Media

"This side agreement shows that true verification is a sham, and it begs the question of what else the Administration is keeping from Congress.”

“So thank goodness for innovation and ingenuity. Without it our environment would be less healthy and the great American energy renaissance non-existent. We should pocket these important achievements and continue to build on a safer and more energy secure country."

Despite the continual concession the Obama Administration made to Iran during nuclear negotiations, one concession in particular poses large risks for regional stability and the safety of our allies in the medium-term: the eventual lifting of the arms and missiles embargoes against Iran.

The more we find out about the Iran nuclear deal, the worse it looks. Each new day Congress reviews this deal, we discover more information and more reasons why this deal is simply unacceptable:

“Some believe that our way of life has to change—that it’s time to focus on conservation above all and manage our decline. I reject that…. Now, we have a bill before us today that rejects the idea that we’ve reached the heights of our shining city on a hill and that it’s time to come back down to a world of limits and uncertainty”

On July 10, the Times' editorial board wrote in opposition to the House's latest response to the drought. I strongly disagree with the editorial. The House’s bill responding to the drought accomplishes much more than the editorial board gives credit for, and the alternative solutions the board proposed would do little to solve our water problems. Below are a few points where the editorial board and I just don’t see eye to ey

“As I—and the President—have said before, no deal that allows Iran to get nuclear weapons is acceptable. ... Nothing in the deal announced today eliminates Iran’s ability to eventually become a nuclear threshold power. It just delays the day and rewards the Iranians with billions of dollars in sanctions relief until that day comes.