horn of africa. even as we speak, india and the united states are participating in rimpac and malabar joint naval exercises. secretary hagel will explore broadening our deepening, the deepening possibilities of our relationship with india when he travels there in early august. counterterrorism is also a challenge to both of our nations. ..

has helped us confront common threats that bring terrorists to justice. but there is obviously room for us to be able to do more. when terrorist attacks took 400 indian lives in 2013 alone, we know that the threat of terrorism remains too real and far too hy for indy at's people. confronting terrorism requires our continued partnership and continued vigilance and it also means leading with our values. indy and the united states are two nations that have worked hard to overcome our own divisions so that today we draw strength from diversity. we have got to provide that example to provide opportunity beyond our borders addressing conditions that allow extremists

to thrive in the first place. we talked candidly and he said to me i asked him about their muslim population and what was happening, he said x percentage of the population is muslim and we are very wary because the bad guys have a strategy. they grab these young minds, 13, 14, 15, 16, they pay them a regionally and when they get the mind they don't pay them any more. they don't have to. then they send them out to cut to recruit, conduct a mission and subvert the state. they have a strategy. do we? it is the prime question for all of us and in so many parts of the world where 60% of the population is under the age of 30, 50% ended the age of 21, and

more in some places, if these people don't find jobs or get an indication and don't have opportunity and dignity and respect and a voice you know who is going to grab some and say out of frustration there is a better way. that is part of the challenge of our responsibility as great global powers and how we became the most dangerous impulses of a more interconnected world. one challenge, into dependent on this planet, is this. this challenge of a lifetime called climate change. for millions of indians, extreme weather and resource shortages are not future threats. they are here now. they are endangering the health and prosperity and security every single day. in indiana's largest rice

producing region, west bengal, the monsoon rains have been 50% lower than average. this comes after the monsoon's all but failed last year. in several indian states. helping to cause the worst drought in degeneration. affecting 120 million indians. in parts of northern india, armed bandits have imposed what amounts to a water tax demanding 45 buckets a day. so believe me, it is not hard to measure the ways in which climate change every single day is already a catalyst for instability. i can show you places in the world where tribes fight over a well and people i dying because of the absence of water. parts of india suffer from a once in a generation trout, others suffer from guess what?

historic ranges. when i arrived in india last summer, grappling with historic floods that killed 5,000 people. climate volatilities taking the:indy at's population and so is pollution. of the ten cities in the world with the worst air quality six are in india. each year in india the effects of air pollution caused 1.5 million deaths. so we know what the down sides are. but happily, guess what? we also know what the solutions are. forging these solutions is 8 huge economic opportunity for both of us. the solution comes from areas where we already do things very well, where we already made great progress, where innovation, smarter energy policy, clean energy technology are already defining the future.

let me share with everybody, i reinforces again and again whenever i get a chance. the solution to climate change is energy policy. it is not some magical unreachable thing out there. it is not hy in the sky. it is energy policy. and where we put good energy policy in place we reduce the emissions and we begin to contribute to the solution. it is a huge market, my friends. i remind people market that created the great wealth of the united states of america in the 1990s, which made americans individually richardson they have ever been in american history at the top end it made people richer than they did in 1920s when we didn't have an income tax and every single quintile of american income earners saw their income go up in the 1990s. you know what that was?

$1 trillion market with 1 billion users. high-tech computer, personal computer, etc. market. today's energy market, today's energy market is a $6 trillion market now. with 4 to 5 billion users growing to 9 billion users over the next 30 years by 2015. just think about that. is an opportunity for future numbers of jobs, transformation and the provision of our power, transformation and help, lowering pollution, moving into the new energy sources, providing safety and security and energy so we don't have instability and i could run on on the possibilities not least of which are global responsibility to stand up for, leave a cleaner, better, more sustainable earth to our children and grandchildren. a way of living up to our responsibility as stewards of

the planet which by the way is directed to less in every major scripture of every major religion. both of our nation's pride ourselves on science and innovation so the bottom line is this is up to us. it is up to us to deliver. i know prime minister mohdi understands, he has called for a saffron revolution which represents energy and he said this revolution should focus on renewable energy sources such as solar energy to meet india's growing energy demand. he is absolutely right and together i believe we can at last begin a new constructive chapter in the united states/india climate change relationship. the united states has an immediate ability to make a difference and we need to eliminate the barriers, to keep the best technology out of the indian market. in the united states, could help

india find and develop new sources of energy through renewable technology, greater export capacity for liquefied natural gas. we have brought together $1 billion in financing for renewable energy projects and with this funding we helped to bring india's first 1,000 megawatt solar power online. we need to bills the civil nuclear agreement so that american companies can start building and providing clean power to millions of indians and we need to build $125 million investment we made in joint clean energy, research and development center. prime minister mohdi made a commitment to electrify every home in india by 2019. with fewer limits on foreign technology and investment in in the's green energy sector, we can help me clean power more

cost-effective and more accessible at the same time. we can provide 400 million indians with power without creating emissions that dirty the air and in danger public health and by working together to help an entire generation of indians leapfrog over fossil fuels, we could actually set an example to the world. i readily acknowledge that today's climate challenges did not start with india and we know that the united states is the second largest emitter of carbon in the world, the first now being china who have overtaken us but we also know the weekend solve these problems alone. they require a partnership and our partnership requires our leadership. by acting right now to reduce emissions just as president obama has done in united states by investing in innovation, by working together in the un

climate negotiations we can prevent the most devastating consequences of climate change and meet this generational challenge. lastly, in this century, one that will continue to be defined by competing models of government, indiana and the united states have a common responsibility. we share it. to prove that democracies can deliver for their citizens. our two nations believe that when every citizen a matter their background, no matter their beliefs, can make their full contribution, that is when we are strongest and that is when we are most secure. we are two confident nations connected by core values, optimistic nations never losing sight of how much more we can and must achieve. from women's rights to minority rights there is room to go

further with our work together and we also have to speak with a common voice against the violence against women in any shape or form that is a violation against our deepest values. the united states and india are two nations that began both of their founding documents with exactly the same three words, we the people. by deepening our partnership we can work together to deliver opportunity to all of our people and become stronger nations. president roosevelt described america as having a rendezvous with destiny. in the's first prime minister spoke about in the's tryst with destiny. this can be a moment when our destinies to converge, we harness the capacity of our two nations, if we deepen our partnership, make smart choices,

sees these opportunities, the united states and india can create a more prosperous, secure future for the world and for one another. that is why i leave for dehli tomorrow night and the president will welcome prime minister mohdi to washington in september because this is the moment to transform our strategic relationship into a historic partnership that honors our place as great powers and great democracies, we intend to leave not an instant behind us, we are going to get to work now, thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we ask that you please remain in your seats while the secretary makes his exit, thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> a couple live events is all you about on our companion network c-span3. house energy and commerce subcommittee will focus on the implementation of the affordable care act and hear about the gao report on the web site's healthcare.gov. that is an 9:15 a.m. eastern. at 3:30 p.m. the atlantic council hosts the former palestinian prime minister to discuss the future of israeli/palestinian relations. now a hearing on u.s. policy toward north korea, members of the house foreign affairs subcommittee in asia and the pacific hosting representatives of the state department for a little more than an hour.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to the afternoon subcommittee hearing. i want to thank ami bera for serving as today's ranking member again and thank our distinguished witnesses for being here this afternoon. it has taken six months for our schedules to all line so we hope this afternoon's hearing is a productive one. in march the subcommittee held a hearing to examine the findings of the united nations commission of inquiry report on human rights in north korea. anyone who would be anyone would be hard pressed to deny the extent of human-rights abuses being committed by the most repressive totalitarian regime on earth. the report, the first of its kind, was a shocking wake-up call for the international

community to take action, for the u.s. to take action. unfortunately it has been five months and we are still waiting for significant action on this. north korea is one of the greatest security threats to the peace and stability of asia and one of the united states's most vexing security challenges and one of the greatest policy failures of the past two decades. this year marks the 20th anniversary since the united states and north korea signed a framework which called on north korea to freeze operations and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program. this agreement framed our relations for about eight years. from north korea's vantage point it was a ruse as the entire time pyongyang continued to develop its uranium and richmond capabilities and in an effort to continue nuclear negotiations with north korea we took a multilateral approach and began the six party talks.

