chairman, and good morning. let me say at the outset that i strongly oppose the other certifications of absolute immunity. i disagree with them in the harriet meyers case and today. one key difference in this case the committee has identified no evidence, no evidence that he was a senior adviser to the united states or anyone else in his office engaged in inappropriate activity or conduct that violates the hatch act. as a result, i strongly open this resolution. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter we just received from

head of the office of special council. >> without objection so ordered. additionally i would ask unanimous consent all back and forth letters between the white house and either staffs of the house of the senate be placed in the report. >> without objection. so ordered. >> office of special counsel -- thank you. the office of special counsel independent agency charged with investigating the hatch act violations. it is the same office that investigated white house officer political affairs under bush administration. which record now entered into the record, which all members should have explains special counsel reviewed all correspondence between chairman issa and white house new office of political strategy and

outreach which was established six months ago. based on that review special council as follows. appears special counsel adheres to osc in the scope of activity for odso, opso to be operating in a manner that is consistent with the hatch act restrictions, office of special has not received any allegations assistant to the president or anyone has violated hatch act. i continue to quote, i have no reason to believe opso's

activities exceed those with white house lawyers and oversight and government reform committee. again, these conclusions are from the top official at the independent agency with the core mission of enforcing if the hatch act. chairman issa originally invited special counsel to testify at the committee's hearing on july 16th. two days before that hearing, the special counsel submitted a written statement indicating she planned to testify that her office had found no evidence of improprie improprieties. the chairman cut that short, recessed it until today, and she was not able to testify. the chairman invited her against testifying at today's hearing

but again office ordered not to come and, again, she will not be testifying this morning. that is why today i'm making a public -- the public letter received from her last night. and now the chairman sent his own letter to the white house last night raising concerns about the actions of two cabinet secretaries. secretary solis and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. actions described both in 2012 nearly 20 years before this new office was established in january 2014. to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let me say this. we're all members of this house. we should all be concerned with its credibility and with its authority. as i said at the beginning of my statement, i oppose the

assertion of absolute immunity by the bush white house in the meyers case. i agreed with the district court judge who concluded that his assertion was invalid. and today, even though this assertion is based on long-standing practice of republican and democratic administrations, i respectfully disagree with this white house's assertion of absolute immunity as well. but this is the worst possible case to try to test our position. as special counsel said in her letter, we do not have an allegation of wrongdoing. the judge in the meyers case wrote the committee's actions had to be, quote, legitimate, end of quote. here there is no legitimate reason to create an unnecessary constitutional confrontation. i believe that the house of representatives made significant

gains as an institution in the meyers case and once in a generation they were. i'm deeply concerned our committee's actions here today could threaten to reverse those gains if we pursue the case with absolutely no foundation, no basis and no predicate whatsoever. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support this resolution based on meager facts. instead, lets try to see what the remaining questions are that members may have about this new office even all the letters and white house documents we reviewed. there may be other questions. but just as late as last night, the white house through mr. eagleson's counsel still reaching out trying to work out accommodations and left the door open so that those accommodat n

accommodations might be made. then lets work together to get answers to those questions without resorting to these kinds of unnecessary and counter-productive actions. mr. chairman, i thank you and i kreeld back. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize myself. the white house's decision not to make david simmas available has denied the opportunity from the official in charge of ensuring the white house political activity complies with the hatch act and, in fact, the american people's tax dollars are not used to campaign. there have been hatch act violations in several administrations including two by president obama's own cabinet. while mr. simas is not in charge of the white house political office when these violations occurred, he is now in charge.

he has a responsibility to explain on the record what this administration is doing to prevent further abuse. i repeat prevent further abuse. future. what he will proactively do. special counsel says it does not appear based on reviewing dialogue back and forth between the white house that there's a violation. in the case of harriet meyers and the firing of u.s. attorneys, the president had an absolute right under the constitution to have and dismiss for any reason or no reason u.s. attorneys. there was no predicate, criminal predicate, but there was -- there were questions and those questions were asked to be answered by congress.

the white house office is, in fact, a use of federal taxpayer dollars in support of moving the president and first lady to and from and coordinating their support for fundraising for political purposes and support of candidates. there's no question that someone must have oversight appropriate freddie taxpayers to pay for this office. special counsel is -- spoke of a constitutional crisis. ladies and gentlemen, there was no constitutional crisis. we asked for oversight pursuant to our specific sometime's responsibilities and the witness was denied in a claim which even the ranking member says he

disagrees with of inherent immunity is before us today. failing to comply with the congressional subpoena is a serious matter. i expect mr. simas to face consequences unnecessarily for not coming. mr. simas' unwilling to testify will be for him if he ever seeks to run for elected office. not only does the administration feel that it's above the law claiming inherent immunity, but it arrogantly believes that it should be held to a lesser standard than the bush administration. yesterday i wrote to the white house counsel and offered him an

extraordinary accommodation. after he complained yesterday the request for mr. simas personal testimony differed from political office directors who sat for depositions i offered the option to committing to a deposition or transcribed interview instead of appearing here today. the white house did not accept the offer nor recant their claim of inherent immunity. the white house argues senior officials to salaries are paid for by taxpayers are immune from testifying before congress if deemed so by the president. the federal court flatly rejected this. it is in direct opposition of the district court of the district court of columbia when it ruled on the decision of the

judiciary versus the white house sites a legal opinion issued by justice department of legal counsel in claiming immunity. the opinion nearly states the views of the executive branch. the authority does not outweigh that of the court's. and it does not outweigh history of two centuries of two centuries plus of this branch questioning every nickel, every dime spent on behalf of the taxpayers. the opinion does not cite any case law that presidential advisers are immune and the opinion expressly acknowledges it is not based on precedent. the white house thinks it's immune from congressional oversight. can it be any wonder if we allow that the american people will

not just lose trust and confidence in this president but in the body that we sit in both republicans and democrats. i'm going to read to you a quote. the white house must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to congress and the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. with your istanbul against i'll read it again. the white house must stop stonewalling and be accountable to the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. the person who said that is senator harry reid, the majority leader of the senate. he was referring to bush administration failing to make white house officials available tore testimony. here is another one. the administration's extreme claims to be immune from the

oversight process are at odds with our constitutional principles on which this country was founded, and i am confident the federal courts will agree. that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers, and he was right. the white house democrats -- sorry, the house democrats followed the lawsuit to obtain this testimony in which they ultimately prevailed. house and senate democrats were unequivocally in the support of requiring the white house officials to testify before congress. here is a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. here is a quote from then speaker of the house nancy

pelosi. by filing this lawsuit, house members recognize the need to defend congress's subpoena power against the efforts of an administration to hide information in order to prevent the exercise of congress's oversight and law making responsibility, and i quote. this action is completely nonpartisan. again, the words of speaker pelosi. historically democrats and republicans alike have scrutinized the white house political office. president obama closed the office in january 2011 in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. both democrats and republicans condemn -- both democrats and republicans commended this decision. so when president obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year after three years of operating without the office,

the committee had some questions and rightfully so. in fact, the ranking member, mr. cummings, said he was, and i quote, skeptical about the reopening given the office's history. yet once shared scepticism has since turned into an effort that appears to be at odds with our oversight. the white house, too, is going to great strides to criticizes this oversight rather than simply cooperating. in a recent letter, the white house called the committee's efforts to rush to subpoena and exceptionally aggressive. it is six months since the opening and nearly that long since we began inquiring. despite the committee's

proactively seeking cooperation for months, the white house continues to obstruct this investigation culminating in mr. simas defiance of a congressional subpoena and failure to appear here today. this is the second opportunity today to give mr. sooiimas the ability to come and explain operations. as i said earlier, i gave an alternative in response to their request there not be a public hearing. the president has called maintaining democratic control of the senate his top priority that his prerogative -- that's his prerogative. but using a taxpayer funded office and personnel to achieve that goal skirts the line and act -- the hatch act. this is not an investigation of the president's activities or

