tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 1, 2014 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT
9:00 pm
program is administered through the individual employers. >> it's historic. it's been developed, but it was -- and it's applied, but you're mostly talking in terms of how things have been in the past or -- but not how things are most recently and where we're going with this. >> we don't conduct the testing ourselves. we require the employers to conduct it. >> right. >> so many of our -- >> have you changed any of those requirements? >> no, sir, we have not. we've maintained under the regulations the -- >> the same old, same old. but see, that's my point. i think we're -- you have to go to risk base when you are doing most of these approaches to try to ensure safety. and pre-employment is one. we've done that in the past. we're doing that. now we have a new situation with much more of this available
9:01 pm
narcotic on the market. and we've seen an increase in use just by the statistics that were presented by some of the panelists today. but are you adapting the department of transportation regulations or advisories to where we see the most risk? we've got faa, federal railroad administration. national highway safety. tell me if there have been any changes in directives in the last 24 months. >> there have not been any changes to our random testing rates but many of our employees are interstate. so if a pilot flies in and out of denver doesn't mean he or she lives anywhere near denver. many of our employees throughout the different modes of transportation are not purely in one state.
9:02 pm
they operate across states. >> again, i think we need to be preemptive in d.o.t. in protecting people. i had dinner the other night with a friend from florida. and asked him what he was going to do for a vacation. he says we're putting it off a little and we're going to go skiing. he said -- this is just in conversation. he said we had planned to go to colorado. he said but the last thing i want to do is take my three kids out there and have somebody stoned, you know, posing a risk to him. he's going to utah. i mean, just -- >> no risk there. >> family friendly utah. >> but that's one change, a father in behavior. we are responsible for the safety of the public. you are responsible for administering rules, regulation that impact pilots who carry
9:03 pm
passengers, train -- i showed that one crash 25 people killed. and that's before some of these changes in law, granted. and we've seen that again, incidents of use, whether it's young people or older is more. so you've told me there aren't any changes. i want to get a message to mr. fox and others that we do need to look at adapting this. we also need to get the data. maybe there isn't the problem that is perceived and the data would support that. maybe it's worse than what we imagined. but we need to know. we need to act based on facts and act based on risk and preempt, as much as you can, bad effects an the general public and their safety. >> and the data is a good point. we collect data from the laboratories. the laboratory confirmed positives.
9:04 pm
we've been doing that every six months. it's aggregate national data. but what we've seen so far since 2008 is a steady rate of marijuana positives ranging between 21,000 to 22,000 out of roughly 2.5 to 3 million employees tested each six-month period. so we have seen those numbers remain the same across the nation again as it comes in as aggregate. >> again, i think it's important, too, that we look from a safety standpoint. i'm not selling any products, but this is the only one i fond available, this particular european model for testing. and this swabs can be used an site. i don't know if we're looking at using this kind of a test for truck drivers, train drivers, where we're doing spot checking. we're not doing it using anything like this now, are we? >> we're required by the
9:05 pm
statute, the omnibus testing act to follow the science as it's developed by the department of health and human services and implemented through the mandatory guidelines. so we look to -- >> so we have none of -- this is not accepted yet, mr. flegel, is it? >> currently we're looking at having the oral fluid standards come out and then -- >> and is that nitsa or whatever it is? >> this would be through the mandatory guidelines. >> but they are involved in setting standards is that correct? >> we set the mandatory guideline testing cut-offs and standards. so once those standards are out to the public, we would like to evaluate them. >> can you give us the committee chronological estimate as to when you're going to complete, again, what you are saying here before the committee? because dealing with some of the standards, i just pulled down
9:06 pm
the national standards and testing bill a couple of weeks ago -- or within the last two weeks. just because they had jerked us around for ten years on a biometric standard for an iris i.d. and they promised and promised and not performed. i don't want to be coming back to a hearing saying, where are they developing this? we need some federal standards and we need also new tests that have acceptable standards to evaluate people who are on the job in transportation and make certain the public is safe. do you see my point? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
9:07 pm
by the way, i know the chairman did not mean to suggest in any way that colorado is not a safe place to go skiing. his friend at dinner may have a private view. i'm sure there are wonderful reasons to go to colorado and utah and anywhere else one wishes to ski. and i know my colorado colleagues who are not here would want me to say that. i'm sure you didn't mean that, mr. chairman. >> maybe you can stay home in florida or go home to virginia. >> florida and virginia, obviously, are better. mr. hart, there's legislation with respect to pilot license medical certification here in the congress that would actually no longer require medical certificates for pilots whose craft carries up to five passengers. are you aware of that legislation? >> yes, i am aware of that legislation. >> and what do you think about
9:08 pm
it? >> we're very concerned about pilots flying without adequate medical standards. but we base our -- what we -- our policy based on what we see in accidents. so far we haven't seen enough accidents to warrant an agency position on it but we are very concerned not only about not having to have a medical but then in addition to that, if you don't have a medical, you're less likely to pay attention to the faa's list of prohibited legal drugs as well as, obviously, the illegal drugs. but obviously the legal drugs. we're concerned that list will not be paid attention to by people who don't have a medical certificate. >> it just strikes me as very odd. here we're having a hearing on, you know, the utilization and potential harmful effects of any kind of drug or controlled substance in the operation of any kind of vehicle, and, meanwhile, there's apparently legislation that would exempt a class, a subclass of people who fly airplanes.
9:09 pm
and i can't believe for a minute that if we really are concerned about the use of marijuana or any other drug, that we would ever count on legislation like this. i cannot believe that that could come to any good. so i encourage you, mr. hart and your colleagues, to re-examine that legislation and hopefully take a position on it because it seems to contradict everything we're talking about this morning at this hearing. >> we will certainly pay close attention to that in our future accident investigations. >> thank you. dr. michael, just thinking about driving while impaired and things that we discourage. for example, we're worried about thc, but, i mean, texting while driving. bad idea? >> of course, sir. very bad idea. >> kills people. >> of course. >> do we have data on it?
9:10 pm
>> yes, we do. >> how many people were killed on the roads last year texting while driving? >> distraction in general is about 3,000 people. texting alone is several hundred. >> right. >> alcohol and driving? >> in 2012, 10,322 people died in crashes in which a driver had a blood alcohol limit above the legal limit. >> sleep deprivation? >> sleep is harder to measure, of course. but we believe it is a significant problem. >> would it be fair to say that studies on sleep deprivation and driving suggest that sleep deprivation mimics in almost exact detail drinking and driving in terms of impairment? >> at least in some details. >> aggressive driving, driving at unsafe speeds.
