As the Iran Deal moves through the U. S. Senate in late April 2015, certain Congressmen are attaching amendments from their own agendas. However, they are being rejected by the majority as “poison pill” amendments that would surely kill the bill through congressional vote or presidential veto.
You will recall that the deal reached between Iran and “P-5 plus 1” (the U.S., China, Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia) in early April 2015 pleased all the negotiators. It achieved Iran’s objectives in that it will lift the economic sanctions imposed since 2010. The sanctions will be lifted in phases over a period of approximately six months after the final deal is signed. The deal also achieved “P-5 plus 1’s” objectives by strictly limiting Iran’s nuclear program and blocks every path Iran might take to develop nuclear weapons. The deal won’t be finalized until June 30th but all the parties were happy with the tentative agreement.
Now, as the deal moves through our own Congress, attempts are made to alter the agreement. Senator John Barrasso proposed an amendment requiring the President to certify that Tehran is not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans. That proposed amendment was defeated by a vote of 54-45.
Senator Mark Rubio, who announced his Presidential candidacy for the 2016 elections, proposed an amendment requiring Iran to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Senator Cardin, a Jewish Senator who strongly supports Israel, condemned Rubio’s proposal as a surefire deal-killer that “would make it almost impossible for the president to negotiate an agreement with Iran.” In fact, a more jaded observer might believe that Rubio’s proposed amendment is a showboating move to garner Jewish and Evangelical Christian support for Rubio’s Presidential bid. In any event, Rubio’s proposal went down in flames.
Thus far, only two “poison pill” amendments have been proposed and defeated, though others could arise before the Iran Deal is congressionally approved.
By Kathy Catanzarite
Note from HandelontheLaw.com: This article is to be used as an educational guide only and should not be interpreted as a legal consultation. Readers of this article are advised to seek an attorney if a legal consultation is needed. Laws may vary by state and are subject to change, thus the accuracy of this information can not be guaranteed. Readers act on this information solely at their own risk. Neither the author, handelonthelaw.com, or any of its affiliates shall have any liability stemming from this article.