his goals. this is simply oversight. while the white house has made assurances that new structure is in compliance with hatch act, no one from the new office has answered even basic questions or provided documentation. the office of special counsel has not been able to evaluate anything but publicly available correspondence. couple that with serious hatch act violations by the cabinet secretaries and it becomes obvious there are serious and legitimate concerns. what is the white house afraid of? why wouldn't you be proud of changes made to be compliant with the goals of the hatch act. i respect president obama's assertion the white house be afforded special treatment that house democrats did not extend to republican administrations when they were in the majority. democrats and republicans alike have expressed the importance of

congressional oversight and the president's decision to ignore a lawful subpoena is a clear attempt to impede what we believe to be our responsibility. my colleagues in the minority can express their opinion that they do not think oversight of this administration is legitimate. but if they express the opinion that they believe that oversight is legitimate, then can there be anything more basic than the committee charged with overseeing the hatch act asking the questions how do we prevent violations of the hatch act under this administration not only at the level of the president and first lady but at the level of cabinet officers. no chairman of either party would do different or less than i am doing today or he or she would be shrinking from their goal, responsibilities, pledge and their oath.

i believe strongly that today's vote is not a vote of contempt. it's not a vote of anything more than a rejection of inherent immunity, because that stands before us today as the reason mr. simas was not here, the reason he hasn't agreed to the process of alternative means. inherent immunity to oversight is the question before us today. thank you. i will hold the record open until the end of the day so that all members may submit written statements and other comments. does any member wish to speak on the resolution? does any member wish to offer an amendment? mr. tierney, you're recognized for five minutes. strike the last word. >> i'd like to speak. i think people don't necessarily

agree with the notion absolute immunity under all circumstances is something that the white house is entitled to, i think we draw some distinctions here clearly between what happened between the bush administration and this committee and the chairman are appearing to do right now. oversight, find out how the office operates, whatever, that can be done and was in the process of being done, as i understand it. the distinction is there's no instance here at all that the assistance of the president or anybody in the office of political strategy and outreach violated any hatch act or engaged in any inappropriate activity. i think counsel was clear in ranking member, quote, osc has not received any allegations assistance of any in opso has violated the hatch act, close quoechlt the white house then went on, as i understand it, provided detailed information about how opso operates and

letters to the committee. independent the committee sent over a gaggle full of people to question people over there at the white house for 75 minutes. as i understand it, they exhausted all their questions, got all their answers and left. then after that a couple of other questions reported in writing and those were answered. there's this ongoing process on that. the situation in meyers during the bush administration was completely different. that was an investigation, not just oversight, a total investigation because there had been allegations that were serious about forced resignations of seven united states attorneys. in that instance harriet meyers, white house counsel, was out of office when she was asked to testify. here you have someone in the office advising the president. the distinction set for in the d.c.'s court, i quote what it said. congress moreover acting to a legitimate use of its investigative 240r9. notwithstanding its best efforts

the committee has been unable to discover underlying causes of forced resignations of u.s. attorneys. the committee had legitimate reasons to believe miss meyers can remedy that. no evidence the committee seeking to harass miss meyers to testify. that's the court's language not mine. close quote. there's no allegation of inappropriate or illegal conduct in the situation before us today. we haven't exhausted all avenues of getting the information. that's an ongoing process. the court in meyers talked about there being an ongoing process and how most things were generally worked out and that the parties in the meyers case had reached a self-declared, self-imposed impasse. we haven't reached any impasse here. the white house expressed its willingness to continue to discuss and give you answers how it worked and done so openly all the way through. i think the issue resolves around whether there's an impasse. there's not. whether or not there's any allegations or advanced

information of wrongdoing. there's not. no evidence of an investigation. there's every other way for this to be done. i think we won a pretty important victory in congress in the meyers case, to say in all cigs the white house is not entitled to immunity. the court has specific language about when it's appropriate to move forward on this basis. we're not there yet. we risk losing ground or tying us up in unnecessary litigation that doesn't serve american people. we can get these answers by dialogue until we reach an impasse and get the information the chairman wants and the committee may want. at the same time they move on to other business instead of being tied up in litigation, premature notwithstanding subpoenas unilateral also intended here. i think in this particular situation we're way ahead of ourselves and we ought to back down and have that period --

prolonged period of negotiation as the court indicates before you reach an impasse. then if you can't reach accommodation finding out how the process is moving along, office is operating, then we'll talk about it again. as i understand it, all the questions were exhausted at the first meeting, subsequent were materialized and they were answered. i suspect if other questions arise, they can be answered without pressing forward on a subpoena unilaterally issued. with that i yield my time. >> i just wanted to make one other distinction, associate myself with the awards. in the meyers case, there was also a referral to the office of special counsel. here there is no referral. for those of you who were not here earlier today, i asked the chairman, and i quote, you're saying that, if i understand, to your knowledge mr. simas has done nothing wrong and his

office has done nothing wrong." the chairman responded by, quote, we're accusing neither the president nor this person of office of any wrongdoing, end of quote. >> thank the gentleman. >> i yield back. >> gentleman from utah. >> thank the chairman and i thank you for bringing this up. it's important congress stand up for itself. where is this newfound immunity coming to congress because you're an adviser to the president. white house hasn't claimed executive privilege. they aren't claiming that. where are the bounds of this newfound immunity? can they just simply say that you can never come up here because, well, i did nothing wrong? is that the standard? that's what i hear. as my colleague tray gowdy and jim like to point out here, can we ask any questions of this person? can we talk about good news?

can we ask about appropriations? is an advisory to the president a cabinet level person? seems to me that secretary kerry, secretary of defense, the others are advisers to the president and they come up here on a routine basis all the time. secretary of state comes before foreign affairs on a regular basis. i also find it interesting, mr. chairman, that this person's title is director of office of political strategy and outreach. what does that mean? it's a new office. what is outreach? can anybody answer that question? what is outreach? we're funding it with taxpayer dollars. if we're going to do proper oversight, it's not just following some headline because there some scandal and a whistleblower. we should be doing regular oversight of a whole host of agencies. even when things are going well.

this is how we do things. i think it's interesting that the argument is there's no legitimate reason to talk to them. of course there is. that makes the united states of america the most unique country on the face of the planet. we are self-critical. we do take a good hard look. we do look under the hood and we do find out what's going on. if there's executive privilege, a communication direct with the president, then claim that. we'll be very respectful of it. there's no reason why we can't have a dialogue of discussion with this person. i find it interesting the white house will send over five attorneys to come brief the staff. when we want to do that in the light of day, when we want to have open and transparent, remember, this is the most transparent president in the history of our nation. when we want to do that in the light of day, they say no, no, no. we're not going to let the public do that. we're going to let the staff in a closed hearing do that.