once again concession after concession. this method of negotiation also failed and has been stalled since december of 2008. where are we today? north korea has tested three nuclear devices since 2006, the most recent in early 2013 and has declared itself in nuclear-armed state. belligerent and rendering rhetoric from pyongyang's militant leader has escalated since he took the kim throne in december of 2011. it has launched 100 ballistic missiles, artillery and rockets combined since the beginning of this year at its web of illicit activities and dealings with terrorist organizations around the world has expanded. ultimately north korea's proliferation of nuclear weapons and support to groups that oppose western interests continues unfettered and without limitation. most of the world's is tension today is locked on places like ukraine where russia is supporting the infiltration of rebel troops in crimea and

eastern ukraine and the middle east where hamas operatives in got caught trying to wipe israel off the map but we must also look east. come as no surprise that just this past weekend it was reported that hamas militants are negotiating a weapons deal worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with north korea for missiles and communications equipment. this relationship was first made public in 2009 when 35 tons of surface-to-surface rockets and rocket-propelled grenades were destined for iran which then plant to be smuggled to hezbollah in lebanon and hamas and gaza and last week by u.s. federal judge ruled that north korea in concert with iran and syria was responsible for providing materials and assistance to hezbollah terrorists who fired rockets into israel in 2006. nothing is being done to obstruct these weapons sales or the cargo ships traversing the

world's aleutians with weapons in the cargo bay. north korea has branded itself a 1-stop shop for missile and nuclear materials and technology. the ultimate facilitating bad guy providing what ever anti-american friends once so long as it gets the oil and cash and materials it needs to maintain the power of the kim regime. there is no secret that north korea has long avoided with the likes of iran and syria and in fact helped build syria's nuclear facilities destroyed by israel in 2007. north korea's last nuclear tests wearing iranian nuclear experts were reportedly present undermined the harsh reality. north korea's weapons capabilities are advanced and possibly more advanced than iran's further heightening the tremendous failure of efforts made by every administration since the early 1990s. the grave threat north korea poses to the rest of the world, the obama administration's

official position is north korea is, quote, not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a korean airlines flight in 1987. even more staggering on july 20th john kerry noted that north korea was, quote, choir than previous years and the u.s. is moving forward. and the past few months, one of the most historically active periods in north korea in terms of testing missiles including un restricted ballistic technology. i don't think north korea's behavior can be called quiet. simply put the administration's do nothing, strategic patience policy, crumbling pieces, waiting for north korea to besiege for negotiations aimed at limiting its nuclear and missile potential. kim jong-un has no interest in denuclearization. outsourcing north korea policy to china and north korea's top

trading partner and source of revenue has also yielded little progress. we are still sitting idly by waiting for beijing's patience with pyongyang to wear thin. the ongoing pursuit of restarting six party talks is futile. it has been six years and at this point we are only wasting time as pyongyang augments its material stockpiling improves its missile and nuclear capabilities. the administration refuses to impose tougher and more targeted sanctions on north korea like those on russia, zimbabwe, iran, cuba, sudan, and belarus because it believes doing so would, quote, unnecessarily hinder to the the the to conduct foreign policy. it won't lift the world's most prolific money launderer, counterfeiter, state drug-traffickers as a country of primary money laundering concerns but iran and burma are and current policy is done nothing to help the north korean people.

i remain disappointed that so little has been done to hold the kim regime responsible for human-rights abuses detailed in the un commission of inquiry report. and their allies in asia. we cannot continue to wait for north korea to decide wants to negotiate. nonnuclear north korea is an elusive goal if the administration maintains its current strategic trajectory. the kim regime is responsible for the horrific deaths of people not only within north korea bat around the world. it is time to put our resources together and act rewarding north korea for reversible steps on the pretense that it will commit to denuclearization has failed before so let's not by the same horse twice. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses this afternoon and i will now yield to the ranking member, acting ranking member

today, ami bera, for five minutes. >> thank you for calling this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for your service to our country and your patience in what has to be one of the biggest of the matter challenges in terms of moving north korea forward. this year marks the 20th anniversary of the great framework between the united states and north korea. our foreign policy towards north korea has always been challenging given a north korea's posture in the region is inconsistent at times and at times aggressive. that said throughout the years we tried and numerous occasions to negotiate with north korea on denuclearization while promoting the strategic patients approach. and nuclear ambitions, allies in south korea and japan, and dismal human-rights record.

north korea's testing of ballistic missiles and nuclear threat the last 15 years poses serious security concerns in the region. earlier this month north korea fired rockets toward south korea's border presumably military exercises. and the diplomatic dialogue with japanese citizens the korean people's army one shorter-range missiles into the sea of japan. this type of provocative actions i deeply concerning. and the trilateral relations with south korea and japan is crucial in the inter korean conflict. we have to take an original approach and work together with our partners in the region. the conflict has multilateral implications and therefore is

not only a u.s. interests. as the world's greatest democracy we must take a different stance with the international community on north korea's running antics. north korea must view our partnership as a regional effort to support a peaceful and stable pacific region. we have to put the pressure on the north korean government with stricter sanctions so we can engage in diplomatic dialogue and make positive steps towards denuclearization. we should encourage north korea to enforce the 2005-6 party talk agreements. north korea should be sincere with its commitment to the joint statement and allow i a eat inspectors to renew their activity in the country. i am also concerned with north korea's deplorable human-rights record. north koreans do not have freedom of speech, movement or religion and are subject to chronic starvation and a dismal public health system. the u.s. based on our values as americans should remain a strong

supporter and leader within the global community and promoting human rights. look forward to reviewing our actions, positions and policies towards north korea as we work on denuclearization and our human rights record. mr. chairman, with that i would like to yield back and thank you for calling this hearing. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, welcome home. mr. chairman, thank you for holding these hearings. a few months ago you and i were at the dnc and also discussing north korea with president park and prime minister abbe. north korea does not trade with us, it needs china from which it obtained the enormous subsidies. we should be trying to change the behavior of north korea directly and more importantly china, with carrots and sticks even though the north korean government is despicable and publicly we will all try to

outdo each other and who could be more opposed to the government, carrots and sticks are called for. on the carrots side, we ought to be -- discuss with north korea a non-aggression pact. they have asked for that, it isn't our usual way of conducting state department business, something we could give them. and if we could see mr. cheney might be vice president again they might appreciate an official u.s. position against invasion. second, we could tell the chinese even if there is unification no american military forces will be stationed over the 38th parallel. as to sticks, we have to look at the lopsided trade relationship with china, access to the u.s. markets is not guaranteed by the

u.n. charter. and it is not as ambitious because it oppresses its own people. and erratic governments shown to be the more erratic in the growing nuclear stockpile, we make every reason to trim the danger opposed by north korea. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> i begin with glyn davies, the ambassador, special representative, secretary of state for north korea policy, he was appointed in january of 2012 to facilitate hy leveling agent with other six party partners and serves as a senior emissary for u.s. engage in with north korea. he oversees u.s. involvement in six party talks process, and other aspects of security, political and economic human

rights and humanitarian assistance regarding north korea. special representative davies is the career member of the senior foreign service and served as representative of the united states to the international atomic energy agency and united nations office, his prior assignments include assistant secretary of state, a bureau of east asian pacific affairs, and the national security council staff and we welcome you this afternoon, mr. ambassador. next i introduce robert king became the special envoy for north korean human rights issues in november of 2009 following confirmation by the united states senate. ambassador king worked under ambassador davies and has the lead and human rights and humanitarian affairs. prior to his appointment ambassador king worked on capitol hill for 24 years as chief of staff to congressman tom lantos and concurrently staff director of the for affairs committee of the u.s.