9:11 pm
>> as many as one-third of crashes are attributed at least in part to excessive speed. >> and how many deaths can we attribute to thc in the blood stream? >> currently that's difficult to say, sir. >> i just -- fair enough. probably not zero, but we don't know. >> we don't have a precise estimate. >> we have precise estimates on distracted driving. 3,331. we have precise estimates of drinking and driving. so i just want to put it in context. no one is arguing it's a good idea. but the fact of the matter is we don't have a lot of data. now let me ask, do we have a standard? if i could borrow your gizmo here for a moment.
9:12 pm
>> you want to a swab? >> the chairman points out that parts of europe they talk a swab sample, put it in here and measure thc. do we have any such device that we use in our law enforcement in the united states? >> yes. there is some use of devices very similar to that by law enforcement. in fact, we are currently doing a pilot test in california to test the feasibility of more widespread use of devices very similar to that. >> we have an alcohol standard that blood alcohol above a certain standard, you are in legal jeopardy. would you remind us what that standard is? >> 0.08. >> and that's a national standard? >> yes, it is. >> and accepted by virtually all states? >> that's right. >> do we have a comparable standard for thc? >> no, we don't, sir. the available evidence does not support the development of an
9:13 pm
impairment threshold for thc which would be analogous to that for alcohol. >> why is that? >> the available evidence indicates that the response of individuals to increasing amounts of thc is much more variable than it is for alcohol. so with alcohol, we have a considerable body of evidence that can place risk odds at increasing levels of blood alcohol content. for example, 0.08 blood alcohol content is associated with about four times the crash risk of a sober person. the average arrest is 0.15. that's associated with about 15 times the crash risk. beyond some broad confirmation that higher levels of thc are generally associated with higher
9:14 pm
levels of impairment, a more precise association of various thc levels and degrees of impairment are not yet available. >> that's really interesting. so we don't have a uniform standard. the variability is much greater than that with other controlled substances such as alcohol. we actually can't scientifically pinpoint levels of impairment with any accuracy? we would all concede there's some impairment for some period of time but it's very variable and we're not quite sure yet, certainly not sure enough to adopt a uniform standard as to here's the maximum level beyond which we know there's serious impairment? >> that's fair to say, sir. >> wow. and that's a substance one controlled substance. well, i think it underscores
9:15 pm
your testimony underscores, dr. michael, why we need a lot more science here. and i guess what really strikes me is that, meanwhile, as i said in my opening statement, the laboratories of democracy, 22 states plus the district of columbia, have decided to legalize marijuana in some fashion. most of them for medical purposes but some of them even for recreational purposes and, meanwhile, at least at a national level, we're not comfortable with the science in terms of the impact of thc on operating a vehicle of any kind. fair statement? >> yes. and, of course, we're pursuing that science. >> i understand. so we're pursuing it. is there a goal or an end date where we want to achieve so by a certain date we hope to have
9:16 pm
some preliminary -- we hope to have the basis upon which to examine or adopt some preliminary standards comparable to other substances? >> we have sponsored some work with standards development with regard to measurement techniques and specific drugs to be measured in -- among traffic crashes and drivers involved in traffic crashes and also minimum cut-off levels that represent the analytical capabilities of existing technology. those recommendations have been established. what we lack are a thresholds of impairment that are analogous to 0.08 bac. one step that's currently ongoing that will take us well in that direction is the crash risk study that i mentioned in
9:17 pm
my opening statement. this is the same sort of study that was done for alcohol a number of years ago which established those risk levels that i told you about. so this involves a very careful look at two groups of subjects. one group who has been involved in a crash. another group who has not. and looking for relative concentration levels of factors that might have caused the crash. factors such as thc use. with those kinds of studies can develop the risk odds that could potentially be used to develop a threshold in the future. >> thank you. i wish you luck in your research. i just think it is amazing with some of the rhetoric about thc and marijuana use. with 50 years -- i guess it's 50 years we've declared it a class one substance. we still don't have enough data to know just how dangerous it is
9:18 pm
in operating a vehicle. and that really raises questions about either, you know, the classification itself and whether that makes any sense, or raises serious questions about how our government is operating in terms of the data it does not have and the science it does not know and yet the assertions that we make. and that is not a good recipe for -- rational public policy. and it's one of the reasons i suggest that 22 states have just headed in a different direction. but there's danger in that, too. they are going in a direction also without the science. and there are lots of complications. previous hearing we had, and dr. fleming and i talked about this along with the chairman. you know, you've got doctors in
9:19 pm
states where legalization for medicinal purposes has been granted who, nonetheless, really don't have protocols. really don't have the science to decide on levels of efficacy, mixing it with other drugs for enhanced efficacy. potential dangers. overdose, whatever. and i just think we're at a point where we've got to get a lot more serious about the science in order to have, to fashion rational public policies, including with respect to transportation safety. i thank you all for your testimony. mr. chairman, again, a thoughtful hearing. i thank you. thank you, dr. fleming. >> thank you. dr. fleming? >> mr. michael, to kind of follow up on some of the question from my good friend from virginia, we don't have adequate science on the effects of marijuana, thc specifically on the body.
9:20 pm
and speaking as a physician and someone who has worked in the area of addiction, my understanding of this is that it's a much more complex interaction and physiology between the drug, the body. for instance, we know metabolites remain in the body for up to 30 days after use. much of it is stored in the fat so fat body content can affect. would that be a correct assumption that that's really what makes this a more difficult issue in terms of measurement then alcohol? >> yes, sir, of course. you are completely right on that. the study of the effect of thc on driving is much more challenging in just about every aspect than that for alcohol. >> right. so, really, it's multidimensional as opposed to alcohol which you can draw a straight line on the graph.
9:21 pm
again, plus or minus, a small tolerance level. 0.08 is when people become far more impaired, hitting a critical threshold. we just don't know that. even if it exists in thc. it may be a much smoother graph. well, given the fact that we have certainly a lack of knowledge of the effects of thc on the body and on the brain and behavior, although we know we have a lot of examples of problems from it, would it lead you to be more restrictive until we get that information or less restrictive in the application and allowance of that use of that drug going forward? >> with regard to use on the roadway, which, of course, is my major concern, it's the decision of the states how they want to deal with these impairment
9:22 pm
issues. >> we try to provide them with guidance. states have been able to response to alcohol impairment and drive those numbers down. in 2012, there were over 12,000 killed in such crashes. 20 years previously, that number was well over 20,000. >> going beyond bl we're comparing thc with alcohol or any other drug, and i'm asking your personal opinion, i'm going to ask the opinion of the rest of the panel members here as well. if you have a drug we could define the effects adequately, but we know it can have serious -- in fact proof it can actually kill people, does it make sense to be more aggressive
9:23 pm
in terms of relaxing the standards? or does it make sense to be more conservative and wait for that science to develop? >> well, i think that it makes sense to be very cautious with policy when -- when the complete evidence is not yet available. >> okay, mr. hart, what is your opinion, sir? >> as accident investigators, we follow where the accidents take us. that's the reason, for example, we did something very controversial, which was to recommend the blood alcohol number be reduced from 0.08 to 0.05, as we know any alcohol is impairing and there is no bright line this is too much, and it's a policy question of where should it be for legal enforcement? we would have that same approach as any other substance. >> so certainly buzzed driving is the same thing as impaired driving?