isn't there something fundamentally wrong with that? yes, there is. you know what, as tray gowdy pointed out time and time again, the same standard in the white house. i wasn't here during the bush administration. lets come up with something no matter who is in the white house. i can't live with the idea that quote, unquote, they are immune to testifying before congress. they aren't answering a question. they aren't pleading the fifth. they aren't saying they have executive privilege. they are immune from showing up. that's a very dangerous precedent and not something we should allow to have happen. i support this resolution. we need to stand up for ourselves, and i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield. >> i want to thank the gentleman. the ranking member appropriately noted something that i said earlier today in a colloquy. i think it's important that we

remind everyone of what he said, because we agree on that. there is no predicate of some criminal act here. this is about inherent oversight. but there are questions, and there is a history. there are acts that have happened during this president's tenure which violated the hatch act by individuals, and there's a history under previous presidents. during the months of march, april, may, june, and now most of july that we have been seeking answers, the president has gotten into "air force one" time and time again and raised millions of dollars. this office of political affairs has coordinated those trips. the american people undoubtedly have written to the congressmen, have written to newspapers and have written to the office of

special counsel concerned about the use of "air force one" for the president and other aircraft for the first lady, use of aircraft of the vice president any time they go and do either official trips and add a political event or go out on a political event. we believe strongly that that history is well established. we're not objecting to it but we have an oversight responsibility and i'd ask you to remember that's the question before us today. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> the next in line holding his hand up is mr. lynch. >> thank you, gentlemen. i thank the chairman for yielding. i do think recourse to the law is a good starting point on this. we do have a very strong, well plowed area of the law called

prior restraint. under the doctrine of prior restraint, which is very firm within our constitutional fabric, the law does not abide prior restraint. what we're doing here is you're saying that this adviser to the president has engaged in no illegal -- no allegation of illegal conduct here on the part of the president's adviser. i'm not saying that. we just want to haul them in here. we just want to haul them in here, put a subpoena on them, have them sit here, answer questions under oath. okay. so in this normal balance, the law would look at the balance of interest. one interest is the ability to the president to have some advisers to receive counsel. your interest is in finding out

what is to basically get inside that counsel and to find out what they are thinking, with no allegation of any wrongdoing. you are trying to cut off and have a chilling effect on that communication between a presidential adviser and the president with no allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever. that's what you're trying to do here. my belief is that's bad for any president. not only this president but every previous president. if they can't talk to their adviser without congress with no allegation of wrongdoing, hauling their adviser before them with a subpoena or otherwise, and demanding answers on that relationship, that communication between the president and his adviser, that's very, very bad for the government, very, very bad for

the executive branch and i think it's bad for the american people as well. >> will the gentleman yield. >> briefly. >> i appreciate it. >> if there's executive privilege communication direct with the president, they need to claim it. >> no, no. the president should not in every single case have to fight to be able to talk to their advisers. reclaiming my time. there is recourse for the gentleman, recourse for the chairman, you have the courts, you have the hatch act, you have legislation. we are lawmakers. we could change the law. we could bring charges. your problem with those resources is you're saying -- you are stipulating this man has done nothing wrong. so you don't have a way in. your problem is he hasn't done anything wrong, and you've admitted it. that's why you're having a problem getting answers, because there's no complaint of

wrongdoing here. this is just -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> not right now. let me finish my thought. under the normal procedures is we don't bring charges until there's wrongdoing. we don't bring charges. you want to skip that part. you don't want to make something up. creative minds come up with some allegations come up with wrongdoing somewhere to drag the gentleman down. we haven't bothered with that. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will. go ahead. >> do you believe the only people we should call before the oversight committee are those that have been accused of wrongdoing? >> no. no, no. i think they should be an allegation. something, believe me. take a look around at this

government. >> will the gentleman yield for a quick question. >> let me respond to the last question first. this body, this oversight committee has plenty of work to do. our jurisdiction is when something bad happens or something wrong is going on involving the united states p government, it's our job to oversee that. we have plenty on our plate. we have a target rich environment with all the things going on in the world today and we're subpoenaing folks who haven't done anything wrong. all i'm saying is our priorities are misplaced. i think your impinging on a basic prerogative that the president has to give free and unfettered counsel from his advisers and we're trying to interfere with that. a prior rerestaurant on communications. i yield. >> the gentleman's time expired. i think the gentleman from utah wants 30 of your seconds. >> no, he doesn't. the gentleman is recognized. >> well, i just heard the

commentary and i respect the gentleman's opinion from massachusetts but first of all, all i have to do is look at the history of this. the white house political office was closed in january of 2011. it was closed just days before a scathing report about abuse and misuse of that office occurred. now, look at the history that opened in january -- was it january of this year, the beginning of this year, 2014. now, again, shakespeare said something is rotten in denmark. well, something smells awfully fishy in washington. i don't know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were this week, but the president of the united states -- in fact, even the most

liberal media -- as i went to bed last night, i saw the president's "air force one" landing. they broke in on one of the stations as he arrived. he had just finished three-day whirlwind on "air force one," valuable assets. he's had a tour of the united states running his fishing nets for political purposes. he's not running for office. he can't do that. i think the constitution prohibits that. he's taking the white house and its assets which is obvious to anyone on the planet and using them for political purposes to the extent the liberal media is having a hard burn. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i won't yield. again, this committee has the right to investigate this

matter, how these assets are being used. this office is now reopened and we've seen a use of this office unparalleled in the history of administrations. yes, president bush, president reagan, president clinton, they all used federal assets for political purposes but this office reopened and again it's like the president of the united states is spending so much time on political matters using federal assets for that purpose in an unprecedented manner. again, almighty every schedule i get for the president comes up. he uses it for the excuse for one little thing in new york, two political events in colorado, texas, i'm just talking about the last few

weeks. so yes, we have the right and obligation as chief investigative body in the house of representatives to see what's going on with this reopened political office using office and taxpayer money. is there abuse, we don't know. that's our purpose. does this individual have immunity or does he have some executive privilege? there's no way. this is a political office. he's not advising on policy in the middle east. he's not advising on federal policy to congress. this is a political office using assets of the taxpayers. this committee has every right and obligation to investigate what is going on. i'm pleased to yield back the balance of my time or yield it to you. mr. chaffin. >> the gentleman from florida makes a good point. this is a political office.

it's not as if you're advising the president on policy matters. the other thing i would like to highlight is, we don't know what we don't know. a review of the documents may reveal something, may reveal nothing. we've been given zero documents. if somebody is going to go out and make the case that we shouldn't look at the basic documents, that's quite a new standard. again, i would ask on the other side of the aisle who want to defend the president at all cost, what is the outreach? outreach doesn't sound to me like this is private communication with the president. if they are the office of political strategy and outreach, what does that mean? what do they do? they are using taxpayer dollars to do it. i think we have a legitimate reason to look at it. there may be nothing there. if you're going to be the most transparent presidency in the history of the united states, then show us what you've got. answer some questions. do it in the light of day.

>> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is next in seniority. >> mr. chairman, this discussion is perplexing in as much as sit involves members of congress where some of the root principles of what is basically at stake here seem to be misunderstood. the gentleman from utah said we don't know what we don't know. we're talking about adviser to the president. when you say you don't know what you don't know, you're really talking the classic language of a fishing expedition. we don't know what we don't know. but if we fish around, we're sure about to find out. >> mrs. gentlelady, yield? >> i haven't finished my point. >> i agree with the gentlelady

we don't know what we don't know. early on before the gentlelady came in, we were very clear, this has started off simply as oversight with something with a history of -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. i want to make a formal fundamental point. this is to be sure not about executive privilege. it's not about the kind of language we throw around in this committee. it is about something far more fundamental and that is separation of powers itself. my republican colleagues are about to file suit against the president of the united states based on this weighty notion of separation of power. they want separation of powers observed when it comes to the congress. but when the president

essentially, that's what he's saying. under a constitutional separation of powers government, i do not have to send my immediate advisers to speak with you. and the analogies that have gone back and forth on the other side as if this were an investigation of an agency shows there is no understanding about the separation of powers itself. the president's immediate adviser is not an agency, and this is not a matter of policy. this is a fishing expedition, and yet the president has come to allow the committee to understand the fundamentals of the office. do you want to understand what outreach means? do you want to understand this office? they have been over here time and again. but once you want to call mr.

