The carefully crafted bipartisan compromise “offers the best chance for our constituents through the Congress they elect to weigh in on the White House’s negotiations with Iran — and make no mistake they need to have that opportunity,” McConnell said.
The Kentucky Republican noted that he, like many of the conservatives who had initially opposed the legislation, is highly skeptical of the potential deal that appears to be taking shape, saying “the American people were led to believe that these negotiations would be about ending Iran’s nuclear program,” but “would actually bestow international blessing for Iran to continue it.”
He added: “The response to this should not be to give the American people no say at all — no say at all — on a deal with Iran.”
The bill would give Congress 30 days to review a deal and decide whether to vote on a resolution of disapproval. If one is adopted, the bill allows another 22-day period during which Obama can veto the resolution and Congress could try to override his veto.
During that period, Obama may not waive any sanctions written into U.S. law. But if the disapproval resolution is not adopted over his expected veto, that restriction is lifted, clearing the way for an agreement to be implemented.
The legislation also is expected to easily pass the House. In a statement, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., welcomed the Senate vote.
“The House should pass this legislation, and the administration should put its added leverage to use,” Royce said.
Obama had fought for months to block any congressional consideration of a deal, saying he would veto the legislation. But he withdrew his veto threat after the Foreign Relations Committee approved the bipartisan compromise in a rare 19-0 vote on April 14.
Many Republicans had wanted any deal submitted for Senate ratification as a treaty, or at least for a simple up-or-down majority vote, but Democrats would not accept that option and it would have invoked a presidential veto the GOP did not have the votes to override.
Indeed, it’s unlikely the process established by the bill will block Obama from implementing any deal he’s willing to sign. House Democrats drove that point home earlier Thursday when they released a letter signed by 150 lawmakers — enough to uphold a veto — supporting a deal with Iran.
But a majority vote in both chambers against any deal, which is likely given GOP opposition to the current framework, would still send a powerful signal of how out of step Obama’s negotiating strategy has been with both Congress and U.S. voters, who mostly distrust Iran and are skeptical any deal will meet the administration’s goal of preventing its Shiite Muslim theocracy from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
That, the bill’s supporters argued, was the best they could do in today’s political reality.
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP presidential hopeful who had voted for the bill in committee but held up passage for a week with Cotton while seeking a vote on his amendment requiring Iran to recognize Israel as a condition of any deal, gave a last-minute endorsement to the measure, saying it was a better option than doing nothing.
“I think that we’re better off if we have this process in place, so I hope that this bill passes today,” Rubio said.
