national debt. we ought to be able to save these $387 billion -- or $387 million that this amendment would have saved. it had the mortgage authority of 0 majority of the house and senate, which moral authority should not have been overridden bay handful of people sitting in conference. and i stress this latter point for one simple reason: rule 28 of the united states senate says that if things are the same in both houses, they should not be conferencable. i say this to my friends, not that this bill is going to go down to defeat and we start over again and maybe accomplish what i want to accomplish but to make sure that other conferences don't abuse the senate rule like this conference abused the

senate rule and also to tell my colleagues here that both working with what rules maybe we can get through the u.s. department of agriculture or on some other piece of legislation, i intend to pursue these goals that i sought and i intend to keep reminding my colleagues of senate rules being violated by conferees that should not have been violated. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i come to the floor today to discuss the many ways that obamacare continues to negatively affect americans. yesterday "the washington post" published an article exposing yet another problem with healthcare.gov. and i a lik i'd like to share ae of excerpts from that. "tens of thousands of people who

discover that healthcare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up to ar health plan are confront ago new roadblock. the government cannot yet fix the errors. roughly 22,000 americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected. those recent stakes cost of living to the "post" include being overcharged, being directed to the wrong insurance program or being wrongly denied coverage. so what's the status of those appeals? wwell, the "post" reports, "for now, the appeals are sitting untouched inside a government computer. an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less forellal means by -- through less formal means by calling directly are told that the computer system is not allowing federal workers to go in records to change them. 22,000 americans are either without insurance or are paying too much for insurance as a result of mistakes made by the

federal health exchange. healthcare.gov contains no appeal process. attempts to find recourse by other means have been unsuccessful and the administration's response is basically, tough luck. president obama was interviewed by fox news as bill o'reilly this weekend, one of the topics covered was healthcare.gov's profnlhealthcare.gov'sproblems. "right away we decided how we're going to fix it. the it got fixed within a month and a half. it was up and running. now it's working the way it's supposed to." let pee repeat that, mr. president. the president of the united states said, "now it's working the way it's supposed to." tell that to the 22,000 people wondering why there's no appeals process on the web site. or why their paper appeals are stuck in a computer system at the centers for medicare and medicaid services where the "post" says the appeals process is currently stopped because the

part of the computer system that would allow agency workers to read and handle appeals has not been built" -- end quote. when bill o'reilly asked president obama about the web site problems, the president responded by saying that, and i quote again, "i don't think anybody anticipated the degree of problems that you had on healthcare.gov." end quote. well, mr. president, that's not an excuse. it was the president's job to ensure that people in the administration were anticipating the problems that would occur. the president owes the american people an explanation of why he didn't because this isn't just a story of bureaucratic incompetence. it's the stories of the tensions -- of the tensions of thousands of individual americans who are sufferings as a result of the web site glitches and are wondering how they'll afford their health care under obamacare. addie, a 27-year-old who makes

just $22 a year, she was sure she would qualify for a subsidy on the exchanges, and she was absolutely right. she did. only healthcare.gov didn't tell her that. so addie phoned one of the call centers which told her to sign up at the more expensive price she was quoted and to appeal the decision later. since her old insurance plan was on its way out, she needed surgery in january, these what they d now she is stuck paying $is 00 mor$100 more a month aloa double that's $4,000 higher than it should be. that too-high of a deductible is of particular concern since she incurred huge hospital bills in january when she was forced to have surgery. should could end up paying $4,000 in medical bills that she shouldn't have to pay and can't afford. but, mr. president, it's not just the web site that's driving up americans' medica americans'.

as awful as addie's situation is, hopefully she will get help eventually. for too many americans on and off the exchanges, the reality of the so-called affordable care act has been a sta staggering increase in health care costs. some family plans on the exchanges carry deductibles of almost $13,000. that's more than some families will spend this year on their mortgage. upper-income families may be able to absorb these cost costsd some limited help is available for lower-income families. but what middle-class families can afford $13,000 a year in medical costs? too many families around the country will be putting on hold their plans to buy a home or send their kids to college because they have to devote every spare dollar to paying their health care bills. on top of crippling crippling c, many are facing the loss of doctors and hospitals as

insurance companies narrow their networks in response to the mandate. mr. president, so far i've only mention the personal devastation. but obamacare isn't just affecting families' pocketbooks. it is affecting the economy as a whole. in response to obamacare's burdensome mandates and new taxes, businesses are cutting employees' hours and abandoning their plans to expand. that means fewer jobs available for millions of americans looking for work and fewer opportunities for career growth and advancement. in fact, just this morning, mr. president, there was a story, in the "wall street journal" and it referenced the congressional budget office report that estimates now that the impact of this law through the year 2024 will mean 2.5 million fewer jobs. 2 fo.5 million in job losses asa result of obamacare. it's so much so that you see many of the very labor unions

who supported and wholeheartedly endorsed obamacare when it passed coming out now and saying that it's a sad uriney -- an sai am quoting -- "it would be a sad irony if the significant accomplishment of an administration committed to reducing inequality cut living standards for middle-income and low-wage workers." it went on to that the obamacare law undermines fair market competition and that they are bitterly disappointed. this comes from labor unions in this country who whol wholeheary endorsed this law when it passed several years ago. p mr. , the american people have endured five years of economic stagnation and obamacare has been making things worse. the president has called for 20 to be a year of action, but i've seen no evidence that he has any plans to address the causes of

our sluggish growth or provide relief for the millions of americans struggling with crippling health care costs. republicans have a number of health care proposals from comprehensive plans like that proposed by senators coburn, hatch, and burr, to common sense ideas to lower costs by allowing businesses to pool together to negotiate lower rates and by allowing insurance companies to sell health care plans across state lines and promote more competition, give people more choices. if the president really wanted to make health care more affordable and accessible, he'd abandon this government takeover of one-sixth of our economy and work with republicans to pass real health care reform. given the president's record, i'm not holding my breath that that's going to havmen happen. but at the very least, i hope the president will see his way to supporting bipartisan proposals to improve the economy and to open new jobs and opportunities to struggling americans. just last friday the obama state

department released its fifth environmental impact study on the keystone x.l. pipeline. once again, the review found that the pipeline would have no significant impact on global carbon emissions. senators and representatives of both parties support this job-creating measure. it is high time for the president to approve the pipeline and to open up the 42,000 shovel-ready jobs it will support. he should also pick up the phone that he keeps talking about to call the senate majority leader and tell him to stop obstructing bipartisan trade promotion authority that would help american farmers, ranchers andenandentrepreneurs gain acceo jobs across the world. mr. president, given this legislation's importance for increasing american jobs, it is difficult to understand why the president wouldn't bring this bill up at his meeting

yesterday. finally, mr. president, the president of the united states also should join the vast bipartisan majority in the senate that supports repeal of the job-killing obamacare medical device tax, which is forcing american companies to send jobs overseas. the president will be visiting the democrats retreat tomorrow, which will be a prime opportunity, for him to get on the same opportunity for his party in support of these bipartisan measures. mr. president, republicans are ready and willing to work with the president and with democrats. we hope that we will have willing partners to do the things that are necessary to get people back to work, to create jobs, to grow our economy, and to help provide and build a better future for middle-class families in this country. the american people shouldn't have to wait any longer. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, once again the president of the united states has failed to meet the statutory deadline to propose a budget. in fact, he's missed the deadline so many times that people hardly notice anymore. failure seems to become the rule, not the exception. the president has now missed the budget deadline five times since he took office in 2009. by comparison, his three white house predecessors missed the dead lane a total of four times -- deadline a total of four times in 20 years. five times under president obama. four times in 20 years under his three immediate predecessors. it is now the 18th time that the obama administration has miss add legal deadline related

to the federal budget. i guess the president and his administration consider the law purely and advisory matter, not binding on them. the law is for other people, not for this president and for his administration seems to be their attitude. now, the reason this is so important is because, as we all know, whether it is the family budget or a budget for your birks business, settin setting t is where you set priorities for your business. things you'd luke t like to hav, things you put off and those things you can't really afford. but if your budget includes massive amounts of new spending along with firm opposition to major reforms, well, you'd have no choice but to ask for a huge tax increase. and the president i don't think wants to put himself on record again like he did last year for

another huge tax increase, nor does he want his party's members who are running for election in 20 to hav 14 to have to cast thd vote on the president's own budget. last year his 2014 budget proposal would have raised taxes by roughly $1 trillion. $is trillion tax increase. that's on top of $1.7 trillion that taxes have gone up during the last five years under this administration. well, it looks like the president's priorities are more taxes, more spending, and more debt. but, you know, if those sorts of priorities led to robust economic growth and job creation, we'd see one of the strongest economic recoveries in american history. but the truth is, more taxes, more spending, and more debt are not a recipe for economic growth

and job creation; just the opposite. we're seeing the evidence of that right now. we are suffering through the weakest economic recovery since the great recession in modern history, actually we're seeing the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. right now. and there are a lot of reasons, but the congressional budget office says, has given us some reasons that i want to talk about just briefly. they talk about obamacare and its impact on job growth and economic growth. as a matter of fact, the affordable care act, the president's signature legislative accomplishment, the congressional budget office said the number of full-time workers will go down by two million in the coming years as a result of the affordable care act.