simas, you're calling the chief adviser to the president itself. yeah, i agree that there are circumstances where you don't need wrongdoing, but you need a predicate for a subpoena. you need more than a fishing expedition. you don't have a right to know everything in a separation of powers government, my friend. that is the difference. between a parliamentary government and separation of powers government. this is an immediate adviser to the president. if you want separation of powers respected, so deeply that you're about to file suit against the president, it seems to me that at the very least you ought to be willing to continue in this process until you have exhausted all the remedies still available

to you to find out as much as you can about this office before doing a showcase fishing expedition subpoena that designed clearly more to get the attention of the press than to get the attention of the president. . i yield to the ranking member. >> i want to thank the gentlelady and i associate myself with your comments. one of the things i wanted to add, so the public will be clear is that the office of special counsel has reviewed various communications. both sides have been given information showing that the report from back in 2008 of

investigation by the waxman committee and a more recent report by the office of special counsel, all of that has been given to folks in this office, and they are adhering to that. the office of special counsel has said that. i think they have bent over backwards trying to accommodate what you've said. i think there's clearing a question of separation of powers. i thank the gentlelady for -- >> i thank the gentlelady. i'm informed there are two more people who seek recognition. perhaps sharing that time. is that correct? i'd like to organize. >> if the chair would give us six minutes to split, we could do that. >> if it's fine with the ranking member, i would ask unanimous consent that we split six minutes per side to bring this

to a conclusion if that's acceptable. >> without objection so ordered. the gentleman from virginia will control those six minutes. the gentleman is recognized and be kind to the gentleman sitting next to you. >> the original title of this hearing hardly confirms the assertion we're just trying to get at the truth. we recognize untowards happened but something might happen and therefore preemptively we need to pursue this matter. that's a thin read legally. a really thin read. unlike the chairman, i have no confidence it would actually be upheld in a court begin the fact they are there according to the office of special counsel. in sharp contrast their offof

political affairs is described as political boiler room. this one according to carolyn lerner who was here to testify before this committee but not allowed to, she found no violations of the hatch act. what's ironic in the advertisement of the title of the reason, the staff got the title wrong. they cited white house office of affairs. that's the title of the bush administration office. it is not the title of the current administration's office. maybe that was a freudian slip but go back to administration to examine in great oversight detail knowing their commitment to oversight about the many, many violations that occurred in that administration unlike this administration found to be clean by carol lerner, office of special counsel, they will have

full democratic support. this is a sad day, because i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially those with legal training, i think we're going to do damage to our institution. we are going to going to degrad credibility in legitimate oversight, and in a legitimate assertion of the rights of the legislative branch vis-a-vis the executive branch, because we're abusing that and we have no foundation for this action. we're going to take it because you get the votes. but should we take it is a different matter. i now yield to my friend from california, mrs. spears. >> i thank my good friend and colleague. i'm going to make surevy some time left over tore my good friend, mr. lynch. i'm going to be very brief. this is a patently political action. and i agree with my colleague when he says that we are placing this institution in great harm and doing great damage to it.

as my colleague, miss norton, said, this is a fishing expedition. we are talking about an office with $1 million of taxpayer funds. that's it. $1 million. if we are so concerned that they're making sure that they're using this money for precisely the right purposes, then call in the general accounting office which is available to us night and day and have them go and audit the office. 2 1/2 months ago i sent to the chairman of this committee a letter asking him to start an investigation, hold a hearing on health management associates, which has already ripped off the taxpayers of this country by $600 million in medicare and medicaid fraud. are we doing anything to look at something as important as that issue? oh, no, we want to investigate the president's $1 million political office to see whether

or not the funds are being used for a political or a governmental purpose. this is a mockery and i stand with my colleagues objecting to it. >> i now yield -- >> i yield back -- i'm sorry. >> i now yield the balance of my time to my friend from massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> i thank the gentle lady for yielding. number of times i've hear the assertion we don't know what we don't know, but we do know what we do now. republican staff went to the white house and asked a whole lot of the questions that you just asked. they asked what are the functions of this office? you say you don't know? well, your staff went over there and they got the answers and the white house explained that the new office is set up for two primary functions. one is to obtain information for political candidates and groups to help inform the president's policy agenda and make sure that his positions are being portrayed accurately and effectively. and then also to serve as a single point of contact to receive invitations to the

president and first lady to participate in political events and sent political communications on behalf of the candidates and political parties to determine whether these events in particular should be accepted and before apparently when this happened under the bush administration, all different offices of the white house would get invitations which led to potential violations of the hatch act. so they're concentrated in this one office. so if you take the time, your staff did a very good job. they asked some very pointed questions of the white house when they went over there and the white house in fairness to them did answer those questions. so -- all automatic withowithoud without pub the public show and all without the right of the president's counsel to advise him so i think the white house has been very cooperative in this respect. the fact that you can't find anything wrong is no reason to offer a subpoena.

i yield back. >> pursuant to the unanimous consent, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, will control the last six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i've learned a lot this morning. mr. chairman, i have learned that you can have a firmly rooted constitutional right to assert on behalf of an entity that is neither named nor contemplated by the constitution. previously i was not aware of that. what i would like us to leave with today is some consensus on what the standard is. i just want to understand. because i honestly think there is a hunger in this country for any group to apply the same standard, the same rules, regardless of politics. regardless of which party is in power. recess appointments should not depend upon which jersey the president has on. i think we can all agree on that. so, too, the power to summons

somebody before the people's house should not depend upon which party is in power. and what i have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning cannot possibly be the standard. the standard cannot simply be that you have to have done something wrong. we don't have the power to investigate criminal conduct. y'all know that. you remind us of that all the time. we don't have the power to investigate or prosecute criminal wrongdoing. that's another branch. so that cannot possibly be the standard. can we summon someone before congress to discuss good news? what if they've done a good job? can we send them a summons? can we invite them to come share with us the progress or the success they've had? not under your standard. can we invite someone to come discuss how to take their department from good to great? you're doing a good job, let's do a great job! can we summon them before the

people's house? not according to your standard. can we invite them to discuss appropriations? can we summon them to discuss policy? not according to your standard. your standard is, you have to have done something wrong or you have to have broken a law. and y'all know that can't be right. you got really bright lawyers over there. you know that we have no power to investigate criminal wrongdoing. so how can that possibly be the standard? what is the standard going forward after today? when can this branch, when can the people's house, summon people to come? can we discuss policy? appropriations? good news? can we bring them over to say you're doing a great job? or is it only when it verges on

criminal wrongdoing will you concede that we have the power? this is what is most vexing for me and this is what i really want. i really want some of the very reasonable minded folks on the other side of the aisle to think about. are you really willing to concede that this branch has less power to summon than the other two branches? because that's what i hear you saying. the judicial branch doesn't only have the power to summon people upon an allegation of wrongdoing. the executive branch doesn't only have the power to summon people. some of you have done criminal work. you can send a grand jury subpoena to someone who's totally innocent. they just happen to have facts that you're interested in. a circuit court judge, a district court judge, can send in a civil case a subpoena. to someone. there's no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. you all know that. many of you have practiced that. so why are you telling us that

we have less power than the other two branches under the constitution? what is the standard going forward after today? can somebody explain to me -- because we all believe in bright lines. i may live long enough one day -- i don't know if i will or not, but i may live long enough to see a republican president. so what is the standard going to be -- >> the gentleman yields. >> what is the standard going to be? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i tell you what i would like to do. i will in just a second, although i hasten to add your colleagues did not give you any time and they should have because are you one of the brightest members on your side. but i may, if i have some time left, do what they were not willing to do. but i do want someone to tell me. if there is a republican president, are you willing to apply the same standard? are we willing to apply the same standard? look into your well of souls and say, at the end of this debate, is this a standard we can live

with regardless of who is in power? can we really only bring witnesses -- i'm not talking about testimony. that is executive privilege. that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. it is the power to summon someone before the people's house. is the new standard only if you have done something wrong and only if we have a hint of criminal impropriety. if that's the new standard, then let's live with it going forward. i just think you're giving short shrift to the people's house. the reality that we can't bring someone here to talk about good things they're doing or policy improvements, then we can't bring the secretary of agriculture before a committee of congressmen to discuss something that's not wrong and not criminal? really, you need to think about what we're doing today and whether or not you are in the short term shortening your own constitutional prerogative. because honestly, after all the

