House conservatives today expressed skepticism over a bipartisan Senate plan for Congress to review a nuclear deal with Iran, fearing the measure would give lawmakers little power to actually stop an agreement they don’t like.
The Senate bill passed out of committee last week and was deemed a “compromise” because Republican lawmakers agreed to withhold hardline amendments in exchange for President Obama’s ceding some authority to lawmakers over the negotiations.
When asked by The Daily Signal how he feels about the compromise Senate review bill, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, literally gave it a thumbs down (see video).
“My initial take on [the review bill] is eh,” said Jordan, adding that he would confer with Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who has been an outspoken leader on the Iran nuclear issue, before making final judgement.
“Generally, I am down on it, but I want to see the details.”
“Generally, I am down on it,” says @Jim_Jordan of the Senate plan to review an Iran nuclear deal.
The compromise bill was negotiated by Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat, and Republican Chairman Bob Corker of Tennessee.
>>> After Obama Bows to Pressure, Congress Poised to Have Voice on Iran Nuclear Deal
It would shorten a congressional review period for a final Iran nuclear deal and removes language requiring the president to certify that Iran has not supported or carried out an act of terrorism against Americans.
And it would reduce the time frame the Senate has to consider the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions—from 60 days to 52 at most.
During that review period, the president could not waive sanctions levied by Congress, but he could lift sanctions imposed through presidential action. The bill is soon expected to come before the full Senate, before the House would vote on it.
Obama has said he would sign the bill into law.
Heritage Action for America, a conservative lobbying group, has already recommended that Congress vote “no” on the Senate bill because Congress “would be almost powerless” to stop an Iran nuclear deal.
Some lawmakers who oppose the bill argue that the Iran deal should be handled as a treaty, requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve it. However, over the last century presidents have often treated deals with foreign countries as executive agreements not subjected to the Constitution’s treaty process.
>>>History Shows Obama Doesn’t Need Congress to Seal Iran Deal
“My understanding is they flipped the burden,” Jordan told The Daily Signal.
“One of the things you learn with burden of proof is that now it’s a third vs. two-thirds and that’s not a good thing. That’s not how our system is supposed to work. If the president goes and does something, the burden is on him to get two-thirds of the Senate to approve it if it’s a true treaty, which I view this as.”
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., also signaled that House conservatives are likely to be tough on the Senate’s review bill if it were to pass in its current form.
Huelskamp said he would like the legislation to include an amendment that would require Iran’s leaders to accept Israel’s right to exist. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., had proposed that amendment in committee but did not put it up for a vote because it would have imperiled a deal.
“Clearly, this Congress doesn’t trust the president on a lot of issues, but on this one there is absolutely no trust on both sides of the aisle,” Huelskamp told The Daily Signal. “We have to corner him and say, ‘Nope, if this doesn’t defend and protect Israel and stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, it’s not a good deal.’”
