This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/us/politics/opposing-iran-nuclear-deal-chuck-schumer-rattles-democratic-firewall.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Chuck Schumer Rattles Democratic Firewall Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Chuck Schumer Rattles Democratic Firewall
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The decision by Senator Chuck Schumer to oppose President Obama’s deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program rattled the Democratic firewall around the accord, but supporters said Democratic defections in New York and South Florida would not be enough to bring down the agreement. WASHINGTON — The decision by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York to oppose the Iran nuclear deal has rattled the Democratic bulwark around the accord, emboldened the deal’s opponents in both parties, and set off a wave of condemnation from liberals for the man who hopes to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate have promised a vote in mid-September on a resolution to disapprove the nuclear accord between Iran and the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China, which in itself would be a blow to Mr. Obama’s prestige. But supporters of the accord said on Friday that Democratic defections would not be enough to bring it down.
But to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal, opponents have two high hurdles. They will need 60 votes in the Senate for a resolution of disapproval to overcome a filibuster by accord supporters. If they get that, the president will veto it. Then opponents must secure two thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto. To scuttle the deal, opponents have two high hurdles. They will need 60 votes in the Senate for a resolution of disapproval to overcome a filibuster by supporters of the accord. If the opponents get that, the president will veto the resolution. The opponents would then have to secure the votes of two-thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto.
Mr. Schumer, of New York, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate and likely Democratic leader in 2017, said Thursday night that he would vote for the resolution of disapproval and a veto override. Mr. Schumer’s voice is powerful, and his politics are wily, but he alone cannot stop the international agreement. “It is less likely than not that Congress is going to override,” said Representative Brad Sherman of California, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who came out against the nuclear accord on Friday. “That happens almost never, and even less often on foreign policy.”
“It is a decision that many people, including our whip operation in the House, had been watching closely, no question about that,” Representative David E. Price, Democrat of North Carolina and a member of the House’s informal team whipping up support, said of Mr. Schumer’s announcement. “I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of Chuck Schumer, but he’s not likely to reverse the situation.” Mr. Schumer’s voice is powerful, and his politics are wily, but he alone cannot stop the international agreement, which Republican leaders in the House and the Senate have promised to bring to a vote in mid-September.
Opposition to the deal among Republicans in Congress is practically unanimous, but resistance among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish areas, Greater New York City and South Florida. Last week, Representatives Steve Israel of New York, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the House, and Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, came out against the deal, as did Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida. They joined two other New York Democrats, Kathleen Rice and Grace Meng, in opposition. “It is a decision that many people, including our whip operation in the House, had been watching closely, no question about that,” said Representative David E. Price, Democrat of North Carolina and a member of the House’s informal team whipping up support for the accord. “I wouldn’t underestimate the importance of Chuck Schumer, but he’s not likely to reverse the situation.”
Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, came out in opposition almost simultaneously with Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate and the likely Democratic leader beginning in 2017, said on Thursday night that he opposed the deal, citing concerns about the inspection regime, provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheats, and Tehran’s freedom after a decade to pursue a nuclear bomb. In quick succession, two other prominent Jewish Democrats, Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Sherman announced their opposition to the deal.
The office of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, used Mr. Schumer’s statement to hit back at Mr. Obama, who has accused opponents of the nuclear accord of “making common cause” with hard-liners in Iran. Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, demanded that White House officials retract those words “now that the mud has splashed up onto senior members of their own party.”
Republicans in Congress are almost universally opposed to the deal, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a threat to the security of Israel, but resistance to the accord among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish regions, the New York City area and South Florida. In recent weeks, Representative Steve Israel of New York, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the House, and Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, came out against the deal, as did Representative Albio Sires, who represents the New Jersey suburbs of New York. They joined two other New York Democrats, Kathleen Rice and Grace Meng, in opposition.
Also opposed is Representative Ted Deutch, whose South Florida district abuts Palm Beach and Boca Raton.
But other senior Democrats have come out in favor, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and one of the most senior Jewish members of Congress, also supports the deal.But other senior Democrats have come out in favor, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and one of the most senior Jewish members of Congress, also supports the deal.
On Friday, hours after Mr. Schumer’s announcement, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, came out in favor, the 16th Senate Democrat to do so. The president needs 34 to sustain a veto. On Friday, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, declared her support of the deal, the 16th Senate Democrat to do so. The president needs 34 to sustain a veto.