morning's worth of debate,ky not tell you what the standard is going forward. i can't do it. with that i would yield back. >> i would ask the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. without objection, so ordered. >> be delighted to yield to my friend from massachusetts. >> thank you very much. we say we wish you a long and healthy life during which no republican president serves. thank you for yielding. first of all, this is all in the context of a hatch investigation. hatch act investigation so i think we went a little bit off the line on that basis. under your theory that we'd be able to subpoena tomorrow the chief of staff of the president, bring him in for any reason, whatever, i don't think that's where we want to go on this. the standard is, i mentioned it earlier, set forth by the court in the meyers case. it talks about having a legitimate use of investigative authority in order to bring in an advisor to the president and talk on that basis and first

exhausting, at least coming to an impasse with each other not getting the information you are seeking for oversight in some other way. standard for a legitimate investigation is that you have to have reached some impasse, then have an investigation where you can't get the answers any other way is there. then certainly for something of just mere oversight wouldn't require a lot more on that basis. there's been no showing to date on this case is the white house is not cooperating. >> i thank the gentleman, all time having expired. i move that the committee on oversight and government reform approve the resolution rejecting claim that david psimos is immune from being compelled to of it before this congress on matters relating to his official duties. the question is on approving the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. any opposed say no. clearly in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. issa.

>> aye. >> mr. micah. aye. >> mr. turner. >> aye. >> mr. tuduncan. >> yoaye. mr. langford. >> aye. >> mr. amash. >> aye. >> mr. gosar. >> goaye. >> mr. meehan vote aye. >> aye. >> mr. hastings votes eye. >> aye. >> mr. woodall votes aye. mr. massey. mr. collins. mr. collins votes aye. mr. meadows. >> aye. >> mr. bentovolio votes aye. mr. desantos votes aye. mr. cummings votes no. mrs. maloney votes no. miss norton. miss norton votes no.

mr. tierney votes no. mr. clay. mr. lynch votes no. mr. cooper. mr. connelly. >> anyway. >> mr. connelly votes no. miss spear. >> no. >> mr. cartwright. >> i would like to associate myself with the words of the ranking mechanical b ining memb. >> miss duckworth. >> no. >> miss kelly. >> absolutely not. >> mr. davis. mr. welch votes no. mr. cardenas. >> no. >> mr. horseford. >> no. >> miss grisham votes no. >> all members voted? the clerk will call -- >> on that vote, sir, 14 -- 19 ayes. 14 nos.

>> the resolution rejecting the claim that david psimos is immune from being compelled to testify before congress on matters related to his official duties is approved and we stand adjourned.

now a live picture from capitol hill as a house foreign affairs subcommittee is meeting to discuss u.s. policy toward north korea. among the witnesses this afternoon, two state department representatives we do expect this to start in just a moment. live coverage on c-span3.

good afternoon and welcome to the afternoon subcommittee hearing. i want to thank ami for serving as today's ranking member again. also thank our distinguished witnesses from being here this afternoon. it's taken six months for our schedules to align so we hope this afternoon's hearing is a productive one. in march this 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 are the international community to take action. for the u.s. to take action. unfortunately, it's been over five months and we're still waiting for some pretty 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' most vexing security challenges. it's also 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 the agreed framework which called on north korea to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program. while 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 enrichment capabilities. then in an effort to continue nuclear negotiations with north korea, we took a multi-lateral approach and began the six-party talks. once again, concession after concession. this method of negotiation also failed and has been stalled since december 2008. so where are we today. north korea has tested three

nuclear devices since 2006. most recent, in early 2013, and has declared itself a nuclear-armed state. belligerent and threatening rhetoric from pyongyang's d dilatant leader has es kacalate. in its web of illicit activities and dealings with terrorist organizations around the world it 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 attention today is locked on places like ukraine where russia is supporting the infiltration of rebel droo russian troops into crimea. but we must also look east. it should 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 commitment. this relationship was first made public in 2009 when 35 tons of surface-t surface-to-surface rocket and rocket propelled grenades were destined for iran which were then planned to be smuggled to hezbollah in lebanon and hamas in gaza. last week a u.s. federal judge ruled that north korea, in concert with eye roiran and syr responsible for providing materials and assistance to hezbollah terrorists who fired rockets into israel in 2006. but again nothing is being done to obstruct these weapons sales or the cargo ships traversing the world's oceans with weapons in the cargo bay. over the years north korea has branded itself as a one-stop shop for missile and nuclear materials and technology. the ultimate facilitating bad

guy providing whatever its anti-american friends want, so long as it gets the oil and cache and material it needs to maintain the power of the kim regime. it is not a secret that north korea has long cavorted with the likes of eiran and syria. north korea's last nuclear test wherein iranian nuclear experts were reportedly present, also underlined a 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. as the evidence continues to mount of the grave threat that north korea poses to the rest of the world, the obama administration's official position is that north korea is "not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a korean airlines flight in 1987." even more staggering, on july

20th, secretary kerry noted that north korea was "quieter" than previous years and that the u.s. is indeed "moving forward" with the efforts to denuclearize north korea. according to our records, the past few months have been one of the most historically active periods by north korea in terms of testing missiles, including u.n. restricted ballistic technology. i don't think north korea's recent behavior can be called "quiet." simply put, the administration's do-nothing so-called strategic patience policy is crumbling to pieces waiting for north korea to beseech for negotiations aimed at limiting its nuclear and missile potential. tim jong kim jong-un has no interest in denuclearization. china has also yielded little progress. but 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 official material stockpile and improves its missile and nuclear capabilities. the administration refuses to impose tougher and more targeted sanctions on north korea than those on russia, zimbabwe, sedan and belarus because it believes it would significantly hinder its effect to conduct foreign policy. it won't list the world's most prolific money launderering with counterfeiter as a primary money laundering concern but iran and burma our. and our current policy has done nothing to help the north korean people. i remain disappointed that so little has been done to hold the kim regime responsible for its horrific human rights abuses detailed in the u.n. commission of inquiry report. north korea is a grave threat to

the united states and also to our allies in asia. we cannot continue to wait for north korea to decide it wants to negotiate. a non-nuclear north korea is an illusive 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 but 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 buy the same horse twice. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses here this afternoon and i will now yield to the ranking member, acting ranking member today, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for calling this important hearing. also want to thank the witnesses today for your service to our country and your patience in

what has to be one of the biggest diplomatic challenges in terms of moving north korea forward. as mentioned, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the agreed framework between the united states and north korea. our foreign policy approach towards north korea has always been challenging given that north korea's posture in the region is inconsistent, and at times aggressive. that said, throughout the years we have tried on numerous occasions to negotiate with north korea on denuclearization, also promoting the strategic patience approach. however, i continue to be very concerned as the chairman's mentioned with north korea's nuclear ambitions, its aggression towards our allies in south korea and japan, and its dismal human rights record. north korea's testing of ballistic missiles and nuclear tests throughout the last 15 years is unacceptable and poses serious security concerns in the region. earlier this month north korea

fired more than 100 rockets and artillery shells towards south korea's border, presumably in protest of joint u.s.-south korean military exercises. and our allies in japan, even as they attempt to promote diplomatic dialogue with north korea on resolving the abductions of japanese citizens, the kree nan people's army launched short-range missiles into the sea of japan in late june. these type of provocative actions towards our allies are deeply concerning. the u.s.-china relationship, along with our bilateral relations with south korea and japan is crucial in solving the interkorean conflict. we have to take a regional approach and we have to work together with our partners in the region. the conflict has multi-lateral implications, and therefore is not only a u.s. interest. as the world's greatest democracy, we must take a tougher stance with the international community on north korea's threatening 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 also encourage north korea to enforce the 2005 six-party talk agreements. north korea should be sincere with its commitment to the 2005 joint statement and allow iaea inspectors to renew their activity in the country. i'm also concerned with north korea's deplorable human rights record. north koreans do not have freedom of speech, movement or religion, they're also 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. i look forward to reviewing our actions, positions and policies toward north korea as we work an

