I fear that if we are reluctant, if this administration is reluctant, to even countenance legislation reaffirming Congress' right to reimpose sanctions or to actually continue sanctions, then we might be reticent to confront Iran in…

This really does come down, in terms of Congress' role, as to which are nuclear-related sanctions and which are not.

I hope it works. I hope that this committee and the Congress ensures that it does work.

I have been supportive of these negotiations with Iran, partly because I sense that it would be tough to hold the coalition that we have put together, together for much longer.

What concerns me is that if we are reluctant, if the administration is reluctant, to clarify with legislation...

my concern is that our ability or our desire for Iran to stick to the nuclear side of the agreement might prevent us from challenging Iran or punishing Iran on their nonnuclear behavior.

I believe that the only reason Iran is at the table is because the sanctions have bitten pretty hard.

What would constitute reintroducing, re-imposing sanctions specified, existing sanctions.

Hearing your testimony today, each on one side of this in terms of whether you favor the agreement or not, I think demonstrates that the only thing that is certain is this is no easy call.

If we decided--if want to impose penalties to deter them from terrorist activity and we impose sanctions on their Central Bank, that that will not be a material breach to the accord.

I think the concern that we have is that the leverage point actually goes to Iran.

Congress could in legislation require that to be addressed before U.S. sanctions come off.