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

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

In spite of this massive agreement that is being put in place, these issues of these four people not being addressed causes a lot of consternation here in our country.

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

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.

I offered an amendment, which passed by voice vote, to require that the Secretary of State... develop a strategy for a post-Iran deal Middle East.

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 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…

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

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