WASHINGTON (AP/WCCO) -- The Republican-led House cast largely symbolic votes on Friday against the Iran nuclear deal and sought to restrict President Barack Obama's authority to lift sanctions against Tehran, one day after the Senate ensured that the administration can implement the accord without congressional interference.
After three hours of hot-tempered debate, the House voted 269 to 162 to reject the deal; 25 Democrats broke with Obama to register their disapproval.
The fate of the agreement on Capitol Hill, however, was sealed on Thursday when Senate Democrats voted to uphold the accord with Iran, overcoming heavy GOP opposition to hand Obama a victory on his top foreign policy priority. The Senate action guaranteed that any legislation disapproving of the accord will never reach Obama's desk.
-------
Rep. Tim Walz, Minnesota's 1st Congressional District
"A month ago, I pledged to review this deal vigorously, hear from Minnesotans and do the due diligence a representative democracy requires. After weeks of careful consideration and study, meetings with experts, and talking with Minnesotans with passionate views on both sides, I intend to support the nuclear agreement brokered with Iran. This deal is far from perfect, and I harbor no illusions that the hate and violence of the Iranian regime will fade after it goes into effect. I expect Iran will continue to be a destabilizing force in the region and a threat to America and our allies. But, I believe this agreement is our best path forward. The economic sanctions have played a critical role in getting us to an agreement, but I do not believe they are a long term solution. This deal gives us the best chance we have had in years to halt the Iranian nuclear program. It dismantles the progress they have made and opens up the country to strict inspections. Should Iran violate the terms of the agreement, we reserve the right to reimpose the kind of strict economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. And, as always, we retain our right to defend ourselves from Iranian aggression. Folks of good faith on both sides agree that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is critical to global security. The conversation about how to best protect America and our allies is far from over, and I look forward to continuing the robust debate about how to accomplish our shared goals."
Rep. Eric Paulsen, Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District
"The nuclear agreement with Iran falls far short of what is acceptable when measured with the objectives laid out by both Congress and the Administration at the beginning of this process. The laundry list of problems with the deal – no 'anytime, anywhere' inspections, the lifting of the arms embargo, and continued Iranian enrichment capabilities – have made it impossible for me to support this agreement and is the reason why I voted against it today. I'm not alone in the belief that this deal falls short of achieving the goals of safety, stability, and security. In fact, a bipartisan majority in Congress and nearly four out of every five Americans think that his deal is not the right path for us to take. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Because of this, any deal should be verifiable, enforceable, and accountable – principles that this agreement does not include. Whether it's a regional arms race, increased funding for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, or Iran successfully building a nuclear weapon, I'm deeply concerned that we will be living with the negative ramifications of this bad deal for years to come."
Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota's 5th Congressional District
"This deal is a triumph of diplomacy over war and proves negotiation is an excellent method of peacemaking. It throws a wrench in the war machine and tells those who profit from conflict: we choose peace. The world is safer thanks to the determination President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our P5+1 negotiating partners. This deal turns the page on failed policies of isolation and war; I am hopeful it lays the groundwork for future engagement to strengthen human rights and promote peace and security in the Middle East and around the world."
Rep. Collin Peterson, Minnesota's 7th Congressional District
"Today I opposed the Iran Nuclear Deal because, in the end, there is no guarantee this will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. There are some good elements to the agreement but the price we will have to pay is too high. Iran will receive $100-150 billion in frozen assets in the next few months and will have at least $50 billion to spend immediately. Lifting sanctions will only strengthen Iran's economy and enable their sponsoring of terrorism. I strongly reject the notion that voting against this agreement is a vote to go to war. I continue to believe that any agreement must constrain Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Keeping current sanctions in place and working toward an improved agreement is the right path forward for the security of the United States and our allies."
-------
Democrats argued that the agreement would stabilize the Mideast, stop Iran from rushing to develop a nuclear bomb and offer a chance to end the standoff with Iran diplomatically, while retaining a U.S. threat of military action. They claimed House Republicans of using their opposition to the nuclear deal to take a partisan shot at the president.
Republicans countered that the agreement's inspection regime against Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, is weak and repeatedly recalled how Islamic extremists attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. They said the deal will allow Iran to eventually possess a nuclear weapon and that the billions it will receive through sanctions relief will end up in the hands of terrorist groups that Tehran supports.
