I have been one of the strongest proponents of Congress exercising its constitutional authority and responsibility when it comes to being coequal with the executive branch with respect to the management of foreign affairs.

The Constitution spells out very clearly that it is our responsibility to declare war, and thus, we need to weigh in on what is happening today in Syria and Iraq.

And there was a legitimate concern raised about the JPOA that did not end up coming true.

But I think it is just important to concede that there are a lot more examples of where we signed diplomatic agreements that turned out very well for the United States.

This is a predicate to action, and I think there is agreement that that is an absolute necessity.

this is not ultimately a referendum. This is a choice, and if you reject this deal, then you have got to be pretty apocalyptic about how badly this deal will go down if you accept those broad parameters as the alternative.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

So when they are enriching like crazy and we have passed up diplomacy and we have passed up the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which option is left to us to enforce this?

There has been a suggestion that because there is an element of the agreement that obligates us not to take steps that would stop economic relations between other countries and Iran, that we could perhaps be in jeopardy of breaching the…

we cannot ignore the lack of coherent American leadership in the region.

I support the agreement not because I am an apologist for the administration but because I think it is the right thing to do for American national security.

There should be a response, but whether we like it or not, this is not new.

we were always going to be talking about a certain period of time, and then the world being different after that period of time.

Will we be able to use the powers we have used in the past and build upon them to take action against Iran?

I do not think that is possible.

And frankly, the report that was issued by the IAEA describes a culture of permissiveness that allowed for the Iranians up to 2003 and in some respects after 2003 to conduct a military-scale nuclear weapons research program.

this is a choice between two sets of consequences, a set of consequences that flow forward if we approve the deal, and then a different set of consequences that flow forward if Congress rejects this deal.

For me, this is not about politics. This is about policy. It is about the national interests and security of the United States.

I really think the President's deal is a more sound and sensible path forward.

If Iran decides to rush toward a nuclear weapon, there is no agreement that can stop them.

What are our options if the United States walks away from this?

So this amendment will just make sure that at least in the short-term we are going to put a few more Americans to work, even if we are not going to do anything about the rather paltry economic numbers in the long run. I am supporting the…

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I come to the floor to support the amendment which is the pending business on the floor today. This is only my second session in the Senate, but I imagine that it means something to be Senate bill 1. It…

I came to Congress as a vocal opponent and critic of No Child Left Behind for a lot of the reasons that Senator Whitehouse enunciated.

It's important for us not to abandon the gains that we've made with respect to children with learning disabilities.