denuclearization and their human rights record. mr. chairman, with that i'd like to yield back. and thank you for calling this hearing. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for opening statement. >> thank you. mr. king, welcome home. mr. chairman, thank you for holding these hearings. it was just a few months ago that you and i were at the dmz and also discussing north korea with president park and with prime minister abe. north korea doesn't trade with us, doesn't need us. it needs china from which it obtains enormous subsidies. we should be trying to change the behavior of north korea directly and, more importantly, china with a combination of carrots and sticks, even though the north korean government is despicable and political we could all try to outdo each other and who could be more opposed to the government, both carrots and sticks are call for. on the carrot side, we ought to be discussing with north korea a

non-aggression pact. they have asked for that in the past. it isn't our usual way of conducting state department business, but it's something they want, something we can give them, and if they ever see that mr. cheney might be vice president again, they might appreciate an official u.s. position against invasion. second somebody we can tell the chinese that even if there is unification, no american military forces will be stationed north of 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. north korea may not be quite as dangerous as other states because it is not as ambitious as iran. it seeks only to oppress its own people. but with a an erratic

government, shown to be even more erratic in the last six months, and a growing nuclear stockpile, we have every reason to try to trim the danger posed by north korea. yield back. >> thank you. gentleman yields back. i'd now like to introduce our distinguished panel here this afternoon. glen davis, the ambassador. special representative to secretary of state for north korea policy. he was appointed in january 2012 to facilitate high-level engagement with other -- our other six-party talk partners. he serves as a senior emissary for u.s. engagement with north korea. he also oversees u.s. involvement in the six-party talks process, as well as other aspects of our security, political, economic and human rights, and humanitarian assistance policy regarding north korea. special representative davies is a career member of the senior foreign service and served as the permanent representative of the united states to the international atomic energy

agency and the united nations office in vienna. his prior assignments include principal deputy assistant secretary of state, bureau of east asian and pacific affairs, and executive secretary of the national security council staff. we welcome you this afternoon, mr. ambassador. i'll next introduce robert king. ambassador king became the special envoy for north korean human rights issue in november 2009. ambassador king works under ambassador davies and has the lead on human rights and humanitarian affairs. prior to his appointment, ambassador king worked on capitol hill for 25 years. 24 of those years as chief of staff to congressman tom lantos. he was concurrently staff director of the foreign affairs committee of the u.s. house of representatives, democratic staff director of the committee and held various professional staff positions on the committee since 1993. ambassador king holds a ph.d in international relations from the fletcher school of law and

diplomacy, tufts university. he has authored several books and numerous articles on international relations and we welcome you here this afternoon as well, mr. ambassador. i'm sure you're both familiar with the five-minute rule so i won't take a lot of time, but the yellow light will come on. means you got a minute and we hope you wrap up as close as possible to when the red light comes on. we'll limit ourselves to five minutes as well. we'll begin with you, ambassador davies. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank so much, senator bera, members of the committee, thanks so much for inviting me and my colleague, ambassador king, to testify today on u.s. policy toward the democratic people's republic of korea, dprk for north, commonly known as north korea. the north korean regime is a global pariah working against the interests of its own people, its neighbors and the world. >> would you mind pulling the

mike just a little bit closer? make sure everybody in the room can hear. >> that's better. it violates its obligations by pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles posing a growing threat to the united states. our friends and allies and the global nonproliferation regime. it devotes an enormous amount of its scarce resources to weapons, to massive standing army and to vanity projects, all while 9 out of 10 north koreans suffer. we have no illusions about the nature of the regime. we have refused to reward its provocations with concessions. we have instead tightened sanctions and told the dprk that neither its occasional charm offensives or its more frequent aggressive behavior will lead us to accept a nuclear-armed north korea. like all recent administrations, we are open to engagement when possible but will apply pressure as needed. despite dprk backtracking, we remain 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, the dprk increasingly rejects meaningful negotiations. instead, it has unleashed multiple provocations that have drawn provocation and increased its isolation. in recent weeks it has conducted repeated ballistic missile launches in violation of u.n. security council rez lousolutio. on march 30th there were threats to conduct a new type of nuclear test. the dprk says it wants talks without preconditions. translation -- it seems open-ended six-party talks to gain acceptance as a nuclear weapon state and to camouflage its secret weapons development. we are not interested in talks unless their primary order of business is implementing north korea's september 2005 promise to denuclearize. the republic of korea is squarely at the center of our

efforts. there is no daylight between us on what we expect from north korea. president obama, speaking in south korea in april, expressed support for president park's vision of peaceful, progressive unification. the u.s. rok alliance ann in its 60th year is stronger than ever. our day to day combined efforts to maintain peace and stability on the peninsula send a strong deterrence and signal to north korea that the security it seeks is not to be found in nuclear weapons. our growing u.s. rfltk trilater security counsel also sends a message of deterrence to pyongyang. china has a key role to play in convincing north korea to denuclearize. that is why north korea remains at the top of our bilateral agenda with beijing. secretary kerry raised it prominently there in late july. we welcome the steps the prc has taken to oppose pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. since 2012 china has voted for

two new rounds of u.n. sanctions, and last year published a 900-item control list banning their export to north korea. together with our allies and partners we seek to show north korea its nuclear program stands in the way of the secure future it says it wants. we continue to increase the cost of its illicit activities by unilaterally tightening sashg sanctions. we work closely with the u.n. security council and like-minded partners to ensure full implementation of the four key security council resolutions. the july 2013 seizure by panama of a huge cache of military gear demonstrates u.n. sanctions are effective. the welfare of north korea's people is an essential focus of u.s. policy. the vast majority suffer from their government's self-impoverishing military-first policy. the u.n. commission of inquiry's sobering report detailed the systematic widespread and gross human rights violations being committed by the dprk. my colleague robert king's

tireless effort for many years demonstrate that human rights is a constant focus for us. three u.s. citizens are being held by north korea. their continued detention is a serious stumbling block to approved u.s.-dprk relations. we'll to inadvocate for their freedom and thank congress for its steadfast support in these efforts. mr. chairman, we aim to convince the dprk comply with its obligations and its isolation and respect the rights of its people. each outrageous north korean act discredits the assertion it's driven to act belligerently by other's hostility. it is now clearer than ever that north korea is developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles merely to prolong the kim regime and to obtain benefits from the international community. north korea alone is responsible for north korean actions and resolving the dprk nuclear program is a multi-lateral task. just as north korean's original aggression against the south was

met with a strong response from the united nations, standing up to north korea today requires a c concerted effort by the entire international community. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you very much, ambassador davies. now ambassador king, are you recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. congressman bera, members of the committee. thank you for this invitation to testify with mr. davies about u.s. policy on north korea. i will focus on human rights aspects of our policy on which there's been broad bipartisan cooperation. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, committee members, for your interest in the north korean human rights issues for the hearings that you held, for the meetings that you've held both here and in seoul and tokyo with victims and their families. north korean remains a totalitarian state which seeks to dominate all aspects of its citizens' lives, including

denial of basic freedoms and human rights. reports portray a vast network of political prison camps where individuals are subjected to forced labor under horrific conditions and the government commits human rights violations, including extra judicial killing, enslavement, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention, abduction of foreign citizens, as well as 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 u.n. 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 first-hand accounts of abuse and violence and leading international experts described the government

policies that repressed their people. public hearings were held in seoul, tokyo, london and here in washington, d.c. video and written transcripts of those hearings are available at the u.n. website. the commission's final report was one of the strongest and finest reports that the u.n. has 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, those violations meet the high standard, the high threshold required for proof of crimes against humanitarian an international law. the commission formally presented 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 for the creation of a field office under the high commissioner for human rights to preserve and document evidence of these human rights abuses.