house of representatives, democratic staff director of the committee and held various professional staff positions since 1993. ambassador king holds a ph.d. in international relationships from the school of law and diplomacy. he has authored several books and numerous articles on international relations and we welcome you here this afternoon, mr. ambassador and i'm sure you are familiar with the 5 minute rule so i won't take a lot of time but the -- you have a minute and hope you wrap up as close as possible when the red light comes on. we begin with you, ambassador davies. >> you can turn the mike on. there we go, thank you. >> thanks so much, representative ami bera, thanks for inviting me. thanks for inviting us to testify on u.s. policy toward the democratic people's republic

of korea known as north korea. the north korean regime is a global power riot, works against the interests of its own people, its neighbors and the world. >> would you pull the mic closer to make sure everyone can hear? >> is that better? it violates its obligations by pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles pose in a growing threat to the united states, our friends and allies and the global non-proliferation regime. it devotes an enormous amount of scarce resources to a massive standing, all nine of ten north koreans suffer. we have no illusions about the nature of the regime. we refused its provocations with concessions and have instead in sanctions and told the d b r k that neither occasional offenses towards more frequent aggressive behavior will lead us to accept the nuclear arms korea. and to engage when possible will

apply pressure as needed. despite backtracking we are committed to authentic and credible denuclearization talks but talks won't succeed until pyongyang recognizes and demonstrates that it will live up to its promises. regrettably, it rejects meaningful negotiations. instead it has unleashed multiple provocations that have drawn condemnation and increased its isolation. and the violation of u.n. security council resolutions. these followed similar launches earlier this spring punctuated on march 30th with a new type of nuclear test. it wants talks without preconditions. translation in seeks open-ended 6 party talks to gain acceptance as a camouflage of its secret weapons development. we are not interested in talks

unless their primary or business, implementing north korea at september, 2005 promise to denuclearize. the republic is at the center of our efforts, there's no daylight on what we expect from north korea. president obama speaking in south korea in april expressed support for president's vision of progressive unification. the u.s./are ok alliance in its 62 year is stronger than ever and our efforts to maintain peace and stability on the peninsula had a strong deterrent signal to north korea that the security is not to be found in nuclear-weapons. our growing trilateral security cooperation also sends powerful message of deterrence to pyongyang. as north korea's last remaining protector and patron china has a key will to play in convincing north korea to denuclearized. that is why north korea remains at the top of the bilateral

agenda with beijing. john kerry race prominently in early july. we welcome the steps to oppose pyongyang's nuclear-weapons program. since 2012 china has voted for two rounds of u.n. sanctions and last year published 900 item control banning their export to north korea. together with our allies and partners we seek to show new with creates nuclear program stands in a way of secure future it says it wants. we continue to increase the cost of its illicit activities by unilaterally cutting sanctions. we were) with the u.n. security council and like-minded partners to ensure full implementation of the sea? they -- security council resolutions. july of 2013 feature of a huge cache of military demonstrates u.n. sanctions are effected for. of welfare of north korea's people is an essential focus of u.s. policy. the vast majority suffer from

the government's military first policy. the u.n. commissioner of inquiry's sobering report detailed a systematic widespread human rights violation being committed by the dp r k. my colleague robert king piled efforts to manage -- the human rights is a constant focus for us. three u.s. citizens being held by north korea. deck continued detention is a serious stumbling block to improved u.s./d p r k relations and we will advocate for their freedom and thank congress for its steadfast support in these efforts. we aim to convince the d p r k to comply with its obligations, an end its isolation and respect the rights of its people. each outrageous north korea act is driven to act belligerently by others hostility. is now clearer than ever that north korea is developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles merely to prolong the kim regime and develop to the

international -- north korea is a loan for north korean actions and resolving the d p r k nuclear program is a multilateral task. just as north korea's original aggression against the south was met with a strong response from the united nations standing up to north korea today requires a concerted effort by the entire international community. thank you again mr. chairman and members of the panel for the opportunity to appear before you today and i am happy to take your questions. >> i will now turn to embassador king, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ami bera, members of the committee, thank you for this invitation to testify with ambassador davies on u.s. policy on north korea. i will focus on human rights aspects of our policy which there has been brought part is -- bipartisan cooperation. i want to thank you for your interest in the north korean human-rights issues, as the hearings you held both here and

in seoul and tokyo for victims of their families. north korea remains a totalitarian state which seeks to dominate all aspects of its citizens's lives including denial of basic freedoms and human rights. reports portray a vast network of political prison camps for individuals subjected to forced labor under horrific conditions and the government commits human-rights violations including extrajudicial killing, enslavement, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, objection of for citizens, rape, forced abortion and other sexual violence. this past year we made significant progress in our efforts to increase international pressure on the north to improve its human rights. in march of this year the u.n. human rights council, in march of last year the human rights council established a landmark commission of inquiry to examine grave, widespread and systematic

violation of human rights in north korea. refugees from north korea gave the commission firsthand accounts of abuse and violence and the international experts describe the government policies that repress their people. public hearings held in seoul, tokyo, london and washington d.c. video and written transcripts of their hearings in the u.n. website. the commission's final report was one of the strongest reports the u.n. had produced. the commission concluded that the gross violations of human rights have been and continue to be committed by the north korean government and its officials and in many cases they meet the high standard, hy threshold for proof of crimes against humanity and international law. the commission said its final report to the human rights council in march of this year, after hearing from the commission the council

overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for accountability for those responsible for the abuses and the creation of a field office under the high commissioner of human rights to preserve and documents the human rights abuses. south korea has agreed to host this office. building on this momentum the united states with australian and france convened the first ever un security council discussion of human rights in north korea. the commission presented its report to north korean refugees, spoke of personal experiences. the security council members attended that meeting, expressed support for the report and called for accountability for the crimes that it outlined. as i participated in various u.n. meetings, two themes struck me. it is clear that the north is feeling growing international pressure, mounting condemnation of its human rights record

struck a chord in pyongyang. secondly the growing number of countries critical of north korean human-rights, the only countries to defend the north are the world's worst human-rights violators, belarus, cuba, syria, zimbabwe. mr. chairman, another key human-rights matter i want to raise is our effort to increase access to information by the north korean people. that country is one of the most closed societies on this planet. internet access is reserved for a tiny tiny elite, is illegal to the name radio or television set that can be tuned to any channel other than the official government media. anyone caught listening to for radio or television will be sent to a reeducation camp. despite these consequences of listening to foreign media, 35% of north korean refugees and travelers listen to foreign radio broadcasts in north korea. 4 in dvds are being seen by

larger numbers. 85% of those interviewed have seen foreign, primarily south korean media. some 2 million cellphones permit north koreans to communicate with each other although only domestic calls are permitted and phone use is carefully monitored. because of the closed nature of north korea our international media efforts are among the most effective we have of breaking the government's information monopoly. thank you for continuing congressional support for the broadcasting board of governors and the media that it supports including radio free asia and the voice of america. finally mr. chairman island to reiterate one point is that ambassador davies has made. we have no greater priority than the welfare and safety of u.s. citizens abroad. we continue actively to seek the release on humanitarian grounds of kenneth d. a. matthew miller and jeffrey fouls though they

may be reunited with their families. just as important that north korea address the issues ambassador davies talked about in terms of security and nuclear issues it also must address its egregious human rights violations, the choice is clear. of north korea does not take this action it will face greater isolation, condemnation and increasing pressure from the international community. >> members have five minutes to ask questions and i will begin with myself. on july 20th secretary john kerry was quoted as saying north korea has been quieter. i wouldn't describe the historic number of missiles and rocket and artillery launches this year so far, nearly a hundred ,'s quiet. i also don't believe north korea hasn't staged another nuclear test this year, we would not

