Brooks said she was against the resolution because the Bush administration can not be trusted.
"I strongly oppose the ongoing war in Iraq and support efforts to prevent President Bush from launching a military attack on Iran. While we must ensure the safety and security of Israel, we should first use all of our economic, political and diplomatic tools to achieve our objectives of dissembling Iran's nuclear program and building peace and security in the region and around the world," Brooks said. "Even though there are many aspects to [Res. 362] that do outline a path of putting diplomacy first, I would not vote for this resolution because this President cannot be trusted with the additional authority granted by Congress."
Shahinfar, who is of Iranian descent, described the resolution as "saber rattling" and that it would only elevate tensions between the two nations.
"It's not a coincidence that gas prices have significantly dropped ever since this administration followed the Democratic lead and began talks with Iran about its nuclear program," Shahinfar said. "This congressional resolution, even though it is largely a restatement of U.S. policy, will needlessly raise tensions and may raise our gas prices even higher."
Shahinfar said it was a step in the wrong direction to bring about change in Iran.
Steck said he was opposed to two distinct aspects of Resolution 362 " a possible blockade and the detainment of diplomatic officials in Iran.
"It calls for what is in essence a blockade, which is considered an act of war. We haven't exhausted all of our diplomatic means before using such an extreme measure," Steck said. "We haven't reached that point with Iran and I don't think you can tell a sovereign nation that they can't send diplomatic officials out around the world."
Steck added that Iran's nuclear program needs to be stopped and that he has been consistently against the war in Iraq and doesn't want to see a similar situation arise.