Diplomatic solution that is the preferred solution. Im very cleareyed about the iranian threat. Not only the Nuclear Threat ask not only the history of past events, but current events. Human Rights Violations have been mentioned and a history of and current practices that are bellicose and destabilizing of other governments in the region and beyond. And it is the case that the sanctions that congress has put in place in so many i have not been part of that legislation. I came here after the legislation was passed, but i can praise those who have been here for putting tough sanctions in place, the vote in 2011 was 1000 in this body, and the administration has been able to utilize sanctions to bring iran to the table because it has crippled their economy and isolated them in the international community. But sanctions are not enough to stop an Iranian Nuclear program. And the one thing that i think you would say if you looked at the history is that the sanctions have crippled the economy. But if anything, it is also by making iran isolated, accelerated their path to try to develop Nuclear Technology for whatever purpose. And so if were going to stop that Nuclear Program and that quest for Nuclear Weapons, we have to either do it diplomatically or do it militarily. I support the sanctions, and ill easily and gladly vote for more if we cannot find an agreement. And i have some ideas about additional ones i want to raise either with this panel or the second one. But i do think that this joint plan of action and the diplomatic efforts of the administrationing give us an historic opportunity that we cant afford to put a crosswind into the middle of. The joint plan of action in the sewer rim agreement, in sewer rim agreement in my view, from analyzing it and reading analysis done by many slows and even reverses aspects not all aspects, but critical aspects of the Iranian Nuclear program which sanctions alone has not been able to do, and it also provides this country and our partners and all of our allies in the entire world a better Early Warning system about whether iran is cheating. We get more time on the clock and a better Early Warning system because of this deal. We have to give diplomacy a chance. We have to. I think aggressive diplomacy has been an underexercised american muscle in the last 15 years. We have to return to the kind of adepress withive diplomacy that the nation embraced when president roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt brokered the end of japanese war. Won a nobel prize for doing that. Since that time weve been measured by the strength of our moral example and the strength of our diplomatic effort. And is we can be appropriately skeptical. The president has been very candid in talking to all of us that its maybe 50 50 or whether we will find a deal that we would think would be sufficient. And if we dont, of course, there will be greater sanctions that we will put in place and that well support. But weve got to give diplomacy a chance not only in this instance, but weve got to return to the tradition of aggressive american diplomacy thats been one of the very core elements of our power in the world. It has been an exercise, and im glad to see were getting back to it. And last thing ill say just quickly, if there may be a day when this deal doesnt work that we do have to contemplate military action to stop iran. I dont think its that hard to contemplate that we might be at that day at some point in the future. Ask as ive said, ill state on the record right now if there is no other way to stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon than for us to engage in military action hopefully with others, im going to vote yes on that. But in order for us to vote yes on that, we have got to be able to look our allies and our citizens and especially the men and women that we would ask to fight that battle, we would have to be able to look them in the eye and tell them that we had exhausted every diplomatic effort prior to undertaking that significant step. We may have to undertake that significant step, but we shouldnt do it if we, if we leave diplomatic avenues unexplored. Lets make this negotiation about irans good faith. Lets not make it about our good faith. Lets demonstrate our good faith and put them to the test of whether theyre serious about ending their Nuclear Weapons program. Let me thank the senator for his thoughtful comments and maybe the administration can be enlightened to understand difference between tactics and warmongering and fear mongering. Senator flake. I thank the chair, and i appreciate the comments of my colleague there virginia. And i share from virginia. And i share many of those sentiments. Ive not signed on to the new sanctions bill here. I believe that if diplomacy can work, we ought to allow it to work. I havent appreciated some of the comments from the administration describing those who are in favor of the sanctions bill, implying that theyre warmongering or that they have anything but the best motives. I think that everyone here wants the same thing. And for the administration or others to describe people who have a different view, i think, is unfair. But for myself, i hope that these negotiations will work. There are some concerns that i have just in terms of the specifics. One of the criticisms of the joint plan of action, ms. Sherman, is that it deals with known Nuclear Facilities in iran, but its a little bit unclear as to what will happen if we discover other facilities that were not known prior to this. How are they covered . Are they the term any new nuclear facility, is that a new one or newlydiscovered, and what means do we have to try to find other facilities out there . Thank you very much, senator, and thank you for your comments and, senator kaine, thank you very much for yours. And