Bob Menendez

So with the administration's announcement that they will move up to 85,000 total refugees

As someone who comes from a community that were refugees to the United States, I have a very strong appreciation of the willingness of the country to accept those who are fleeing for whatever the reasons.

Is not our goal, while in the interim, certainly doing everything we can for those who have sought refuge, to really dedicate ourselves to ending the violence, stopping the barrel bombing, and getting a transition in Syria?

The answer has to be unequivocally yes. And until we stop the killing, we are not going to be able to be doing justice to the people on the ground or to the values that we all stand for.

So if that is the reality, that means in the case of Syria, moving away from Assad, even if it is in a transition, but at the end of the day moving away from Assad--

I will not be supporting any legislation that creates general licenses for this or any other Administration because it basically--I can tell you, as the author of that law, it totally undermines what was the Congressional intent.

However, when a general license subverts the law, when a general license ultimately swallows up the Congressional intent, as in the case of Cuba...

I am convinced that if there was a reauthorization put on the floor, it would have a robust support, because it passed 99 to zero when it was authored.

Is it--what view do you have as it relates to renewing the Iran Sanctions Act, which is up for reauthorization at the end of this coming year?

The penalties that are set out in the Iran Sanctions Act are then referenced in a lot of these other [Iran sanctions] statutes I'm talking about, and that penalty structure is a very meaningful one.

You do not check it. You accept an honor system. Yes, I am going under one of those 12 systems. Anybody can say that.

That sends a message that you have to honestly pursue the law, not just generally use a general license as an open-ended process.

It just seems to me that the JCPOA has language in it under the sanctions section that suggests that somehow the Administration is tied toward not supporting reauthorization

There is no question that the secondary nature of the sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act was a very significant hammer at the end of the day, would that be a fair statement?

Would it be fair to say that the Iran Sanctions Act was a significant tool in getting Iran to the negotiating table?

We have spent an enormous amount of lives and national treasure in Iraq. And yet, unless there is political reconciliation, where Sunnis feel that they are fighting for a country that includes them, we can continue to spend all the money…

I would just simply say that four or five people on the ground as trained entities in the train-and-assist program, even as a tactic, could not possibly be a successful tactic to try to get the result that we want.

What convinces you that we would be more successful this time if we employed that than we have been?

I do not think there is a policy; there are a series of actions.

I have to be honest with you, I am bewildered in trying to understand the rhyme or reason of our actions as it relates to Syria, for sure, and even beyond.

I do not see much really occurring.

$500 million just to make it look like we were doing something.

I am absolutely convinced we would not be seeing the mass problem that we are seeing spread across Europe today.

I doubt very much that is his only purpose.

This committee passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Syria at a time that Assad was using its chemical weapons against its own people.