20 House of Representatives Member Comments on Iran Agreement

Lou Barletta (R-PA, 11th)

“With an issue as monumental as national security at stake, this is not the time to be burnishing legacies or campaigning for the next Nobel Peace Prize. Congress must carefully examine the agreement and its impact on this country and our allies, particularly Israel. I am mindful of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration that if Iran wants to be treated as a normal nation, it should act like one. As a consistent and belligerent state sponsor of terrorism, Iran has certainly not kept its part of the bargain."

Andy Barr (R-KY, 6th)

“As a member of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I am particularly concerned that the Obama Administration would lift sanctions on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Giving the Iranian regime access to billions of dollars in frozen assets will further destabilize the region and help finance their terrorist allies.”

Joe Barton (R-TX, 6th)

“I think it would be absolutely insane to ratify this deal. This is nothing more than a speed bump in Iran’s road to a nuclear weapon. They are the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They have a terrible human rights record. Why we would allow them to maintain the capability over time to create weapons grade material when this deal expires? It makes no sense. I am unalterably opposed to the deal.”

Joyce Beatty (D-OH, 3rd)

“Today President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our P5+1 partners announced a nuclear agreement with Iran. I will be thoroughly reviewing the agreement in order to ensure that it prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.”

Xavier Becerra (D-CA, 34th)

“An agreement to halt nuclear proliferation cannot be built on trust but on verifiable, enforceable requirements. The hard work of President Obama, Secretary John Kerry and Secretary Ernest Moniz has brought us a step closer to an historic opportunity to prevent Iran’s nuclear weapons development. The unity of the international community has made the economic and trade sanctions work in pressuring Iran to negotiate a deal.

“Now that an agreement has reached Congress, it is our responsibility to review it. Every word will count in this agreement and we need to know the meaning of each provision of this deal. It must constitute measurable progress in halting nuclear proliferation and in driving the region and the world farther away from nuclear Armageddon.”

Don Beyer (D-VA, 8th)

"I commend our diplomats for skillfully averting a global showdown and blocking Iran’s efforts to obtain the bomb."

We cannot allow a nuclear Iran and this deal will serve as a lasting deterrent to keep the United States out of another devastating war in the Middle East. Now I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure this deal goes forward unhindered.”

Gus Bilirakis (R-FL, 12th)

“At first glance, the so called Iran Nuclear deal is not an acceptable deal for America and our allies. As I suspected, this agreement will threaten our national security interests at home and abroad. It is now up to Congress to examine the specifics of the deal and ensure the most dangerous regime in the Middle East halts its nuclear armament progress in order to prevent further regional conflict and an international arms race.”

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr (D-GA, 2nd)

“The opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran could potentially lead to greater stability in a region torn apart by war and religious strife. Nevertheless, we must not be naïve. The prospect of peace and stability can only be realized if the world is assured Iran will not threaten its neighbors with nuclear aggression."

Mike Bishop (R-MI, 8th)

“Lifting sanctions while allowing the Iranian regime to simply slow their nuclear operations – in addition to not releasing the three Americans held captive under their watch – sends the wrong message to the world and is downright dangerous. I will remain highly skeptical of any deal without stronger provisions.”

Rob Bishop (R-UT, 1st)

“I’m concerned that this deal could do much to embolden the threat of terror in the Middle East and the United States. The potential lifting of sanctions frees up $150 billion for Iran to spend on further arming terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, no Middle-Eastern Sunni nations were represented in these negotiations. ISIS forces can use this fact to foster potential support among Sunnis who may be leery of the U.S. making deals with a Shia Iran.

“This deal threatens the safety of America and her allies. A US President should be in the business of protecting the US, not simply seeking to secure a faux legacy built on bad deals.”

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR, 3rd)

“As we all carefully assess this agreement, we must remember that measuring the framework against the unobtainable is likely to exhaust the patience of countries like China, India, and members of the European Union that have been critical members of the international effort to sanction and isolate Iran. Such a fracture would be devastating because we’ve tried the go-it-alone approach with sanctions and it didn’t work. We must also compare any agreement to the alternatives. The American public has made clear they will not likely support another military engagement in the Middle East. Even if money were no object, there is no amount of U.S. troops, bombs and military acumen that could guarantee an Iran free of nuclear weapons. That’s a gamble we should not be willing to take.”

Kevin Brady (R-TX, 8th)

“Congress will have time to assess the proposed Iran agreement, but clearly this is not about Republican versus Democrats, it’s about true security versus false security at a key moment in global history. Does President Obama’s agreement stop Iran’s nuclear capability for the long term? Does it prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East? And does it make America and our allies like Israel safer? I suspect the answer to all three is ‘no’.

Nothing less than complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program is acceptable.”

