Senate Republican leadership is wary of holding more votes to try to block the implementation of President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Even before the House announced that it would adopt a new three-part plan for registering disapproval of the Iran deal, Senate Republicans were debating whether to step outside of the review process established by the Corker-Cardin bill that passed in May. Some GOP senators want to do just that in order to increase pressure on Democrats, but other lawmakers think the pressure is already in place and suspect that the alternatives might be counterproductive.
Senate Republican leaders doubt the wisdom of passing a resolution finding that Obama “has not complied” with his legal requirement to provide the full Iran deal to Congress, as the House did Thursday. In theory, Obama cannot waive the sanctions imposed on the Iranian regime until after presenting the entire deal to Congress, which is why Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and others favor the move.
“I think the argument against it is that, even if those side deals were almost bulletproof, that this is a still a bad agreement for the United States and for the region,” Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), vice-chair of the GOP conference and a member of the whip team, tells National Review. “The one thing you wouldn’t want people to begin to think is, ‘Well, if only we could have seen more, then somehow Congress would have been for it.’”
#share#There is some support for bringing a resolution approving the Iran deal up for a vote, as the House did Friday, in order to put Democrats on record as affirmatively supporting the accord. Senate Homeland Security chairman Ron Johnson advocated that tactic during a GOP conference lunch Wednesday, according to multiple senators. Johnson argued that the Corker-Cardin bill established a convoluted review process that muddled conservatives’ views of the legislative battle, giving them the impression that Senate Republicans were caving to the president and moderate swing voters.
Johnson is hardly alone in that view — “I think Ron’s thinking has been excellent on this,” one senator tells NR — but there are plenty of Republicans who disagree. “The reaction I felt was, ‘well, this is an idea, maybe we can consider it, but we’re far from sold that this is the best way to go,’” says the anonymous senator.
#related#For one thing, even Johnson’s proposal wouldn’t create a showdown with Obama. “My goal was to get a bill on his desk so he’d have to veto it,” says a second senator speaking on condition of anonymity. “A motion to approve would fail. We wouldn’t approve the deal, so there’d be nothing for him to veto.”
The relative political benefit of forcing Democrats to vote in approval of the Iran deal after filibustering a bill disapproving of the deal would have to be weighed against the cost of not moving to other pending debates. “Part of our problem is, floor time is precious,” a third senator says. “With the House vote, with what news media coverage of this [is], have we clarified the situation enough or do we need to clarify it a little bit more? I think we’ll probably sit back and assess that over the weekend.”
— Joel Gehrke is a political reporter for National Review.