9:24 pm
>> that's the slang for it, yes, that's correct. >> so whenever there's a question as to the more conservative and more protective and more restrictive, when it doubt always be a little safer and a little more restrictive. would that be a safe estimate from your opinion? >> well, we are the safety people. we would always go in the direct of -- >> very good. i'm 2 for 2 here. how about you, ms. kelly? >> well, we rely on the science and we make the policy based on the science. >> but when there's a lack of science, you lean towards being more conservative until that science develops? or just full steam ahead, let's go ahead and give it a chance? >> we remain with the science on it. when our scientists at the department of health and human services tell us that things have changed, then we follow under the omnibus testing act, we follow what they say. until then, it remains a schedule 1, we treat it as a
9:25 pm
schedule 1 with no excuse. >> so you would agree without without being aggressive to change something to a more relaxed standard without the science to back that safety up, you're reluctant to move forward? >> we cannot make the changes without the science, yes, sir. >> and how about you? >> as with my colleague here from d.o.t., under executive order, thc is mentioned directly and we'll continue to test for schedule i and schedule ii drugs. >> so i think certainly we have somewhat of an agreement here. i think we can all agree to the fact that until we have the science, we should be careful and cautious. certainly one of the things about thc is, because it has been illegal, we haven't been doing the studies, the research, and only now, even some of the important data that's come out
9:26 pm
has only come out very recently as it's become legalized. for instance, we know even in casual users there's profound changes in the brain, we see that on mri scans and we've done a number to see that. we also know a longitudinal study showed a progressive decline in iq. even with early studies we're beginning to see a lot of problems. that's not withstanding the up to 14% of fatal accidents involved thc. now we hear about medicinal marijuana. it's interesting that in the state of california, and in the city of denver we have more pot dispensaries than we do starbucks. and i don't know what your opinion is, but i don't think people are that unhealthy in denver and in california. is there anyone on the panel that would disagree with that?
9:27 pm
so, again, i question -- here's my question, as it interacts with what you do. do you treat someone who is on medicinal marijuana, versus recreational marijuana, any differently when it comes to traffic accidents, when it comes to being able to, say, fly an airplane? or to engineer a train? do you treat those people any differently? anyone like to comment on that? >> no, sir, we do not. the department of transportation, all the transportation safety-sensitive employees are subject to the same testing. we did issue the two statements. one in 2009, in response to the medicinal marijuana laws and states, and 2012 on recreational, everyone is to be treated the same, there's no legitimate explanation for the schedule i drug marijuana.
9:28 pm
>> so for all intents and purposes, if someone is sick and needs marijuana that person is disabled for the purpose of having a job in transportation >> if that person tests positive, they will be required to be removed from safety-sensitive positions. >> okay, very good. now, there was a mention here about -- i think -- i didn't catch all of the exchange there, but i believe there was, mrmr. mr. connelly brought up the bill that would reduce the standards for private pilots such that all you would require is just a regular driver's license to be able to qualify in terms of safety standards to fly an airplane. mr. hart, did i catch that right? or were you talking about a different subject? >> you are correct. it's legislation to allow private pilots to not have to have the medical examination
9:29 pm
that they are now required to have. >> right. so in theory someone could be with that standard, and maybe under the current standard, a private pilot could be flying an airplane under the influence of marijuana, thc. >> that is possible, and we've investigated accidents. that's why we're having this forum and having a meet in september to get more specific about it. >> i love to watch documentaries on tv. i was watching one the other night that discussed airplanes and midair collisions. what they focused on was private aircraft that had drifted in the wrong air lane and interacted with a commercial aircraft. one that comes to mind, i was living in the area at the time, it was san diego, i believe it was 1978, where you had a private airplane that drifted -- they were actually in the wrong airspace. they collided with a commercial
9:30 pm
aircraft. hundreds of people died as a result of that. so what that would suggest to me is that no matter what the highest standard you could ever come up with for a commercial pilot, when you have private pilots out there who could be impaired and not receive the same high standard, then they are in effect just as dangerous to the commercial passengers as the commercial pilot himself if his standards were lowered as well. would you agree or disagree with that? a private pilot flying with lower standards in effect has the same potential impact as the pilot of a commercial aircraft is impaired instead. >> when we do our accident investigation, the issue of impairment may be independent of the issue of what their medical standard was. if they're impaired, whether they had a medical certificate or not, we're going to put that in the probable cause if that was a cause of the accident.
9:31 pm
>> right. so certainly a private aircraft -- a safety of aviation in general is no better than what the lowest standard for any pilot who's in the air. so as we have pilots who in this case hopefully it will never is into the law, but we have pilots flying with no more standard than to have a driver's license and hopefully be certified to fly, of course, that makes sense, but no medical standard beyond that, and then we have the legalization and the increase in medicinalization and decriminalization of marijuana, then i see the risk of air travel to be growing in the future as we go forward with that. so certainly i would suggest, mr. chairman, that we look at this both sides. one is the fact there's many reasons in my view why we should not go forward with legalization, medicinalization, or decriminalization, but having
9:32 pm
highest standards for all who fly in the air, realizes there are new threats with regard to thc. one last question. what sort of guidance are you getting from the white house? the president has been given some ambiguous cues on this. in 2011, he made very clear statements that marijuana should not be legalized, that it's a potential danger, and certainly young people should stay away from it. but in 2014, he made other statements that suggested it's maybe no worse than tobacco or alcohol. i would love to hear from you as government agencies, what sort of guidance, if any, are you getting from the white house? mr. michael? >> we work closely with the white house office of national drug control policy, and we are a part of the national drug strategy.