"This deal is far worse than anything I could have imagined," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is such a bad deal the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be steps away from a nuclear weapon."
Boehner criticized the deal, saying that it does not have a rigorous enough inspection regime, will allow Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges spinning and will leave the nation with a chance to become a nuclear-armed state in about a decade. He said all options remain on the table for the Republicans to stop the agreement, including a possible lawsuit.
"Never in our history has something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support," Boehner said. "Today is Sept. 11 ... Our fight to stop this bad deal is just beginning. We will not let the American people down."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that if the Iranians cheat, inspectors using advanced technology will know it. She noted that Iran is already on the threshold of being a nuclear-armed state and that the agreement delays this from becoming a reality for at least a decade.
"We mustn't judge agreements for what they don't do. ... Today we will not be just making history ... we will be making progress for the peace in the world," Pelosi said.
In a second vote, the House passed 247 to 186 a measure to suspend until Jan. 21, 2017 -- a day after a new president is sworn into office -- Obama's authority to waive, suspend or reduce sanctions on Iran.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., spoke vehemently against the deal but acknowledged that the vote will not stop the president from implementing the agreement. The House measures could come up in the Senate next week, but would face a filibuster by Senate Democrats and Sept. 17 -- the date slated for the close of congressional review of the deal -- is less than a week away.
"I know the president may have already lined up enough support to save his deal. But with this vote, we need to send a message to both Iran and the world," Ryan said.
"The regime may have bamboozled this administration, but the American people know that this is a rotten deal."
White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed Boehner's warning that he might sue Obama over the Iran deal, saying "We obviously feel quite confident in our ability to move forward with the rest of the international community."
As part of the last-ditch effort to snarl the deal, the House on Thursday adopted a resolution on a vote of 245-186 saying that Obama had not complied with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
Supporters of the resolution claimed the act required the president to supply Congress with all documents relevant to the deal, but that the administration did not give lawmakers texts of two agreements that the U.N. nuclear inspection agency negotiated separately with Tehran.
The administration says it doesn't have the bilateral agreements and the nuclear inspection agency says confidentiality provisions prevent it from releasing them.
(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
Minnesota Politicians Comment On Iran Deal
/ CBS Minnesota
WASHINGTON (AP/WCCO) -- The Republican-led House cast largely symbolic votes on Friday against the Iran nuclear deal and sought to restrict President Barack Obama's authority to lift sanctions against Tehran, one day after the Senate ensured that the administration can implement the accord without congressional interference.
After three hours of hot-tempered debate, the House voted 269 to 162 to reject the deal; 25 Democrats broke with Obama to register their disapproval.
The fate of the agreement on Capitol Hill, however, was sealed on Thursday when Senate Democrats voted to uphold the accord with Iran, overcoming heavy GOP opposition to hand Obama a victory on his top foreign policy priority. The Senate action guaranteed that any legislation disapproving of the accord will never reach Obama's desk.
-------
Rep. Tim Walz, Minnesota's 1st Congressional District
"A month ago, I pledged to review this deal vigorously, hear from Minnesotans and do the due diligence a representative democracy requires. After weeks of careful consideration and study, meetings with experts, and talking with Minnesotans with passionate views on both sides, I intend to support the nuclear agreement brokered with Iran. This deal is far from perfect, and I harbor no illusions that the hate and violence of the Iranian regime will fade after it goes into effect. I expect Iran will continue to be a destabilizing force in the region and a threat to America and our allies. But, I believe this agreement is our best path forward. The economic sanctions have played a critical role in getting us to an agreement, but I do not believe they are a long term solution. This deal gives us the best chance we have had in years to halt the Iranian nuclear program. It dismantles the progress they have made and opens up the country to strict inspections. Should Iran violate the terms of the agreement, we reserve the right to reimpose the kind of strict economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. And, as always, we retain our right to defend ourselves from Iranian aggression. Folks of good faith on both sides agree that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is critical to global security. The conversation about how to best protect America and our allies is far from over, and I look forward to continuing the robust debate about how to accomplish our shared goals."