necessarily call pyongyang's behavior quiet. can you clarify why john kerry is describing north korea as such and tell us how you can justify that classification? >> mr. chairman, the secretary said a lot of things. that was one thing he said. to place it back in context the secretary was referring to the fact that we are now sometime on from the last major strategic provocation by north korea, that they have either launched the three stage intercontinental ballistic missile or tested a nuclear device. >> do you think he would want to rephrase that differently or would you? >> in context it is easy to understand what the secretary was saying which was the collaboration and diplomacy we have been conducting with south korea, china and other partners in the process has gone the message through to pyongyang that when it acts strategically,

when it tests a nuclear device and the only country on earth to have done it in this century when it launches a three stage intercontinental ballistic missile world will react, it will react strongly and unanimously, that is what the secretary is referring to. it is absolutely the case and the secretary has spoken to this and other senior officials that north korea's recent behavior is unacceptable, the fact that it continues time after time to launch these ballistic missiles, violate u.n. security council, and -- >> i agree with the administration, it is unacceptable. i will turn to ambassador came, and you represent the north korea human-rights portfolio. and doesn't make human-rights issue enough of a top priority. at best the second tier issue,

even if it is given sometimes slips service by calling it a top priority and constant focus, as such i am disappointed that following the release of the u.n. commission of inquiry report in my view little has been done. noaa human-rights sanctions, no executive orders, no move for a vote in the security council. can you tell us what is being done at this time to hold north korea accountable for the mass atrocities described in that report? it was a horrific thing to read and why there has been so little movements since the report's release and also i you aware that there are three americans currently detained in pyongyang, and one of those individuals, jeffrey foul, from right outside my district in ohio, i am told he is being brought to trial,

accused of carrying out hostile acts against the country. can you provide us with an update, where in the process the administration is to get these individuals released. we have to be careful because we don't want to jeopardize their situation or put them in any more jeopardy from where they are. i understand that but the degree that we can handle that i would appreciate some comment. >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. with regard to the attention we give to north korea's human rights i believe it was lyndon johnson who said you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. that is what we're trying to do in pushing on the nuclear issue and also the human rights issue. as we talked earlier, there is a lot that has been done with the release of the report. we have been attempting to use the u.n. report to put pressure on north korea.

in the un security council we have already had an informal meeting where we had 13 of the 15 members attend, discuss the report and discuss its recommendations. we are also in the process of looking towards activity in geneva, continue our pressure in geneva at the human rights council on the human-rights report. we are also going to have discussions in the general assembly in october in which the commission of inquiry's report will be discussed, there will be a resolution that will be prepared and adopted in the general assembly at the end of the year. we are very active in terms of looking at how we might further push this forward in terms of actions in the security council. with regard to sanctions, we are looking at sanctions. one of the issues we need to do is to do whatever we can in concert with other countries. sanctions by the united states alone are very limited

effectiveness. we have very little relationship with north korea, very little economic connection. to the extent we can work together with our allies and jointly adopt actions to take together i think the more effective for those issues will be. a brief quick comment, three americans being held in north korea are a great concern to us. we communicated, north koreans are concerned, we requested repeatedly that they released on humanitarian grounds. this includes mr. foul as well as kenneth d. a. and jeffrey miller. we are hoping to be able to have some progress on that, we continue to oppress the north koreans, we continue to work through the swedish government which takes care of our interests with regard to american citizens. i briefed your staff on this and you are aware of that, and would be happy to talk with you about it. >> i will like to continue to

follow up at the staff level. thank you very much. i now recognize the acting ranking member, gentleman from california, ami bera. >> thank you. in your opening testimony, every movement starts with the framework that was laid out in the 2005, six party talks. it is a starting point to move forward. also ambassador king and ambassador davies, in describing north korea, you describe a global pariah, you describe the crimes against humanity, a human-rights violations, and from this vantage point when you look at the kim regime is a regime that is less focused on

its people and more focused on itself. and these negotiations, we can continue to further isolate north korea but we have also seen how the kim regime responds in a provocative manner. e.u. accurately lay out that this is -- the north korean negotiation. this is a u.s./japan, korea, china, russia negotiation in the framework of regional stability. of those countries, we all have a vested interest in this region but the key in this case lies with an active engagement on china's behalf. ambassador davies, i would like you to comment on the talks we

have had with china, how china is viewing the new north korean regime and comment on china's role in moving these negotiations forward. >> china and north korea are not at their best historical moment right now. china was vocal and active beginning over two years ago when the new third generation of leadership took over. and will not support north korea taking provocative acts. in a sense, north korea has not been a good partner of china of

late. and send nature of its relationship with north korea, the chinese have begun to take acts that i somewhat remarkable, and warning north korea not to engage in strategic provocations' publishing 900 items, control risks which are somewhat dramatic. and north korea, imposing stricter is on this control and so forth. and to look at the chinese, try to figure out the top down he is engage in this. and another diplomacy, and all

the partners on five parties, convince north korea that its future does not lie in pursuing these weapons of mass destruction. future lies in the promises it made in the middle of the last decade abandoning these weapons, coming back into the fold for the international community, behaving better as an international actor and the chinese have done these unprecedented things. we said to china we appreciate it very much. only one problem, that is that they haven't yet worked to fundamentally change the calculus of pyongyang so this is a work in progress but we made progress and we will see that it. the new leadership in beijing understands they can retain the status quo forever and this is a case where if you keep at it in a multilateral endeavour, at the core of our concerns and diplomacy, china quite central,

we can ultimately make progress. >> if we look at the north korean regime that is provocative and potentially unstable in the region, into dependence increasing trade between korea cit cit, china and japan and ourselves and china, our economy are increasingly interconnected and we all benefit from a stable region. there is a real -- china has to recognize that an unstable region is not in china's interest and really creates some problems so we do have to move forward in the regional conversation and we have to move forward in partners and i hope china is there, increasing the pressure and increasing and isolating north korea but they are on the wrong path. thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we will recognize the gentleman

from pennsylvania, mr. perry. >> thanks for being here. listening to some of the answers to the questions, it made -- gave me some new questions and new things to think about and you talked about we have made gains. one of my questions is going to be the strategy of strategic patience. many would contend that it hasn't done anything. my question would be what are the significant results of-? quite honestly i feel like asking what are the that quite honestly i feel like asking what are the significant results from the context-of looking at a thousand years? is this my lifetime? convincing north korea's leader should that this isn't their pathway to the future, who are

we kidding? does anybody in this room think these people have the same mindset about their futures that the people here have? the leadership, maybe peasants, maybe the under class, the people cited in the human rights council report have that view of some brighter future possibly, at that it should change. what would motivate the people at the top to change anything? i am curious. let me give you a question. what are the significant -- significant results, how long is the strategy supposed to go and what makes you think these folks would change their mind that whatsoever? >> strategic patience is like a bumper sticker stuck, car that doesn't get taken off. i have been at this job of view years, i never described our policy and strategic patience.