Mr. Schiff, in an interview, said New York sensitivities had everything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and a visceral fear that loosening sanctions on Iran could finance terrorism. Mr. Schiff, a Southern Californian who is Jewish, said that, on balance, the deal is the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois is a leader of the Democratic effort to secure the 146 votes in the House to sustain a promised veto, and she is also Jewish, as is Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, who supports the deal. Mr. Schiff said in an interview that New York sensitivities were the result of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and a visceral fear that loosening sanctions on Iran could finance terrorism. “There was no one in their constituency who had not been directly impacted by the attacks of 9/11,” Mr. Schiff said. “It had a real impact in the New York Jewish community.”
“There was no one in their constituency who had not been directly impacted by the attacks of 9/11,” Mr. Schiff said of New York lawmakers. “It had a real impact in the New York Jewish community.” But Mr. Schiff, a Southern Californian who is Jewish, said that, on balance, the deal was the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Within hours of his announcement, Mr. Schumer was being blasted by liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org, which threatened a campaign donation boycott, but the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said. Although opponents still have an uphill climb for the 67 Senate votes they would need to override a presidential veto, Mr. Schumer’s decision puts within reach the 60 votes needed to get a resolution of disapproval to the president.
Like many Jewish Democrats, Mr. Schumer assessed the agreement under immediate pressure from his voters, the administration and his own personal history and faith. He read the agreement for the first time in his Park Slope apartment on the Sunday evening after the deal was announced, and reread it over the next week. “There was tremendous optimism immediately after the deal was announced that we would never get to the veto phase,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, who is helping to round up votes in support of Mr. Obama’s position. Mr. Schumer’s decision “makes that much more difficult,” he added.
Besides individual meetings with Mr. Obama, with Secretary of State John Kerry and with Wendy R. Sherman, the chief negotiator, Mr. Schumer had three hourlong meetings with members of the negotiating team where the senator received answers to 14 pages of questions on the agreement. Within hours of his announcement, Mr. Schumer came under sharp criticism from liberal groups like MoveOn.org, which threatened a campaign donation boycott. The liberal group Credo Action said the senator had gone “from Wall Street Chuck to War Monger Chuck.”
Over a recent dinner of green gazpacho filet of sea bass and Virginia Peach Melba, he hashed out further details with Mr. Kerry, Ms. Sherman and Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz. He talked further with other experts, including Dennis Ross, a senior Middle East peace negotiator for three presidents; former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright; a former national security adviser in the Clinton White House, Sandy Berger; and Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli air force general. The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, on Friday did not rule out the possibility that Mr. Schumer’s decision could cost him some support when he pursues his party’s top Senate post.
He also spoke with representatives and leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is mobilizing a massive campaign against the deal, and the Jewish group J Street, which supports it. Ultimately, Mr. Schumer, raised a conservative Jew in Brooklyn, wrote his statement to announce his decision alone in his Senate office in Washington with a pen and yellow legal pad. “I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there are individual members of the Senate Democratic caucus that will consider the voting record of those who say they would like to lead the caucus,” Mr. Earnest said.
Mr. Schumer informed the White House on Thursday evening that he would announce his opposition on Friday, and asked them not to make it public so that he would have time to tell other constituents. But the news was then leaked to The Huffington Post, which forced Mr. Schumer to speed up the timeline, forcing the announcement in the middle of a contentious Republican debate. But the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said.
For supporters of the deal in Congress, Mr. Schumer’s decision will force a redoubling of efforts. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, has assembled a team to protect the deal, which has met six times in her office to plot strategy and draw up lists of members to target. Ms. Schakowsky said the last meeting drew around 15 Democrats volunteering for “whip” duty. It was not clear how hard Mr. Schumer intended to press colleagues to move against the deal, and many Democrats suggested that he had stated his opposition only after the deal appeared safe.
“Every day, the leader has been sending out statements, the number of leanings are declining and support is growing,” Ms. Schakowsky said, indicating that Democrats leaning toward support are firming their positions in favor. For supporters of the deal in Congress, Mr. Schumer’s decision will force a redoubling of efforts. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, has assembled a team to protect the deal. Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, a leader of that effort, said the latest meeting to plot strategy drew about 15 Democrats volunteering for “whip” duty.
Mr. Schumer’s announcement is likely to prompt Democrats both for and against to state their positions and try to establish momentum. Ms. Baldwin’s Friday morning announcement is the latest. “With or without his vote, I feel optimistic about having enough votes to sustain a veto,” Ms. Schakowsky said.
“I believe we are right to choose a path of international diplomacy to achieve our goal of verifiably preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” she wrote. Ultimately, supporters say, there simply are not enough lawmakers from New York and Florida to override a presidential veto.
“With or without his vote, I feel optimistic about having enough votes to sustain a veto,” Ms. Schakowsky said of Mr. Schumer.