Rep. Eric Paulsen, Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District
"The nuclear agreement with Iran falls far short of what is acceptable when measured with the objectives laid out by both Congress and the Administration at the beginning of this process. The laundry list of problems with the deal – no 'anytime, anywhere' inspections, the lifting of the arms embargo, and continued Iranian enrichment capabilities – have made it impossible for me to support this agreement and is the reason why I voted against it today. I'm not alone in the belief that this deal falls short of achieving the goals of safety, stability, and security. In fact, a bipartisan majority in Congress and nearly four out of every five Americans think that his deal is not the right path for us to take. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Because of this, any deal should be verifiable, enforceable, and accountable – principles that this agreement does not include. Whether it's a regional arms race, increased funding for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, or Iran successfully building a nuclear weapon, I'm deeply concerned that we will be living with the negative ramifications of this bad deal for years to come."
Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota's 5th Congressional District
"This deal is a triumph of diplomacy over war and proves negotiation is an excellent method of peacemaking. It throws a wrench in the war machine and tells those who profit from conflict: we choose peace. The world is safer thanks to the determination President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our P5+1 negotiating partners. This deal turns the page on failed policies of isolation and war; I am hopeful it lays the groundwork for future engagement to strengthen human rights and promote peace and security in the Middle East and around the world."
Rep. Collin Peterson, Minnesota's 7th Congressional District
"Today I opposed the Iran Nuclear Deal because, in the end, there is no guarantee this will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. There are some good elements to the agreement but the price we will have to pay is too high. Iran will receive $100-150 billion in frozen assets in the next few months and will have at least $50 billion to spend immediately. Lifting sanctions will only strengthen Iran's economy and enable their sponsoring of terrorism. I strongly reject the notion that voting against this agreement is a vote to go to war. I continue to believe that any agreement must constrain Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Keeping current sanctions in place and working toward an improved agreement is the right path forward for the security of the United States and our allies."
-------
Democrats argued that the agreement would stabilize the Mideast, stop Iran from rushing to develop a nuclear bomb and offer a chance to end the standoff with Iran diplomatically, while retaining a U.S. threat of military action. They claimed House Republicans of using their opposition to the nuclear deal to take a partisan shot at the president.
Republicans countered that the agreement's inspection regime against Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, is weak and repeatedly recalled how Islamic extremists attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. They said the deal will allow Iran to eventually possess a nuclear weapon and that the billions it will receive through sanctions relief will end up in the hands of terrorist groups that Tehran supports.
"This deal is far worse than anything I could have imagined," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
"This is such a bad deal the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be steps away from a nuclear weapon."
Boehner criticized the deal, saying that it does not have a rigorous enough inspection regime, will allow Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges spinning and will leave the nation with a chance to become a nuclear-armed state in about a decade. He said all options remain on the table for the Republicans to stop the agreement, including a possible lawsuit.
"Never in our history has something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support," Boehner said. "Today is Sept. 11 ... Our fight to stop this bad deal is just beginning. We will not let the American people down."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that if the Iranians cheat, inspectors using advanced technology will know it. She noted that Iran is already on the threshold of being a nuclear-armed state and that the agreement delays this from becoming a reality for at least a decade.
"We mustn't judge agreements for what they don't do. ... Today we will not be just making history ... we will be making progress for the peace in the world," Pelosi said.
In a second vote, the House passed 247 to 186 a measure to suspend until Jan. 21, 2017 -- a day after a new president is sworn into office -- Obama's authority to waive, suspend or reduce sanctions on Iran.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., spoke vehemently against the deal but acknowledged that the vote will not stop the president from implementing the agreement. The House measures could come up in the Senate next week, but would face a filibuster by Senate Democrats and Sept. 17 -- the date slated for the close of congressional review of the deal -- is less than a week away.
"I know the president may have already lined up enough support to save his deal. But with this vote, we need to send a message to both Iran and the world," Ryan said.
"The regime may have bamboozled this administration, but the American people know that this is a rotten deal."
White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed Boehner's warning that he might sue Obama over the Iran deal, saying "We obviously feel quite confident in our ability to move forward with the rest of the international community."
As part of the last-ditch effort to snarl the deal, the House on Thursday adopted a resolution on a vote of 245-186 saying that Obama had not complied with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
Supporters of the resolution claimed the act required the president to supply Congress with all documents relevant to the deal, but that the administration did not give lawmakers texts of two agreements that the U.N. nuclear inspection agency negotiated separately with Tehran.
The administration says it doesn't have the bilateral agreements and the nuclear inspection agency says confidentiality provisions prevent it from releasing them.
(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
More from CBS News