9:33 pm
we -- the office has provided us support for our roadside survey, and for other research that we have done, so i would say that we are getting very good input and very good support. >> okay. anyone else? >> i would say also the same. we work closely with the national drug control policy in setting standards. they set policy, we set the regulatory sites. so we've worked well with them over the last year. >> have you been moved in any direction towards relaxed standards or legalization of marijuana from the white house? any guidance in that direction? >> we're currently, as i stated under executive order, so we are under executive order to test for schedule i, schedule ii drugs, and that will remain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very interesting discussion, and panel, thank you so much. >> thank you, dr. fleming. didn't the president, after he
9:34 pm
made a statement, it was no worse than alcohol or drugs or tobacco, we did have testify at the ondc, i think it was deputy, and i think he said he disagreed with the white house. you all said you have been working with ondcp. you would agree with them more than the president, mr. hart? i'm going to put you on the spot. >> our guidance is to investigate accidents, find out what happened and recommend -- >> that's right, you didn't commit yourself on that, but dr. michael did. dr. michael, you said you were working with ondcp and you concurred with them. so which -- you agree with what they said? ondcp? >> we are in agreement with ondcp. i'd like to say we are in agreement with the president as well. >> oh, no, no, that -- i could make a funny comment now, but i won't. we may have to get the testing
9:35 pm
equipment out here. mr. -- >> and again we work closely with ondcp on everything as far as both -- >> but again the president said one thing, we hauled in the deputy director, he disagreed with the president. we had a whole host of people, d.e.a., other agencies, who also disagreed with the president. that was my point. i tried to embarrass you, but it didn't work, so -- dr. michael, you said it's the decision of the states, really, but the federal government does set some standards. we have a 0.08 standard now, if you don't comply with that, we can penalize you, and that's an incentive, is it not? >> yes, the congress established a statute. >> that's come down -- in fact, i just read one of the offices, yes, interior office,
9:36 pm
recommended going to 0.05, is that right? >> i believe that was a -- >> i knew one of you did, but there's a recommendation, and then we do assess penalties to states that don't comply, where we -- there's some -- some reduction in their eligibility for programs or funds, but that was your recommendation, mr. hart? >> that was our recommendation, correct, mr. chairman. >> one of the problems we have here is we don't have federal standards. we do have states adopting standards. colorado, it's five nanograms per milliliter, i guess. is there any consideration of any standard under way other than what the national standards board is considering? are you guys looking at anything? >> yes, we are.
9:37 pm
we recognize that we need more testing of drivers at the state level. >> and then you need some means of testing. i want you also to comment. you said you're using some similar devices in testing. there's nothing with a standard, there's nothing that has been accepted as a -- as a -- an acceptable or certified -- i'm sure you haven't certified anything yet, piece of equipment that can test, correct? >> that's right. the technology which you have in your hand is developing rapidly. we think this will improve testing. >> you said california you're doing some testing? >> yes, we are doing some pilot tests in four locations in california as we speak to test the feasibility of those with
9:38 pm
the idea, if they are working well, that encouraging their use by states. more testing, we believe, would also -- >> is this just internal or are you working with a national standards testing agency? >> this test we're working with state officials. >> but not with the ones setting the standard, or at least looking at setting some standards, which would be our national standards testing, whatever the initials are. >> no, we are not working with -- >> i think it would behoove you to contact them. we'll also -- i'll ask the committee to put you in touch with them. i've had my go-arounds with them and they do take a while to develop a standard. i mean, it's an important responsibility and you have to be accurate and whatever you adopt does become a standard. so i would suggest that -- you know -- i don't do these
9:39 pm
hearings just to hear ourselves talk. we're trying to also stay ahead of the curve. we have dramatically changing laws that our states, and it changes social behavior, and we don't have the same -- mr mr. connolly was talking about marijuana when he went to college or something, and this is much more powerful. we've had testimony that confirms this, that we've got people more at risk. we have laws rapidly changing. societal view of the risk, and then talked about teens are most susceptible and also the most vulnerable, the most slaughtered by transportation -- by a vehicle, many of them by alcohol, some by substance abuse, and we see increasing use of that, particularly among the
9:40 pm
most vulnerable who are now viewing this as less of a risk. so we do have some serious issues here. no standards, no testing capability, and then we haven't done -- we've done some testing in the past 2007, 2013, we don't have that data back. i want to see some data and i want to see fox and others looking at beefing up the testing and the regulations where we have now more exposure to a schedule i narcotic being more available to the public, and the implications on public safety and transportation. so that's something hopefully positive that can come from this. also, it's my understanding marijuana stays in the system longer than alcohol. we've got a whole host of things
9:41 pm
that need to be looked at, and again implications from a different type of substance that is posing risk. i've been on transportation for two decades. something good about some institutional knowledge, but one of the things we focused on in transportation, when you see people getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands a year, we did some simple things. we put in guardrails and a median, there were so many cross-over -- we put in simple, what do you call it? rumble strips so people who have fallen asleep are awakened and alert. we encouraged the safety air bags and the side, and whole structural changes. now, if we don't do something when we see a danger of a new narcotic, again the potential of more people impaired, driving
9:42 pm
while impaired, whether, again a vehicle, manning a train, piloting, and i showed just a few samples of the civil planes. we have pages and pages. i showed four. i showed one picture of a teenage fatality, and we know from the blood test, people say no one gets killed from smoking marijuana. well, i differ with that. so it's a serious issue. we have serious responsibility, and i intend to pursue the matter beyond even this hearing so i thank each of you for coming out, for being part of today's hearing. hopefully we can all do a better job, and there being no further business, well, let me see. with the kerr kerran concurrenc
9:43 pm
minority, we'll leave the record open for ten additional days. we may have additional questions, and i've asked for additional information to be submitted for the record. white house objection, so ordered. no further business before the government operations subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. tomorrow on washington journal, a review of the past week in congress as members
9:44 pm
depart for their five-week summer recess. also todd akin on his new book "firing back" taking on the party bosses and media elite to protect our freedom. and the executive director of the american immigration lawyers association with the latest in the debate over immigration reform. also news week writer kirk icon wad will talk about the super plot to destroy america that examines conspiracy theories and the threat they pose to u.s. national security. we'll take your phone calls, facebook posts and tweets. live at 7:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span. in a live simulcast of tekentuc educational tv -- >> american artifacts on american history tv. this weekend, a visit to the national security archives revealing classified documents. 50 years ago, congress passed the gulf of tonkanin bill.
9:45 pm
american artifacts sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. watch more american history tv next week. while congress is in recess, american history tv will be in primetime monday through friday featuring events on watergate on its 40th anniversary. american history tv on c-span3. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3, we complement the coverage by showing you the most rel vntd heevant hearings. and it's the home to american history tv with programs that tell your nation's story including six unique stories. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events, touring art faths and historic sites. history bookshelf, with the best known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of the nation's commanders in chief.
9:46 pm
lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past, and real america, featuring educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3 creating by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. the house foreign affairs subcommittee on asia and the pacific discusses u.s. policy towards north korea on wednesday. members look at the nuclear program and human rights prograh and hear from two state department officials. this is about one hour and 15 minutes.