so in addition to people getting canceled policies or sticker shock and finding out that their health care costs didn't go down, they went up; or finding if you like your doctor, you can't keep them, what we're finding is these same people may find themselves out of work as a result of the policies of the affordable care act. the congressional budget office looked primarily at how employers would respond to a new penalty for failing to offer insurance to employees that work more than 30 hours. that response would include cutting people's hours, hiring fewer workers and lowering wages for new jobs. i know my friends on the other side of the aisle agree with the president when he said we ought to raise the minimum wage. one of the problems is the president's own health care policy that they all voted for is killing full-time work and putting people in part-time work, meaning that their weekly wages have been depressed.

for them, the answer is not to deal with the source of that problem, which is obamacare, but to fix wages at 40% higher than they currently are per hour, which we know economists tell us and it is intuitively true is going to put more people out of work, put more pressure on workers. perhaps one of the most distressing thing about the congressional budget office report today is what they said, what the prospects look like for the president's remaining term in office. the budget office does not see unemployment falling below 6% for the rest of president obama's term. six percent for the remainder of his term. yet despite all of this, the president still won't get behind genuine progrowth reforms, won't

support reforms of our existing programs like medicare and social security that will sustain them and put them on a sustainable path. he has no plan for controlling our national debt. i went back and looked, mr. president, the last time congress came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment, you know what the national debt was then? $4.85 trillion. you know what it is today? in excess of $17 trillion with no end in sight. so the truth is, mr. president, that republicans have put forward ideas for streamlining federal regulations, for mitigating the negative effects of the affordable care act, and for replacing obamacare with patient-centered reforms that would cut costs, broaden quality insurance coverage and improve patient access. but so far the majority leader

and the president have shown zero interest in trying to work with republicans to solve our nation's most serious economic challenges which are having a direct impact on the american people. instead the president said he's going to go it alone. he's got a pen, he's got a phone. but as i suggested before, one of the things he could do that would put americans back to work almost immediately and make us more north american energy independent would be to sign the keystone x.l. pipeline. mr. president, i know my time has expired, and i would ask unanimous consent that the three articles i was referring to on the c.b.o. report be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues in asking for the passage of the farm bill that we're going to have a vote on here shortly. and i want to thank my colleague, the chair of the agriculture committee from michigan, for her unbelievable work on this very important policy for america. i know she understands these issues well because while everybody thinks of michigan as a manufacturing state, it also is a very big agricultural state and we share a lot of same crops being kind of on a northern plateau, so apples and wine and a variety of things. i want to certainly thank her for her help and support on getting an important new program in our school lunches for very nutritious peas and lentils and to thank her for her help on that. mr. president, i rise today to talk about the importance of the farm bill because it is a jobs bill for our nation. two years ago i joined my colleague, senator johanns from

nebraska, and sent a bipartisan letter with 44 senators saying it was time to act on the farm bill because we thought it was so important for our economy as we were still struggling, coming out of a recession. and so today it's finally here, that opportunity to put all that hard work into a bill that goes to the president's desk. agriculture employs 16 million americans and it produces exports worth $115 billion worth of agricultural products to markets around the world. i don't think we always focus on that. a lot of times we come out here and we talk about the individual crops in our state or the individual focus. but what we really need to understand is that it is a very big product for the united states. and we live in a very competitive global economy, and one of the biggest advantages that we have in that global economy is that we in the united states of america know how to grow things. so the emerging middle class around the world can now afford to eat higher quality products.

the u.s. chamber of commerce c.e.o. tom donohue, i think put it best in a speech that he gave about the global marketplace last year. he said -- quote -- "you played your strengths, you leverage your advantages and then you find ways to improve them, and one of the greatest strengths in america is agriculture." end quote. mr. donohue said those remarks as an advantage of what innovation is driving in american agriculture and he's absolutely right because not only do we know how to grow things, we also know how to innovate and there is a lot of innovation going on in the ag economy. in fact, there are some people in the pacific northwest that say now there's as much investment going into new innovation in agriculture as there were recently in high-tech or even green energy. so people get it, it's a great investment. i've seen in washington state cutting-edge research done at our labs in prosser, a new wheat

rotation crop to savvy entrepreneurs making connections like getting cherries into the north korean market. this is a tkpwroebg opportunity for -- growing opportunity. american farmers and businesses are seeing demand for their products rise on two fronts. first, american consumers want to buy their products directly from the farms in their communities, so that means that the farms are creating product for exactly what their end customer wants. and because they're doing that, they can make more money on delivering to the end customer exactly the kind of product that they want. and secondly, a rising middle class in places like asia to south america want to use their newfound spending power on purchasing our products as well. so this farm bill helps on both of those fronts, again, thanks to the chairwoman from michigan. it helps get more goods to the market. and whether that's a farmers market around the corner from

your local supermarket or whether that's a new market in south korea. in 2030, china's middle class will have one billion people. that's up from 150 million today. and india's middle class will grow by more than 800%. and maybe because we sit on the pacific, just like the presiding officer, you know how important it is to get products to those marketplaces. in 2012 the united nations reported that the world will need 70% more food by the middle of the century. this is a tremendous opportunity, but only if congress acts today and passes the farm bill. we need to maintain our investment in research and exports so american farmers can thrive and win in the expanding global marketplace. i'm confident if we do that, our farmers and our businesses, and we make sure they have a level

playing field, if they do, they will win. but other countries are playing for keeps too. every farmer around the world wants access to that rising middle class. the european union spent $700 million on export promotion for food products in 2011. that's nearly three times as much as america spent. and china is planning to boost its agriculture investment over the next decade. it's a sentiment that i heard in october when i visited one of our wholesalers when he was talking to an overseas client. he was talking about export and agricultural leaders in washington state and how other countries were starting to use particularly the apple market to try to open new opportunities. so that's why we need to increase opportunities within the farm bill and to move forward on trade deals that help open the door to new agricultural markets. that will help unleash an

entrepreneurial spirit that we really need to be aggressive about. many people have heard of walla walla or maybe you haven't or maybe you thought that was a term. it is a great community in our state with 30,000 people and it is deeply, deeply tied to the global economy. it has wine and wheat and peas and lentils and the farmers there, i know, are very appreciative of the colombia free trade agreement. they thanked me many times for making sure that got passed. i can tell you many of those farmers went to bogota to try to sell american wheat to the growing columbian class and that is what entrepreneurship in america is all about. congress must not dampen our entrepreneurial spirit. farmers need to start this season and make sure that they can put long-term plans in place. then the seeds that will be planted, the fields that will be

harvested, the crops that will be shipped, the smart targeted towards those new international markets will be done. that's what this farm bill is about. the bill, i can tell you, is a compromise. again, i thank the chairwoman for her hard work because i know how hard she worked on forging those compromises. i can tell you it cuts the snap program far more than i would have cut it. i was one of 26 senators who voted for the amendment my colleague from new york offered to restore those cuts. but it is time that we move forward. i'd like to take a second to just talk about the details of three reasons why people should be for this farm bill. first, as i talked about, it continues to expand the export programs that are so important for america's new markets. and while i might have been for a more robust program, some of my colleagues obviously haven't quite understood why this is such a great benefit to market

u.s. products around the globe, i think some people think a big global corporations and think why do you need that. well, i can tell you when i'm talking about apples or cherries or pears, these aren't big corporations. they're a collective of hundreds or thousands of farmers working together. and when the map program helps target getting people in the asian market to consume those products, it is a win-win situation for america. secondly, this bill funds research making our crops stronger and healthier and more competitive. and third, it starts initiatives on products like the pulse crop that i think could be so beneficial to us over the long run with new, as i said, school lunches, but just healthier products. our new farm bill will do the research on specialty crops that are so important for us in the pacific northwest. this is the first time in this farm bill that the reauthorization makes long-term

development in specialty crop block grant programs and specialty crop research initiatives. again, i want to thank the gentlewoman from michigan for her help on that understanding how important these specialty crops are. they are not -- i think everybody in america knows, and around the world knows the brand of washington apples. i can tell you, i've been in the chinese marketplace and seen how people took off the washington label, particularly on fuji apples and tried to stick it on other apples because they knew if that sticker was on that apple everybody in china would consume those apples even though they weren't really washington fujis. what this specialty research initiative does is say we are going to not let apples, pears and cheer reus basically constantly fall off the radar as it relates to research but will be a permanent part of a program for research and have a block grant program so that they can

basically continue to do the research that's needed. again, if any of my colleagues have ever had a chance to visit the research facilities within their state, they'll know what i'm talking about. if you haven't, you should go and do it. but when you are fighting against -- or being on a competitive field with australia or china or anybody else when it comes to apples, we have constantly -- we constantly have to answer questions about phytosanitary issues, we have to constantly talk about various ways to gain access too those marketplaces and the research, just science and research, is the only way we can fight down some of these trade barriers that exist when our products can't get into these countries. so we need to continue to fight that. and lastly i just want to say, i'm very pleased by the fact that post crops -- peas,

