David Perdue

I can assure you that I care very much about each one of those, but I also care about what happens past 2033.

your indictment of our partisanship is well deserved this morning

I think it would be great if we could get a summary of that, even if it is bracketed by estimates, educated estimates.

This partisanship that is in here, this should be like Foreign Relations, should be like Armed Services, should be like the Intelligence Committee, where we are talking in a bipartisan way to try to get at the solution to this thing.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the last 30 years cannot continue. It just cannot.

By doing this, all we are doing is stealing from the future to make sure we do not have a problem for the next 18 years.

As the Attorney General, you will have great discretion, just as you did as District Attorney, and the question I would--as illustrated by that case, I think--is where do you draw the line?

I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the…

I am deeply skeptical, though, that we are going to be able to hold the sanctions in place, if the deal was turned down.

Things have gotten materially worse, not better, since the JCPOA, in terms of domestic security for these four countries that we visited.

I think the American people know that 58 Senators opposed the agreement and 42 supported the agreement.

I am very concerned about the lack of response of the United Nations.

I think they have to be pushed back on this very hard and IAEA should be revealing much more rather than less.

The IRGC has up to 20 percent to 30 percent of Iran's economy.

I am outraged. I think by the administration going to the United Nations before we actually have a chance to even read the document...

I do not care if Ronald Reagan himself were bringing this deal, I would see the same flaws and benefits as I see right now.

I do take issue with one comment you made earlier that the administration has done everything it can to protect U.S. interests when in this negotiation we did not even mention and negotiated the four hostages.

Their existence depends on this being a continued, exportable revolution.

It was always envisioned that we would not have an expedited process for the consideration of the Iran agreement.

That is not the sign of a country that has been in economic woes for 10 years or more and are now trying to help build their economy and moving away from this nuclear effort.

I echo what you both have said already, that is that the overwhelming conclusion that we walked away from those meetings with was that there is tremendous trepidation about what it is our intention is and what our strategy going forward…

I think we are very naive in what we are trying to do, and I just look at history.

So the question is, are we in a stronger position 10 years from now or a weaker position?

I think much of the discussion here is to try to shame the administration and shame the U.N. Security Council into taking action.

I thought we were naive last year. I was criticized for using that word, and yet the attempt here, it seemed to me, was to accommodate Iran in this nuclear deal.