9:47 pm
and welcome to the afternoon subcommittee hearing.er i wantno to thank our ranking member again. and also thank our distinguishev witnesses for being here this al afternoon.guis it's taken six months for our schedules to align, so we hope this afternoon's hearing is a nh productiveea one. in march this subcommittee held a hearing to examine the the findings of the united nations commission of inquiry report onu human rights inma north korea.o. anyone who would be -- anyone would be hard pressed to deny the extent of human rights huma abuses being committedn by the most repressive totalitarian regime on earth.regi the report, the first of its fr kind, was a shocking wake-up call for the international community to take action. for the u.s. to take action. unfortunately, it's been ever s
9:48 pm
five months and we're still stl waiting for some pretty y significant action on this.s. north korea is one of the greatest security threats to the peace and stability of asia, and one of the united states's most vexing security challenges. it's also one of the greatest policy failures of the past two decades.o this year marks the 20th anniversary since the united states and north korea signed ea the framework which called on north korea to freeze operations and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons ons program. this agreement framed our ag relations for about eight yearsh from north korea's vantage point, it was a ruse, as the entire time, they continued to develop its uranium enrichment capabilities. then in an effort to continue nl nuclear negotiations with northt korea, we took a multilateral approach and began the six-party talks. once again, concession after concession. this method of negotiation also
9:49 pm
failed and has been stalled een since december 2008. so where are we today? north korea has tested three tt nuclear devices since 2006.nce the most recent in early 2013, and has declared itself a eclare nuclear-armed state.r-arme belligerent andd threatening rhetoric from pyongyang's leader has escalated since he took the throne in 2011. it's launched nearly 100 ballistic missiles, artilleries and rockets since the beginning of this year, and its web of illicit activities and eratio communication withn illegal gr organizations has expanded. it continues unfettered and without unlimitation. wit most of the world's attention today is blocked on places like ukraine, where russia is rus supporting the infiltration of rebel troops in the crimea and eastern ukraine and the middle east, where hamas operatives in
9:50 pm
gaza are trying to wipe israel off the map, but we must also al look east.oo it should come as no surprise pe that just this past weekend, it was reported hamas militants are negotiating a weapons deal wortd hundreds of thousands of dollars with north korea for missiles and communications equipment. 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
9:51 pm
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
9:52 pm
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
9:53 pm
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
9:54 pm
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
9:55 pm
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
9:56 pm
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
9:57 pm
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.
9:58 pm
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
9:59 pm
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
10:00 pm
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
10:01 pm
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
10:02 pm
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
10:03 pm
'>> people. it's neighbors and the world. >> would you mind pulling the mic just a little bit closer to make sure everybody in the room can hear. >> that better. >> that's better. >> okay. it violates it's 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 amount of weapons and massive standing army and vanity projects while nine out of ten north koreans suffer. we have no illusions about the nature of the regime. we have tightened sanctions and told them neither the charm offensives or aggressive behavior will lead us to accept a nuclear armed north korea. we're open to engagements when possible but when apply pressure
10:04 pm
as needed. >> despite dprk back tracking we remain committed to talks. talks won't succeed until they recognize that they will live up to its promises. regrettedly, they regret meaningful negotiations. instead it has unleashed multiple provocations that have drawn condemnation and increase isolation. these followed similar lanunch earlier this spring punctuated on march 30 with threats to conduct a nuclear test. the dprk says it wants talks without preconditions. translations it seeks open-ended six party talks to gain acceanca nuclear weapons state and camouflage. we are not interested in talk
10:05 pm
unless they are living up to their promise to denuclearize. the republican of korea is squarely at the center of our efforts. there's no day light between us from what we expect from north korea. president obama speaking in south car in april, expressed president park's vision for peaceful unification. our day to day efforts to ma maintain stabilities at the peninsula. our growing usrok trilateral security cooperation also sends a powerful message of deterre s deterrents. china has a key role to play in convincing north korea to denuclearize that's why they remain at the top of our bilateral agenda with beijing.
10:06 pm
we welcome the steps the prc has taken to oppose their nuclear weapons program. since 2012 china has voted for two new rounds of urk n sanctions and last year banished exports to north korea. we seek to show that its nuclear program stands in the way of the future its says it wants. we continue to unilaterally tighten sanctions and closely work with the un security counsel and light mined pa-mind partners to see full impleme implementati implementation. the well fair of north carrkore people is an essentially to focus of u.s. policy. the vast suffer from the impofring military first policy.
10:07 pm
my colleague robert king's tireless ef oforts 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 improve relations. we will continue to advocate their freedom. mr. chairman, we aim to convince them to comply with its obligations and end its liceation and respect the rights of its people. each outrageous north korea act discredited the assertion that it's driven to act by others hostility. it's more clear than ever that north korea is developing nuclear weapons.
10:08 pm
n resolving the nuskly clear progs a multilateral task. standing up to north korea today requires a concerted effort by the entire international community. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm happy to take your kw questions. >> thank you very much ambassador davies. we will now turn to ambassador king. >> thank you very much chairman. remembers of the committee. thank you for this invitation to testify with ambassador davies on u.s. policy with north korea. we will focus on human rights. i want to thank you mr. chairman and committee remembmef members the meetings you've held both here and in tokyo with victims and their families.
10:09 pm
north korea remains a toll tsta which seeks to dominate all aspects of its citizen's lives include denial of human rights. reports portray a vast network of political prison camps where individuals are subjected to forced labor and the government commits human rights violations including killing, enslavement, torture, prolongs arbitrary detention, on ducabduction as w rape. this year we've increased pressure on the north to improve its human rights. this march of this year, the -- in march of last year, the un human rights counsel established a committee to examine grave and systematic violations of human
10:10 pm
rights. refugees gave first hand accounts of violence and leading international experts described the government policies that repressed their people. public hearings were held in tokyo, london and washington d.c. video and written transcripts of these hearings are available at the un website. the commission's final report was one of the strongest and finest reports that the un has produced. the commission concluded that the gross violations of human rights have been and continue to be committed by the government and its officials. in many cases they meet the high standard and threshold required for prove for crimes against humanity in international law. the commission finally presented the report to the human rights counsel in march of this year. after hearing from the commission, the counsel overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for
10:11 pm
accountability for those responsible for the abuses and to preserve and document evidence of these human rights abuses. south korea has agreed to host this office. building on this momentum, the united states with australia and france convened the first ever un security counsel discussion of human rights in north korea. the commission presented its report to north korean refugees who spoke of their personal experiences. 11 of the 13 skpuecurity counse members who attended that meeting expressed support. as i've participated in the various un meetings this past year, two things have struck me. first it is clear that the north is feeling the growing international pressure. the mounting condemnation of its human rights record has struck a cord there. secondly, the growing number of
10:12 pm
countries critical of north korean human rights, the only countries who defend the north are the world's human rights violators, cuba, iran, syria. mr. chairman, another key human rights violation i want to raise is the effort to have internet access reserved for the elite. anyone caught listening to foreign radio for 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 being seen by even larger numbers of the 85%
10:13 pm
of those interviewed have seen foreign -- primarily south korean media. some two million cell phones er mitt 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 in breaking the government's information monopoly. thank you for continuing congressional support for the broadcasting board of governors and media it supports including radio free asia and the voice of america. finally i want to reiterate one point that our ambassador has made. we have no greater priority than the well fair and safety of u.s. citizens abroad. we continue activity to seek the release on humanitarian grounds of kenneth bae, matthew miller and jeffrey fou so that they may be reunited with their families.