it predates me. is inaccurate. secretary of state when he was asked about it when he came into office said that is not our policy. it is strategic impatience. we will continue to do everything we can, not have a coffee klatch and convince them of the logic of it, use pressure to point out there is only one way forward. it is going down this path of nuclear denuclearization. this regime is surviving. they want to preserve the status quo. they don't want anything to rock their boat. it is the world's only historical example of a dynastic communist system, father to son now and its third generation. they want to keep that party going on. what we are seeking to do with china, south korea, japan, russia and the rest of the

international community is pumped up the volume of a message to north korea's that that is the road to ruin for north korea. trying to to for scarce resources into the development of these expensive weapons systems while also trying to feed their people which they are not able to do adequately for almost a generation isn't going to work. what they need to do is give up these weapons, began to play by the rules in the up to their promises. >> i am trying to listen. i have a limited amount of time but pumping up the volume on rhetoric, they're hoping to keep it going and as far as the west or somebody in the west or coalition partners telling us it is not going to work, from their perspective it worked for three generations. we are not going to rock the boat. with all due respect, the cuban rights council includes the likes of cuba and the democratic republic of the condo and some

of these other bad actors that abuse their own citizenry and acting like that is going to be a vehicle to shake north korea's leadership off its foundation, i would like to have whatever you folks are drinking and eating every day because you have a wonderful view of some rose colored future. we are the united states. i am not trying to -- this is a 20-year-old failure in my opinion. is not fair to impose all this upon you. but taking the same actions of the past, it is not strategic -- to me it is strategic apathy or avoidance or i don't know what it is but doing the same thing over and over again for the next 20, 30, 40 years and expecting a different outcome if i were here in 40 years we will be having the same conversation. you can comment on that. >> we are not just talking diplomatic messaging and sending nice letters, we are talking

about cutting off the input to their weapons program through sanctions, through interdiction and great successes there. when panama rolled up the largest of the north korean conventional weapons in july last year, korean freighter trying to go through the panama canal that was indicated that the rest of the world gets the message. ..orean freighter trying to go through the panama canal that was an indicator the rest of the world gets the message. when 80 countries condemn north korea's decision to test a nuclear device at the beginning of last year and took action to join with the sanctions regime internationally to impose costs on north korea, that's what we're talking about here. no, we're not talking about an attempt to convince through a high school debating society. we're talking about reduce their running room, prevent them from selling their weapon systems that they need to sell in order

to get inputs for their weapons program. but we're also talking about keeping a hand open to north korea if they have this change of mind. that's the diplomacy part of them. i was engaged with them at the beginning of 2012. we cut a modest dale with them to give them a chance back which is security guarantees. iney launc adt take it. that was his choice to make. the result was near universal condemnation and action taken by nation states. it's a little bit like watching paint dry. i understand it. the cold war took three generations. sometimes these problems are so pernicious that they sell to take the patient application of increasing amount of pressure accompanied by diplomacy in order to get these actors to realize that they're going down a path that's leading to nowhere. that's our strategy. if there is on alternative, we are all leaders. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would like to associate myself with the frustration with the

gentleman from frustration -- pennsylvania. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> well, if we are associating ourselves with frustration, i'm frustrated, and i'm sure you are and i'm sure everyone in the audience is. i'm not quite sure what the relevance of our frustration is to trying to fashion a public policy that creates change. i would like to explore that with both of our witnesses. first of all, as you know, or may know, we managed to build the other day on the floor, chairman royce and myself, that passed unanimously adding to the sanctions regime on north korea, and i assume you both probably were unaware of that, and welcome your reaction. i assume you support it and hopefully it becomes law we can use it as another tool in the kit back. ambassador davies?

>> for us it's a bit of a third rail. i'm going to tear clear of that. i think sanctions are a tool that's about it and i think we have demonstrated that the action was taken both unilaterally and working with our partners around the world. we remain very open to further sanctions options. win and if they make sense to deploy them, to use them, i'm committed to finding a multilateral way forward. i wish there was a silver bullet we could fire to solve this problem. smarter people than they would have figured it out a long time ago. >> where do you think the pressure points are? i heard what you were saying about china, which was quite intriguing, but in some ways if china has lost leverage over the regime of pyongyang, then where are the pressure points that the west can turn to or south korea can turn do to try to rein in

behavior or reward good behavior, punish bad behavior, i mean, where are those leverage points? >> well, china has lost leverage. they've just decided there are limits to the leverage they are willing to exercise. so when it comes to food and fuel for north korea, china is critical in that respect. so there is more china could do. but we think it works much better if the world, in particular, the neighbors of north korea act together on this, supported by the rest of the international community. this is the achilles' heel, the fact it doesn't have -- it's unable to feed itself because it's broken its own economic system, hollowed it out over the years. and so in terms of ways to put pressure on them, these are some of the ways that we can do that.

>> and i appreciate that, but i was thinking about the normal kinds of leverage when you look at sanction regimes, you know, we are looking at it on russia right now. the ruble is exchanged. they have a stock market. they have external investment. they have trade flows. all of which can now be influenced in a way they were not as influenced when they were the soviet union. they are feeling some heat. we don't really have that kind of leverage with the north korea regime, do we? >> we have limited leverage, that's correct. >> they use nuclear program as leverage over the west in terms of food supplies, emergency suit -- food supplies and the like. >> one of the biggest points of leverage we have is a strength of our alliance relationships, particularly with the republic of korea because it's their peninsula and also japan. building up our allies and our ability to defend our friends

and ourselves against north korean threats is a huge part of what we have. >> let me just in the last minute i got explore the china relationship again. if i understood your testimony come in the sense there's been a reassessment in china about the nature of the relationship with the regime in pyongyang. is that your testimony? >> they are debating it. >> okay, they are debating it. do you believe as part of that debate the new leadership in beijing is -- first of all, the economic ties to south korea are far more important for beijing, frankly, the north korea, is that not to? >> many multiples, sure. >> given their exposure and the fact they are stakeholders in the success of the capitalists korea economy, are they, do you believe, more open to pressuring the north for say market reforms similar to their own? >> they've been trying to

convince north korea for years to engage in reform other economy and the north koreans have resisted that. >> what leverage have chinese prepared used to rein in election behavior, try to achieve some of those market reforms, and are they prepared, do you believe common some kind of timetable to move eventually towards an accommodation with the south if not outright reunification with the south? >> the gentleman's time has expired. but you can answer. >> i think this is one of the fascinating conversations that sort of occurred during the recent summit meeting between president xi jinping and president park of south korea. it is a sitting beijing is voting with its the. now the president chun has met multiple times with his counterpart in south korea, has yet to meet, traveled to north korea. things are beginning to change. i wish they were faster but these are the changes we're observing.

>> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. davies, how has rouhani's regime altered the north korea iran relationship? >> i'm not sure i'm qualified to describe what is happening between those two countries, other than we watch very closely any proliferation or signs of proliferation that might exist between north korea and his regime. regime. >> does the administration of any evidence or reason to suggest that north korea and iran have intentionally focused on different aspects of nuclear weapons capability to speed up the final result for both countries? >> with great respect your started to be down deep into intelligence matters. these are the sorts of things we'd be very happy to brief you on in a closed hearing. but again it's a matter of serious concentration within the administration. >> given iran and north korea's cooperation in the past, do you

think it's likely that north korea would share any future nuclear test data with iran's? >> that's calling for speculation on the part of the witness. i just don't know. >> i don't think we're bound by the federal rules of civil or -- >> i'm sorry. i'm trying to be flip. but again, i think intelligence information -- >> the witness will answer the question. >> thank you, your honor. you may proceed. [laughter] >> pardon me. would you like -- >> it's a concern. iran and north korea have cooperated in the past. >> i think is every incentive between them in every aspect, that's correct. >> you don't think the rouhani regime coming in has an change any of that dynamic there that would lead to cooperation, that

is led to the cooperation in the past? >> not that i'm aware of but one would hope that there would be changes. >> and reports just north korean energy needs have been met by iran and that iran's desire for armaments has been met by north korea. reports have suggested that cooperation. what do we know about trends and oil consumption by north korea and the their stockpiling iranian oil? >> i'm not aware of the provision of iranian oil to any great extent, i've got to say, to north korea. i'm just not aware of that. >> switching to russia a little bit. have increased tensions between russia and the west affected russia's relationship with north korea? >> well, russia's relationship with north korea fundamentally changed in 1989, 1990 when the soviet union disappeared and the client relationship that existed just -- disappeared. they have a very, very small

economic relationship, quite frankly. they have a political relationship but it's not nearly as important now as between pyongyang and shine and between china and north korea. >> so you don't believe the russians have intensified or accelerated any weapons sales to north korea in recent years the? >> i'm not aware of anything significant in that regard, no, sir. >> north korea starts international sanctions in a lot of different respects. one thing i believe that one of the largest suppliers of counterfeit cigarettes in the world, believe it or not, and counterfeit currency as well. any current administration actions to close these loopholes and more rigidly enforce the sanctions that you like to expound on for a minute and 10 seconds? >> sure. from the standpoint of counterfeit goods, there was a day when that was a booming

business. i think that day has passed. that's something that we watch very, very closely. but north korea will obviously stop at nothing to try to gain resources to use, to develop its weapons program, and that's why we concentrate so much energy on nonproliferation not just lending -- unilaterally but with our friends and partners and allies. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in listening to your testimony i think it's rather interesting, again, with one of the key players with basically the rogue miss of north korea and what they are doing with the relationship to iran, and -- i think using your words, and then it got this little bit long but it was something to the effects of study and watching what is

going on. that to me, and there's something in your written testimony this is ultimate, mr. chairman, our policy is to bring to realization that north korea must take steps necessary to end its isolation. in light of that, what we will call the desirous goal, what many experts contend the administration strategic patience of weight and watch as he is not a given instant of the results were north korea, by offering it more time or a 40 more time to pursue its own objectives. what's the administration's assessment of its strategy, it's engagement and strategic patience? >> our assessment is we've made some progress. it's not nearly enough. we've got a lot of -- >> what would you say your greatest accomplishment is?

