WASHINGTON — Senators are warning their colleagues to think twice before pushing amendments that might derail talks over Iran's nuclear program or endanger a bill giving Congress a role.
The chamber on Tuesday began work on a measure that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a rare 19-0 vote, with Republicans and Democrats supporting the establishment of a process under which lawmakers would have 30 days — with the possibility of up to around 50 days — to review any deal with Tehran.
Members of both parties believe Congress should have a formal role in approving any deal the Obama administration and five other world powers might broker with Iran over its nuclear program.
Republicans and Democrats also have gripes about the substance of a framework deal with Iran. Members took turns on the floor Tuesday urging their colleagues against offering amendments that are not related to the Iran nuclear talks.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he is concerned senators seeking the White House in 2016 would offer amendments reflecting other concerns about Iranian activities. But because those issues are not being discussed at the "P5+1 Talks," Reid says adoption of such amendments could end the talks.
"Republicans running for president shouldn't use Iran legislation as a tool for their political ambitions," Reid said. "This is too important to play games."
Two Republican senators seeking the party's presidential nomination, Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, already have filed amendments to the measure, being managed on the floor by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ranking Member Ben Cardin, D-Md.
After reviewing amendments filed thus far, Cardin warned on the Senate floor that some are not germane to "stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons state."
He warned some of the amendments could insert a "poison pill" that could "blow up" the talks between Iran and six world powers.
Cardin had a message for his colleagues, saying he and Corker are ready to discuss controversial amendments: "Talk to us, let's see whether we can work out an amendment."
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., warned against doing anything to put at risk the still-holding bipartisan "super majority" needed to override any veto and an Iran bill.
Corker and Cardin spoke out Tuesday morning in favor of an amendment that would require the administration to deliver US lawmakers the Persian version of any nuclear pact.
Cardin said it is imperative that Congress, during the 30-day review period proposed by the bill, have both the English and Persian texts. That's because after the framework of the deal was released, Iranian officials offered different descriptions than did US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Chris Coons, D-Del., a Foreign Relations Committee member, warned senators against "adding poison pill amendments" to the Corker-Cardin bill. He added the coming final vote on the measure is not "a referendum" on the substance of the framework deal, but Rather, he said, it is one to give Congress a role in assessing any final deal.
Coons, whom Corker applauded on the floor for his work on the legislation, said he favors passing it "as-is," meaning "without amendment."
Should Republicans successfully tack on unrelated amendments that might end the Iran talks, Corker said he would vote against final passage.
For their part, Republican senators took to the floor to criticize the emerging deal with Iran — and the White House.
"Any deal with Iran needs to achieve one thing: permanently preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But the framework the president has unveiled seems unlikely to achieve that goal," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune of South Dakota.
"Far from eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities, the framework does not shut down a single nuclear facility in the country," Thune said. "It does not destroy a single centrifuge. It does not stop research and development on existing centrifuges. It does not eliminate Iran's missile development programs.
"And it allows Iran to keep a substantial part of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium," he added. "It's no surprise that members of both parties are deeply concerned that the final agreement will not be effective in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."
Thune said he intends to offer an amendment that would "require the secretary of state to investigate whether the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspections in Iran under any agreement, would have access to military bases if they were deemed to be suspicious sites."
Coats said on the floor that if a final Iran deal looks a lot like the framework agreed to last month, he will seek to kill it and lobby his colleagues to vote against it.
"We are looking at something that might let Iran break all of those commitments that it made, and all of those assurances that we made. We need a deal that ensures our security.
"If the administration cannot bring us an agreement that does that," Coats said, "it should not bring us a deal."
Email: jbennett@defensenews.com
Twitter: @bennettjohnt
