In The News

I’m extremely concerned with many components of the nuclear agreement with Iran. While a negotiated solution is always the preferred way out of any impasse, the U.S. cannot afford a deal that leaves Iran with an intact pathway to nuclear weapons and provides us no credible ability to inspect and verify their actions – or lack thereof. Throughout the negotiating process, Iran has resisted adapting necessary constraints to guarantee that its illicit nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful over the next decade and beyond. I will oppose this agreement.

As a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I’ve participated in numerous hearings and briefings regarding nuclear negotiations with Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry testified that these negotiations would be used to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program – that was the goal; instead, the agreement allows Iran to retain a vast enrichment capacity, continue its research and development, and gain an industrialized nuclear program once key provisions of this agreement begin to expire in as little as ten years. 

Additionally, Obama Administration officials initially told Congress that an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program would be addressed as part of a final agreement, yet failed to mention that “addressing” the program means lifting restrictions in just eight years. As we all know, countries build ICBMs for one reason: to deliver nuclear weapons.  Iran doesn’t need an ICBM program to strike Israel; there's only one target - on the other side of the globe. 

Throughout the negotiations, the Obama Administration repeatedly said that, “No deal is better than a bad deal.” Well, this is a bad deal.  The essence of this agreement means permanent concessions in exchange for temporary benefits, and that’s only if Iran doesn’t cheat - like it’s done in the past, and like North Korea did.

I also find it troubling that President Obama has chosen political expediency through an Executive Agreement rather than the treaty ratification process outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution states the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, Section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the President the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check Presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treaty-making process.

When Secretary of State John Kerry was questioned about why the Iran deal wasn’t submitted to the Senate as a treaty, he candidly responded, “I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible. That's why. Because you can't pass a treaty anymore.” This certainly sounds like a case of the ends justifying the means. Only the means in this case is the dismissal of the Senate’s constitutional role in the treaty ratification process of a nuclear agreement. 

Supporters of the agreement present it as the only alternative to war with Iran. Recent history fails to comport with this logic. Coordinated economic sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. The Obama Administration should have walked away from this deal and sought stronger sanctions from Congress in order to gain better negotiating leverage.

The facts remain:  the President is basing his actions on hope - that Iran suddenly will change its behavior, even though it's failed to do so in 35 years.  Iran has cheated all the way through this negotiation process - up until and including last month - as they continually and actively disregard compliance with International Atomic Energy Association and UN Security Council directives. Hope is never a course of action - especially when considering the most dangerous weapon on the planet, in the hands of a verified terrorist nation.