south korea has agreed to host this office. building on this momentum, in april the united states, with australia and france, convened the first-ever u.n. security council discussion of human rights in north korea. the commission presented its report. two north korean refugees spoke of their personal experiences. 11 of the 13 security council members who attended that meeting expressed support for the report and called for accountability for the crimes that it outlined. as i have participated in the various u.n. meetings this past year, two things have struck me. first, it is clear that the north is feeling the growing international pressure. the mounding condemnation of its human rights record are has struck a chord within pyongyang. second, with the growing number of countries critical of north korean human rights, the only countries who defend the north are the world's worst human rights violators, belarus, cuba,

iran, syria, zimbabwe. mr. chairman, another key human rights matter that 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. it is illegal to own a radio or television set that can be tuned to any channel other than the official government media. anyone caught listening to foreign 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. foreign dvds are now being seen by even larger numbers. 85% of those interviewed have seen foreign, primarily south korean, media. some 2 million cell phones 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, i want to reiterate one point 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 bechltay, matthew mi and jeffrey fowl so that they may be reunited with their families. in terms of security and nuclear

issu issues, north korea must also address its egregious human rights violations. the choice is clear. if north korea does not take this action, it will continue to face greater isolation, condemnation an increasing pressure from the international community. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. members will now have five minutes to ask questions. i'll begin with myself. ambassador davies, on july 20th, secretary kerry was quoted as saying that north korea has been "quieter." i wouldn't describe the historic number of missiles and rocket and artillery launches this year so far -- nearly 100 -- as quiet. i also don't believe that solely because north korea hasn't staged another nuclear test this year that we would necessarily call pyongyang's behavior "quiet." can you perhaps clarify why secretary 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. i think that to kind of place it back in contempt, the secretary was referring to the fact that we are now some time on from the last major strategic provocation by north korea. it's been a while since they've either launched a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile or tested a nuclear device. >> do you think he would want to rephrase that perhaps differently or would you -- >> i think in context, it's easy to understand what the secretary was saying, which is that the cooperation, the collaboration, the diplomacy that we've been conducting with south korea, china and our other partners in the process has got an message through to pyongyang that when it acts strategically, when it tests a nuclear device and it is the only country on earth to have done it in this century. when it launches a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile, the world will react. it will react strongly and

unanimously. so i think that's what the secretary is referring to. it is absolutely the case the secretary's also spoken to this, as have 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 resolutions, that cannot be counted -- >> i would certainly agree with you and the administration there that it is unacceptable. i certainly wouldn't have called it "quieter," but that's okay. i'm going to turn to ambassador king, if i can. ambassador, you've done a commendable job representing the north korean human rights portfolio. i also recognize the difficulties you face since the administration doesn't make the human rights issue, in my view, enough of a top priority. i think it best, a second-tier issue behind nuclear proliferation. even if it's given sometimes lip service by calling it a top priority and constant focus. as such i'm disappointed that

following the release of the u.n. commission of inquiry report, in my view, little has been done. no human rights sanctions, no executive orders, and no move for a vote in the security council. ambassador king, can you tell us what is being done at this time to hold north korea accountable for the mass atrocities described in that report? i mean it was a horrific thing to read. and why there's been so little movement since the report's release. and then also, are you aware that there are three americans currently detained in pyongyang and i'm deeply concerned particularly about their well being and safety and one of those individuals, jeffrey fowl, is from right outside my district in ohio. i'm told he's being brought to trial, accused of carrying out hostile acts against the country. can you provide us with an update about this situation, where in the process the administration is to get these individuals released out of north korea? i certainly understand in a

forum like this you have to be careful because we don't want to jeopardize their situation or put them in any more jeopardy than they already are. so i understand that but to the degree we can handle that in a forum like this, i would appreciate some comment. >> thank you very much for the question, mr. chairman. with regard to the attention that we give to north korea human rights, i believe it was lyndon johnson that said you've got to be able to walk and chew gum talat the same time. i think that's what we're trying to do pushing on both the nuclear issue and the human rights issue. as we talked earlier, there is a lot that has been done this year with the release of the report. we've been attempting to use the u.n. report to continue to put pressure on north korea. in the u.n. security council, we've already had an informal meeting where we've had 13 of the 15 members attend, discuss the report and discuss its

recommendations. we're also in the process of looking towards activity in geneva. we'll continue our pressure in geneva at the human rights council on the human rights report. we're also going to have discussions in the general assembly in october at 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 by the end of this year. we're very active in terms of looking at how we might further push this forward in terms of action by the security council. with regard are to sanctions, we're looking at sanctions. one of the issues that we need to do is try to do whatever we do in concert with other countries. sanctions by the united states alone are very limited effectiveness. we have very little relationship with north korea. we have very little trade. we have very little economic connection. and to the extent that we can work together with our allies and jointly adopt sanctions and

look at actions that we can take together i think the more effective those issues will be. a brief quick comment. the three americans who are being held in north korea are a great concern to us. we've communicated with the north koreans our concern. we've requested repeatedly that they be released on humanitarian grounds. this includes mr. fowl, as well as kenneth bay and jeffrey miller. we're hoping to be able to have some gro pprogress on that. we continue to press the north koreans. we continue to work through the swedish government which takes care of our interests with regard to american citizens there. i have briefed your staff on this. i know you were aware of that. if there is anything that we can provide you directly, be happy to come up and talk with you about that. >> thank you for that. i'd like to continue to follow up with you at the staff level on mr. fowl in particular. but all of them. thank you very much. i now recognize the acting ranking member, gentleman from california, mr. bera.

>> thank you, chairman. ambassador davies, in your opening testimony i think you laid a framework that said any movement forward really starts with the framework that was laid out in the 2005 six-party talks. that is a starting point for us to move forward. also, ambassador king and ambassador davies, in describing north korea, you describe them as global pariah. we described them -- the crimes against humanity, the human rights violations. and it is -- from this vantage point, when you look at the kim regime, it is a regime that is less focused on its people and more focused on itself and creating its place. so i empathize with the difficulty of these negotiations. we can continue to further

isolate north korea, but we've also seen when we do that isolation how the kim regime responds if provocative manners. i think you accurately lay out that this is not a u.s.-north korea negotiation. this is a u.s.-japan-korea-china-russia negotiation in the framework of regional stability. and of those countries, we all have a vested interest in creating a stable region. but the key really in this case lies with an active engagement on china's behalf. i guess ambassador davies, i'd like you to comment on the talks that we've had with china, how china is viewing the new north korean regime, and comment on

china's role in moving these conversations forward. >> happy to do that, sir. thanks so much. yeah, klein a yeah, china and north korea are not at their above the historical moment right now. china was very vocal and active beginning over two years ago when the new third generation of leadership took over in pyongyang in signaling to the north korean regime that they would not support north korea taking provocative acts and north korea went ahead and did it. so in a sense, north korea has not been a good partner of china's, of late. and this has triggered, i think, a debate in china about the nature of its relationship with north korea. the chinese have begun to take acts that are somewhat remarkable in the historical

scheme of things, publicly signaling and warning north korea not to engage in strategic provocations, publishing this 900-item control list which is somewhat dramatic cutting off banking relations with the foreign trade bank, premier trade bank of north korea. also imposing strictures on some custom controls and so forth. so our role in this is to work with the chinese to try to figure out -- and this is the top-down. the president's been very engaged in this from the sunny land suof last summer, how can e united states and china enter diplomacy and convince north korea its future lies in living up to the promises that it made

