Republicans try to improve bill on Iran deal

The Hill:
Conservative Republicans are looking for ways to force Democrats to walk the plank in a series of tough votes over Iran.

GOP senators want to attach amendments to the recent deal struck between Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) that would allow Congress to weigh in on any agreement reached between the Obama administration and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.

The White House and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are warning against changes that could erode support from Democrats and President Obama.

But the GOP is looking for options that would place Democrats between the proverbial rock and a hard place, forcing them to choose between opening themselves up to attack by voting against the amendments, or angering Obama and Reid by backing them.

The White House has spent significant political capital on gathering support for the Iran nuclear talks, repeatedly dispatching high-ranking officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to meet publicly and privately with lawmakers.

But proposals from presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio, among others, could throw a wrench in the works.

The Florida Republican, together with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) wants to include in the Corker-Cardin agreement a requirement that President Obama must certify that Iran’s leaders publicly accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

It is highly unlikely that Iran’s leaders would make such a declaration. And other key Republicans suggested that, even if Tehran did so, they would not accept the sincerity of the announcement.

“What if they said ‘Yeah, I recognize Israel?’ I don’t trust them,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said. “Those words mean nothing to me.”

Another amendment from Rubio and Kirk, as well a separate amendment from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), ties the agreement to the release of Americans currently being held in Iran.
...

Meanwhile, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) wants to reinsert a requirement that Obama be able to certify that Iran hasn’t carried out or directly supported terrorism against the United States or a U.S. citizen.
...

Rubio has introduced another amendment to ensure that any sanctions relief under a nuclear deal doesn’t affect congressional and Executive sanctions placed on Iran for different reasons: its support of terrorism, its human rights violations or its ballistic missile program.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who like Kirk faces a potentially tight reelection fight next year, has introduced two amendments that would allow Congress to approve a final deal, and also requires a higher threshold of support than under Corker-Cardin.
...
There is more.

I would support all of these amendments, but I also do not think the deal as represented by the administration is worth approving to begin with.  I do not trust Iran and I do not think we should be removing any sanctions on this evil regime.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains