time. and these constituencies for the capital social care costs and won't deliver it because we won't pass legislation to the national insurance contributions for employers and growth and jobs. >> my own constituents, i have tried recently. and they asked me to tell the prime minister the guard is going up and unfortunately he isn't but what assurance can the deputy prime minister get them that the first summit in northern ireland, and and of votes for every one. >> many people and this side of the house, hon. members did. and just a total scandal and in

2013 there are nearly a billion people globally who are hungry or malnourished. i am delighted about the cooperation between all the different campaign groups in the campaign and this government in pushing forward to, and under our presidency to make sure there is tax fairness and proper transferences and prime resources are exploiting and trade works for the poorest around the planet and that is why we do work hand in hand with these campaigns in the presidency. >> in 2008 you prepared the configuration panel. and the trust -- and the recommendations of -- never properly introduced which is a

safety issue. and enables the service changes rejected by the i r p. and date to implement higher recommendations and the pga. >> the german debate on the back of that. >> i would like to pay tribute to my hon. friend for the work on behalf of the local community. and understanding the changes to the services. and no permanent changes will be made without public consultation. team makes an important point about the role of the dependent configuration, and -- >> mr. speaker, in answer -- the deputy prime minister gave us a

long list of atrocities committed by the sri lankan government. why then is his government going to the commonwealth head of government summit in sri lanka, why are they announcing it six months ahead of time and why do they want to save an alleged war criminal at the share of the commonwealth? >> i think all of us except the controversy around this. what we will be doing by attending the commonwealth government meeting in sri lanka is using opportunity to cast a spotlight on the unacceptable in sri lanka. as i said earlier of course there will be consequences without changing conduct of the 3 lincoln of authority and the commonwealth matters to us all. common wealth is based on a number of values, all commonwealth governments should be warned not just to talk about

those values that make sure they are properly monitored. >> the special olympic movement showcases the abilities and the achievement of learning disabled athletes across the world while delivering positive inclusion education and health outcomes. the british games, special games take place in bad this summer. the deputy prime minister assure you're doing all it can to spread the legacy from last year's olympics across all disability sports including these special olympic games. >> i can give my hon. friend that assurance. my right hon. friend the prime minister, the point is to be his legacy and also advisory group being established, and the team is meeting special olympic gp shortly to discuss the potential links between the legacy from london 2012 and the national summer games which will be held

in bath later this summer. >> statement, the secretary of state. >> here on c-span2 we will leave the british house of commons now as they move to other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live when theys at 7:00 a.m. eastern when parliament is in session. you can see question time sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span2. for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions and links to international news media and legislatures around the world and recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> attorney-general eric holder will beat on capitol hill to testify at a hearing at the house judiciary committee. it is an opportunity for members to question him about the justice department's seizure of phone records from the associated press and the irs's targeting of political groups.

live coverage on c-span3 and 1:00 eastern time. on friday c-span2 has live coverage of the house ways and means committee hearing testimony from acting irs commissioner steve miller and the treasury department inspector general for tax administration live friday at 9:00 eastern. >> in every society the major buildings reflect the ground out of which they grow so major buildings reflect the philosophical, economic and political situation of that culture at the time. this building does that. this is an eloquent building. it reflects the movement towards secession. it reflects the use of slave labor, it reflects the social turmoil of the posts of war era,

it reflects the optimism of the new south in the 20th century and of course it continues to reflect south carolina today. the building was designed to be symmetrical. the original architect with the square tower rising above the roof line. you remember the construction was stopped during the civil war and the state after the war was not able to afford to build the foundations for that massive stone wall. what we see now on the outside of the building is a pressed metal dome. on the inside of the building from the lobby we look at what we think is that don't but in fact is architectural allusion that two dome's inside the original dome because the exterior of the building and the

interior floor plan are not symmetrical. on the house side, the dome looks like the u.s. capitol dome of. on the inside it is quite a bit smaller and different. >> learn more about the south carolina statehouse as booktv and american history tv look at the history of literary life of columbia, south carolina. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on booktv and at 5:00 on american history tv. >> china's roland relations between north and south korea. and strategic and international studies, and demilitarization. and the unification of the peninsula. the discussion was hosted by the institute for corean-american studies.

>> thank you for coming. you guys are all real loyalists, thank you for coming. before we start, this is friday afternoon, very important. the president of south korea just finished a visit to washington and now in south korea. and we think this c-span people. and way beyond this particular room. and let me briefly introduce the speaker. and recently he also said the officer asked the secretary of defense. and in washington. so it is all yours.

>> thank you for the invitation and interruption, i am no longer teaching at georgetown and retired from there. good to be here and appreciate the invitation. the outrageous threats uttered by north korea's new leader confirm what henry kissinger rose in his latest book about the prospects of a nuclear north korea, quote, the spread of these weapons into hands not restrained by the historical and political considerations of the major state augurs a world of devastation and human loss without precedent in our age of genocidal killings. a decade earlier when north korea was well along the way to acquiring a nuclear weapon henry kissinger said, quote, eliminating north corey's nuclear program is overwhelmingly in the chinese interests. they don't want nuclear-weapons

on their borders. that was not the first last time they made that assertion over 20 years, but far from being alone in that judgment. and china scholars has long been beijing opposed north korea's nuclear program as much as we in the west do. they said it is not china's interest. of problem is for more than 3 decades china has had a different view of what is or is not in china's interests. and not a matter of deep concern. a strong case can be made the strategic interest has been advanced by the nuclear missile programs. at least up to this point. and western aid to keep in power close communist and prevent

unified korea. and the responsible international stakeholder and essential partner in the 6 party talks and other negotiations intended to curtail the wm d activities. third, greatly enhance beijing's trade, currency, valuation, a human-rights. and when senator joe biden was asked why washington wasn't being tougher on beijing, and to rollback north corey's nuclear program. pyongyang's activities distracted washington's diplomacy and defense planning, diverted attention and resources from iraq, afghanistan counterterrorism and strained american public support for

overseas commitments. fifth, they ended u.s. counterproliferation efforts with iran and spread dangerous technology to other anti-western regimes and potentially terrorists. beijing has not been an innocent bystander or passive observer of north korea's activities. the startup technology for its nuclear program came from china by way of pakistan's network. much of the nuclear missile technology and materials from north korea to other rogue states has gone through chinese territory. china has not only been a proliferators of wm d but a proliferators of proliferators. last year defense secretary panetta said china has been complicity in developing north korea's missile technology. china has consistently blog dorr

weakened security kelso resolutions seeking to halt pyongyang's nuclear missile programs such as the 2005-2009 resolutions. when it is allowed something to pass the council has failed to follow through with the effective enforcement, and time will tell whether china's pattern of behavior will be more serious or sustained after the most recent security council condemnation and the bank of china's action against north korean companies. it is not only in the area of developing and proliferating weapons of mass destruction that beijing use its security council position to protect north korea against meaningful international sanctions, it also blocks can also resolutions condemning the unprovoked attacks that killed a total of 50 south korean sailors and civilians. through the careers of three generations of north korean despot's including shooting down a civilian airliner and its 200

passengers, kidnapping japanese civilians and asian film stars, seizing u.s. navy ship and imprisoning and its crew, beijing has always been there for a communist ally just as it was for the invasion of south korea 63 years ago. the north korean regime's treatment of its own people has been as monstrous as its international behavior. .. in an aspiring superpower that

demands the world's respect associate itself so intimately with a universally defined regime? the answer is that china's communist leaders are not easily shocked by north korean behavior. that in some ways mirrors their own governance not so long ago. even today despite decades of western engagement, beijing's authoritarian rule and external aggressiveness reflect a value system and worldview that is in many ways closer to pyongyang then to the west. neither is seen as a normal government in the international system. every few years another chinese general threatens nuclear destruction of american cities if the u.s. should dare to defend taiwan against the chinese attack. a sea of fire imagery, north korea regularly conjures is also proud of china's strategical vocabulary.

another repressive regime favoring the colorful regime is iran which happens to benefit from chinese and north korean missile and nuclear technology. wherever there is a state of pressing its people, proliferating dangerous missile and nuclear technology, are threatening its neighbors, china tends to take its side against the standards and values of the international community. given beijing's philosophical kinship, it's enduring support for north korea, should not surprise western observers. shared attitudes toward the west also help to explain the china-north korea alliance. in their official strategic doctrine, both see the united states as their past and future enemy. washington's decade-long preoccupation with pyongyang has served beijing's interest by distracting u.s. attention from the growing potential china threat, while enabling it to

foster as responsible asian power. beijing is quite transparent in declaring its worst fear, which is the end of the pyongyang regime and its replacement by a normal, unified, democratic korea. to avoid that result china is perfectly content to have the west with the nightmare of a nuclear armed north korea. the accepted rationale for chinese behavior is that it needs communist north korea as a buffer against the pro-western south korea or unified korea. but only extreme paranoia or duplicitous chinese intentions could envision an unprovoked attack on china from either the u.s. or a democratic korea, the absence of north korean or chinese aggression. either way, china's attitude towards north korea says much about china's attitude towards the west, and suggests that be on the north korea problem we

have an even greater china problem. while china's role in keeping the north korean regime in power and in the wmd business, it's no longer in serious dispute. analysts often except china's argument that its hands are tied, even threatening to cut economic aid would supposedly collapse kim jong-un's rule. and trigger a massive refugee flow into china. secretary of state kerry said last week the chinese authorities worried about north korean instability because they know that from a humanitarian point of view, they would have to deal with most of the problems. but it has been clear for 60 years that the sole cause of tension and instability between the koreas has been pyongyang's own bizarre and dangerous behavior. despite substantial aid and confessions from a comet himself -- south korean government,

north korea continues with those policies, and china has the power to change that. president clinton thanked china for controlling north korea's nuclear and missile programs. in 2003, president bush said he was heartened by cheng's commitment to a nuclear free peninsula. in 2008 he committed china's critical leadership role. the obama administration has expressed the same hope for chinese cooperation. during his visit to beijing last week, secretary of state kerry said, it is obvious that china is a lifeline to north korea. everybody knows that china provides the vast majority of the fuel to north korea, china is thei the biggest trading par, their biggest food donor. there is no group of leaders on the face of the planet who have more capacity to make a difference in this than the chinese. i think it's fair to say that

without china, north korea would collapse. precisely. nor is it obvious if pyongyang were faced with a credible chinese ultimatum, it would choose regime suicide rather than give up its nuclear program. it seems clear that china has never confronted pyongyang with that choice. so far despite its recent bombast, north korea has not launched another missile or conducted a nuclear test, and china has sent signals it has become dissatisfied with pyongyang's evocative of rhetoric. again, the latest conventional wisdom has that north korea has finally crossed a chinese red line by threatening to destabilize the region. but questions remain. is this more wishful thinking about chinese intentions, or is it the real thing this time? hasn't beijing decided to put the pressure on pyongyang? will be a reenactment of previous cases where it appears to take corrective action only

to go back to business as usual with north korea. is china this time genuinely concerned with north korea's actions? or isn't worried only about washington's reactions? president obama reportedly called xi jinping and told him if china does not like enhanced u.s. presence in asia, there needs to do something to reduce or eliminate the regional threat that caused it. was the president referring only to the recent deployment of missile defense assets following north korea's third nuclear test in february, or was he suggesting something broader? the official agency has forcefully criticized the u.s. for fanning the flames in the korean peninsula. it keeps any more fighters, bombers and missile defense ships to the waters of east asia carrying out massive melter trills with asian allies in a dramatic display of preemptive power. the article noted that washington sees both north korea and china as threats.

speaking in seoul before arriving in beijing, he made clear the u.s. would continue to deploy such weapons, unless beijing put some teeth into forcing north korea to denuclearize. that was the right message, but during his stay in china kerry seem to moderate his position from a warning to a bargaining chip. erased the possibly that if north korea gives up its nuclear weapons capability, the united states might reverse military mood in the region, under china. those with her additional missile defense in guam and japan. kerry said the discussion had included why we've taken the steps we've taken in missile defense. now obviously if the threat disappears, i.e. if north korea denuclearize is, the same imperative does not exist. for us to have that kind of robust forward leaning posture of defense. kerry later seemed to back off a little from the idea of a

straight quid pro quo. perhaps he had admired a possible analogy that occur during the cold war when he was a young naval officer in vietnam. washington had deployed missiles to our nato ally turkey to help deter soviet incursions into western europe. moscow was not happy about it, and 1962 station offenses missiles in cuba, which led to the famous cuban missile crisis. conventional wisdom at that time was that president kennedy had stood down the soviets and forced nikita khrushchev to withdraw the missiles. a few months later, however, the u.s. missiles in turkey were also quietly withdrawn in what is now confirmed as an explicit trade off. so in that case, aggressive communist behavior managed to first provoke a crisis, then cool it down by appearing to back off, while extracting a significant concession that was

not able to get otherwise. china sees the recent north korean crisis as an opportunity to reverse not only the u.s. actions of the past few weeks, but also the pivot that actually begin in the last two years of the bush administration and accelerated under president obama. beijing is convinced that washington is reacting not going to north korea's explicit threats, but to the perceived threat from china itself. missile defense systems that can shoot the north korean missiles can do the same with chinese missiles. russia has parallel concerns about u.s. missile defense systems that are intended to protect against the threat from iran, but can also destroy russian weapons. whether the imperfect cuban missile analogy applies here will depend on washington's actions going forward. will the resources and policy attention needed to sustain a robust, rebounds into a should be provided? or will we be allowed to wither

away under the cover of financial constraints such as the sequester? even before the legislation went into effect, there was already concerned that the administration's rhetoric on rebalancing was not matched by the deployment of resources needed to sustain and expand an american presence over the long term. achieving a 60-40 ratio of ships in the pacific, for example, could be done simply i drawn down navy assets in the mediterranean and persian gulf without adding anything to issue. in recently under the rationale of defense spending cuts, neither previously planned or as a result of the sequester, the u.s. military has taken several actions to diminish our presence and activities in the pacific. at 374th airlift wing based in tokyo cut its flight program by 25% and canceled its participation in the joint exercise of u.s. ally thailand. the air force canceled community outreach events bases across

japan prevented or reduced shipment of the movement and other port operation to enable facilities command and public works reduce normal maintenance and upkeep. all military branches cut electric power usage in official travel. civilian workers in asia like those in u.s. are facing furloughs. this visible shrink of the u.s. operations in asia provides concerns about america's friends and allies in the region that for all the talk of pivoting and rebalancing to asia, we may actually be moving in the opposite direction. that is exactly the wrong response they want from the u.s., given north korea's wild rhetoric and china's ongoing military buildup and aggressive behavior in the east and south china sea's. with reason to doubt the depth and sustainability of america's commitment to asia, some may feel it prudent to move closer to china, which will remain in asia for the foreseeable future. other countries such as japan

will decide to enhance their own defense capabilities to meet the north korean and chinese threats. as a general matter it would be a welcome development for our asian allies to pick up some of the slack averages but more vigorously and joint defense planning. on the other hand, some in washington fear that too strong a nationalistic response in japan and south korea could exacerbate the situation. once again the united states is seen as the indispensable aid nation, not on to defend against foes, but to reassure and if necessary restraint friends. hopefully any sign of u.s. arrangements to cool the north korean crisis will not jeopardize the essential long-term u.s. role in the region. >> thank you, joe. very succinct. now, before we turn, i would like to ask either larry or

david. larry? okay. >> thank you joe. that was a great presentation. i make him jufre touched on some very critical and most important issues. i do think it's important to recognize the quote i'm going to write down and keep, the proliferator of proliferators. i think that's a good thing of the relationship of the nuclear programs. you mentioned the make of korea and the recent action which i think is important. i also read a report which i don't know if it's true, but apparently north korea said, or asked china to take the case on and osha comp looks workers, they would employ them and apparently china rebuffed that. and i wonder, you're feeling of the action of the bank of china,

including some financial restraints on an potential rebuffing an action like that. do you think that china is, given the appearance that they are exerting some pressure on the north to try to make them back down? second thing that has interested me about the relationship with china, we put it in terms of u.s., prc, but china's relationship with seoul. i heard a chinese scholar, an american scholar with chinese academic background. he talked about the real change on the peninsula will occur someday when china realizes that its security interests are better served with its relationship with seoul than it is with pyongyang. and i wonder if, what you think

about that. because as i look at that, you know, we know that china is south korea's largest trading partner, and certainly the relationship with seoul is a much more productive one than the one with north korea, but, of course, everything that you laid out, why it's in china's interest to support north korea, you know, those are really incommensurable relationship with seoul and relationship with north korea. but i wonder if you envision that there would ever be a time when china would feel that seoul is more important than pyongyang, and will be the implications of that? >> thank you david. those are really excellent questions. on the bank of china as i mentioned we will see whether it's sustain. we've had iterations in the past of china preparing to crack down, appearing to get tough with then as time went by

suddenly people forgot about and china withdrew its pressure on north korea. we will see whether that happens this time. on the caisson thing, i guess it is now put at all the south koreans have our out of there, so completely dead zone now. i hadn't heard that new, china rebuffing the overture to take the workers, south korean and north korean workers, both? >> yes. it was in the japanese press this week, and said that north korea wanted them, asked china to take those workers, and i assume that they don't really want those workers going back into north korean society there because of long contact with south koreans. >> get contaminated. >> yes. and, of course, we read reports, some of them have been sent to reeducation camps and things like that. but i thought rebuffing that

request from north korea, i thought, i mean really there's no goodness that would come out of that for china but i just, you know, two things. there's not a pattern but i just wonder if china is at least given the perceptions that they're going to act stronger against the north behavior, tried to temper the north beaver? >> i think the answer to that is clearly yes, that they're giving that impression. there's no doubt that's the line that has been sent to all the western media, that china has had it now, it is putting its foot down, north korea has crossed the red line. time will tell, we will see whether that is a serious change in policy. if it is, i think it's encouraging, that this is what we've been asking for for 20 years. if they have finally had it, that would be a good thing. that would tie in with your second question about whether china would develop a more healthy relations with south korea. and i think, again, that would be a very useful development.

but i didn't mention when i talked about the buffer issue that china sees north korea this strategic buffer against this imaginary invitation from south korea and the u.s. to me that is absurd. i think more profound probably is china's concern about the contamination issue, it doesn't want a vibrant democracy on its border. prefer to have the authoritarian north korean regime. but from our perspective there's no doubt that we think it would be better not only for south korea and the west, and for china, if it devotes a healthy relationship with south korea and try to steer north korea in that direction. whether i it will reach that conclusion of course there's always a debate within chinese leadership. we don't know exactly what the pla is saying and what of the civilian leaders are saying. we can hold out hope, but short answer is i think that would be a very helpful development.

>> larry? >> i agree with much of what joe said. for example, i have thought for a long time that it was questionable whether china really opposed north korea's nuclear weapons program. my senses been for a long time that china not going to thing -- things to enable the program to progress, but that china's real attitude or message to north korea was, keep it quiet. don't reveal what you were doing. and the problem, it seems to me, china has with north korea in recent years is that north korea has been unwilling to keep it quiet with nuclear tests, with statements about progress in uranium enrichment, these kinds

of things. and, of course, the longer range missile test. and this is but more pressure on the chinese government. there is, as i think joe has alluded to, still a lot of resistance in the chinese government to making a break with north korea. but the first point i would like to make, and ask joe a specific question has to do with a new factor, which i think has entered the picture of china's north korean policy, and that is what you might call public opinion. in china. and since the december missile test, going into the february nuclear test we have been

reading about a lot of public criticism and china of north korea. internet traffic filled with criticisms and enunciation of north korea, and even criticisms of chinese support for north korea. several academics have spoken out more forcefully. there has even been some on the street protests outside a north korean diplomatic missions. the question i have is that with regard to u.s. diplomacy and rok diplomacy, what tactics or strategies could we employ in our diplomacy that would enhance our influence on this growing body of north korean critics in china? china, to increase the

attractiveness of our policies and diplomatic positions to them, to strengthen them in their arguments that the chinese government should change policy? are the things that we are not doing now in our policies towards north korea, that we perhaps could start doing that would have a greater appeal to these growing numbers of chinese critics in north korea? now, joe went over sanctions, and banks were mentioned. the action of the bank of china as reported in recent days. but to me, and i have talked about this before at the icas seminar sure, the big hole in china's non-enforcement of u.s. sanctions has been its

unwillingness block or stop the air traffic between tehran and pyongyang. we know, for example, from wikileaks that the bush administration made quiet overtures to beijing about this. in 2006 and 2007. but to no avail. nothing was done. we have the new reports of iran sending missile scientists, missile technicians, and probably also nuclear experts, do not only observe the recent missile and nuclear tests, but now to permanently stationed them in north korea. undoubtedly, they went to north korea from tehran. they probably refueled in the beijing airport, as the

wikileaks documents talked about as having drawn the bush administration's overtures. can we do anything to put more pressure on china to stop -- this would be my second question to joe -- or is this simply a bridge too far, given china's, not only close relationship to north korea, but also its close ties to iran? is this really a bridge too far, or are there things we could do to put more pressure on china to cut off this traffic? and money is part of the traffic, by the way. >> thank you larry. >> excellent question a very astute observation by very about the growing role of chinese public opinion to the internet and wood and all these things that i don't understand. the latest one i just read about is that they are gaining access

to the white house website, which has now been deluged with messages from people in china who have gotten access to the west, public available. so far china has not blocked it, but these people are using website as a way to protest against their own government policies, and asking the u.s. to support them. that's a very useful device. there's another one, its long-standing in existence, but, unfortunately, seems to be, see3 long-standing in existence, but, unfortunately, seems to be, seems to be cut back by this administration, and that is voice of america and the kinds of programs that we have channeling information. just the fact, just what is available, the kind of thing she just described made probably unknown to most chinese citizens. if they were to become known through our own media and the voice of america and china's like that, i think it could help increase the pressure. it's a dictatorship, it's authoritarian but there's a role

for public opinion and we ought to exploit it to the extent we can. i don't see any great change in u.s. policy to north korea. we've tried everything. we have run the gamut from appeasement to threats, and so far we haven't achieved a lot. but we haven't achieved a lot because of china hasn't played its part in those policies. so i think we can do more to let the chinese people know just how far the u.s. has gone, the west have gone, and trying to accommodate north korea's legitimate interests, but their own government has not been cooperative. and i think that's a way of encouraging pressure on beijing itself. >> larry, follow-up? dave? >> i do have two more questions, then i will turn it over to you. from president parks visit this week, very successful visit-by all accounts, two things that

struck me from her speeches and statements at first a joint statement, president obama and present bush ashman coming president park reiterated the 2009 joint vision, you know, that the ultimate in state is reinstatement of the financial. i think that is the most important long-term goal before the peninsula. and so my first question is, how does china really envision unification? you mentioned that they don't want a vibrant democracy for contamination, but i think, i think we'd all agree that maybe this isn't a good statement, but someday the regime is going to no longer exist. and although it is proven over the last 60 years, but when the regime does no longer exist, what do you think that china

will do in terms of unification of the peninsula? my second question is that president park unveiled her northeast asia initiative in her statement to congress, in talking about taking a lead in other issues, climate change and economic issues. and this goes back to my first question about the relationship with seoul and beijing, but do you have any idea, any comments on how you think that china will do that initiative? and if, in fact, they might participate in the? because i think that's a real change in the dynamics of the peninsula if seoul takes the lead in some of those issues there, and it might, it might change the diplomatic atmosphere with seoul. but china would have to play a role. so i would like to hear your

comments on those. >> thank you dave. >> absolutely, again, as you up and fly into question china is key in so much of this. on the reunification, obviously china would likely be mentioned, the resilience of the north korean regime. it's resilient because china has kept on life-support. if china were to change that policy it wouldn't be so resilient, and china has leverage to encourage change there. the dilemma for china, it seems to me, when you talk about reunification you are talking about a democratic korea. and a nondemocratic china is not particularly infatuated with that idea of having such a neighbor on its board but it's not just a contamination thing that you have a successful democracy as an example of why we don't have those freedoms in north korea, or china. we saw some of that during the taiwan election. a lot of folks in taiwan and

china said, gee, these are chinese people on the island in the is it some reason we can't do that here? but it's also the fact that a self democratic korea would also be an ally of the west, so china either through paranoia or calculations does not want to see that. whether it eventually -- publicly is not willing to accept concept of a unified korea, you know that, but whether in their private deliberations they see that someday it's going to happen and how we going to make the best of it, as this one of the condition they're going to demand is that there be no u.s. forces there. serving no nuclear facilities, so they will try to extract the best deal they can from the own security standpoint. on the second question about president park's northeast asia initiative and ways the countries there can collaborate, one of the last assignment i had at the defense department was in the air of humanity assistance

and disaster relief. and we work very closely with countries in southeast asia particularly on ways to collaborate, using the military, having military effort because they use other greater resources to handle a crisis. and it was rather ironic because it was right after both secretary colin powell and condoleezza rice had decided that all these meetings in southeast asia was kind of a waste of time, song and dance session, they have some derogatory comments. that was not well received in southeast asia. and people said the u.s. has turned its back on asia. within a year or so that changed, and then last years of the bush administration they started to attend these meetings, and it didn't take long for added dinner, happened to sit at the table with the head of the chinese delegation, and he said, oh, the asean region form is nothing but a testament out of american foreign policy. we have gone from totally

neglecting asia to suddenly co-opting the whole system of the organization. but i think those are the kind of things, the hadr and anti-piracy and proliferation, counter proliferation, the psi liberation initiative, certain ways that south korea can take a lead and i will play a collaborative role with its neighbors, hopefully china will get on board. china i think is one of the few countries out of 120 in the world that hasn't joined the psi, probably because taiwan is in it and it will be part of that. but those are areas where surely there can be cooperation among the countries there, and i'm sure president park's wants to bring china into those if at all possible. >> question, would you please go to the podium, please. >> to questions.

>> tourney microphone on, please. turn the button on the mic. >> just yesterday i came upon a very interesting article. i forgot the name of the author but he reviewed this article by someone who served under the clinton administration, very important capacity. what mr. bosco said today, the article i read in my comedies to questions i can go back and forth the point is that as you pointed out very well, the pattern of chinese behavior at each time of north korea's provocative behavior was that they resist it did exist possible, united nations. and when they did a great they were always last in an enforcement process of it, at last for decades the uk very good reason list of why they did

so. now, there's a very name is habit that american press likes to quote, that you one sign of senility or something is that you y same rules, same solutions to the problems that you could not solve before and you keep on applying it. we have known this chinese behavior for so long, and even to this day we seem to continue to ron it. that somehow china is the only card we have come and we somehow have to make them play. it is according -- this time in a different because we are having our nuclear enterprise, heavy arsenal, and bargaining chips has been offered. that on this you somehow contain north korea, we're going to increase our military presence and you're not going to like it, they have the ultimatum. and this time we're hopeful that

the approach that we took last four or five decades somehow this time they work. i am optimistic. that's question number one. the second question is about denuclearization and other issues around it. the article in the london book of reviews is more about role of u.s. concerning the peninsula than about china, and it talks about how the eight years of bush administrations sole success, it enable north korea to go nuclear. by starting with statements like axis of evil and starting working in addition, north korea never stopped enriching uranium, and the rest. so now suppose that our approach this time works, somehow china controls it. and makes north korea to keep un

which north korea is happy and walk away. is this the only plan would have? is there something else for korean context? the article points out, the article actually starts with an observation about this caisson complex that -- you heard about this? that according to this article, it's like a marshmallow and chocolate sandwich kind of thing between oreo cookie kind of thing. and south korean workers have every day distributed some 25,000, or 50,000 of these. north korean workers are getting paid to the government which takes wind shear out of it and gives them tenets. they hold the chocolate pies and went home and sold them in the black market as high as u.s. dollars, $10 apiece. it's a huge fortune, and that

might be where the hope is. chocolate pie. we must bomb north korea with chocolate pies. the emphasis is nothing -- forget the regime, pyongyang regime. forget all political rhetoric. forget even china. korea will not find its way unless north korean people will not change. and when will the united states focus on the people who are suffering? >> thank you. >> maybe later we can follow the experience of world war ii with the u.s. gis distributed chewing gum and cigarettes and that seemed to win a lot of friends for us. aside from the liberation itself, of course. on the question of whether or not optimistic or not, i am optimistic when u.s. policy is sustained, consistent, coherent. when it has those

characteristics they can produce the right result in both frien . it's when we send mixed signals and go back and forth with our policies that we cause confusion, miscalculation, and we do not achieve the desired results. so i will be optimistic when i see more signals from the obama administration that they would have thought this thing through, and they've made some good start. they have had some good initiatives here. i think when obama called president hu and said in effect, i mean president xi and said in effect, you don't like our forward presence in there? do something about it and you won't see so much of our forward presence. that was a good message. now, the danger of it is that xi was okay, we're putting pressure on north korea. now get the hell out of asia. know, we're only going to stoptn response to the latest north korean provocation, u.s.

presence in asia is a permanent, nonnegotiable. some hoping that there's no confusion as to what we're offering on the table here. [inaudible] >> thank you, joe. the concept of chocolate pie bombing, the whole it is it's a market to the work instead of powerful to the work. so this is what chocolate pie -- this is a gift of mayor. >> i do want to take too much time from the other speakers. -- don't want to take too much time from the other speakers. >> i think this entire discussion was very substantively and descriptively informative. i agree with just about everything that i've heard.

one thing in particular regarding whether we can do more to e regarding whether we can do more to encourage pressure on china, i would ask for some views on what pressure china can put on the u.s. in response. if we push, how much can they take back, and pull back? specifically, i'm thinking of the intervening variable vis-à-vis the u.s. debt, but also u.s.-china high-tech and industrial commerce. in the private sector in the u.s., particularly in dealing with chinese government, how is it different from chinese government u.s. government interactions?

i think there may be some different leverages there. also i would like to some views on the u.s. military and national security related technology procurements, for example, there are chips that we get from china and we depend on them for our aircraft, for communications, for weapon systems and so forth. it goes beyond that, but anarchy be brief i will leave it at that, and ask what are your views on this potential for china to come back with pressure on the united states? >> thank you. joe, dave, larry? >> steve, you can jump in. >> the potential is enormous. we are completely dependent on that our government does have

some limited capacity to develop secure chips. we do that for special parts of government. and it gets proliferators out to other parts of the government because the one or the uses most of them, can use all of them, but it's not a commercial level reduction but it's not something that could replace the chips in everything we even in the government, let alone out in the rest of the consumer market. they could and heartbeat turn that against us. you don't do anybody really talking about that because everybody is scared as heck that they will pull that card out, but it's something that needs to be considered by our folks. i've got my little toy here, and everybody else is bobby got four or five devices in their pockets and briefcases. every one of them is loaded with the chinese technology. and without it we are in deep trouble.

we could make all this stuff, but you're talking about multiple orders of magnitude in cost differential, and it's not, we can't turn it around like that. >> thank you, steve. larry? >> when christmastime comes this year and you watch our favorite movie, "it's a wonderful life," think about the character jimmy stewart plays, george daley, as the united states. and think about mean old mr. potter, the banker that george runs to and dexter help as china. and in a way that's kind of the financial relationship we have with china. we are in debt to china upwards of $2 trillion. i know you get all of these people writing, it is making a

difference, china needs us just as much as we need them. but as this debt to china build up, they do gain more leverage over u.s. policies, and they know it. that they gain this leverage. and i think it does influence how we deal with china, while u.s. priorities are with china, how willing we are to confront china over certain issues versus our reluctance to do so. this is a factor, and, frankly, it's going to be a big factor in the future than it is now. >> thanks, larry. the floor is open. craig, welcome. thank you. please. >> good to see you. >> my question has to do with

the implications of chinese public opinions. i agree it's a fascinating development, but i would put it within the context of many complaints that are coming from the public in a range of human rights areas our development construction, et cetera. and the government, thus far, is authoritarian and does not necessarily care. and so i have a question on a sort of realistic assessment on what can really change chinese behavior towards north korea, and that is a change in the chinese regime so that it shifts from authoritarian to open,

perhaps a democracy. and that ironically perhaps that's the prerequisite before we can ever hope for a change in pyongyang. so in that sense, the pyongyang regime could outlast the authoritarian beijing regime. what do you think of that scenario? >> and two, grace. >> will -- thank you, grace. spent i think one of the points i tried in the, until china changes its worldview of this comment and tag in the state added you towards the west, its own governments system, it will for as long as that goes on continued to be more of a potential ally to north korea than a friend or a whopping partner with the west. ultimately, what's needed is regime change in pyongyang and regime change in beijing. that's ultimately, maybe it will

take another 20 years or so, and we have promises from china over the years, you know, one of the promises they made to the olympic committee to get the 2008 olympics was we're on the path to democratization. we will be done -- conducting reforms, so the olympic committee said well, that should progress and that's a terrific quid pro quo. so here's the olympics, go for it. of course, within weeks before the olympics, china started cracking down and said -- instead of listening up. and its many promises over the years, when job our propagate 2003 speeches about the need for democracy. and then president who are someone else would say, well, hold it, we don't need democracy in the western model. we mean democracy with chinese characteristics and whatever that is.

for chinese democracy with democratic characteristics. and taiwan has been an interesting example. i heard someone who was there during the election that a lot of the local bars, they're watching the results, one of the chinese press was allowed and one of the chinese reporters said no, this just proves that our system, in china, is superior to what taiwan is doing. we know the results before the even count the votes. and others, that was a joke, but others in the group were muttering things like, you know, why is it that taiwan could pull this off? they have the same kind of system we have 30 years ago, a dictatorship, somehow they made the transition, it's working. they haven't collapsed. they are economically prosperous. is there any reason china, the people in china are inferior to the people in taiwan? so those pressures are the. i've been on voice of america a

lot come is terrific when you get actual chinese people calling in and speaking to you on the shortwave radio. and i've always encouraged that because they have many interesting things to say. they really want a democratic system there. they want to push toward. i was in shanghai a year ago at a think tank there. first i was surprised they invited me knowing my views, but they did. the chinese government apparently allowed it, but it was very open and a good discussion. they talked about, we really need of a democracy, before we're going to be the kind of world power that we want to be. no matter how many weapons would have, no matter how good our economy is, into we have the international community's respect as a normal governing system, we will never achieve any kind of status we want. so the push is there from the bottom up.

the chairs meeting resistance from some of the folks at the top. >> thank you, joe. follow-up question? we have one minute. >> [inaudible] >> please step to the mic. >> i tend to believe that china will ultimately become a democracy and it won't take that long come and in that sense i think it really may be a prerequisite for a major change on the korean peninsula. >> thank you, grace. with that, let's give our panel is a big round of applause. [applause] >> by the end of 1985 the caa is antsy about this. they don't like what is happening. some like what's happening. because the cia has gotten drawn in a little bit to what's going on.

rake in has not officially told the cia to do anything like this. they get reagan to sign, december 1985 what's called a presidential finding, a document that authorizes covert operation to a piece of paper that says for these reasons i order these agencies to do this and this and this, and is very specific. there were two things about this finding in december 1985 that were highly unusual, highly unusual. the first thing is it's retroactive. it's contrary to the law. the law states clearly a fine is supposed the signed by the president before the covert action is initiated. not after it's been going on. this finding december 1985 cents explicitly all prior actions are hereby ratified and approved. second thing that's unusual, it states especially, the document does, don't tell the house and

senate intelligence committees about this. don't tell them. it's a very, very unusual and questionable document that reagan signed. so why did he do it? it's basically because people, the to insist that reagan has to give them some kind of legal and political cover. cover. >> arms to iran for the release of american hostages monday, the iran-contra affair on lectures in history saturday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span threes american history tv. >> this weekend booktv is live from maryland, live coverage start saturday morning at 10 eastern including author scott burger at 1115 thymic on the dakota warriors. at 115 thymic kitty kelley on iconic images of the kennedy white house.

at 315 thymic the global financial crisis and after that. followed at 415 thymic by panel on the publishing industry. live all day saturday on c-span2's booktv. >> the senate agriculture committee yesterday approved a five year farm bill which sets policy on agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry programs. the committee passed a bill that cuts $2.4 billion annually that includes new subsidies for farmers. here's part of yesterday's session. is just under an hour. >> good morning. good morning. asked if going to take their seats. we're starting off this board with some michigan chocolate mends and georgia peanuts. so that's a good way to start this morning. we will call the senate committee on agriculture and nutrition to order. we'rwere here today, of course o market our committee bill for

the 2013 farm bill, the agriculture reform food and jobs act. last year in the middle of a hard-fought election year in the swirling partisan battles on capitol hill are, capitol hill, we in the senate agriculture, nutrition and forestry committee came together. we sat around this table. we worked together in a bipartisan way to craft a new kind of farm bill. one with major reforms, deficit reductions and a commitment to the diversity of american agriculture. even more important, our work last year reflected our commitment to the 16 million men and women in this country whose livelihood depend on agriculture and not who we depend for ourt r food. and noo food the end of a long days work gather with their families our roundtables

very much like this one. in the wake of the worst drought in decades, a drought that persist in many parts of our country, the talk at those tables is increasingly about worries to the future. we saw last year undeniable proof that farming is the riskiest business in the country. which is why this farm bill is so very important. when senator cochran and i sat at the beginning of the year, we agreed we wanted to build on the successes of last year. together, we have crafted another strong farm bill that gives farmers the ability to manage the risk, that streamlines programs and cuts red tape for farmers, and that recognizes the diversity of agriculture from the cotton fields in the mississippi delta to the cherry orchards in traverse city, michigan. we also continue our commitment to deficit reduction with more

than $23 billion in savings, and we will be 3 than $23 billion in savings, and we will be working with cbo as we move through and the managers amendments, and fine-tune this in terms of our final score, but i'm confident that we've hit about 23 billion in savings. agriculture has been willing to do frankly more than its part, from the first debate in the supercommittee to the farm bill we passed last year. this bill reflects agriculture's cuts from the sequestered and goes beyond that in spending reductions by making tough decisions and setting priorities that make sense for farmers, families, and taxpayers as well. the agriculture reform food and jobs act includes an even stronger commitment to conservation. one born out of the efforts by both conservation, environmental and agricultural groups who sat down together themselves to find

a way to protect our soil and water resources necessary to keep agriculture strong in america for generations to come. this bill continues our support for most vulnerable families, people who have fallen on hard times to no fault of their own and need help putting food on the table for their families. we have cracked down on abuse in the system without attacking the basic structure of support that many families have needed to get themselves through this tough economy. the good news is, spending on nutrition services is going down as our economy is growing, and more people are getting back to work. i want to thank my ranking member and friend, senator cochran, his deep knowledge and experience have been very valuable. as we sit in this room we see a wonderful portrait on the wall because of senator cochran's leadership as chairman of this

committee, and it's been, it continues to be a real pleasure to work with someone with such incredible knowledge and experience in agriculture. he's been an excellent partner and i greatly appreciate his hard work but also the hard work of his staff, and i also want to thank my staff, together. i think they've done an outstanding job. this is tough, frankly, for all of us as we look at changing a system, move into more risk-based approaches, and yet making sure we are addressing regional differences. not an easy thing, but i believe as we consider the manager's amendment today that we have, in fact, done that, and there are many people around this table that deserve a lot of hard work for getting us there. let me just conclude by saying that it's our job to make sure thmillion americans who

work in agriculture have a policy that works for the. they're the ones giving us the safest, most affordable food supply in the world. and that's why we're here. i would like now to turn to my friend and ranking member, senator cochran. and they will alternate opening statements between the majority and minority, in order of seniority today. and we also come if you'd like to submit a longer version to the record, we would be happy to accept it. senator cochran. >> madam chairwoman, thank you very much for your leadership in the drafting of this farm bill. it's going to save off the baseline $24 billion over the life of the bill. the bill reflects fiscal responsibility but provides a workable and strong safety net for families and producers of food and fiber that we hope they never need. we've made some reductions. we've streamlined and consolidated programs. there is also significantly less

mandatory money authorized for energy programs than in the 2008 farm bill. i think it is important that we move the bill through the congress and to the president for his signature. farmers and ranchers need the certainty that comes from a five your farm bill. we have tried to be fair to those affected by the bill, as well as to those who pay the bill. we hope that this is a workable bill that encourages conservation of land and water resources at the same time it rewards production of reasonably priced commodities. we need to move the process forward, get to the senate floor and negotiate ultimately with the house of representatives in conference and resolve our differences. we hope the president will sign our bill. i think it deserves his support. thank you. >> thank you very, very much. i would now like to turn to opening statements. we'll start with senator brown.

i want to know the, we want to k senator brown at this point for the brevity of his opening statement. at also -- >> i think he may go after me. [laughter] >> all right. senator klobuchar. >> i apologize, i will have to go back and forth to the integration market and judiciary, madam chairwoman. and thank you, ranking member, for your good work. it's been 327 days since the senate passed the last farm bill in june of 2012. since that time farmers, ranchers, wrote dinners in america have been through a lot. in 2012 we have the worst drought in 1956. costing the country billions of dollars. in minnesota, 74 counties were eligible for disaster relief due to the drought. drought continues to threaten fundamentals across the state. why we can't do much about the weather, we can do a lot to make sure that farmers and ranchers have the safety net that they need. we should not be delaying the passage of this farm bill in congress. i'm so pleased to work this mess

done, the bipartisan work this committee has done and am also pleased that we found a way to do this with still reducing the debt. we have a limited direct payments and -- family farmers and urge this committee to stick with a $23 billion target to ensure that we have the strongest impossible to go to the floor and have a conference with the house. in minnesota specifically come we are pleased with the disaster relief provisions any. the energy focus on the fact that the sugar program which is tens of thousands of jobs in our state remain in this bill, the no cause program, and over all within its been a great job. i love working with the committee members but i want to thank you for your leadership and look for to getting this bill to the floor for not having another 327 days. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. let me turn to senator roberts and say, as we look at this bill going forward, it is based an

overwhelming remains the bill that we passed together last time. it was a pleasure working with you at that time, and we continue to work together to make sure we have the strongest bill possible. so senator roberts. >> [inaudible] please don't take this out of my time, as her a note. spent would you like to read the note? is this like -- [laughter] passing a note in class? i'm not sure. >> if you'll just nod your head, that would be fine. thank you. madam chairwoman, ranking member cochran, -- [inaudible] as we market the new farm bill, the

agriculture food and farm bill. as you reported out, we worked very hard to sign a reform oriented farm bill into law. unfortunately, we are unable to do this in 2012. now we're back again around this table once again. that's nothing unusual for a farm bill. last year i was proud to say that we put together a bipartisan bill that strengthened and deserve the safety net, i.e. in all things we've had come an ongoing issue with farmers, richard, landers was crop insurance. i think this certainly benefits all of our producers and rural america, too. we also provide close to 24 billion in deficit reduction. we even passed a bill through the senate with regular order, imagine that. it is beyond -- pardon me, let me be clear i still want to pass on the provide long-term certainty to farmers and ranchers and the families in kansas and all across the country. however, it stands today, a do not believe this is a reform bill. i believe it a rearview mirror

bill. target prices under any name whether they are countercyclical payments, adverse market payments or government subsidies can which are proven to be trade and market. it's beyond frustrating. a year ago with us to build that no countercyclical program, and today we're asked to support the new adverse market payments program that just answer the subsidies and continues target prices for all commodities even though there are areas in the country where we do not want them. we are literally trading and saving the direct payments we knew we had to give up. this market always has target prices it raises a guaranteed price level for rice by $2.80, to $13.30, and phoenix job from the 495 target price, 523. these prices are set so high that may cover a producers full cost of production. essentially guaranteeinghathfarr above average.

this budget upon a time when looking to make smart cuts to farm programs, simply don't have to justify a program that pays produces more than the cost of production innocent to becomes nothing more than another income transfer program, not a risk management tool. try to speed this up. to be specific, it is guaranteeing a producer $2.40 per 100 a week profit, at an average of 7900 rate per acre, this meant would guarantee that delta pharma a profit of about 190 bucks are acre. of course, the real problem with farmers plenty for a government program and not for the market is that these programs only served extended period of low prices. we all know this is not good policy, and it's bound to have unintended consequences like impacting planting decisions. when base acres were established over 25 years ago, kansas planted 2.8 million acres of

corn, 4.2 million acres of sorghum, 1.6 million acres of soybeans, and will put 1 million acres of wheat. we were mono agriculture, and most recent three-year period, kansas farmers planted 4.6 million acres of going, to put 6 million acres in sorghum, foreign and acres of soybeans, and 8.8 million in we. that's about 5 million fewer acres of wheat and sorghum and 4.2 more acres of corn and soybeans. these figures are mirrored in many other cropping region, especially in the midwest. madam chair, these occurred because farmers made those decisions. not washington. our producers have planned for the domestic and international market. i also have long-standing that bpl concerned, deny states lost cotton deputy okays in brazil in part of the decoupled target price program. it is not right to force the same risk on to other commodities when we already know the potential pitfalls. the wto stove is hot. we should not reach out to touch it again.

madam chairwoman, i hope that we can improve upon this bill today to more resemble the risk oriented and market-based approach this committee has previously taken as of last year. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator brown? senator brown is passing, right. senator gillibrand? >> thank you for this thing. i was at my statement for the record. i will just articulate one priority. obviously, it is a priority for all of us here in the senate to reduce our debt and our deficit. it's something we're all here to do. it's also priority for us to create and grow an economy. i just want to make a statement of families who are living in poverty, our children, our veterans, our seniors, some of our active duty personnel are going to suffer if we cut food stamps. i believe that we should not be bouncy the debt or the deaths on the backs of these hard-working americans who are just hungry. and i think it is a moral statement and obvious on the fight against any cuts to the pele to think about what wan

they're actually doing when they're offering the nature of these and minutes. thank you, madam chairwoman. the rest of my statement will be submitted for the record. >> without objection. thank you very much. senator chambliss? >> thank you very much, madam chair. first of all let me commend you and the ranking member on working hard once again to produce what we all know from firsthand experience is a very difficult bill to produce, the process is always, always difficult to go through trying to match up on regions and all crops. i want to commend you. and i think we all agree that the farm bill needs to provide an effective safety net for farmers and ranchers to rely on in times of need. the agriculture producers face a combination of challenges such as whether am input costs and market volatility that is all combined to determine profit or loss in any determined year. 2084 bill provided a strong safety net program for producers

and successor legislations must adhere and honor the same commitment made five years ago. and while i appreciate the comments of my friend from kansas relative to the approach in the changes that were made between last year and this year, we are not guaranteeing anybody a profit. the 2008 bill was the most market owing to build we've ever seen. all you have to do is look at the reaction of the markets to determine that. we have had less payments coming out of washington under the 2008 farm bill, i'm certain god-given doing the research of any other farm bill in recent memory. with the proposal in the 2012 farm bill, that was going to be reversed, but with the approach that the chairman and the ranking member made here, i think our commitment to having a market-oriented policy from a longer-range standpoint is being reinstituted. the biggest issue facing our

country now is there going to an deficit, and i commend this committee for doing the work necessary to find -- in fact with the impacts of sequestration taken into account, this bill provides around 23 billion in savings for mandatory programs. to go towards deficit reduction. that is remarkable, madam chair, but you been able to craft a bill with that kind of number in there under conditions we are operating in. i understand there are different ideas around this table as to what is the best safety net. i urge my colleagues to recognize that one program does not fit all. the bill before us attempt to provide producers with options to find what works best for them, and that's a step in the right direction. that's something we've never done before, is to give the kind of options that are available in this bill. a new program known as adverse market protections seeks to serve the needs of those who are not protected by the agriculture crop insurance program.

it's imperative that the farm safety net provide protection for multiyear price declines, especially for southern crops like rice in. since the protection provided by our crop insurance and we don't work and are not sufficient. also i would like to recognize that the cotton policies contained in the chairs mark represent fundamental reform provided to carton farmers. been treated 2.8 billion in savings towards his committee's budget target the legislation eliminates and changes all title i programs, providing direct support to those involving in cotton production that puts us down the path to resolving the wto dispute with brazil. this is going to be my fourth and final farm bill as a member of congress but as a member of this committee i'm a strong support of georgia agriculture for 20 years, i've witnessed several disputes especially regional disputes.

resolving those disputes and doing important work for country's agriculture industry has been the business of this committee since, and i'm confident that we can balance the needs and interests of growing commodities and regions in order to reach our common goal of getting a farm bill across the finish line. madam chair, i thank you for your great work, thank the ranking member, and i look forward to our discussion today. >> well, thank you very much, senator chambliss. and i also want to recognize your leadership over the years, because we also the wonderful opportunity to look at another portrait on the wall that is a symbol of your leadership, and you will be missed both in this committee and i know by the senate, but we very much appreciate your dedication over the years. ..

>> i'm honored to be a part of the committee and be part of the bill and the work involved. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam children and ranking member koch run. we appreciate the hard work and reform oriented legislation. like all of the other members of the committee, i recognize that our producers need a strong five year farm bill that ensures our nation has the world east safest, most affordable and most reliable food supply and fiber. we know the only way to imlish this is for this committee to report a bipartisan bill that provides a safety net for all crops and regions, i