10:14 pm
just as it is important that north korea address the issues that he has talked about in terms of security and nuclear issues, it also ma dreust addree egregious human rights violations. if north korea does not take this action, it will face gla e greater isolation and more pressure from the international community. >> members will now have five minutes to ask questions. on july 20th, second 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 their behavior quiet.
10:15 pm
can you perhaps clarify why secretary kerry is describing north korea as such and tell us how you can justify that classification? >> let me turn this on. the secretary said a lot of things. that was one thing he said. i think that to kind of place it back in context, the secretary was referring to the fact that we are now sometime on from the last major strategic provocation from north korea. it's been a while since they either launched a three state intercontinental missile or tested a nuclear device. >> do you think he would want to rephrase that 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, chinas has gotten a message through to them that when it acts strategically, when it tests a nuclear device and it's
10:16 pm
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 strongly and unanimously. i they that's what the secretary is referring to. it's absolutely the case. the secretary has also spoken to this that north korea's recent behavior is unacceptable. the fact that it continues time after time to launch these ballistic missiles and violate security counsel -- >> i certainly agree that it's unacceptable. i certainly wouldn't have called it quieter. that's okay. i will turn it to ambassador king. you've been a commendable job re representing the north korean human rights portfolio. the administration doesn't make the human rights in my view a
10:17 pm
priority. even if it's given sometimes lip service by calling it a top priority in constant focus is such i'm disappointed that following the release of the un admission of inquiry report in my view, little has been done no human rights sanctioned, no executive orders, no move for a vote in the security counsel. ambassador king, can you tell us with what is being done at this time to hold north korea accountable for the mass atrocities described in that report and why there's been so little movement since the report was released. also rare you aware that there are three americans detained and i'm concerned about their safety. one of those individuals jeffrey foul is from right outside of my
10:18 pm
district. i'm told he's being brought to trial for bringing hostile acts against the country. can you provide us an update on this situation where in the process the administration is to get these individuals released from north korea. i certainly understand in a forum like this we have to be careful. we don't want to jeopardize them or put them in any more jeopardy then they are. to the degree we can handle that forum like this, i would appreciate some comment. >> thank you very much for the question mr. chairman. with regard to the attention we give north korean human rights. i believe it was linden johnson who said you got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. i think we're trying to do when pushing on the nuclear issue and human rights issue. i think 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 un report to continue to put pressure on north korea. in the un security counsel we've already had an informal meeting
10:19 pm
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 gene geneva. we will continue our pressure in geneva. the human rights counsel on the human rights report. we're also going to have discussions in the general assembly in october at which the commission of inquiries 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 in the security counsel. with regard 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 u.nited states
10:20 pm
alone are very little effective. we have very little relationship with north korea and very little economic connection. to extent we can work together with our allies and jointly adopt sanctions and look at actions we can take together, i think the more effective the issues will be. 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. foul as well as kenneth bae and jeffrey miller. we're hoping to be able to have some progress 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 briefed your staff on this. i know you were aware with that. if there's anything question provide you directly, i'd 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
10:21 pm
level on mr. foul in particular. thank you very much. i now recognize the acting ranking member, the gentleman from california, mr. bera. >> thank you chairman. ambassador davies, in your opening testimony, i think you laid framework that said any movement forward really starts with the framework that was laid out in the six -- 2005 six party talks. that is a starting point for us to move forward on -- also ambassador king and ambassador davies, in describing north korea you described the globe peria, we described thehumanity rights violations, it is from this advantage point when you look at the kim regime, it's a regime that's less focused on its people and more focused on
10:22 pm
itse itself. 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, we see how they respond in 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 region stability. of those countries, we all have a vested interest in creating a stable region. 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
10:23 pm
china is viewing the new north korean regime and comment on china's role in moving these conversations forward. >> i'd be happy to do that sir. thanks so much. china and north korea are notst right now. china was very vocal and active beginning over two years ago when the new third generation of leadership took over there in signaling to the north korean regime that they would not support north korea taking provocative acts. north korea went ahead and did it. in a sense, north korea has not been a good partner of chinas of late. this has triggered, i think, a debate in china about the nature of its relationship with north
10:24 pm
korea. the chinese have begun to take acts that have somewhat remarkable in the historical scheme of things publically 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 restrictions on custom controls and so forth. so our role in this is to work with the chinese to try to figure out -- this is the top down -- the president has been very engaged in this from the sunny lands summit of last summer on forward in a series of meeting, how can the united states and china enter bilateral diplomacy but also working with our other partners in the five
10:25 pm
parties convince north korea that its future does not lie in pursuing these weapons of mass destruction. its future lying in living up to the promises 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. the chinese have done these inprecedented things. we've had to china we appreciate it very much. we said there's only one problem with the acts that china has tak taken. that is of course that they haven't worked to fundamentally change the calculus of them. this is a work in progress. we've made progress. we will keep at it. i think the new leadership in beijing understands they can't maintain the status quo forever. i think if we keep at it, china also quite central, that we can ultimately make progress. >> if we look at the north
10:26 pm
korean regime that is provok t provocative and potentially unstabling in the region. as intestate and interdependence in increasing trade between ourselves and china, korea and china, our economies areinterco trade and we all benefit from stable region that allows trade to occur. there's a real, you know -- china has to recognize that an unstable region is not in china's interest and really creates some problems. we do have to move forward in a region conversation. we do have to move forward in partners. i hope china is there increasing the pressure and increasing -- isolating north korea that they are on the wrong path. so thank you. i will yield back. the gentleman's time has expired. thank you very much. >> i will now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes.