Jim Bridenstine (R-OK, 1st)

While I will keep an open mind, let’s remember who we’re dealing with: Iran is the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism. Tehran’s proxies effectively control four Middle Eastern countries: Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Iran continues to violate its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments and numerous UN Security Council resolutions. Just last week, top Iranian officials chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” in the streets of Tehran. A nuclear weapons-capable Iran is a threat to the United States and our allies, especially Israel, and a destabilizing force in the world’s most volatile region. As a nuclear threshold state, Iran would also spur nuclear weapons proliferation across the Middle East as its Sunni Arab neighbors attempt to deter Iranian aggression.

Susan W. Brooks (R-IN, 5th)

“No deal is clearly a better outcome than a bad deal and I’m extremely concerned the Obama administration has negotiated a bad deal. My colleagues and I will leave no detail of the final negotiated terms unexplored as this decision comes with consequences that will reverberate for generations moving forward. If this agreement allows for a nuclear Iran and puts our security at risk, Congress must not support it.

The Obama administration only has itself to blame for the skepticism it now faces from members of both political parties. Throughout this process, critical negotiating objectives have been repeatedly ignored or altered. Iran has practiced violence and deception for decades. The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran and thus cannot afford a deal with unacceptable terms.”

Michael Burgess (R-TX, 26th)

“Despite assurances from the Obama administration that these negotiations would end Iran’s nuclear programs and that sanctions would not be lifted until their nation met concrete demands, this deal reflects otherwise,” Rep. Burgess said. “This agreement means billions in sanction relief, and an open door to continue their reckless foreign policy agenda. “Though I am relieved to see negotiations conclude, this product – which paves the path toward a nuclear Iran – is a risk to our national security and global interests.”

Bradley Byrne (R-AL, 1st)

“From the start of these talks I have warned that President Obama and his negotiating team were desperate for a foreign policy victory, and I fear the safety of Americans and our allies in the Middle East will be at greater risk because of this deal.

“Iran is no friend of the United States, and we should all be concerned about what they will do with billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey has stated that sanctions relief would allow Iran to send more money to terrorist groups in the Middle East.

“Congress will now have an opportunity to closely scrutinize and vote on this agreement, and I call on my colleagues to look past the short-term rhetoric and instead focus on the long-term implications this deal could have on our national security and the safety of our allies abroad.”

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA, 7th)

I have always hoped for a negotiated resolution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The general outlines of the deal, made public this morning, appear reasonable and encouraging. However, I will carefully review the details and discuss the scientific aspects of the agreement with qualified scientists. I have never expected a perfect agreement because that is an impossible standard. For me, the most important question is, if this deal is not acceptable, then what does the United States do next? Some argue for continued sanctions but it’s clear to me that Russia and China won’t go along with that. Moreover, I fear Europe would not support the U.S. in continued sanctions so we would be left with unilateral sanctions and historically these have been ineffectual. Nor do I think a military option is prudent or feasible at this time. Congress has 60 days to review this agreement and I will carefully consider all aspects of it before making a final decision.

Buddy Carter (R-GA, 1st)

"I fear this will be a legacy making deal for the Obama Administration but not the legacy it is looking to make,” Carter said. “This dangerous deal threatens to unleash a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world, imperils our closest ally Israel, and signals to other regimes that America will not maintain its resolve to combat extremism.”

Kathy Castor (D-FL, 14th)

The historic nuclear disarmament agreement announced today between the United States, Iran, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union requires thorough review and analysis over the coming weeks. My overriding concern is whether or not the agreement is in the national security interest of the United States. Iran must be blocked from proceeding any further towards developing a nuclear weapon. Aggressive, enforceable restrictions and thoroughly transparent inspections at any time are fundamental to approval of such an agreement. I have no illusions about the dreadful record and conduct of the Iranian regime, or the destabilizing influence Iran continues to have in the region. No matter what, all options must remain on the table in case Iran deviates from the terms of this agreement in any way.

Here’s what we have been told so far: (1) The parties have negotiated a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Advocates say that every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. (2) The agreement is not built on trust; it is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities. (3) Iran currently has a stockpile that could produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. This stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. Iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium that form the raw materials necessary for a nuclear weapon. (4) Iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Joaquin Castro (D-TX, 20th)

“I commend Secretaries Kerry and Moniz for their tireless efforts negotiating this agreement and for their and President Obama’s steadfast commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This agreement has the potential to position the United States and our allies toward a future of peace and security. Initial readings of the deal’s text indicate it contains stringent accountability measures that protect against the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Congress will now have a say in how the United States proceeds, and I hope that my colleagues will take time to thoroughly and thoughtfully evaluate the details of the agreement our negotiators achieved.”

Curt Clawson (R-FL, 19th)

“With mounting concern on the details over the Administration’s deal with the regime of Iran, the world's largest state-sponsor or terrorism, it is not in the interest of the American people to have the deal ratified by the United Nations before Congress can speak with a united voice. A deal with Iran is the Administration’s ‘Flounder’ moment. We all know what happens in Animal House when Flounder gave the keys to his brother’s car to his fraternity brothers. Why are we giving the keys to nuclear technology to the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, who has also called for the elimination of Israel, our strongest ally in the region. Today I join with many others, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, in saying, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal.’”