lentils, things like chickpeas, i'm sure a lot of people ate a lot of hum must ovemus over the, which has exploded over 500%. it is a product that people have been consuming all over the world but we in the united states are starting to consume more of it and the fact that that product has been such a huge increase has given our farmers in washington state great opportunity. but this product is also a very healthy product and one that we fought hard to make sure would be included in a new school lunch program, something where students could get access to a high-protein, high-fiber product that certainly is more affordable tower schools. so we think between the research that's going to go on on post crop derivatives and the fact that school lunches will now have the opportunity to serve

these crops agresssirvelings we're very, very excited about this program bill. i want to thank my colleagues in the senate, senator crapo and risch and my colleague from south dakota, for also helping with this, because this certainly -- and north dakota, should i say, both states were very, very big on these pulse crops, and certainly helped to make sure that this state staye- make sure that this stayed in the conference report. please vote for a bill that will really help our economy, that will really help us tackle that growing middle class around the world and keep america putting great products on those market shelves and helping create more jobs in the united states. i thank the president. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, first i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority

leaders. i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i would ask secondly unanimous consent that a further statement regarding issues in the nutrition title be submitted into the record on my behalf. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. and i'd like very much to take just a moment, mr. president, as i know we'll be closing for lunch in just a moment, but there's some very important people that i need to thank today. and i want to take this moment before we have the final vote to do that. i know, listening to other colleagues as we come to major pieces of legislation and at the end, they talk about the importance of their staff. i have come to realize, mr. president, just how powerful those words are, and i have been blessed with an incredibly talented, hardworking staff that really are the reason that we are here today. -- here today talking about the

agricultural act of 2014. and every single one of them should be very, very proud of of their contribution, as i am proud of them. and this certainly starts with our staff director chris adoma. i think we've been on speed dial for so long. i'm not sure ... weil be doing e doing that on habit from here on in. his incredible leadership and tenacity and talent and hard work is just incredible, and chris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for leading us here with his team. and i want to thank him very much. also joe shuttle schults, our cf economist. whether it is the commodity title of crop insurance or dairy when at the very end it became clear that after three years of

hard work and passing dairy policy, it wouldn't get the support of the house republicans and we were going to have to rewrite it in a week and a half, which was no small thing, and joe continued to give us the right kind of advice, and i'm proud to say that we started with a commitment to have $23 billion in deficit reduction counting our sequestration spending cuts, and we've ended with $23 billion in deficit reduction, spending reductions in agriculture. a understand joe haand joe has n why we've been able to get there. and also jonathan cordone, our chief processor. an important issues like payment reform, any number of legal

issues he has been incredibly valuable and important. russ bevment nham, our senior counsel on regulatory issues, some of toughest issues we had to address related to regulatory issues, forestry issues. we are very, very proud that in this bill there is an agriculture advisory committee to the e.p.a. moving afford on rules, which is extremely significant to have agriculture's voice involved with the e.p.a. in a form wail. and this and so many other areas, russ has been very, very significant. to our conservation team, tina may, who is amazing and is going back to the usda next week to help -- to lead the implement takers which gives me confidence that this is really going to be done as we intended, but tina may's brilliance and strategy and negotiation and commitment

on these issues is unmatched, i think. and with her team, kevin norton and hanna abude, the areas of conservation are really landmarking reforms and protecting our land and water, conservation compliance, and setting real standards around strong conservation practices. foresforestry as well, important areas that we have drefd in fortunatetory and international food aid. america's opportunity to fulfill our values around the world and creating more flexibility for us to help feed a hungry world. karla teman, again on speed dial. i think the very last phone calls we were making and e-mails before we wrote and finalized the conference report were with karla and chris. our energy title is about jobs. it is about energy efficiency. i'm so proud of what we've been

able to do, landmark energy title. livestock disaster assistance, all of the area to support livestock and, again, dairy. karla was our lead on dairy, and i think we finally may have stopped waking up in the middle of the night dreaming about dairy policy. i am not sure. but we are getting there. corey clauson, i'm so proud we've added our veterans to the support there and thank corey so much. brandon mcbride, rural development, quality of life in rural america. and brandon led our effort to make sure we were strengthening tools for businesses and local units of government and awful those who count on -- and all of those who count on rural development. and research, a new research development foundation. a commitment to research we have not seen before. thank you to bran doen for leading that effort. and of course on nutrition an

fruits and vegetables, jacqueline and katie, who led an extremely complicated area. jacqueline had to negotiate some very, very difficult negotiations. l i'm proud to say that w we rejected every harmful policy in the house bill. and because of jacqueline and katie's efforts, we have a strengthened commitment to organics and farmers' markets and fresh fruit and vegetables for children in schools, and so many other areas in which we are beginning to change the paradigm about local food systems and strengthening opportunities for local markets for our farmers. grant colvin, who has worked so hard on commodities, as well as livestock and trade you, and of course export is very important to us. it is an area of importance to corn. i want to thank grant for his

expertise. alexis sancuhk and carl varner, who helped with the entire team. they have been there to help us on every single project, every single effort that we needed help with. i want to thank alexis and kyl. jesse williams and mccoal who are clerks and their entire team who kept things together and made sure we were doing the right thing, on point. i want to thank jesse and nicole and their team as well. finally, my personal staff, imil sweeny, my chief of staff who has been with me in a multitude of capacities. from he willing it the story on the floor with our charts to making sure that we he had a coordinated team between the agriculture committee staff and all of the talented people on my personal staff as well as wond

wonderful strategic advice, bill is, i'm proud, my chief of staff and has been invaluable in this process. matt vankiken, working every step of the way. our press team when we look at telling the story of the new farm bill approach, ben becker and alex and will and matt williams telling this story, getting the facts out every step of the way. my state team led by my state director teresa pohetka, kelley fox, brandon fuens and corey hall, jeremy hosking and adrian walker, making sure that michigan's voice was heard in every part of this bill. a tremendous amount of hard work. and this bill is better certainly for michigan as a result of all of they're

efforts. quasi gillette icasey gillette,d all of our flood staff for their patience as we have passed this once, twice, and finally passed the conference committee as we will do -- i shouldn't get ahead of myself -- will pass the conference committee this afternoon. legislative counsel michelle johnson we'der and gary endicott. i want to say thank you to senator cochran's staff. they have led that effort and we want to thank them for their partnership and excellent work. and finally our secretary of agriculture, secretary vilsack in the usda, the technical expertise that we have received on every single section has been absolutely invaluable and when it came to the final days on dairy, the secretary played a very, very critical role in helping us get the compromise that will allow us to meet the

goals and address farmers all over the country. and last but not least, the congressional budget office, who we called on day and night, and we appreciate their efforts. so, mr. president, i appreciate your patience in allowing me to do this at this time. i wanted to make sure we had a chance to say thank you to a lot of folks that deserve, as usual, a tremendous amount of credit for getting this done. they're the folks behind the scenes that have made this happen. and i'm very, very proud of each and every one of them. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate

we'll take a final passage vote on the farm bill. you can see live coverage of the senate when members return here on c-span2. elsewhere on capitol hill today the white house deputy director for national drug control policy will testify about the obama administration's marijuana policy. he will appear before a house committee. he is likely to be asked by recent remarks by president obama who said marijuana is safer than alcohol and later said it is up to congress to remove pot from the dea schedule 1 list of dangerous mark ticks. you can see that hearing getting underway in 45 minutes, 1:30 eastern live on c-span3. news out of capitol hill the senate foreign relations committee meeting on iran and nuclear weapons and during the course of the hearing they approved ambassador to china nominee, montana senator mack baucus. he served six terms, 35 years in the u.s. senate. principal author of affordable care act.

the full senate is expected to approve the nomination later this week. later the state department's lead negotiator for iran testified before the same committee. both parties have been critical of the deal to iran to halt its nuclear program pushing for increase in sanctions. the final deal with world powers they said is possible within six months the first panel also included testimony from treasury undersecretary of terrorism david cohen. >> this hearing will come to order. let me begin by welcoming my panelists. we have two panels. first panel is wendy sherman undersecretary of state for political affairs. undersecretary sherman is joined this morning by david cohen, the undersecretary of treasury for terrorism and financing.