>> i think our greatest accomplishment is in achieving just the last couple of years to united nations security council resolutions with teeth that had attached to them -- it was unanimously that you. china and russia voted for them. hezbollah, hamas, iran, this whole nexus of issues which i know is that important to you, we are doing more than just studying and watching this. obviously, what we're doing is seeking to disrupt illicit shipments, enforcing the sanctions. we know that they would naturally like to do with each other but we're doing everything we can to prevent that from developing. >> i think in the end, what other things beyond to united nations resolutions which may or may not have teeth and the enforcement that someone like to see, beyond that what is the next step, what is the next big accomplishment? what is the next big thing to ensure basically what you said is your own goal, is to

encourage north korea to become a model citizen which under the current leadership i'm not even sure it understands the definition of model citizenship. so it's a discussion here tonight. what would be the next process to? >> we settle for north korea starting to do with its problems to do with a long time ago and instantly started to do with the past, which is to take steps in steps to denuclearize. in other words, freezing their nuclear programs, inviting the iaea back in to inspect them. eventually leading to the dismantlement and elimination of the north korean nuclear weapons program. that's the foundation of the six-party process that we've been engaged in for many years, and we've made a great deal of progress indicative to china keeping the solidarity of japan and the rok with us. there is no daylight between any of the three allies, in order to

get north korea moving down that path of the nuclearization. they are far away from it, and, therefore, we are in a pressure face and that's where we concentrate a lot of energy on is putting pressure on north korea so it understands it only has one option, and that is the peaceful, diplomatic option. >> and i understand that and there's an issue i will discuss with my very capable staff. but there seems to be at least somewhere along the line for north korea there is at least some ways around what has been quote put in place for strategic containment and isolation for them. because at this point summit is just not come in fact, if anything there's been actual, i don't want to say regression, but has not been a lot of progress action. they seem to be happily going about that they are isolated and the like to get back what they want to do so on own terms. the concern and the good part,

and i appreciate the chairman having this discussion, is just simply the fact of working with others which is a good thing, but somewhere there's a gap in the system. somewhere there seems to be again, rogue nations, others will have dealings with north korea and not pursuing these assets. i think that's where maybe a situation in which there's a much bigger stick along with a carrot that maybe can influence this but especially for south korean partners in this process as well. again i think it's not an easy situation to answer and appreciate your interest. thank you. >> the gentleman yield back. will go to a secular go to a second language if it will just be the two lizards and we should be wrapped up within 10 minutes or so and i think we will have the votes shortly. begin with myself. recently japan and north korea have reengaged on the issue of japanese nationals abducted by north korean agents back in the '70s and the '80s, an issue that froze relations for the

past number of years. in fact, i met with a family whose daughter was abducted by north korean agents back in 1977 at the age of 13. and i met with an action a number of times over the years as well as a number of the other families. it's truly a sad and outrageous story. pyongyang upgrade further investigate the fate of japanese abductees in exchange for tokyo's lifting some sanctions, which they apparently agreed to do. it's a sad state of affairs when you can leverage kidnapped citizens for some relief in sanctions. my question is, what you think is the leading outcome of this agreement? what's north korea's motivation for reopening investigations, and how much advance notice did the administration have before japan and north korea reach that agreement? do you have any concerns about

these negotiations, consider north korea's long record of deception and deceit? >> we stand with japan in terms of their desire which we completely understand to try to resolve this humanitarian catastrophe. i met with the family a number of times myself. i was there with the ambassador kennedy when she first met with them and the families of the abductees. so we understand why not just, but the people of japan want this resolved and we support their efforts to do this. the japanese have kept us very closely informed as they have taken any steps with, limited sets with north korea. and we've indicated to japan and we said publicly that we are supportive of all of the efforts that japan has undertaken as long as they are undertaken, transparently. and, obviously, what's very important for all of us and

shared concern of the japanese is that we have the paramount concern for the north korean nuclear missile threat and the japanese was very explicit in indicating to us that they agree with us very much. so we will watch. were supportive of it and we will see where it hits. north korea is now on the hook. it got to conduct this investigation they promise the japanese they would conduct. so we will be watching very closely to see what kind of results the north koreans come up with and whether or not -- what the japanese are imposing on them. >> thank you. also, ambassador davies come in your prepared statement you said that china is quote north korea's last remaining patron, unquote. considering its budding relationship with russia and others networks with countries in the middle east, iran especially, i wonder if that's completely accurate?

the recent economic trade deal between russia and north korea comes at a very opportune time for pyongyang, provides pyongyang with economic boost that it needs to counter the sanctions and also to counterbalance the chinese who have been putting some pressure on them but not nearly enough. i think a lot of our minds -- for russia to undermine u.s. efforts to cut off north korea's financial and economic well being while enhancing its own out of influence, vis-à-vis the u.s., in for example, the ukraine crisis, can you tell us what sort of goods russia is providing to north korea, weapons or oil or gas or food, or whatever? and how is the russian and north korean relationship being considered as part of the ministrations strategic calculus and efforts to effectively

pressure north korea since rush is also trying to bolster ties with china? it is anything being done to counter these trilateral cooperation between these nation? >> mr. chairman, actually the russian north korea relationship is very, very small in terms of trade and some of the steps that moscow announced were basically the recognition of the existing state of affairs. for instance, they announced debt relief for north korea. i don't think anybody in moscow ever expected they would get that debt repaid to begin with. the trade is measured in a few hundreds of millions of dollars a year. they've been talking about some new projects that could be of interest, infrastructure projects, longer-term undertakings. and so far they are still a bit at the margins.

we stay in touch with the russians. i try to talk to him about this. we have a shared interest in denuclearization, and this is its as part of russia. rush is a stakeholder in the nonproliferation treaty. they don't want north korea to develop nuclear weapons but i think the their series about th. did have -- the tactical differences they would begin to work on paper right now i think it's fair to say that the agreement, the level of agreement we have on strategic issues with russia outweighs some of these deals that you're talking about at the margins. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. my staff is given an article from yesterday's paper this is north korea threatens nuclear strikes on the white house. i'm not going to take that seriously other than maybe they're watching some dvds from hollywood as well that are getting smuggled them. i do take seriously that they

continue to try to develop longer range missile technology and so forth. and as they acquire and develop the technology they really are a threat to not only our regional partners and allies but then, you know, guam and some of our territories all the way to hawaii that we do have to take very seriously. and that does create a sense of urgency in moving things forward. my colleague from virginia and, mr. connolly, kind of underscored the challenge your. sanctions with the regime, that does not seem to care about what happens to its people, are very difficult. and all indications suggest that the kim regime, you know, is not taking the interest of north korean people at stake here. so they are the ones that clearly are suffering.