let me say for the record i dont believe any of you, any senator, any member of the house are warmongers. I dont believe that anyone prefers war. I understand how as senator kaine described, as Jeffrey Goldberg in his excellent piece an irans hawk case against new irans sanctions describing how one gets to military action and the concerns that we have that tactical considerations may lead us to that choice, but that is an issue of tactics as you have pointed out, not an issue of intent and not a characterization of any individual. So i quite agree. With that. In terms of new Nuclear Facilities, we meant exactly what the joint plan of action says. There can be no Nuclear Facilities either declared or undeclared. And if we find undeclared new Nuclear Facilities, then that is a cause of grave concern to all of us, because it would be against the compliance thats required for the joint plan of action. I cant today tell you what a response would be, but i would imagine it would be quite, quite concerning, and we would have to respond in a very forceful way. All right. Do you have concerns that if we were to impose new sanctions, that our partners in the p5 1 would strike their own deal and leave us out . Is that a possibility . Is that a concern that the administration has . I think thats a possibility, of course. I think more broadly, senator, where our allies and partners in the world are concerned one of the reasons the sanctions regime has been as effective as it has been is because people have climbed onboard with us, particularly in our unilateral sanctions even when they dont believe in unilateral sanctions and tell us so at every opportunity. They have, in fact, followed them because dealing with the American Banking system so crucial to the economy of virtually every country in the world that they have complied even though they dont like them. And so if we, in fact, dont give negotiations a chance, they have less of an incentive to stay onboard with that sanctions regime, and we could unwittingly create a rupture this that sanctions in that sanctions enforcement and sanctions regime which is crucial to the kind of aggressive diplomacy that senator kaine was outlining. Well, thank you. Thats always been hi my feeling. Unilateral sanctions rarely work. There are certain areas, strang bank sakss, the Financial Sector where we can certainly lead there, but we always run the risk of getting ahead of our allies or partners somewhere where they wont go, and then the sanctions regime will unravel. Anybody who thinks unilateral sanctions work very well, i would give you cuba as exhibit a for a long time of unilateral sanctions that simply have not produced the desired outcome. We need our p5 1 partners and others to participate with us here, and the stakes are, obviously, much higher in this regard. So thank you for your testimony. Senator durbin. Thank you very much, and i want to associate myself with the remarks my colleague from virginia. I thought he articulated my point of view in terms of the importance of these negotiations. Let me ask you a specific question. On the issue of enrichment capacity, it appears at least at the outset there is a divergent point of view in terms of whether or not iran can retain enrichment capacity at the end of a successful negotiation process, any enrichment capacity. Not weapons grade level, but any enrichment capacity. Would you address that . Sure, senator t. Senator. There is no question it would be far preferable if iran did not have an indigenous enrichment capability, and by they will always have the capability because as i said earlier, they cant unlearn what they know. But in terms of actually having a program, it would be prefer bl if they got any fuel they needed from outside sources, bought it on the open market, had international cooperation, international consortia. These would always be preferable routes to go. But it may be that at the end of a comprehensive agreement we have allowed for consideration of a very small, limited enrichment ram to dc program to meet practical needs that would be highly monitored, highly verified with Intrusive Inspections over a very Long Duration of time. As potentially a part of a comprehensive agreement. But what is very critical in a joint of plan of action is nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. So there is no prospect that iran could even have such a small, limited and highly monitored program without us agreeing to all of that verification monitoring and all of the other aspects that would be necessary for a comprehensive agreement including addressing the u. N. Security council resolution. So we have a long way to to go here. Going back to Ronald Reagans famous trust but verify, the verification process here involves iaea inspectors now currently on the ground. And i believe you testified before aarrived i arrived that reports coming back are at least encouraging in terms of their access. Can you elaborate on that a bit . There are those who say there are things going on theyll never be able to see and theyll never be told about, and those things could be the most dangerous and threatening. There will be no way even with military action to insure that we know everything that there might be to know. That is true in any country. Both with iaea inspectors, our National Technical means and other ways we work to know as much as we possibly can know. And the verification and monitoring that weve put in place with the joint plan of action increases our ability to know whether there are covert activities going on that we may not have been aware of. Not only because we have greater access daily to natanz and fordo, greater access to iraq at least monthly, their plans for iraq, access to Uranium Mines and mills, access to their centrifuge production, all of which provide clues as to whether something is going on somewhere else when we can look at the guts of all of these facilities. So i think we have greatly increased our ability to know if theres something that is covert that is going on, but im not going to kid this panel, this committee or the world to know that there is any way ever that any country can give you 100 guarantee that we know everything. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, since my colleague from illinois, senator kirk, has been part of the effort on enhanced sanctions along with senator menendez, i want to join in the chorus that you have joined in, ms. Sherman. Of i dont question for a moment the motives of anyone engaged in this. We all have the same goal, stop a nuclear iran, keep israel safe, stabilize and bring peace to the the middle east. And that hearing earlier today. Well go live now the u. S. Senate as lawmakers continue work on the farm bill this afternoon. A vote on final passage coming up just after 2 30. If no time is yielded, time thereby equally charged to both sides. Ms. Stabenow madam president . The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Ms. Stabenow thank you, madam president. We have heard a lot from colleagues over the last two days about just how important this farm bill is, and thats because there is so much more in this bill than what we would call a farm bill. Really, 12 different pieces of legislation from farm to research to fruits and vegetables to energy across the board all put together in something we call the farm bill. This is most importantly a major bipartisan jobs bill that makes sure that 16 Million People who work in agriculture from michigan to mississippi to oklahoma and everywhere in between have the support they need. This is an exports bill that will help expand opportunities for american agricultural exports. One of the few areas where our nation maintains a healthy, robust trade surplus. This is a Research Bill that will make a permanent longterm commitment through a new publicprivate foundation and other investments that will allow us to find solutions to pests and diseases and focus on innovations for the future. This is an energy bill that will help create the next generation of biofuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will help farmers and rural Small Business owners generate their own power to improve Energy Efficiency and lower their costs for their businesses. This is an Economic Development bill that will help Rural Businesses and communities get Broadband Internet access so they can find new consumers and customers and compete and connect around the country and around the world. This is a conservation bill that helps farmers and ranchers protect our precious land and water resources. This is our countrys largest investment in conservation on private lands that we make as americans, and most of our land is privately owned, and it includes an historic new agreement between commodity and conservation groups that ties conservation compliance with Crop Insurance so that we are being the best possible stewards of our land. It will save taxpayers money and conserve our lands and waters for years to come by preserving millions of acres of Wildlife Habitat which in turn has helped rebuild populations of ducks and quail and pheasants, among others. Thats why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife federation, ducks unlimited, the Nature Conservancy and Pheasants Forever and the World Wildlife fund, who are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups who have endorsed this farm bill. This is a nutrition bill that mitigation sure makes sure families have a safety net. The savings and Food Assistance comes solely through addressing fraud and misuse, while maintaining and correcting critical benefits for those who need help, most often temporarily to put food on the table for their families while they get back on their feet after having lost a job. It strengthens the integrity and accountability of snap, makes sure that every single dollar goes to families in need while they get back on their feet, and it gives our children more healthy food options in schools and will help bring more healthy locally grown food into our communities. This is a deficit reduction bill that will save taxpayers 23 billion. All together we have cut spending, a portion of it, accounts through sequestration, the rest additional spending in this bill where we have voluntarily as i have often said voluntarily agreed to cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction, which by the way that 23 billion is more than double the amount of agricultural cuts recommended by the bipartisan simpsonbowles commission. And this is a reform bill that contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment subsidies which are given to farmers even in good times. Instead we move to a responsible Risk Management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. This farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. This bill is taking a critical step toward changing the paradigm of agriculture and the broad range of Agricultural Production in this country. And this bill has the support of over 370 groups and counting from all parts of the country and ideological backgrounds. Thats because as we wrote this bill, we worked hard to find Common Ground, to develop a bill that works for every kind of agriculture production in every region of our country. We worked hard and together, and i want to thank my Ranking Member, the distinguished senior senator from mississippi for his leadership and partnership in this effort. We have included valuable input from both sides of the aisle and from the house and the senate. I want to thank all of our colleagues for their ideas, for their willingness to put partisanship aside and