10:27 pm
>> thank you mr. chairman. thanks for being here. i missed your testimony but listened to some of the answers to the questions you just -- it just made some -- it gave me some new questions and things to think about. mr. davies when you talked about we have made gains. one of my questions will be the strategy of strategic patience. many will contend that it really hasn't done anything. my question would be what are the significant results of that? 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. will we looking at a thousand years or 100 years. is this my lifetime because convincing north korea's leadership that this isn't their path way to the future -- who are we kidding? does anybody in this room think
10:28 pm
that these people have the same mind set about their future that the people in here have? the leadership? maybe peasants, maybe the under class, maybe the people sited in the human rights counsel's court have that view of some brighter future possibly and that it should change. what would -- what would motivate the people at the top to change anything? i'm really curious? let me give you a question. what are the significant or insignificant results? how long is this strategy suppose to go. how makes you think that these folks would change their mindet whatsoever. >> strategic patience is like a bumper sticker on a car. it doesn't get taken off the car when the driver changes. i've never described our policy as strategic patience.
10:29 pm
it predates me. our policy is strategic impatience with north korea. we will continue to do everything we can not to sit down and try to convince them of the logic of it but to use pressure in particular, to point out to them that there's only one way forward. it's the peaceful diplomatic path forward. it's living up to their obligations, commitments and promises they made freely 11 years ago. it's going down the path of denuclearizati denuclearization. i think what they care about most, this rebelligime is survi. they want to preserve the status quo. they don't want anything to rock their boat. it's the world's only historical example of a dineaftic communist system father to son now in a third generation. they want to keep that party going on. what we're seeking to do with china, south korea, japan, russia, the rest of the international community is pump
10:30 pm
up the volume of a message to north korea that that's the road to ruin for north korea that trying to pour scare resources into the development of these expensive weapon systems while also trying to feed their people which they've not been able to do adequately for almost a generation isn't going to work. what they need tow do is give the weapons. begin to play by the rules. >> i don't mean to completely interrupt. i got a limited amount of time but pumping up the volume on rhetoric. yeah they are hoping to get it going. as far as the west or somebody in the west or a coalition partners telling thaem that it' not going to work. their perspective that it has worked for three generations. with all due respect folks, the human rights counsel includes the rights of cuba and the democrat republic of the congo
10:31 pm
and some of these bad actors who abuse their citizens and agenting like that's going to be a vehicle to shake north korean leadership off its foundation. i'd like to have whatever you folks are drinking and eating everyday because you've got a wonderful view of some rose colored future. to me we're the enemy state. listen i'm not trying to pose -- this is a 20-year-old failure in my opinion. so it's not fail to impose all of this upon you but taking the same actions of the past -- okay. it's not strategic -- to me it's strategic apathy or avoidance or i don't know what it is. doing the same thing over and over again for the next 20, 30, 40, years and expecting a different outcome. if i were here in 40 years i'd be having the same conversation. >> again, it's not -- we're just not talking about diplomatic messaging and sending them nice letters we're talking about curticur
10:32 pm
cutting off the inputs to their weapon program through sanctions. through interdiction and there's been great successes there when panama rolled up the largest shipment of north korean conventional weapons in july of last year on a korean fraeighte trying to go through panama canal. that's the message that 80 countries condemned north korea's decision to test a nuclear device at the beginning of last year and took action to join with the sanction's regime internationally to impose costs on north korea. that's what we're talking about here. we're not talking about some type of an attempt to convince them through a high school debating society. we're talking about actions that cut off their room to sell systems that they need to sell in order to get the inputs for their weapons programs but we're also talking about keeping a
10:33 pm
hand open to north korea if they have this change in mind. i was engaged in knowing oesh ia negotiating with them at the beginning of 2012. we cut a very modest deal and they chose not to take it. instead they launched a rocket in order of the 100th anniversary of his grandfather's birth. the result was universal cond n condemnation and action taken by nation states. the cold war took three generations. sometime these problems with so pernicious they took increasing amounts of pressure accompanied by diplomacy in order to get these actors to realize they are going on a path that's leading them nowhere. that's our strategy. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would like to associate myself with the frustrations with the gentleman from pennsylvania.
10:34 pm
i think well said. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> well if we're associated ourselves with frustration i'm frustrated too. i'm sure you are and i'm sure everyone in the audience is. i'm not quite sure what the relevance of our frustration is to try to fashion a public policy that creates change. i'd 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, the 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 kit bag. ambassador davies?
10:35 pm
>> for us, you know it's a bit of a third rail to be commenting. i think we've demonstrated that through the actions we've taken unilaterally and working with our partners around the world. we remain very open to further sanction options when and if they make sense to deploy them. i'm committed to finding a multilaterally forward. i wish there were a silver bullet we have to solve this problem. >> let's explore this just a little bit. where do you think the pressure points are? i hear what you're saying about china which was quite intriguing but in some ways, if china has lost leverage over the regime then wherever the pressure points that the west can turn to or south korea can turn to do
10:36 pm
try to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. where are the leverage points? >> sure. well, china hasn't lost leverage. they just decided that there are limits that the leverage 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 could do. we any 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 akillies heal the fact that it doesn't have sufficient fossil rufuels unabl to feed itself. so in terms of way to put pressure on them, these are some of the ways that we can use to do that. >> i appreciate that. i was thinking about the normal
10:37 pm
kinds of leverage when you look at sanctions regime, you know, we're looking at the exchange. they have a stock market and internal 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 pressure. we don't really have that kind of leverage with the north korean 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 emergency food supplies and the like. >> that's correct. i should say one of the biggest points of leverage we have is the strength of our alliance relationships in particular with the republican of korea because it's their peninsula but also with japan and staying strong in solidarity. building up our alliance and our ability to defend our friends and ourselves against threats is
10:38 pm
a huge part of what we have. >> let me in the last minute i've got explore the china relationship again. if i understood your testimony, in a sense there's been a reassessment in china about the nature of the relationship with the regime is that your testimony? >> they are debating it. that's correct. >> they are debating it. do you believe that as part of that debate, the new leadership in beijing is -- first of all the economic ties to south korea are far more important for beijing, frankly, than north korea, is that not true. >> many multiples. >> right. >> so given their exposure and the fact that there are stakeholder in a success of the capitalist korea economy, are they do you believe more open to pressuring the north for say, market reform similar to their own? >> they've been trying to convince north korea for years
10:39 pm
to engage in reform of their economy. the north koreans have resisted that. >> what leverage are the chinese prepared to use to try to reign in belligerent behavior and are they on a timetable to move eventually toward an accommodation with the south if not outright reunification with the south. >> this is one of the fascinating conversations that sort of occurs during the recent summit meeting between the president of south korea. it is fascinating that they are voting with its feet that the president of china has met multiple times with his counterpart in south korea and has yet to travel to north korea. so things are beginning to change. i wish they were faster but these are the changes we're observing. >> the gentleman from north carolina mr. holding is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.