we have a limited toolbox. certainly as we ratchet up those sanctions, just thinking through various scenarios, chairman chabot touched on your opening testimony, ambassador davies, where china is north korea's last remaining patron. what would happen if china join us in the sanctions if we just thinking through, and really did cut north korea off? how would north korea respond to? >> well, china has said that they support fully united nations sanctions, and i talked about some of the signs that the chinese are beginning to take really unprecedented action in that direction, signaling to north korea they will pay a price if they don't come around, in particular on the nuclear issue. this is why when we talk to the chinese, we try to talk about

how we can work in concert to bring pressure to bear on the north koreans, in a surgical way because we don't want to do anything to the people of north korea but we do want to thank interest of the regime when it comes to these weapons. we're going to keep at that because we think increasingly the core chinese interest in stability on the korean peninsula and our core interest in security, that these are convergent. and we are seeing signs for the first time in decades that the chinese also recognize this, that their stability will be affected and thus we can address proactively north korea's pursuit of these weapons. so that's where we are concentrating our energy, and we are saying to the chinese, there's more you can do. we respect the factual make decisions about how you will do it, but we need to do more. it's more effective if we can do

together with our partners. >> we need to do this in partnership, increasingly showing north korea there really is only one path forward, that is the escalation, denuclearization, and becoming a more conventional nation. shifting to a different scenario, again, north korea continues to posture with, you know, missiles towards the south korean border and so forth, again not helpful. what we did south korea's response be at this juncture, i think south korea has shown incredible restraint given some of north korea's provocations in recent years. if, in fact, there was a misfire accidentally or intentionally that were to land in the south korean city, seoul is not that far away, and what have the

south koreans indicated their response would be? >> the south koreans are increasing resolve that should there be a publication on the part of north korea, that they will respond. this, of course, due to the fact that in 2010 they were two deadly attacks by north korea on south korea, including, resulted in the deaths of south korean civilians. so this is what our alliance with south korea is all about. ensuring that together we can present this united front on the peninsula to north korea and they can understand that they can't repeat the aggression that they perpetrated on the south in june of 1950. that those days are gone. and that the best path forward is that the vision that's been laid out by the president of south korea who has talked about a path forward and falling peaceful unification, people to people, infrastructure development and so forth, and so

far pyongyang, north korea has rejected that. >> and i would want to make sure people in south korea know that, as one of our close allies in the region, we do stand with them and the right to defend themselves and to make sure that those listing in north korea understand that we stand with the south koreans spent its job one, that's correct. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i think that is the end of the question is this afternoon. we want to greatly thank our panel, ambassador davies, and ambassador king, for your testimony this afternoon. members will have five days to provide us their statements or submit questions in writing. and if there's no further business to come before the committee, we're adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. >> the senate is about to gavel in to continue debate on more than three and a half billion dollars in emergency spending. the money would be used to do with the unaccompanied immigrant children entering the u.s.,

israel's iron dome defense system and response to the wildfires out west. also awaiting action before the senate recesses for the august break, the house-senate optimize unchanging veterans health care treatment. that passed the house yesterday. the house is working on a number of bills today including their funding for border security, changing the law dealing with child immigrants. and the highway entrance protection fund that you can know-hows debate. they have gaveled in. follow that on c-span. here now on c-span2 we take you live to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, as we make the

august exit, may we hear the words of the poet longfellow "art is long, time is fleeting and our hearts though stout and brave still like muffled drums are beating funeral marches to the grave." may our lawmakers remember that history will not judge them so much on what they say as on what they accomplish. they will be known by their fruits. teach them to number their days, that they may have hearts of wisdom.

as the seasons come and go, may this wisdom keep them from majoring in minors and minoring in majors. working together may they avoid the frivolous and reap a harvest worthy of their high calling. and, lord, we thank you for the service of our faithful pages. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, july 31,2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 488. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 488, s. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other

purposes. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill postcloture. the time until 10:00 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the majority will control the time from 11 until 12:00. we will notify all senators when votes are scheduled. s. 2709 is due for its second reading, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2709, a bill to extend and reauthorize the export-import bank of the united states and and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection being heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, i

respect, admire, applaud senators cantwell and manchin for this work they've done on this most important bill. we need to find a way forward on this. there are some who have made this very difficult to do, and it's so important to the economic stability of our country. i met yesterday with the head of boeing aircraft, and they have 800,000 jobs indirectly connected to this. i shouldn't say to this, but their company, it is a significant part of what they do and need to do, get their financing in order. it would be a shame if we weren't able to renew this. it expires at the end of september. mr. president, before we finish our business and senators return for the work period at home, i want everyone to know about what's going to happen when we come back.

following the august recess, we're going to convene on september 8 and we're going to be here for one week, two weeks, and two days. that's it. september 23 is our target date to adjourn until after the election. i hope we can do that. this leaves us no more than as i've indicated two weeks and two days. that's not a lot of time for the workload that we have to do. we need to pass appropriations measures to keep the government from shutting down. we need to pass temporary extension of the internet tax freedom act. we need to do something about, as i just mentioned, about ex-im bank. we have to do the defense authorization bill which is extremely important for the fighting men and women of this country. we are going to address the udall constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. and we're going to reconsider a number of issues: college

affordability, minimum wage, hobby lobby, student debt. so we have a lot of work to do. everyone needs to know when we come back on september 8 there will be no weekends off. there's only two weekends until we go home. everyone should not plan things on this weekend. no one can say you need to give us notice. you have notice. i had a chairman's lunch yesterday. every chairman there said we should work those two weekends. everybody, this isn't me trying to dictate a schedule. my lunch yesterday with the chairmen of this institution said we should work those two weekends. i just mentioned a few of the things we have to do. again, saturday, september 13, sunday september 14, saturday september 20, sunday, september

21 we need to be here. including the fridays. every day between september 8 and september 30 is fair game. fridays, saturdays, sundays, we need to be here. i repeat for the third time here this morning. there is so much to do and so little time to do it. we've not had a productive congress. we can't push everything back to the so-called lame duck. much of what we're able to accomplish in september depends on the republicans in the house. will they get their business done and pass legislation that's important for our country, including the economy? here we've lamented the fact that they refuse to take up and pass our comprehensive immigration reform. what a good piece of legislation. a bipartisan bill passed out of this body by an overwhelming margin and republicans refuse to take it up. among other things, mr. president, it will reduce the debt by $1 trillion.

we have no extension of long-term unemployment benefits. i've talked about minimum wage. i've talked about student debt. i've talked about hobby lobby. i've talked about equal pay for women getting paid equally for the work they do that's the same as men. but they have no interest in these issues. they certainly have no issues tr in getting corporate bosses out of health care for women. no, they're busy using the house floor for theater but it's a double feature -- i don't think they have double features, at least i don't think so anymore. it is a double theater. house republicans, first of all, are going to sue the president. and above all, the republicans in the house and the senate, the

most antitrial lawyer group of legislators in the history of country but who are they going to? trial lawyers. who's going to pay those trial lawyers? the american taxpayers. and if that isn't enough, once their lawsuit gets going, they're going to try to impeach the president. so that's what it's all about. mr. president, we have a lot to do. a lot depends on the political theater across the way here. if the house republicans are serious and focus their time on legislation that helps american families, then it could be a very productive month in september. if they keep up the sue and impeach show, we'll stay right here working until they finally get serious about giving the american people a fair shot.