in the middle of the last decade, abandoning these weapons, coming back into the fold of the international community, behaving better as an international actor and the chinese have done these unprecedented things. we've said to china that we appreciate it very much. there is only one problem with the acts that china's taken, and that is, of course, that they haven't yet worked to fundamentally change the calculus of pyongyang. so this is a work in progress b but we made progress. i think the new leadership in beijing understands they can't continue the status quo forever. this is a case where i think if we keep at it in a multi-lateral endeavor with the rok at the base of our concerns, we can ultimately make progress. >> if we look at this north korean regime that is provocative and potentially destabling in the region, as an

increase in trade between korea and china, japan and china, ourselves and china, our economies are increasingly interconnected in trade and we all benefit from a stable region that allows trade to occur. 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 a regional conversation. we do have to move forward with partners and i hope china is there increasing the pressure and increasing -- and i say to north korea that they're on the wrong path. >> gentleman's time's expired. we'll now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thanks for being here. was a little late so i missed your testimony but listening to some of the answers to some of the questions, you just -- it

just made gave me some new questions and some new things to think about. mr. davies, when you talked about we have made gains, one of my questions is going to be this strategy of strategic patience and many would contend that it really hasn't done anything. my question would be, what are the significant results of that? quite honestly, i feel like asking what are the significant or insignificant results from the context -- maybe i should first ask, this strategy of strategic patience, what's the time frame of this? are we looking at like 1,000 years? 100? is this my lifetime? because, you know, convincing north korea's leadership that this isn't their pathway to the future, i mean who are we kidding? does anybody in this room think that these people have the same mindset about their future that the people in here have? the leadership?

maybe peasants, maybe the underclass, maybe the people cited in the human rights council report have that view of some brighter future possibly. a what would motivate the people at the top to change anything? i'm really curious. what -- let me give you a question. what are the significant or insignificant results? how long is the strategy supposed to go and what makes you think that these folks would change their mindset whatsoever? >> well, a couple of things. strategic patience is like a bumper sticker that gets stuck on a car, then just doesn't get taken off even when the views of the driver change. i've been at this job 2 1/2 years.

i've never described our policy as strategic patience so it predates me. it's inaccurate. secretary of state when he was asked about it when he first came into office said that's not our policy. our policy is strategic impatience with north korea. we're going to continue to do everything we cannot to sit down and have a coffee klatch with most in pyongyang, this regime, is surviving. they want to preserve the status quo. they don't want anything to rock their boat. they're now -- it's the world's only historical example of a dineastic communist system, father, son, now in the third generation. they obviously 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 pump up the volume of a message to north korea that that's the road to ruin for north korea. that trying to pour scarce

resources into the development of these expensive weapons systems, while also trying to feed their people, which they have not been able to do adequately for now almost a generation, isn't going to work. so what they need to do is give up these weapons, begin to play by the rules. >> as far as the west or somebody in the west or coalition partners telling them that it's not going to work, from their perspective at the top, well, it's worked for three generations, we are not going to rock the boat. with all due respect, folks, the human rights council includes the likes of cuba and the democratic republic of the congo and some of these bad actors that abuse their own citizenry and acting like that's going to be a vehicle to shake north

korea's leadership off its foundation, i'd like to have whatever you folks are drinking and eating every day because you've got a wonderful view of some rose-colored future. to me, we're the united states. now i'm -- listen. future. we're the united states. this is a 20-year-old failure, in my opinion, so it's not fair time pose all of this upon you. but taking the same actions of the past -- okay, not strategic -- to me it's strategic apathy or avoidance. doing the same thing over and over again for the next 20, 30, 40 years and expecting a different outcome. if i'm here in 40 years we'll have the same conversation. you can go ahead and comment. >> we're not just talking about diplomatic messaging and sending them nice letters. we're talking about cutting off inputs through sanctions, and there's great successes. when panama rolled up the

largest shipment of north korean conventional weapons in july of last year on a korean 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. they chose not take it. instead they launch ad rocket in honor of the 100th anniversary of his grandfather's birth. 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 that. the cold war took three generations. sometimes these problems are so big they take patient application of increasing amounts of pressure accompanied by diplomacy in order to get these actors to realize they are going down a path that's leading them nowhere. that's our strategy. and the alternative, we're all ears. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would like to associate myself with the frustrations of the judge from pennsylvania. i think well said. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes.

>> well if we're associating ourselves with frustration i'm frustrated too and i'm sure you are and everyone in the audience is. i'm not quite sure what the relevance of our frustration is to fashion a public policy that creates change. and 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 aware of that and welcome your reaction. i mean i assume you support it and hopefully if it becomes law we can use it as another tool in the bag. ambassador davies? >> for us it's a third rail to comment on pending legislation. i think sanctions are a tool that's a value, and i think we

demonstrated that through the actions we've taken unilaterally and working with our partners around the world. we remain very open to further sanctions options. whether 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 fired to solve this problem. >> let's explore that just a little bit. where do you think the pressure points are -- i mean i heard what you were saying about china which was quite intriguing, but in some ways if china has lost leverage over the regime at pyongyang then where are the pressure points that the west can turn to or south korea can turn to the try to rein in behavior or, you know, reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. where are those leverage points? >> sure. well china hasn't lost leverage.

they've just decided there are limits to the leverage that they are willing to exercise. so when it comes to food and fuel for north korea, china is absolutely critical in that respect. so there is more that china can do. but we think it works much better if the world in particular the neighbors in north korea act together on this, supported by the rest of the international community. so, this is the achilles heel. it can't feed itself because it's broken its own economic system, hollowed it out over the years. so in terms of ways to put pressure on them, these are some of the ways that we can use to do that. >> and i appreciate that. but the normal kinds of leverage when you look at sanctions regimes, you know, we're looking at it on russia right now.

well 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. so they are feeling some heat. we don't have that kind of leverage with the north korea regime, do we >> we have limited leverage because we have almost no trade with them, that's correct. >> of course, they use their nuclear program as leverage over the west in terms of food supplies, emergency food supplies and the like. >> that's correct. >> yeah. >> i should say one of the biggest points of leverage is the strength of our alliance relationships particularly south korea because it's their peninsula and japan. our ability to defend our friends and ourselves against north korean threats is a huge part what we have. >> let me explore the china relationship again.

if i understood your testimony in a sense there's been a reassessment in china of the nature of relationship with pyongyang. is that your testimony >> they are debating it. >> they are debating it. do you believe as part of that debate the new leadership in beijing -- first the economic ties to some korea is for more than north korea? >> sure. >> given they are a stakeholder in the success of the capitalist korea economy do you believe they are 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 engaging reform of their economy and the north koreans have resisted that. >> what leverage are the chinese prepared to use to rein in

belligerent behavior, try to achieve some of those market reforms, and are they prepared, do you believe, in some kind of timetable to move eventually towards an accomodation with the south if not outright reunification with the south. >> this is one of the fascinating conversations that have occurred during the recent summit meeting between the president of china and president of south korea. beijing is voting with its feet. president of china has met multiple times with its counterpart in south korea. has yet to travel to north korea. things are changing. i wish they were faster. these are the changes i'm observing. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. how has ruhani's regime changed

the relationship? >> we watch any prolie feration or signs of proliferation between him and his regime. >> any suggestion that north korea and iran have intentionally focused on different aspects of nuclear weapons capability to speed up the final result of both countries. >> you're starting to get me deep down into intelligence matters. these are the sort of things we would be happy to brief you on in a closed hearing. again, a matter of serious concentration and strong study by the administration. >> given iran and newark's cooperation in the past, do you think it's likely that north korea would share any future nuclear test data with iran?

>> 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 -- >> i'm sorry. again, i mean i think intelligence information -- >> the witness will answer the question. >> thank you, urinyour honor. >> you may proceed. >> pardon me could you restate that. >> it's a concern of iran and north korea have cooperated in the past. >> i think there's every incentive between them to cooperate to some aspect of this that's correct. >> you don't think, the rihani regime hasn't changed any of that dynamic that has led to the cooperation in the past? >> not that i'm aware of but one would hope there would be changes. >> a report