WASHINGTON -- The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation Tuesday granting Congress a voice in negotiations on an Iran nuclear accord, sending the legislation to the full Senate after President Barack Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Obama's strongest Democratic supporters on the committee sided with Republicans in demanding a congressional role in the international negotiations.
The U.S., Iran and five other global powers -- the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany -- have been trying to reach a deal that would limit Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of economic sanctions on the country. A framework deal was reached this month, and the deadline set for a final deal is June 30.
The Senate bill, which the committee approved 19-0, would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress for a review as soon as it is completed. The compromise bill was negotiated by Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat, and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the committee's chairman.
An earlier version of the bill sought to put any plan to lift sanctions on Iran on hold for up to 60 days while Congress reviewed the deal. The compromise shortened the review period to 30 days. During that time, Obama would be able to lift sanctions imposed through presidential action but would be blocked from easing sanctions levied by Congress.
Under the terms of the compromise, if a nuclear deal is submitted after July 9 -- more than a week after the final agreement is to be reached -- the review period would revert to 60 days. The president would be required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with terms of the agreement.
The compromise also struck a provision in the initial bill that would have required the president to certify that Iran is not supporting terrorism and substituted weaker language.
The original provision's author, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., tried Tuesday to add the requirement back in. But Corker and others said the amendment would be a deal-killer, and the panel rejected it.
"We're involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime," said Cardin, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday's vote.
The White House had previously objected to the idea of Congress muscling its way into the nuclear negotiations, which Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday that Obama was not "particularly thrilled" with the bill, but the president decided the proposal was acceptable.
Assuming White House concerns remain addressed in the final version of the bill, Earnest said, "We've gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that's undergone substantial revision such that it's now in the form of a compromise that the president is willing to sign. That would certainly be an improvement."
He added, "We're asking for a commitment that people will pursue the process that's contemplated in this bill."
Earnest said the compromise addressed some of the objections that the president raised to the original version by shortening the review period and softening the terrorism provision.
Moreover, rather than calling for a decision on the overall agreement, the modified bill now essentially sets up a future vote on lifting congressionally imposed sanctions, something the White House has always acknowledged would be needed, Earnest said.
"The compromise would set up a vote to vote later on those specific congressional sanctions," he said. "It would not be an up-or-down vote on the deal."
The bill still must be approved in the full Senate, but leaders in both parties expressed their support Tuesday.
One key Foreign Relations Committee Democrat, Sen. Christopher Coons of Delaware, said the administration's effort to keep the negotiations away from Capitol Hill "goes against, in a gut sense, the view that many in Congress have, that our constitutional framework imagines congressional relevance to the conduct of foreign policy."
"If the administration can't persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it's really a bad agreement," he said Tuesday.
One senior Democratic aide said the bill that passed the committee Tuesday would have overwhelming, veto-proof support in the full Senate. To override a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, meaning some Democrats would have to oppose their president to override the veto.
While White House officials said the president changed his position because of substantial changes to the bill itself, Corker called that spin, saying the president switched sides in the face of a steamroller.
Corker said Secretary of State John Kerry was lobbying against the legislation on Capitol Hill a few hours before the vote. The Republican said the White House's sudden support was dictated by the number of senators -- Republicans and Democrats -- backing the measure.
"This is a really sound piece of legislation," Corker said. "I'm very proud of it and it's my hope that it passes overwhelmingly."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, agreed with Corker's assessment.
"Maybe they saw the handwriting on the wall," he said after the White House dropped its opposition.
With committee passage, the Senate will likely vote on the bill this month. Republican leaders in the House promised swift action if the Senate passes it.
"Congress absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal," Boehner said Tuesday. "We shouldn't just count on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost."
Information for this article was contributed by Jonathan Weisman, Peter Baker and Emmarie Huetteman of The New York Times; by Deb Riechmann, Laurie Kellman, Charles Babington, Josh Lederman and Alan Fram of The Associated Press; and by Karen DeYoung, Mike DeBonis, Colby Itkowitz, Paul Kane, Sean Sullivan and Ed O'Keefe of The Washington Post.
A Section on 04/15/2015