House Democrats still undecided on the Iran agreement can expect Nancy Pelosi to keep calling them.
Greg Sargent at the Plum Line
reminds us that even though the conventional wisdom has it that foes of the Iran agreement are the underdogs at the moment, that could change:
As I’ve reported, the math in Congress looks very daunting for opponents of the Iran deal. But that’s what the math looks like right now. Things can always change—if there is some kind of new revelation or external event, or if enough individual lawmakers begin coming out against the agreement to produce media stories about how the momentum is suddenly shifting against it. It is not a foregone conclusion that Congress won’t block the deal.
Sources close to the Senate Democratic leadership tell me they think the media narrative portraying the deal as a slam-dunk to survive Congress is overstated. There’s little question that supporters of the agreement have the momentum, as the Associated Press reports today. But sources still worry that could always change.
In fact, opponents of the agreement have had a steep hill to climb ever since the Nuclear Agreement Review Act was passed and signed by the president in May. Congress authorized itself with that act to approve or reject any agreement to curtail Iran's nuclear program in exchange for an end to U.S. and U.N. economic sanctions. But even though the leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate obviously knew they would have votes to pass a resolution of disapproval, there was always the inevitability of a presidential veto if they did. Overriding that will take a two-thirds supermajority in both houses, and the odds against that happening are, as Sargent writes, daunting.
A key reason for that is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She has vigorously supported the agreement since the minute it was announced and has been lobbying House Democrats to back it ever since. Her efforts may not be necessary given that it seems almost certain now that at least 34 Senate Democrats will back the agreement. That is all that are needed to sustain an Obama veto.
In fact, with Dick Durbin pushing the agreement, there's the possibility that it could be supported by 41 or more Senate Democrats in the Senate, although that's a long shot as Sargent notes. That would mean Republicans could not overcome a filibuster and no resolution of disapproval would even reach the president's desk. But two of the 46 Democrats and independents in the Senate have already said they oppose the agreement, and with only 29 Democrats having already declared their support, Durbin's work is cut out for him. Sen. Patty Murray joined the supporters today. Here is her full statement.
Below the fold is more analysis.
Join us in urging senators and representatives to support the agreement and vote no on any resolution of disapproval.
Mike Little reports that Pelosi held a full caucus meeting in August to discuss the agreement, keeps reaching out to Democrats who are undecided on it and sends out a blanket email every time one of them makes a public declaration of support.
This week so far, according to The Hill's whip count, six more House Democrats announced that they will vote for the agreement, while just one joined the dozen who had previously said they would oppose it.
And she's invited the ambassadors from each of the six world powers that negotiated the Iranian deal—the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China—to meet next month with House Democrats on their second day back in Washington following the long summer recess.
Pelosi last month also assembled a team of “at least a dozen” other Democrats to help her to make calls through the break, according to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who is among that group.
“I'm talking to the leader almost daily on this,” Schakowsky said Monday by phone.
There's no doubt that the 246 House Republicans, not one of whom has come out in favor of the Iran agreement, will pass a resolution of disapproval. Short of an unlikely filibuster, the Senate will too. But when the president vetoes it, the procedure requires that the House vote first on an override. Those 246 Republicans need 44 Democrats to join them. As Sargent says, things can change. However, it appears that the maximum number of Democrats who might vote for an override is 41. And if an override fails in the House, it won't even go to the Senate.