So, I mean, these are folks who barely know enough not to hold a get-together with ham sandwiches and beer to discuss what Islam does not allow, okay?

To the extent that we can do anything with hard power, but also with soft power to embolden moderating forces and modernizing forces in Iran, it is certainly in our interest and certainly seems there can be far more to do than what we have…

I worry that, starting with the Joint Plan of Action, the United States has already agreed to a series of concessions.

If these rich companies making a fortune can't lose a few percentage points on their profit to help us in the war on terrorism, there is something the matter with their souls.

The most ideal and probably the one we are most likely to adopt is we take the Menendez-Kirk sanctions and we put them on a glide path all the way to zero.

Even if it is just weather reports from Mosul, if they are brought to you by ISIS, they shouldn't be on Twitter.

At a minimum, this subcommittee ought to be involved in naming and shaming.

I want to bring to the attention of this subcommittee something I have mentioned, I think, in the full committee and that is the State Department refuses to hire a single Islamic expert, not a single person who is really qualified to quote…

I think we have a co-decisionmaking responsibility and that is why I think we need our witnesses here to guide us in making those decisions.

We have universal agreement on the goal: Prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

If Iran wants a permanent agreement with the United States, let it agree to something good enough to gain ratification of the United States Senate as a treaty.

Congress has agreed to nothing. No treaty has been submitted to this Congress for ratification.