Brad Sherman

I view this as our first hearing on the President's request for an authorization to use military force.

ISIS is a lesser threat to the United States than the Shi'ite alliance.

Nobody gives up their firstborn just to get a lower ATM fee.

So we can hurt their economy, but, without China, we can't threaten regime survival.

But unless we are willing to do that, Germany will sell nonlethal materials to Iran in a way that helps their economy.

The Shiite alliance is more dangerous than ISIS.

I would point out that, unless we are willing to do the secondary sanctions approach--which is called for by present statute.

Would the administration object to language in an appropriations bill designed to make it impossible for this administration to give back the Naval base?

Americans paid in blood for Cuban independence. We got a base in Guantanamo that is valuable to our national security.

I might be more favorably impressed by the policy if it hadn't been such a complete shock and if Congress had been involved.

It is said that our policy toward Cuba for the last 50 years has failed.

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…

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.

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

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.

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

It is inaccurate, as some have said, to say that that plan has halted their program.

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

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.

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.

We live in this world where, yes, if we see you with a gun or a bomb we know you are a threat but if you violate our clearest laws but you are white collar, we don't want to do anything.

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.

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?

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…