Bob Menendez

I believe the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is one of the most serious threats to our national security interests.

The last thing we need to do is pass a bill out of the U.S. Senate that is not veto-proof.

At the end of the day, Iran must make up its mind about what is more important: its nuclear weapons program or the welfare of its people.

We remain deeply skeptical that Iran is committed to making the concessions required to demonstrate to the world that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful by March 24th.

We remain hopeful that diplomacy will succeed in reversing Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon capability in accordance with the timeline that the P5+1 and Iran negotiating teams have set for themselves, which is March 24, 2015, for…

Now, the legislation that Senator Kirk and I have drafted would signal to the Iranian regime that there will be more consequences if they choose not to reach a final deal.

The President said new sanctions legislation would dramatically undermine the negotiations and our relations with negotiating partners and erode international support for multilateral sanctions.

It makes little sense to decide now what we will do if negotiations are not successful. We should give these negotiations a chance and wait to see if a comprehensive agreement can be reached.

It is for that reason that I support legislation to strengthen sanctions should the Iranians fail to reach an agreement by the deadline the White House has set.

I understand the Obama administration has threatened to veto any bill that would do what I have just described.

We need to know what their scientists were able to develop prior to 2003.

We need Iran to understand that there are consequences if they fail to reach a comprehensive agreement.

If we cannot protect, at the end of the day, the intellectual property of our companies, ... then it is a real problem.

As someone who is very concerned about our challenges already with Central America--its stability, its prosperity, and, as we saw last year in those who seek to flee their country because of instability and whatnot--this would be an…

What is the use of TPA if you have a deal done?

The days are over when the American people are going to say, 'Hey, they can just go negotiate this thing, we will take their word for it.'

I strongly agree with him that we need to be focused on measures to help middle-class families instead of keeping in place tax loopholes geared toward special interests with high-paid lobbyists.

It is interesting to note that sanctions on Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine has not caused them to walk away from what they think is an important deal to be achieved.

There is a bit of a trust problem here, because when you have secret deals, when you do not consult, which is to ask, 'We are thinking about proceeding on this course. What do you think about that?' versus just telling us, 'This is what we…

I think that is nuanced, at best.

I do not think anyone in giving you the national security waivers ever thought the President was going to suspend them.

It is our right and our responsibility to weigh in on an ultimate agreement.

But just stiff-arming, and saying after the role that we have played, to basically put the international community at the table just to stiff-arm, say, 'No, we really do not want you to play a role. You want you just to trust us,' is…

I will tell you something, if you have nothing in place after a no-deal situation, then the President may very well be of his own design in a position in which his only option is a military option or accepting Iran as a nuclear state.

There are very few of those. It takes time for there to be consequences.