2016 politics threaten Iran bill The campaign agendas of White House hopefuls are exacerbating tensions within the GOP Conference.

At a closed-door lunch Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker urged his fellow Republicans to refrain from offering “poison pills” that could sink a carefully constructed bill to require congressional review of a nuclear deal with Iran, attendees said.

But Corker’s intended audience — the class of senators running for president in 2016 — was nowhere to be found.


Presidential politics are creating new challenges for the GOP leadership as it enters a period of legislating on hot-button national security issues, just as debate over the country’s foreign policy challenges dominates the campaign trail and private meetings with big Republican donors.

On Iran, Republican presidential candidates like Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas are eager to tout their opposition to the Obama administration’s accord and their allegiance to Israel. And with key parts of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire at the end of May, Rand Paul of Kentucky is making his battle against the law’s government surveillance provisions a centerpiece of his campaign to distinguish himself from GOP hawks like Rubio and Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The political jockeying is starting to create anxiety among top Republicans — particularly over the Iran bill, which is now on the Senate floor. Senior Republicans hope that they can fend off hard-to-oppose amendments that would upset Iran and trigger a veto threat from the White House — potentially killing a bill aimed at giving Congress an opportunity to formally reject a deal that would ease sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

“If we want to give the American people a voice in this deal, this legislation’s got to pass,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 GOP leader. The presidential candidates “are going to take the opportunity irrespective. That’s their right, that’s their prerogative as senators. But I hope everybody keeps in mind what the end goal is.”

Just as GOP leaders are preparing for a battle over Iran, there’s jockeying among the presidential hopefuls over the PATRIOT Act. On Tuesday, Cruz signed on to a bill calling for safeguards to the post-9/11 surveillance program, including an end to the bulk data-collection program revealed by Edward Snowden. Paul voted against a similar bill last year, arguing that it did not go far enough to end the PATRIOT Act. Graham, Rubio and Senate GOP leaders opposed the measure because they said it undermined the National Security Agency’s efforts to collect data on suspected terrorists.

“By and large, I’m supportive of the NSA programs and for extending it,” Rubio said in an interview. “I think they are important for the security of our country. If some federal employee is found violating the privacy of an American, they should be thrown in jail.”

Cruz fired back Tuesday, saying a “clean reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act’s bulk record collection program is not acceptable.”

Paul conceded he‘ll probably lose his fight to end the PATRIOT Act, saying there are probably only 15 to 20 people “that are aware enough of the Constitution that they want to defend it against encroachment.” But he also took a shot at Graham for saying previously that Americans who are imprisoned for joining Al Qaeda should be told to “shut up” when they ask for lawyers.

“I think if you ask the American people, including most Republicans, ‘Do you think that’s the appropriate kind of response from a president, or is that the appropriate response from who we want our nominee to be?’ … I think people have a higher level of belief and hope for the right to trial by jury than that,” Paul said in an interview.

As Paul accused Graham of acting irresponsibly, the South Carolina Republican warned his colleagues not to use the Iran debate to score political points. Paul has yet to file any amendments to the Iran bill, though his office said some are forthcoming.

“There can be a robust amendment process, but the people that bring an amendment to break this deal apart” will benefit only “the Iranians,” Graham said.

The debate over Iran strategy at the Senate GOP’s Tuesday lunch was mild, senators said, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky did not urge his colleagues to hold off on amendments. Most of the GOP Conference attended, including Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, whose wife gave birth to a boy the night before, but the Republican presidential candidates were absent.

The legislation, authored by Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), would allow Congress to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be key to any deal between the Obama administration and Tehran. It also would require regular certification by the White House that Iran is following the terms of the deal, which could ultimately allow the next president to upend any multilateral accord.

At the forefront of the fight are two amendments from Rubio. One would require Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a condition of any nuclear argument; another would demand the release of hostages in Iranian custody, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and three others.

Both would be politically difficult for senators to vote against. But the White House has warned that either of the add-ons would undercut the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. And the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group, is whipping against amendments “that it would ordinarily support” in order to keep the bill’s bipartisan backing. That could offer cover to some senators to vote no.

A spokeswoman for Rubio declined to say Tuesday whether the senator would still push the amendments; however, Rubio said Thursday he “absolutely” would seek votes on some of the seven amendments he’s proposing.

“It will either kill the bill … kill the negotiations … or put Iran in a much better position to negotiate, which threatens our ability to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state,” said Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is working closely with the White House. “All three results are terrible.”

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a GOP co-sponsor of the Israel amendment, said Rubio should not relent.

“The White House is worried that if I tied my shoes differently that it would affect the deal,” said Kirk, an Israel hawk who faces reelection next year.

Rubio has also offered proposals that would mandate that the president keep in place all non-nuclear sanctions and require Congress to review any action taken by the president with the United Nations involving Iran. Meanwhile, Cruz wants to flip the delicately negotiated bill on its head by requiring that Congress approve of any nuclear deal — rather than allow it to disapprove of a pact.

Corker flashed annoyance when asked whether he needs to pay heed to the Republican senators running for president as he tries to get his Iran bill across the finish line. “That’s not for me to balance,” he said.

“I know a number of our folks are traveling around the country, focused on other things at present,” Corker added on the Senate floor, referring to the GOP White House hopefuls.

While members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — which adopted the measure 19-0 this month — are trying to beat back the politically charged amendments, McConnell said Tuesday afternoon he’s taking a hands-off approach and wants a “robust” debate on the floor.

Rubio and Cruz both appear set to take advantage of that.

“I don’t consider it a poison pill amendment — I consider it a constructive amendment that would move in the direction of restoring the appropriate role for Congress,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said of his amendment with Cruz, which would require a majority of Congress to approve an Iran nuclear deal, rather than the current bill, which effectively allows 34 senators to approve a deal.

Still, Corker’s arguments seem to be making at least some headway. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who wrote an amendment co-sponsored by Cruz and Rubio that would require the U.S. to affirm Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, appeared to be having second thoughts about whether he will force a vote on the plan.

“I haven’t made that decision yet,” Heller said. Asked whether opposition from Corker and his colleagues affects his plans, Heller answered: “Of course it does.”

The matter is also causing significant schisms within the Republican caucus. While Thune wants his colleagues running for president to keep the fragile bipartisan coalition “top of mind” as they navigate tough votes, others are willing to fling the process wide open for presidential candidates to make their case.

“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with voting,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican. “I think if people are uncomfortable with voting, then they’ve really come to the wrong place.”

But that could be problematic to getting a bill into law. The 46-member Democratic Caucus doesn’t want to be forced into a situation in which it’s providing most of the votes against the “poison pill” amendments while most Republicans get a pass. But with no indication that Republican leaders will help produce big majorities against the amendments, that scenario looks increasingly likely.

On Tuesday evening, a proposal that would treat a nuclear agreement like a treaty by requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve it failed by a wide margin, though McConnell voted for it, as did the majority of the GOP caucus. The 57-39 vote was narrower than Democrats had wished; they want a majority of Republicans with them voting down amendments to the bill.

In other words, just a handful of Republicans organized by Corker may vote with Democrats against the politically perilous proposals. That’s injected a large dose of uncertainty into legislation that days ago seemed destined for easy approval on the Senate floor.

“Any amendments that might stall this bill I think are the wrong way to go. We need the president to sign this legislation,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “There are a certain number of us, at least, that are committed to block any poison pill amendments.”