and we thank you both for being here. let me say at the outset that i support the administration's diplomatic efforts. i have always supported a two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. at the same time i am convinced that we should only relief pressure on iran in exchange for verifiable concessions that will will fundamentally dismantle iran's nuclear program, not by a month or two, but by a year or more. and that it be done in such a way that alarm bells will sound into washington should iran restart its program anytime in the next 20 to 30 years. any deal that the administration deals with iran must be verifiable, effective and prevent iran from ever developing even one nuclear weapon. in my view based on the parameters described in the joint plan of action, an iranian

comments in the day that is have followed i am very concerned about iran's willingness to reach such an agreement. this is not a nothing ventured, nothing gained enterprise. we have placed our incredibly effective international sanctions regime on the line without clearly defining the parameters of what we expect in a final agreement. as alley akbar, the head of iran's nuclear agency said last week on iranian state television about the agreement, the iceberg of sanctions is melting while our centrifuges are also still working. this is our greatest achievement. well, frankly, it is my greatest fear. he may be correct, the iceberg of sanctions may melt before we have an agreement in place that that may in fact be the iranian endgame. they understand once the international community ceases

banking sanctions they will have won regardless whether or not we have a deal. at the end. day any final deal must require iran to dismantle large portions of its nuclear infrastructure. any final deal must address iran's advanced centrifuge research and development activities that allow to more quickly and more fish inly enrich uranium. it muslim nate the vast majority of iran's 20,000 centrifuges, close the port facility and stop the heavy water react from of coming on line. it must address iran's weaponnization activities at par chin and possibly elsewhere, not dealt with by the joint plan of action. experts including david albright who will be on our second panel that said from iran to move from interim to final agreement they would have to close the fordal facility and remove between 15 and 16,000 of its 20,000

centrifuges. even then we're looking at a potential breakout time of between six to eight months depending whether iran has access to uranium enriched to just 3.5% or access to 20 reconverted percent enriched-uranium. a final agreement should move back the timeline for breakout to beyond the a year or more and insist on a long-term, 20-year plus regime of monitoring and verification. now, in light of that testimony that we're going to hear today, president roh hahn any in an -- rouhani, it an interview said on cnn, in response to the question there will be no destruction of centrifuges, of existing centrifuges? president rouhani's answer was no, not at all. so that causes concern for those of us who are concerned about what this final agreement looks like. a final agreement that mothballs

iran's infrastructure, or fundamentally preserves their ability to easily breakout is not a final agreement i can support. if all we achieve is the essence of an early warning system of iran's future breakout ability, and the sanctions regime has collapsed, and the only options for this or any future president will be to accept a nuclear-armed iran, or a military option, in my view, that is not in the national security interests of the united states. i know that is not anyone's goal or plan but i also think we need to guard against wanting a deal so much that we concede more than we gain. at the end of the day iran can no longer be a nuclear weapons threshold state. i've made my position quite clear and will continue to do so. i have specific questions for all of our panelists that i hope you will be able to answer to help assure us that this is in

fact ultimately, if achievable, at all, the type of deal that we can all embrace. with that, let me recognize the distinguished ranking republican member, senator corker. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for those opening comments and your leadership on this issue for many years. i think the efforts that you have put forth in the past with senator kirk and others candidly helped put us in the place that we are today and so i applaud you for that and appreciate the position you've taken, and i welcome our administration witnesses and after reading mr. chairman, the testimony by the witness that is are going to come on the second panel, in many ways i wish we had that testimony first so that we could then talk with the administration about what neutral observers are saying about the interim deal that has been proposed. want to also say, but i thank you for your service, david. i think you've done a good job

at carrying out sanctions that have been put in place. do want to talk to you a little bit about the tushish issue and -- turkish issue and knowledge of that possibly and why we allowed that to occur and are we getting ready the same thing to happen in russia with our acquiescence? i don't know, we'll find out during this hearing. miss sherman, i thank you for your efforts and say generally speaking i've been disappointed in the rhetoric from the administration about congress's involvement. on one hand i think that you would readily admit that the position that congress has taken through the years has helped you be in the place that you are but somehow because congress wants to insure that we end up with a proper end state, been at love unfortunate things that have been said and i too, as the chairman mentioned, support very much the administration's effort to ensure that iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and we're able to do that in a peaceful manner. very much support that.

i just think all of us have legitimate, many of us, have legitimate concerns about what has happened. as a matter of fact, i just want to say, relative to congress, i think all of us would like to work cooperatively with the administration, and in many ways i think what has happened is, the rhetoric, around the sanctions, piece, has, is actually, sort of become a red herring. it sort of has been a place where the administration can say, well, sanctions will end up keeping this deal from happening. congress can keep saying oh, we're trying to do something about it. and i think it avoids the topic of, you candidly clearly, laying out to us, what the end state is that you're trying to negotiate. and i hope today, you will clearly, i just got your testimony, haven't seen it, came in five minutes ago. i hope that you will clearly lay out what the end state is because i think that is what so many of us are concerned about. that this interim deal becomes the permanent deal. you know, if you look at iran

they're savvy and they have a lot of people that are educated in our country. they understand us in many ways better than we understand them and if you look what they are doing and what they have done in the past is, they become, they perfect something and then they pause. they perfect something and then they pause. so what we have right now is they have perfected, no question, the centrifuge capabilities. i think people would say that they want to be a nuclear state, they can be that very quickly. so we have this pause where we have an interim agreement that doesn't address all the other areas that they have the ability to perfect over this next year which administration officials are already saying this isn't going to happen in six months. this is probably going to take much longer. in your own agreement, i know carl levin tried to limit it to six months in meetings we had privately had in the white house but no, we wend up with an

one-year agreement. we have an agreement, they stop in an area they already perfected. we allow them to continue on in earth areas to be able to deliver nuclear weapons. it is not even addressed by this interim deal. so you can understand there's a lot of concern. i hope today you will lay out clearly what the administration will accept as the end state. i hope that you will talk with us about it. and i hope that we'll figure out a way to cooperatively work together. maybe what congress should do is pass a piece of legislation that lays out clearly the only thing we will accept at the end. because, again, i think that there's concerns that members of the administration are negotiating towards rolling interim agreements. basically the agreement we have now, where we have the ability to monitor, and yet they dismantle something is actually the end state that some of the people and some within the administration would wish to achieve. i hope you're clear today. i thank the chairman for having

this hearing. i appreciate him letting me talk a little bit about this on the front end and i look forward to both testimony and questions and thank you both for your service. >> thank you, senator corker. we'll start off with secretary sherman. your full statements will be included in the record without objection. would ask you to sum prize it in five or so minutes so we can 10er into our dialogue with you and secretary sherman, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman menendez, ranking member corker, distinguished members of the committee and i would say to both of you we all have concerns and i very much appreciate this dialogue and our continued work together on this serious issue. i provide the opportunity to provide you today with an update on the p5-plus-one and european union's negotiations with iran which as you know are coordinated by the high representative of the european union. i also look forward to discussing where we are on other important parts of our iran

policy. i come here confident that we as you both said, share the same goal with regard to iran, a goal that the president reaffirmed just last week, to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and thanks to a combination of what i believe is tough diplomacy and the most comprehensive, targeted sanctions regime ever imposed on a country with enormous leadership here on capitol hill, i am certain that we are closer today to that goal than we were just a few weeks ago. we are not at that goal but we've taken a first step toward it. over the next few minutes i hope to explain why that is, as well as where we will be heading in the coming months. on november 24th, 2013, we and our partners agreed with iran on a joint plan of action. this was an important first step in our efforts to resolve the international community's concerns with iran's nuclear program. on january 20th, the joint plan went into effect.

as the president noted, the implementation of the joint plan marked the first time in a decade that iran agreed to specific actions that halt progress on its nuclear program and roll it back in key respects. indeed the joint plan was explicitly designed this way to create space for further negotiations over a long-term, comprehensive solution. specifically, the international atomic energy agency verified on january 20th, that among other things, iran stopped producing near 20% enriched-uranium. disabled the configuration of the centrifuge cascades iran has been using to produce it. began diluting its existing stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium. continued to convert near 20% enriched-uranium consistent with past practices. had not installed additional century fuelings at natanz or

fordal facilities. more overon transparency and monitoring the iaea stated that iran has begun providing some of the information provided by the joint plan and is working with the iaea for an arrangement for increased access to its nuclear facilities. in order to carry out the responsibilities on the joint plan the iaea will roughly double the size of its inspection team and install additional monitoring equipment. the access afforded under the joint plan means international community's insight into iran's nuclear program will be significantly enhanced. this was an important first step and over the next six months iran committed itself to further act that will provide much more timely warning of a breakout of iran's declared enrichment facilities. they also add new checks against the diversion of equipment and material for any potential covert enrichment program. you have rightfully asked why we should trust iran to live up to these commitments? as the president said, these

negotiations do not rely on trust. any long term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that iran is not building a nuclear bomb. as my colleague undersecretary cohen will further outline in his testimony, the united states and the e.u. have also taken a series of actions to implement the targeted, limited and temporary sanctions relief we committed to as part of the joint plan. but let me be clear, the joint plan of action represents merely the first step of the comprehensive solution we seek to reach and we seek to reach it within a six-month time frame. in two weeks the p5-plus-one political directors and e.u. high representative and her deputy will meet with iran in vienna to begin discussions on that comprehensive solution. our goal is to reach a mutually agreed, long-term, comprehensive solution that would ensure iran's program will be

exclusively peaceful. this comprehensive solution will build on the initial steps we already begun to take. ultimately the comprehensive solution would be one under which we would verifiably ensure, be assured that iran's nuclear program is peaceful and that iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. . .

the the >> to oversee the implementation wl also serve as a forum for discussion to facility the iaea's resolution of path and present issues of concern which all parties understand means the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. indeed, just this weekend on the margins of the munich security conference, secretary kerry reiterates to foreign minister zarif and iran and the p5+1

countries plus begin negotiations with good faith. he also made clear that the united states will continue to enforce existing sanctions. one final issue to keep in mind with regard to the comprehensive solution is that under the terms of the joint plan we have agreed with iran that the comprehensive solution will be part of an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. what is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. we have made it clear to iran that if it fails to live up to its commitments or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask congress to ramp up new sanctions immediately. but moving forward on new sanctions now, as you know, we believe would derail the promising diplomacy we i have jt

outlined and risk unraveling the international cohesion that has proven so essential to insuring that our sanctions have the intended effect. before i conclude, let me briefly note that our focus on iran's nuclear program has not deterred us from holding iran accountable from its human rights abuses, support for terrorism and interference across the region. my written testimony includes further explanation of what we are doing on these issues, and i also want to emphasize we remain committed to bringing robert levinson and e myrrh hekmati home. this was another set of concerns that secretary kerry raised this weekend directly with foreign minister zarif in munich. i have also personally raised these cases with iran as did the president in his phone call with president rouhani in september. we will continue to do so and use every avenue at our disposal until these men are back home with their families where they belong.

in sum and to finalize my statement, mr. chairman and members, the p5+1's negotiations with iran underscore that it is possible not only to make progress on the nuclear issue, but with iran. we are not blind, however, to the more than 30 years of difficult history between the united states and iran or iran's past actions and past behavior as well as its current behavior. but it is crucial that we give diplomacy a chance to succeed. if iran lives up to its commitment, then the world will become a safer place. if it does not, then we retain all options to insure that iran can never and will never obtain a nuclear weapon. the coming months will be a test of iran's intentions and of the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. we look forward to continuing to

work closely with the congress to insure that u.s. national security interests are advanced. thank you. >> secretary cohen. >> chairman menendez, ranking member corker, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the implementation of the joint plan of action. in my testimony this morning, i will address the administration's depths to deliver the limited, temporary and reversible relief in the joint plan as well as our critically important ongoing efforts to implement and enforce the vast majority of the sanctions that remain in place. the pressure on iran from sanctions, sanctions built through the collaborative efforts of congress and the administration along with many of our partners in the international community was instrumental in bringing about the joint plan of action. we are committed to insuring that we maintain this same pressure on iran throughout the six month term of the joint plan as our negotiators explore the

possibility of a long-term, comprehensive solution that verifiably insures that iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. the joint plan went into effect on january 20th. on that day we issued guidance that temporarily suspended sanctions on transactions related to the export of petrochemical products from iran, the provision of goods and services to iran's automotive sector and certain trade in gold and other precious metals to or from iran. in this guidance we made clear that transactions associated with this relief must be initiated and completed entirely during the six month period of the joint plan. that is, to avoid sanctions full performance from contract to delivery to payment must begin no earlier than january 20th and end no later than july 20th. we have also paused efforts for the next six months to reduce further iran's exports of crude oil to the six jurisdictions

still purchasing from iran and began taking steps to allow iran to access in eight installments spread over the span of six months $4.2 billion of its own funds currently restricted in accounts overseas. ask finally -- and finally, we are working to further facilitate humanitarian transactions. notably, all of this relief is reversible. if iran fails to meet its commitments under the joint plan, we can revoke this limited sanctions relief, and at a minimum, reinstate the us pended -- suspended sanctions. viewed in light of the depths to which iran's economy has sunk. the offers of the joint plan will not materially improve iran's economy. for the first time in 20 years, iran will be in a recession for two consecutive years. it will continue to have limited or no access to almost $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings. its budget deficit will remain

sizable. its currency will remain significantly devalued, and its inflation rate significantly elevated. over the six month duration of the joint plan, iran's struggling economy will continue to be buffeted by sanctions as the core sanctions architecture remains firmly in place. we are continuing to implement and enforce our oil sanctions which have driven down iran's oil exports by more than 60% over the last two years. our financial sanctions which have locked up much of iran's overseas assets. our banking sanctions which have largely cut off the iranian banking sector from the international financial system. our sanctions on significant investments in iran's energy sector which has impaired iran's oil and gas production. and the broad trade embargo between the u.s. and iran. because these potent sanctions remain firmly in place, iran will continue to struggle to finance its imports, to fund its government operations and to defend the value of its

currency. in short, the continuing impact of our sanctions and the cumulative impact of those sanctions means that the iranian economy will continue to massively underperform for the foreseeable future. so while we remain committed to providing in good faith all the relief agreed to under the joint plan, we also remain hard at work implementing and enforcing a sanctions regime of unprecedented force and scope. the reason is simple: we know that intense sanctions pressure helped bring about the joint plan and likewise will be a critical component in the negotiations to come. to insure the sanctions pressure continues, we are actively engaging with foreign banks, businesses and governmental counterparts. secretary lew, secretary kerry and many others from the administration have reaffirmed this point, that the sanctions relief in the joint plan is their owe, the sanctions -- narrow, the sanctions that remain in place are broad and that we intend to enforce our

sanctions vigorously. as part of this effort over the last six weeks, i have traveled to the u.k., germany, italy, austria, turkey and the united arab emirates carrying this message, iran is not open for business. in all of these engagements, we have made clear that we will continue to respond to iran's efforts to evade our sanctions wherever they may occur. we will continue to detect, disrupt and disable those facilitating irans' nuclear and missile programs, and we will continue to target iran's support for terrorism in its human rights abuses. and i say to this committee and to other observers, stay tuned. we are poised to deploy our tools against anyone anywhere who violates our sanctions just as we have always done. thank you. >> thank you. secretary sherman, so maybe you can just answer in this yes or no. a final agreement would include

closing the fordo facility. >> in all of these questions today, i'm going to be thoughtful about what i say, senator, not because i do not want to be direct, but i don't want to negotiate with iran in public so that they know what our positions are going to be at the negotiating table. so i will be as forthcoming as i can be -- >> well, some of these are so obvious. you said in your testimony. >> i'm going to say it. i'm going to answer your question, but i'm making a statement just in general terms because i don't want to frustrate the members and be glad to have further conversation in a private setting in greater detail. but where fordo is concerned as i said in my testimony, we see no reason for fordo to remain an enrichment facility. >> all right, thank you. with reference to the iraq heavy water reactor, i would assume that that is not, would not be permitted to go online. >> we do not believe there's any reason for a heavy water reactor at all in a civil nuclear

program of the type that iran is interested in. >> with reference to the centrifuges that exist which our understanding is about 20,000 at least by published reports and other reports, the -- david albright, who's on our second panel, and others have suggested that for a final agreement in mission to closing the fordo facility, there would be a need to remove between 15 and 16,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. do you agree with that estimate? >> i'm not going to get into a specific number in this setting, senator. what i will say is there's no doubt that the number of centrifuges needs to be addressed. >> okay. and by that we mean that there needs to be a reduction. >> yes. >> okay. now, with reference -- so you won't give us a number, but when president rouhani says, no, we're not going to destroy any centrifuges, you just think that's domestic consumption. >> i believe that is domestic consumption and an opening max

mallist negotiating position, and i wouldn't expect any less. what i will carry about, what we all should care about is what iran does. what commitments they make and which of those commitments can be verified have actually taken place. >> with reference to an area that was not frozen in the interim deal with iran which is iran's centrifuge research and development program, which basically iran can continue its development of its more advanced centrifuges during this whole period of time at the pilot program under the loophole in the interim agreement and challenging, because iran is able to measure the enrichment level of the product before it remixes it. so at the end of the interim period, iran is likely to be tar better positioned to deploy reliable ir centrifuges on a

mass scale of its enrichment plans, and this would allow iran to make up for time lost very quickly. is significantly or dramatically drawing back on their research and development plans on centrifuges a critical element of a final agreement? >> no doubt there'll be very difficult discussions around r&d because it is significant a, but i would say one thing, senator. in fact, mr. chairman, their r&d program was frozen where centrifuge development is concerned in a couple of important ways in the joint plan. first of all, they cannot work on any advanced centrifuges that are not listed in the november 14th iaea report. that is really the baseline for any continued work, so it was frozen at the november 14th setting. in terms of replacing any damaged centrifuges in fordo or

natanz, they can only do it with same type, not more advanced centrifuges, and they cannot install any new advanced centrifuge into the natanz research facility. >> yeah. but that's not on the point that i raised with you. so let me read directly to you from david albright's testimony which we'll hear in the second panel. an area that was not frozen in the interim deal is iran's sentry rouge research and development program. iran can continue its development of the ir2m centrifuges at the natanz pilot plant under this loophole in the interim deal. it can enrich uranium in a production scale cascade of 164ir2m centrifuges, and since it remixes the enriched uranium product with the waste obtaining natural uranium, no enriched uranium is deposited into the product tanks. this remixing meets the letter

of the deal. however, iran is able to measure the enrichment level of the product before remixing it; thus, it can further develop these centrifuges while hiding any results of its progress from the iaea, which has actions only to the product end or the natural uranium and does not see the enrichment be measurements. at the end of the interim period, iran is likely to be far better positioned to deploy reliable ir2m centrifuges on a mass scale at its enrichment plants. this gain would allow iran to make up for time lost more quickly. that's -- do you dispute that? >> what i would say, senator, is i would quite agree with you that r&d is an area of concern. their research and development on advanced centrifuges is an area of concern, and it will be something that we'll be quite focused on in the final comprehensive agreement. i'm not an expert of the quality of dr. albright, and i have great regard for his

assessments, and i would be glad to have our experts sit down with you or your staff and go over the specks -- >> okay, i appreciate that. what about parchin, parchin being so incredibly important for the framework under which you are negotiating. parchin, the world believes, is where iran was weaponizing its nuclear efforts. yet in this agreement and the interim, the joint plan of action, we have no access to parchin. now, parchin has already gone under mass excavation by the iranians when the world became aware of it as a way, i believe, to ultimately try to cover up their weaponization program. but, obviously, if we were negotiating with access to parchin -- which i believe and others believe would prove their efforts to weaponization -- the

framework under which we would be negotiating would be much different. versus a, you know, a supposition versus a reality. so is access to parchin, while you didn't achieve that, i don't know be you even raised it in the interim joint plan of action, is access to parchin a critical element of your final deal? >> senator, we, in fact, did raise parchin. we raised possible military dimensions and, in fact, in the joint plan of action we have required that iran come clean on its past actions as part of any comprehensive agreement. in three very critical ways. first, the plan, the joint plan of action says that we will work with the iaea to if facilitate solutions of past and present reasons of concern, and that is a formula used by the iaea in addressing possible military dimensions including parchin.

so we expect, indeed, parchin to be resolved. secondly, the plan says before the final step there would be additional steps in between the initial measures and the final step including addressing the u.n. security council resolutions which require, in fact, dealing with issues of past concerns. and third, all the sanctions on over 600 individuals and inti -- entities will remain in effect until those concerns are addressed. so to summarize, yes, we've raised it -- >> and they reject -- >> -- they must be resolved. >> and they rejected any access to -- >> they have not rejected it. >> in the interim, in your joint plan of action, they rejected during this period of time access to it. >> no, they have not rejected it. they know it has to be addressed. i hope it is addressed within the six months while we are addressing the comprehensive agreement. and as you know, the iaea will be meeting with iran on february 8th, and these specific issues of their possible military

dimensions are very key and central to the agenda. so i hope and i would urge iran to address parchin during these six months while we are negotiating the comprehensive agreement because it will increase the confidence that we will actually get to a final and come we lensive -- comprehensive resolution. >> two final questions. reuters has a report that the iaea's exploring with iran its productions of plutonium. is this a new development, or is this something that you raised with the iranians during your interim negotiations? >> i'm not aware of that reuters report -- >> i'd ask you to look at the report and respond to the committee. >> sure. be glad to. >> one final question for you, secretary cohen. all of the sanctions that i've offered with senator kirk and members have supported, they always have to have at least a six month period of time in order to give countries and companies the notice required

and the time for you to do the regulations necessary to proceed, and is that fair statement? >> i, i assume so, senator. i haven't -- >> well, you're enforcing them, and you've had to pursue them. have you had less than six months to be able to pursue any of the sanctions that we've passed? >> senator, i -- sitting here right now don't recall every piece of legislation, whether any of them were immediately effective or there is a phase-in for all of them. we have, of course, implemented the sanctions that congress passes as promptly as possible. >> well, i think it's pretty well one can take judicial notice of the legislation. the legislation that became law always had a very long lead time and then after that you went to work to try to pursue it. and the problem is to suggest that we can quickly pass sanctions is to not recognize that when we pass sanctions, there are six months from the

date of signing before it ever goes into effect, and then after that there's a whole period of time for you actually to pursue enforcement. so in reality the only effect that we have is over time. when the iranians based upon testimony that has been received and will be received today are looking at 6-8 weeks or two months or so of their potential breakout period be a deal doesn't come through -- if a deal doesn't come through, sanctions, to enforce sanction ises then will be far beyond the scope of the window and will not be a calculus for them. and so that is part of the problem with suggesting that, yes, we can pass sanctions at any time. not simply about passing sanctions, it's about the time frame necessary to have them be effective and, ultimately, to take effect. and that is way beyond the window. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i would just, ms. chairman, again, i appreciate your testimony. i think that, again, all of us want to see a negotiated settlement, we want to see a peaceful end, i don't know if you want to continue on, all of us are concerned about the way this or interim deal has been struck. i made reference about iran's ability to perfect things and pause and then perfect other things. just curious, why did y'all not in this agreement in any way address the delivery mechanisms, the militarizing of nuclear arms? why was that left off since they've reached a threshold that everyone acknowledges they can build a bomb, we know that. they know that. they have advanced centrifuges. we have a major loophole in the research and development area that everyone acknowledges. and yet we are going to allow them over in this next year to

continue -- over this next year to continue to perfect the other piece of this which is the delivery mechanism. why did we do that? >> senator, first of all, and i should have said this when the chairman asked the question, you know, we see this as a first step, so we don't consider the gaps that exist loopholes because this is not a final agreement. this is a first step. >> [inaudible] has said it would take a year. she said it'd take six months just to write up technical documents to begin discussing. she's one of your full partners, i know. so we probably have a period longer than six months where they can continue on. again, i just don't understand why an interim deal would not address them stopping the perfecting of those things that allow what they've already perfected to be delivered. >> i would say a couple of things. first of all, the joint plan of action does address the fact

that their ballistic missiles that could with used as a delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons must be addressed as part of a comprehensive solution because it is part of the u.n. security council resolutions. so it is true that in these first six months we have not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with a delivery of a nuclear weapon, but that is, indeed, something that has to be addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement. secondly, i would say to you, senator, that if we are successful in assuring ourselves and the world community that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, then them not having a nuclear weapon makes delivery systems almost -- not entirely, but almoster relevant. >> so let me ask you this question. i think most neutral observers

would state that all we've really done since they are not dismantling as, you know, both their president and foreign minister has made real clear, they're not dismantling, so in essence what you done in this interim deal is given us 30 days' additional time for breakout. 30 days. and yet they've got a year, a year, to -- probably, probably longer, candidly -- to develop these delivery mechanisms. now, i will say, i mean, some people may debate about what their enrichment is for. i don't think many people on this committee think what they've been doing is simply for civil purpose, but there's no debate on delivery mechanisms. and i'm just curious, why would you negotiate a deal that allows that to continue? i don't get it. why would you say that would be a part of the next deal since they've already perfected the first part? it seems to me that being able to deliver it is an important aspect but, apparently, not so

in your case. >> well, senator, you and i disagree about the conclusion of the joint plan of action. we believe that it it has set oa framework for a comprehensive agreement to insure that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. we are not to that comprehensive solution yet. we agreed on a six month program that freezes where they are and rolls back their program in significant ways to obtain that nuclear weapon. and in return we have given very limited, temporary and targeted sanctions relief. quite frankly, if we could have negotiated a comprehensive agreement which you would prefer and many people would prefer, we would have done it. but, quite frankly, that was impossible to do in a short period of time. and had we, in fact, tried to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that would have dealt with everything that is of concern to all of us, they would have used that time to march forward much her -- much more

rapidly in their ability both develop a nuclear weapon and to develop the delivery system for that nuclear weapon. so this is not perfect -- >> no. >> -- but this does please and roll back their program in significant ways and give us time on the clock to, in fact, negotiate that comprehensive agreement. and as you yourself said, we can discuss what the breakout times are in a classified setting. it has added relative to where we were some time on that clock as well. >> some time. if i could ask just two more questions. i know this is a topic we all care about. mr. cohen, since this negotiation has begun, do you agree that iran's inflation rate is way down? that their currency is way up and that economic projections within the country are way up? and that there are people from all over the world who are clamoring to do business iran? i know you traveled around the world talking to folks about

what might happen to them, but is there any question that just the discussions have hugely uplifted the iranian economy? is that correct? >> senator, i think what we have seen in terms of the metrics in iran's economy is that there was of an uptick immediately after the election of president rouhani in june. and so the value of the real has increased somewhat since the election of president rouhani. inflation has come down since that, since the election. there has been, essentially, no change at all in the inflation rate or the value of the real since the joint plan of action was agreed to in november. >> but everybody knew those discussions were underway. do you understand why there's a concern here that we're alleviating sanctions? y'all say seven billion, i think no rational person believes that that's the only effect because in a market, there are

expectations. i mean, that's why the fed, you know, buys securities and gives, you know, it's expectations. and so people are expecting, and you can understand why the chairman would be concerned, that what's going to happen is at a minimum a series of rolling interim deals. and i think there are many of us rightly concerned that at a point especially if it takes as long as catherine ashton is saying, a minimum of a year, at a point we lose all leverage, if you will, to really do this. some people have said what we really ought to do is as pa a resolution on the senate floor that says if we don't come to a resolution, there's a trade embargo or something that's much stronger. not binding, but indicates that we will do something. do you understand why we have those concerns, and do you have a way of congress addressing those in an appropriate way since we put the sanctions in place in the first place? >> certainly understand where those concerns come from, but what i can tell you from my travels around the world and my

colleagues report the same in their dealings is that the limited nature of the relief in the giant plan of -- joint plan of action and the sanctions that remain in place when we explain that and make sure that business community, the banking community, our governmental counterparts understand that a deal that would be permissible under the joint plan has to be commenced and concluded within this six month period, that anyone shipping goods to iran is still facing an iranian banking sector that is largely cut off from the international financial sector. that investment in iran's energy sector is still sanction able. when we walk through the very narrow scope of the sanctions that have been relieved and the extensive sanctions that remain in place, what we hear back is that there is interest down the road potentially if there's a

comprehensive deal and substantial sanctions relief in the iranian market, but for this period, for this six month period the interest in trying to the take advantage of the narrow suspensions of sanctions in just a few economic areas that have been agreed to is relatively tame. so you see these delegations going to tehran, but i think you also see, importantly, the reflection that those conversations are about what may come in the future, not what's available today. and i should say we are as crystal clear as possible in all of our engagements that if these talks turn into something more, if these talks turn into deals that violate the elaborate sanctions that remain in place, that we will take action.

>> senator coats. >> thank you, chairman menendez, for chairing this hearing, and i'd like to thank undersecretaries sherman and cohen for your work and for appearing before the committee. as you said in your testimony and as i agree, a strong and crippling sanctions regime imposed on iran in large part passed by this congress and enforced by this administration have brought iran at last to the negotiating table. and i remain strongly supportive of their ongoing enforcement. i am encouraged by your characterization of these sanctions enforcement and the relief in the joint plan of action as being temporary, limited and reversible but intend to be intensely engaged in insuring that is the case. i believe it is important for us to continue to maintain the threat of stronger and more additional sanctions in order to send a clear message to iran of the ramifications of noncompliance. i have a number of concerns and unanswered questions about the

joint plan of action. i'll just reiterate, i share, i think, the goal of literally everyone on this committee and the administration of reaching an agreement that verifiably ander refutably denies iran the ability to acquire nuclear weapons capability. i do hope a final deal can be achieved in the next six months that includes the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime possible, and i have a number of questions i'd like to ask following up on that, if i might. first as to the iaea, i sent a letter to the president along with several other senators asking a number of questions and in particular focusing on what the administration will need from i can't think in the way of -- from congress in the way of financial support and pressing on whether there's any progress in terms of establishing a field office, the scope and reach of the inspections and what kinds of capabilities, staffing and funding it may require so that we can have some certainty about

these allegedly novel inspection regimes. we have very disconcerting previous examples in other countries where inspections failed to uncover clan questions -- clandestine actions, so i'd be interested under secretary sherman, first, when am i going to get answer answer to my letter, and what can we be doing to work with you in strengthening the iaea and their inses? >> thank you very much, senator, and thank you for your support, and thank you along with all the members of this committee for leadership on supporting our efforts to make sure that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon which i quite agree is an objective we all share. in terms of monitoring and verification, i will find out where that letter is, and we will get it to you toot sweet, senator. i'm sorry it is not up here before this hearing today, and i apologize for that. the iaea is going to double its staff. it will have a field office.

as you note, the joint plan of action gives us unprecedented access before natanz and fordo inspectors went about once a week, now they will have daily access on days in which they might otherwise not be there, there will be surveillance cameras and other monitoring techniques that will be available that are being worked out with the iaea. iraq, they used to visit maybe once every three months, they now will have monthly access to iraq. they are getting the diq, the plans, in essence, for iraq. they are getting access to centrifuge production facilities , production facilities to uranium mines and millings. so it is quite an unprecedented verification and monitored regime. the director general has said there will be some increased cost. we have increased the amount that we will make available out of our budgeted funds to the

iaea. other countries have come forward, and we greatly appreciate your willingness for congress to take a look and insure that the inspection monitoring and verification activities can go forward, because they are quite critical, as you point out, to verify that iran does what it is committed to do. and in a comprehensive agreement will be even more crucial. >> let me ask one more question with my remaining time. and, first, in your opening testimony you highlighted efforts to hold iran accountable for its ongoing rights violations, public executions, for its support of terrorism. this is a regime we cannot trust. one of the most important accomplishment, i think, of this interim joint plan is the commitment to dilute the highly- enriched uranium. and, apparently, iran will take these steps, when is this

scheduled to be completed, and what steps are being taken to insure the iranians are not dragging their feet or not using this as a way to covertly enrich in some other vehicle and in some other location? >> couple of comments, first on human rights. we completely agree with you, and in the coming weeks we will detail as clearly as we possibly can how we view iran's human rights abuses which you have decidedly and rightly pointed out are of grave concern to us. this terms of -- in terms of the dilution and conversion, both on the 20% and insuring that the 5% stockpile does not get larger than the amount agreed to by end of the six month period, the iaea will be monitoring all of these actions. and is on the dilution, the conversion will take all six months to accomplish because the technology only allows it to move that quickly. but the iaea will provide a

report on a monthly basis of all monitoring and verification activities that they will share with the joint commission, and we will be glad to come up and brief the hill in classified session about those monthly reports. and so that will be one way that we will verify. the second is that on the dilution two of the aims of repatriated, frozen funds are tied to the dilution schedule. the first on march 1st, the second on april 15th. so iran will not get the funds unless the dilution is completed on the scheduling agreed to. >> thank you. i very much look forward to those classified briefings and to an answer to my let arer. thank you. >> senator rich. >> thank you -- [inaudible] for supporting the effort, this committee for supporting the efforts the committee -- don't put me in that column.

i don't want to be thanked, because i do not support what has been done. i think this thing's a disaster. i think it -- i was stunned when i saw what the agreement was. i've been disgusted as we've gone forward, and i hope you will prove me dead wrong, but i don't think i will given the history of these people. but in any event, i want to focus on just a couple of aspects. number one, pastor saed abedini is a constituent of min. he is -- of mine. his only crime is being a christian. last week we showered the iranians with, what, $500 million? why can't we get this guy out of jail? you said that secretary kerry had a conversation with the foreign minister zarif this weekend at the meeting in munich. can you tell us what the substance of that conversation

was? >> certainly, senator. first of all, we completely agree with you,side abedini, e myrrh hekmati and robert levinson should all be home with their families, and nothing i can say today because they are not yet home will be satisfactory to you or their families, and i would agree with them and agree with you in that regard. secretary kerry raised these situations with the foreign minister, insisted that these be addressed as quickly as possible, that there was no basis for any of three of them to be held and, indeed, we are doing whatever we can in whatever channel we can to bring them home as quickly as possible. >> well, ms. sherman, you know, that's not good enough. those are just words. somebody needs to look these people in the eye and tell them they're not getting another penny, and they're not getting anything until they do a very simple act of letting three

absolutely innocent americans go free. i hope you'll convey that to the foreign minister, and i would hope secretary kerry would convey that to the foreign minister. this is absolutely outrageous for everything we've given to the iranians and them still to hold this. i mean, this is absolute nonsense. let me change, let me change horses here for just a second. i keep reading in the media about now that the, now that the sanctions have been relaxed and this has been something that's within -- been a concern of mine from the beginning, now that they've been relaxed our partners, most if not all of whom were unwilling partners, are now flooding in there with business people. the french, the italians, the irish, the canadians. you've got political people, you've got business people flooding in there ready to do business, going back to business as usual with the iranians. whose job is it going to be to put the genie back in the bottle when this thing fails? who's going to do this? >> let me make one comment and

then turn it to undersecretary cohen. a couple of things. as the undersecretary said, every single member, key member of our administration talks with every country with whom we meet about enforcing and keeping these sanctions in place and onboard. and, indeed, i believe based on the conversations i've had with many -- including the french, and secretary kerry has talked directly to the foreign minister about trade delegation that went, it was a private business delegation, it wasn't a government delegation -- about how this is not helpful in this regard, to insure that it is not, in fact, business as usual. as undersecretary cohen said, our sanctions relief is quite temporary, quite limited and quite targeted. that, in fact, most of these delegations that are going pause we talk to them all, we tell them what are the limits of what they can do that we will, in fact, go of after them, that we will sanction them, doesn't

matter whether the country's a friend or foe. if they evade our sanctions, we will sanction them. we have all delivered that message. not just treasury, but every, every department in our administration and the executive branch. that, indeed, most of these delegations appear to be going to get themselves in line for the day that, in fact, a comprehensive agreement is reached, if it's reached. and we have told them all that they are putting their reputations, themselves and their business enterprises at risk if they jump the gun. >> well, this is exactly why those of us who are critical of this at the beginning were so critical. the optics of this are such that the rest of the world says it's back to business as usual. you can tell them what you want to tell them, but their acts indicate that they believe it's back to business as usual. that's the problem. mr. cohen? >> i completely agree with undersecretary sherman in terms of how we have been making certain that our partners around

the world understand that whatever interests they may have in this in the the iranian market -- in the iranian market someday, that is not the market today. what's available today in this plan of action is extraordinarily narrow. it's limited, as i said, to petrochemical exports, sale of goods to the auto sector or and some trade in precious metals, but even that is substantially constrained. it's very limited economic potential today in the iranian business sector. that's the point that we makeover and over again in these -- make over and over again in these engagements. that point, i believe, is getting through. we have not seen deals being done, but even more importantly, what we have been absolutely clear about is that we will continue to enforce our sanctions. in the implementation agreements on the joint plan of action,

