House Reactions to Nuclear Deal with Iran

These are just a few statements from the House Representatives about the Iran Nuclear Deal:

I would like to begin by echoing the sentiments of Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar in stating that no arms control deal is ever perfect, and that our overriding objective must be to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But after carefully weighing all the options and possible outcomes, I do believe that voting for this deal will make it less likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. And voting against this deal, with no better options in sight, makes the potential for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon more likely. My support for this agreement is determined not by trust, but by science. -- Bill Foster (D-IL, 11th)

Having read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), engaging in insightful conversations with both opponents and proponents of the agreement, and listening to my constituents, I have concluded that supporting the agreement is in the best interest of the United States, Israel, and our global community. I arrived at this decision after extensive due diligence and receipt of sufficient answers to questions posed to me. I feel confident that I have made the right decision. -- Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH, 11th)

Nuclear material leaves a radiation signature. We have the capability of reading those signatures and understanding in detail what is going on at any particular site. The verifications in this treaty are built upon the fact that we don’t trust Iran, and therefore, these verification procedures are the most robust, comprehensive, and extensive that have ever been in any proliferation treaty. -- John Garamendi (D-CA, 3rd)
.
I’m voting against the deal. We need to work together to block it so that we can negotiate a stronger agreement. -- Gene Green (D-TX, 29th)

The President’s deeply flawed and misguided deal with Iran is a serious security matter not only for the United States, but also for our allies in the Middle East. I believe we must use all tools possible to stop this deal in its tracks and avoid placing our citizens and allies at greater risk. Accordingly, I implore Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate leadership to use the so-called ‘nuclear option’ to require a simple majority to stop the Iran agreement. To require a super majority on a matter of great importance is improper, is offensive to the majority rule, and is damaging to our great Republic. -- Morgan Griffith (R-VA, 9th)

The so-called “nuclear option” is a waiver of a rule dating back to the 1970’s. This modern filibuster/cloture rule currently in practice in the Senate requires a super majority in order to take a vote on any issue. A single Senator acting anonymously can place a “hold” on legislation by notifying the Senate Majority Leader of his or her desire to “hold” such a bill.

Since November 16, 2012 (soon after the election that left Democrats in control of the White House and the Senate), Griffith has consistently called for the Senate to change this policy and return to its workable historical filibuster rule.

I know many people of good faith have reservations about this agreement. They have concerns about dealing with Iran and ask how we can trust its ruling regime. I don’t trust Iran. Fortunately, as Secretary of State John Kerry has emphasized, there is absolutely nothing in the entire agreement that depends on trusting Iran. Precisely because we have doubts about Iran’s intentions, this deal includes a robust program for verification, monitoring and inspections as well as the ability to reinstate sanctions. Without this agreement, Iran would be free to pursue a nuclear weapon, and the United States and international community would not be able to inspect what is happening in Iran let alone stop it. -- Janice Hahn (D-CA, 44th)

During my service in Congress, I have always believed that we must pursue diplomacy before confrontation, and that war should always be a last resort. I cannot ask the sons and daughters of the families I represent to fight a war without being able to look them in the eye and tell them we have exhausted all available diplomatic means. Congress should give this agreement a chance to work, and I intend to support it. -- Mike Doyle (D-PA, 14th)

This week I will vote to support the JCPOA. This is a vote with enormous consequences for U.S. national security interests. I did not make my decision lightly. Over the past few weeks I spent many hours reading and reviewing the agreement and its classified annex. I received briefings from the Administration and national security, intelligence and non-proliferation experts. I had many discussions with stakeholders who hold passionate views on both sides of the argument and heard from hundreds of my constituents. -- Tammy Duckworth (D-IL, 8th)

The Iran deal 1) does not effectively prohibit nuclear weapons research, enrichment research, miniaturization or delivery work 2) does little to impose actual accountability, and 3) does not dismantle all of Iran’s current nuclear infrastructure.

At its core, the President’s deal is a gamble: a gamble that Iran will uphold its end of the bargain, and that in 10-15 years we will see a gentler, kinder Iran. It’s a gamble that gets Iran what it wants, and leaves America and our allies with the short end of the stick. That’s not a gamble I’m willing to take. -- Randy J. Forbes (R-VA, 4th)

I would like to begin by echoing the sentiments of Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar in stating that no arms control deal is ever perfect, and that our overriding objective must be to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But after carefully weighing all the options and possible outcomes, I do believe that voting for this deal will make it less likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. And voting against this deal, with no better options in sight, makes the potential for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon more likely. My support for this agreement is determined not by trust, but by science. -- Bill Foster (D-IL, 11th)