would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we're

not. mr. mcconnell: we're not? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. mcconnell: the ongoing humanitarian crisis at our nation's southern border demands a solution. it really just boggles the mind that the president of the united states would rather fund raise in hollywood than work with members of his own party to forge a legislative response to this tragic situation. to do something to prevent more yupg peoplyoung people from make perilous journey across the desert much the president initially laid out reforms that while modest represented a step in the right direction. the politikoas couldn't go along with that. so the president stopped defending his own policy reforms. instead, he demanded a blank check that would literally preserve the status quo, a blank check he knew wouldn't fix the problem, a blank check he knew

couldn't pass congress, and a blank check that he knew members of his own party in congress didn't even support. faced with a national crisis, he listened once again to his most partisan instincts instead of uniting congress around a common sliewrks a common solution so he could lay blame for the crisis on somebody else. apparently, no crisis is too big to be trumped by politics in the obama white house. it's exasperating for those of us who want to work toward bipartisan solutions. it's confusing. -- it's confusing to democrats who share our view that we want to get something done. when faced with a crisis, a

president's job is to show presidential leadership and to get his party on board with the reforms necessary to address it. scuttling reform and prolonging the crisis is not part of his job description. so what i'm suggest, mr. president, is you do a little more time doing the job you were elected to do. press "pause" on the nonstop photo ops and start demonstrating some real leadership instead. the barbecue joints and the pool halls will still be there after we solve this problem. it's a dangerous journey to the border. children are suffering at the hands of some serious bad actors down there. nurse reports suggest you even knew about this long before it started making national news. you could have intervened before this turned into a full-blown humanitarian crisis, but you

didn't. you could have worked with us to get a bipartisan solution. you didn't. mr. president, you have a special responsibility to help us end this crisis in a humane and appropriate way. congress can't do it without your leadership or your engagement. it's literally impossible to do this without you. so pick up the phone you keep telling us about. call us. call your fellow democrats and lobby them to get on board. woo witwork with us and let's as this crisis. now, on an entirely different matter, mr. president, recently i've expressed deep concern that the president has pursued a foreign policy based on withdrawing from america's forward presence and alliance commitments, hollowing our our nation's conventional military forces, macin maceforces placine on diplomacy and international organizations and literally abandoning the war on terror. i believe this will leave his successor to deal with a more

dangerous world and with fewer tools to meet the threats. later this morning several members of congress charged with leading national security committees and policy-making will meet with the president to discuss national security. i don't expect us to -- the president to brief us on his plan for rebuilding the military, especially in a way that would allow us to meet our commitments in europe and the middle east or that would allow for an effective, strategic pivot to asia, nor do i expect the president to lay out for us his plans to provide the intelligence community with all the tools it will need with the threat from international terrorism from al qaeda and its affiliated groups over the next decade. those are strategic threats best addressed by integrating all of the tools of our nation's power and candidly it would require the president to real estate

visit the policy -- to revisit the policy he stances he took as candidate back in 2008. i hope the president will discuss two near-term issues. i hope he'll describe his plan to assist the israelis ensuring that hamas is not left with the ability to launch indirect fire attacks against the civilian populous or to infiltrate israel through tunnels. in coordination with israel, we can assist the palestinian authority with any programs to assume responsibility for monitoring those access points into gaza. absent any active efforts by the administration, i would at least like assurances that the president not working to impose a cease-fire upon israel that is harmful to the objectives of the current military campaign. second, earlier this month, a group of republican senators wrote to the president imploring him to craft a plan for

containing the threat posed to iraq and jordan by the islamic state of iraq and the levant. specifically, we asked the president to deploy an assessment team to jordan to develop a plan to prevent the spread of isil in a way that threatened our ally, jordan. although ambassador susan rice responded to our letter, her letter did not address how the administration intends to combat isil. iinstead, ambassador rice renewd the administration's request for a new counterterrorism partnership fund. the administration has failed to provide the congress with any plan for how this new counterterrorism fund would assist our allies, further our own interests, our train and equip a moderate opposition within syria. that would be a good starting point pour today's discussion with the -- for today's discussion with the president. and one final matter --

prescription drug and hern heron abuse have risen to record levels in my home state of kentucky. it is a huge, huge problem. earlier this year i convened a listening snetion the commonwealth to here from those closest to the problem, from professionals across the medical, public health, and law enforcement spheres as well as a brave young man who managed to make his heroin addiction after watching his own friends overdose. we discussed the extent of the problem, and one issue in particular that grabbed my ateption was the increasing -- attention was the increasing number of infants being born dependent on opiates. more than one baby every hour is now born dependent on drugs and suffering from withdrawalment, a number that's increased in my home state by more than 3,000%

since the year 2000. we've gone from 29 infants identified as suffering from drug withdrawal annually to more than 950. and experts believe there are even more cases that go unreported. this is really heartbreaking. i say that especially as the father of three daughters. these children's are the most innocent members of our society. we have to protect them. thankfully the commonwealth is taking this problem seriously. both the kentucky prenatal association and the kentucky prenatal quality collaborative have made their focus reducing the number of infaints born dependent on opiates and other drugs. i want to commend theirests. but there's more we can do here at the federal level. maternal addiction and i faints opiate -- and infant opiate addiction can best be overcome by effective coordination between stakeholders at the

state and federal levels. one bill that was recently introduced in the house, the crib act, would help address the need for greater coordination between doctors, nurses, hospitals, and governments at the state and federal level. i commend the sponsors of that legislation for their leadership. and today in the senate i'll introduce the protecting our infants act, which seeks to address not only infants suffering from opiate withdrawal but maternal opiate addiction as well. it would help identify and disseminate recommendations for preventing and treating maternal addiction so that we can reduce the number of i infants born dependent on ope opiates and otr drugs. it would also have recommendations on how to best to treat the babies. because i've heard from so many experts in kentucky on the need ford more research into infant withdrawal and its long-term effects, my bill would shine a light on those areas as well.

the protecting our infants act would also encourage centers for disease control and prevention to work with states to improve the availability and quality of data so that they can respond more effectively to this public health crisis. my legislation is certainly no silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction, and it will help ensure that our public health system is better-equipped to prevent and treat opiate addiction in mothers and in their newborn children. together we can overcome this tragic problem. i'm going to remain focused on it until we do. mrs. fischer: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the need to strengthen american families and enhance workplace flexibility, and i'm very pleased to be joined here on the floor of the senate this morning by my good friend, the junior senator from maine. in nebraska and all throughout the country, too many families continue to struggle in this economy. even with moms and dads working two ond three jobs, some families find it hard to get ahead. household income has plummeted by more thank $3,300. 3.7 million more women are in poverty. theage of price for a gallon of -- the average price for a gallon of gas has nearly doubled and the labor force participation rate has declined by 2.9 percentage points since 2009. many economists agree that the

surest way to generate sustained economic growth and empower struggling families is to pass comprehensive tax reform addressing overregulation should also be a top priority. moreover, it's a simple truth that less government spending means families will keep more of their own money. agreement on how exactly to achieve these needed fiscal reforms remains elusive and, unfortunately, unlikely in a capital paralyzed with election fever. nonetheless, there are reasonable policy changes that we can all agree on, and those changes will make life easier for families. i've been working on a number of commonsense measures. my strong families and strong communities plan -- to empower working families, increase

take-home pay and ensure flexibility in the workplace. today, mr. president, i'd like to discuss part of that plan. it's a bipartisan proposalment, the strong families act. and i introduce that with senator king to address the challenges of paid leave. it's no secret that balancing responsibilities at home with duties at work is a common struggle for working parents. for an increasing number of americans, these pressures include raising young children while also caring for aging parents. while i believe we must do more to help these working families, the usual washington answers of that one-size-fits-all, those federal mandates, those higher taxes -- that's not the solution we're proposing. instead, i believe we should focus on a more balanced approach that respects both those family obligations and the

employer's costs of doing business. there are ways to increase the options for working adults without hurting existing employment arrangesments or threatening job security. the family and medical leave act, the fmla, of 1993 requires employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, which can be used for events like the birth or adoption of children, serious medical issues, or providing care to close family members. the problem, though, for many families is that current law does not require paid time off. unpaid leave is practically impossible for countless americans, especially hourly workers. those who live paycheck to paycheck. many employers voluntarily offer

generous compensation packages, and those include paid parental or medical leave. a survey found that 68% of large employers provide that paid parental leave. at the same time not all workers enjoy these options. despite increasingly complex family demands. this, again, is especially true for low-wage workers. and with more than half of women working as the primary breadwinners, workplace flexibility has become a necessity for our 21st century families. it's not just children who require that personal care and attention. it's also our aging parents. nearly half of middle-age adults have elderly parents, and they're still supporting their