Congress Shies Away From Telling Obama What to Do on Iran

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) talks to reporters as he arrives at a closed door briefing June 4, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Officials from the Obama Administration were on the Hill to brief Senate members on the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. 
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
Clara Ritger
July 24, 2014, 4 p.m.

It’s not usu­ally hard to get law­makers to agree to tough lan­guage on Ir­an, par­tic­u­larly when AIPAC is on board.

But a let­ter out­lining the con­di­tions Ir­an must meet in or­der for Con­gress to be will­ing to provide sanc­tions re­lief ap­pears to have gone too far.

Demo­crat­ic Sen. Robert Men­en­dez and Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham were seek­ing sig­na­tures by Ju­ly 16 for the let­ter, backed by the Amer­ic­an Is­rael Pub­lic Af­fairs Com­mit­tee, that was first dis­trib­uted Ju­ly 11, ac­cord­ing to Re­u­ters.

Two weeks later—and one week after the six-na­tion ne­go­ti­at­ing group an­nounced it had ex­ten­ded the nuc­le­ar talks with Ir­an to Nov. 24—the let­ter still has not been sent to Pres­id­ent Obama.

Some sen­at­ors are wary that af­fix­ing their sig­na­ture to the doc­u­ment would frus­trate the nuc­le­ar talks and would mean that they must con­demn any deal that does not meet all of the enu­mer­ated cri­ter­ia. Among those are a 20-year, in­trus­ive in­spec­tions re­gime that would al­low the mem­bers of the P5+1 to in­de­pend­ently veri­fy Ir­a­ni­an com­pli­ance and the re­quire­ment that Ir­an dis­close the full ex­tent of its nuc­le­ar pro­gram be­fore re­ceiv­ing sanc­tions re­lief from Con­gress. The let­ter also states that Con­gress ex­pects to phase in the sanc­tions re­lief be­cause it does not trust Ir­an to re­spect the terms of the deal.

The let­ter mir­rors one sent in March by Men­en­dez of New Jer­sey and Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina, along with 81 of their col­leagues, ex­cept that the Ju­ly let­ter ex­pli­citly states con­di­tions of a deal, with the threat that “Our will­ing­ness to con­sider le­gis­la­tion to provide sanc­tions re­lief will be based on res­ol­u­tion of all of these is­sues in the con­text of a fi­nal agree­ment with Ir­an.”

Gra­ham said that sign­ing his name means he would vote down a deal that did not meet the cri­ter­ia ex­pressed in the let­ter.

Earli­er this week, he es­tim­ated that they had gathered 20 sig­na­tures. Gra­ham said they aim to send it to the pres­id­ent when they hit 30, and that he be­lieved it could be sent Thursday.

“We’re not try­ing to get 100,” Gra­ham said. “This let­ter’s tough­er and we’re try­ing to get the com­mit­tees of primary jur­is­dic­tion to send a sig­nal to the White House.”

But lead­ers on both sides of the aisle in the rel­ev­ant com­mit­tees—Bank­ing, For­eign Re­la­tions, and Armed Ser­vices—re­fuse to sign on.

“I don’t want to do any­thing to un­der­mine the ne­go­ti­ations,” said Demo­crat­ic Sen. Carl Lev­in of Michigan, the chair of the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee. “I think it’s a mis­take to put in stone what I would vote against un­less cer­tain cri­ter­ia were met.”

For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Bob Cork­er, a Ten­ness­ee Re­pub­lic­an, also has not signed the let­ter. Nor has Armed Ser­vices rank­ing mem­ber James In­hofe, an Ok­lahoma Re­pub­lic­an, though he did send his own let­ter us­ing stronger lan­guage about the ne­go­ti­ations.

“There’s not a good deal be­cause if Ir­an agrees to something, they will break their word,” In­hofe said when asked what he would like to see in a Novem­ber deal. “It’s a waste of time.”

Bank­ing Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Mike Crapo, an Idaho Re­pub­lic­an who signed the March let­ter, signed onto the latest let­ter. But Bank­ing Chair­man Tim John­son, a Demo­crat from South Dakota, said he’s nev­er seen it.

Oth­er key Demo­crats are dis­tan­cing them­selves from the let­ter, in­clud­ing Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hamp­shire.

“I have not signed onto that let­ter,” said Shaheen, a mem­ber of the Armed Ser­vices and For­eign Re­la­tions com­mit­tees who did sign the March let­ter. “I think this let­ter is more pre­script­ive. I’m not go­ing to spec­u­late on what should be in the deal with Ir­an.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Is­land also signed on in March but hasn’t signed the Ju­ly let­ter. Reed serves on the Bank­ing and Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tees.

“I think the let­ter makes some good points,” Reed said, “but I think that any ne­go­ti­ation has to be a give and take and you have to al­low the ne­go­ti­at­ors to reach a po­s­i­tion and then eval­u­ate if it is ef­fect­ive.”

But even Re­pub­lic­ans who agreed to the March let­ter, such as Sen. Jeff Ses­sions of Alabama, thought the latest let­ter went too far. Ses­sions, a mem­ber of the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, said he wanted to give the pres­id­ent the chance to present and ar­gue for his deal.

“I don’t want to gra­tu­it­ously con­demn or throw out sug­ges­tions as to what the right solu­tion should be,” Ses­sions said. “I think the pres­id­ent should ne­go­ti­ate something and I think he should run it by Con­gress.”

What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
11 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
16 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×