explicitly recognizes that we have the right and that we will fully enforce existing sanctions. and i think that message is one that we have communicated over the years and more recently in a pretty credible fashion. >> well, i understand that's the message you're giving them. but it sure doesn't look like they believe it, because they are acting entirely differently than what the message is you're giving them. thank you, mr. chairman. my time's up. >> thank you. senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here today. i want to, frankly are, associate myself with the opening comments of senator coons. it has been robust pursuit of sanctions by this administration that has led us to a point today in which we have an opportunity, a chance to achieve a peaceful resolution to this crisis. undersecretary sherman, as you know, i was in munich this weekend, sat on a panel with foreign minister zarif, and he made the laughable contention

that iran was at the table today for reasons having nothing to do with the sanctions policy. that being said, though no one in the audience believed it, there was a discussion there about the different trade missions mainly of a private nature that have gone to tehran. and secretary kerry was there pushing hard, as you mentioned, back on our partners to make sure that those were simply missions connected to potential future activities rather than undermining of these new sanctions. and let me give you just my impression, and you tell me if i'm wrong. the fact that there are groups going to tehran or thinking about their potential future opportunities seems to me to have nothing to do with the interim agreement. to me, if we were to have entered boo negotiations -- into negotiations right away on a

final settlement, the same thing would have happened. once there was a window into potential normalizedded trade relations -- normalized trade relations with iran, there are going to be private entities or that are going to start having those discussions. and so the idea that there are some conversations happening about future trade opportunities seems to be a consequence of a negotiation beginning whether or not there's an interim trade agreement in place. and i just want to from both of you understand if that's your impression. >> i think that's, that is exactly right. and it is, as i was saying earlier, it's what we've been hearing from these various trade promotion agencies, governments, the private industries that we've been talking to, is that they're not there looking to do business today, that they're there for to see what might come in the future because there is,

you know, some hope that these negotiations will produce a comprehensive agreement that brings with it substantial sanctions relief. but that's down the road. that that's not today. >> i would agree with the undersecretary, and i would add one other thing there is a little counterintuitive. we hope people don't go to tehran. that is our preference. but those who go raise hopes that the rouhani administration's going to have to deliver on. and the only way they can deliver on those hopes is a comprehensive agreement that we will agree to. and that means a verifiable assurance that they are not developing, creating, will have, obtaining a nuclear weapon. and so although we don't want people to go because we think it does send the wrong message, if they do go, it puts pressure

perversely on the rouhani administration because as far as we have seen today, there are not deals getting done but, rather, people getting first in line in the hope that someday this will be a deal. >> and to the extent that there is enormous economic opportunity in that country today, it is because of the crippling nature of the sanctions that have so gravely undermined the economy that there is such room for improvement should the sanctions be partially or fully lifted. undersecretary sherman, just one additional question. we do have to pay attention to the internal political dynamics in the country because it dictates whether or not they are actually going to be able to get a deal. is there any new information about the length of the leash that zarif and rouhani have been given by the supreme leader, is there any evidence that the hardliners since the interim agreement have been signed are winning or losing the internal battle to be able to allow for

there to be domestic political support for a deal that is amenable to the united states to be achieved in this negotiation? >> with we constantly ask our intelligence community to update their assessment, and that's certainly an assessment we should share and will share with you all on an ongoing basis. i think there's no doubt that there are hardliners in tehran. sometimes that's overstated for negotiating effect, but it is real and substantial. and so i think zarif walks a fairly fine line. one of the things i think we all try to be cautious of is not to increase the space for the hardliners while at the same time not allowing tehran to overstate the politics they have to deal with. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. so let me describe what i think the leash is, and i don't think this takes a tremendous amount of any secret intelligence to arrive at it. i think the leash is, and i've stated this in our meetings

before, go and see what sanctions relief you can get without believing up what we believe, iranians believe, is their inherent right to enrich. the they can keep that infrastructure in place, they're always one, two or three steps away from being a nuclear-armed power. so here is where i need some clarification, okay? is according to the administration we have not, as part of this joint plan of action, have not recognized a right to enrich for the iranian government, nor do we intend to. the document does not say anything about recognizing a right to enrich uranium. but in a letter from president rouhani to the supreme leader he implies that they, indeed, that this acknowledges their right to enrich. he has said under in circumstances -- he has said this publicly -- will there ever be a deal in which we agree to dismantle our enrichment capabilities. that is the line in the sand he has drawn on the enrichment issue. do we have a line on the sand?

>> our line in the sand on the enrichment issue is that any comprehensive agreement should give us full confidence and assurance in a verifiable manner that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. >> well, so then my question is, is the capability to enrich, isn't that in and of itself a significant -- just the fact that you have the infrastructure to enrich at any level, isn't that a critical capacity for a country that has a plan to have the option of to going nuclear armed one day? >> every country has the potential for that capability, and if we dismantle -- and i would hope we can, i don't know whether we will be able to -- every piece of the infrastructure that iran has, they would still have the knowledge. they cannot unlearn what they know. so they would be able to reconstitute an enrichment program, they would be able to reconstitute their research and

development because their scientists can't unlesh what they have learn -- unlearn what they have learned how to do. so what we are trying to do, senator, in a comprehensive agreement is to put in place the elements that will give us a verifiable assurance that they cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, and there are many paths to that end. >> yeah, i understand the scientists will know how to do it, but you still need the infrastructure, you still need the facilities to enrich. >> sure. >> and many countries have scientists that know how to do it but they don't do it, including many of our allies. so now potentially the concern is we're going to leave in place any sort of facilities that when the world is distracted in five years on some other thing, they can move fairly quickly. and multiple countries have the ability to enrich, but they don't. because they obtained it from elsewhere, because they don't have these designs, and few countries who enrich also have a ballistic missiles programment so let me ask you this question, the security council resolution 1929 contains a provision

referring to their ballistic missile program. it prohibits them from acquiring interest in any commercial activity in another state which you only build for the you weres of delivering a nuclear warhead, that level of expense that it brings. how is that going to be addressed? is isn't that a key component? in essence, if they retain a right and an infrastructure to enrich at 5% but they're building ballistic missiles, then the only thing missing here is a quick ramp up of the enrichment capability, and now they're in nuclear power. >> senator, i hope that tehran listened very carefully to what you said, because we agree. it would be better for iran to, if they want a civil nuclear program, to, in fact, bring the fuel in from the outside and not have an indigenous enrichment program. they would get better cooperation, probably get better price, lots of things might be better, and that will absolutely be on the table in the negotiations we have with them. because you're quite right.

there are plenty of countries who have dignity and pride and scientists and everything else they need for scientific and technological advancement. but we have said in the joint plan of action that depending upon where we get in the comprehensive agreement, we are willing to consider a very limited, very intrusive, very heavily monitored, small, limited enrichment program if it becomes a necessity. but nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and on your point about ballistic missiles, indeed, we have said that the u.n. security council resolution has to be addressed and ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon are part of that consideration. and the last point i would make is if we can get -- and i don't know yet whether we will be successful, but if we can get to the verifiable assurance that they cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, the we know they cannot -- if we know they cannot have a nuclear weapon, then a delivery mechanism, important as it is, is less important.

>> senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chair. when the interim deal was announced in november, it was timed in an interesting way. it was the same weekend where america was commemorating the 50th anniversary of death of president kennedy. and i was with many of my colleagues at a security conference in nova scotia when the deal was announced. and a great speech of senator kennedy's was running through many of our minds that weekend. it was a graduation speech he gave at american university a few months before he died in the spring of 1963. he had started aggressive diplomatic efforts to try to reduce nuclear weapons and the nuclear competition between the united states and the soviet union, and he was heavily create create -- criticized as naive, foolish, a dupe for doing that. and he made a very aggressive

case for the fact that part of american strength is strong diplomacy. and one of the phrases that he used in that speech -- and i would recommend the speech to anyone because it is a very interesting one that reads as if it was written today -- is that with all appropriate skepticism, and this is a direct quote: we can still reduce tension without relaxing our guard. aggressive diplomacy is needed to reduce tension, and aggressive diplomacy is needed to solve thorny problems, but we don't have to relax our guard. and i see what we are trying to do with iran in that spirit. we all want exactly the same thing. we want iran not to have nuclear weapons. we all will prefer if we can get to that in diplomatically rather than having to use military force. i'm, as a member of this committee, i've recently cast a vote to use military force in what i thought was a very important international norm. iran should not have a nuclear weapon, and i will cast a vote

to use military force should that be necessary. but everyone, everyone in this body, everyone of our -- every one of our allies, every one of the p5, everyone throughout the world would desire a diplomatic path to a non-nuclear iran that we pursue that path, whatever the chances of success that we pursue that path. while we both want these things, a non-nuclear iran and a preferred diplomatic resolution rather than a military one, we have differences in tactics. and that's to be understood, and they are good faith differences. they're good faith differences. we're talking about a current piece of legislation, and some in this body support it and some don't. those who support it are not pro-war or anti-israel. we have a difference in tactic about what is the right way to attain a diplomatic solution to a very ny