10:40 pm
mr. davies, how has rouhanis regime altered the north korean relationship. >> i'm not sure i'm qualified to speak on what's happening between those two countries however we watch very closely for signs between the north koreans and their regime. >> is there any reason to suggest that north korea and iran have intentionally focused on different aspects of nuclear weapons capabilities to try to speed up effect for both countries. >> it's a matter of serious concentration and strong suddensudden study by the administration. >> given iran's and north
10:41 pm
korea's cooperation. do you think it's likely that north korea would share any future test data with iran? >> you're 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 -- >> no. i'm sorry. again, i mean i think the intelligence information -- >> the witness will answer the question. thank you your honor. >> you may proceed. >> pardon me would you like to restate that? >> it's the concern that iran and north korea have cooperated in the past. >> i think there's every incentive between them to cooperate in some aspect of this. that is correct. >> you don't think the rouhani regime coming in hasn't changed any of that dynamic there that would lead to -- that has led to the cooperation in the past? >> not that i'm aware of but one
10:42 pm
would hope that there would be changes. >> a report suggests that north korean energy needs have been met by iran and that iran's desire for armorents have been met by north korea. that's reports that have suggested that cooperation. what do we know about trends in oil consumption by north korea and if they are stock piling iranian oil. >> i'm not aware of the provision of iranian oil to my extent to north korea. i'm just not aware of that. >> switching to russia a little bit. have increased tensions between russia and the west affected russia's relationship with north korea? >> well, russia's relationship with north korea fundamentally changed in 1989, 1990 when the soviet union disappeared and the client relationship that existed disappeared. so now they have a very small economic relationship quite
10:43 pm
frankly. they have a political relationship but it's not nearly as important as that between beijing and them, between china and north korea. >> so you don't believe the russians have intensified or accelerated any weapons sales to north korea in recent years? >> i'm not aware of anything significant. no, sir. >> north korea skirts international sanctions in a lot of different respects. one thing i believe they are one of the largest suppliers of counterfeit cigarettes in the world believe it or not. counterfeit currency as well. any current administration actions to close these loopholes and more rigidly enforce the sanctions that you'd like to expound on for a minute and 10 seconds. >> sure. from the standpoint of counterfeit goods. there was a day when that was a booming business. i think that that day is -- has
10:44 pm
passed oto some extent. that's something that we watch very closely. north korea will obviously stop at nothing to try to gain resources use to develop its weapons programs. that's why we concentrate so much energy on nonproliferation not just unilaterally but with our friends and allies and partners. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia mr. collins is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. in listening to your testimony, i think it's rather interesting, the key players with basically the rogueness of north korea and what they are doing with their relationship to iran should be it needs to be study a little more. using your words, i may have gotten it a little bit wrong but
10:45 pm
it was something to the affect of studying and watching what is going on. that to me, it says something in your testimony, your written testimony, it says our policy is to bring to realization that it must take -- that north korea must takes steps necessary to end its isolation, and comply with international obligations. in light of what we will call the desirous goal, what many experts contend that the administration's strategy of patience of watch and see has not yielded significant results but has only served to benefit north korea but offering them more time to pursue the own objectives. what's the administration's assessment of its strategy of engagement and strategic patience? >> our assessment is that we've made some progress not nearly enough. we've got a lot further to go. >> what would you say your greatest accomplishment is. >> i think our greatest accomplishment is in achieving
10:46 pm
in the just the last couple of years two united nation security counsel resolutions with teeth china voted for them. russia voted for them. hezbollah, iran, this whole nexus of issues we're doing more than just studying and watching this. obviously what we're doing is seeking to disrupt these shipments and force these sanctions. we're doing with it with our partners. we're doing everything we can to prevent that from development. >> i think in the end, what other things beyond two united nation's resolutions which may or may not have the teeth and the enforcement that some would like to see, beyond that, what is the next step? what is the next big accomplishment? what is the next thing to ensure basically what you said is your own goals to encourage north korea to become a model citizen
10:47 pm
which under the current leadership i'm not even sure it understands the definition of model citizenship . what would be the next process? >> well, we'd settle for north korea starting to do what it promised to do a long time ago and has tent tifly started edd the past which is to take steps to denuclearize. in other words freezing their nuclear programs. inviting the iea back in to inspect them. eventually leading to the dismantlement and elimination of the north korea nuclear weapons program. that's the foundation of the six party process that we've been engaged in for many years. we've made a great deal of progress with in particular china, keeping the solidarity of the japan and rok with us. there's no day light between any of the three allies; in order to get north korea moving down that
10:48 pm
path to denudenuclearization. they are far away from it. therefore we're in a pressure phase. that's what we concentrate a lot of energy to putting pressure so that it understands it only has one option which is the peaceful option of denuclearization. >> i understand that i was discussing that with my very capable staff but there's seems to be at least somewhere along the line for north korea there are at least some ways around what has been quote put in place for strategic containment and isolation for them because at this point some of that is -- in fact if anything there's been actual -- i won't say regression but not a lot of progress shown. they seem to be happily going about the fact that they are isolated and would like to get back but want to do so on their own terms. the concern in this discussion
10:49 pm
is simply the fact working through others which is a good thing. working with others. somewhere there's a gap in the system. somewhere there seems to be, again, rogue nations, others who have dealings with north korea in not pursuing these assets. i think that's where maybe there's a situation of a much bigger stick that can influence this especially with our south korea partners in this process as well. again, i think it's not an easy situation to answer. i appreciate your answers. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, the gentleman yields back. we will go to a second round so we should be wrap up within ten minut minutes or so. recently, japan and north korea have reengaged on the issue of japanese nationals abducted by north korea agents back in the 70s and 80s an issue that froze relations for the past number of
10:50 pm
years. in fact, i've met with the family whose daughter meyokota was abducted by north korean acts back in 1977 at the age of 13. i met with them actually a number of times over its years as well as a number of the other families. it's truly a sad and outrageous story. that they agreed to further investigate the fate of japanese abduct ees in exchange for tokyo lifting sanctions which they agreed to do. it's really sad when you can leverage kidnapped citizens for some relieve in sanctions. my question, what do you think is the likely outcome of this agreement? what's north korea's motivation for reopening the investigations and how much advance notice did the administration have before japan an north korea reached their agreement. do you have any concerns about these negotiations considering
10:51 pm
north korea's long record of deception and deceit? >> well, we stand with japan in terms of their desire which we completely understand to try to resolve this humanitarian catastrophes. i've met with them a number of times myself. i was there with ambassador kennedy when she met with the families and the families of abduct ees. we understand why the people of japan want this resolved. we support them in their efforts to do this. the japan have kept us very closely informed as they've taken these steps with these limited steps with north korea. we indicated to japan and we said publically that we're supportive of all of the efforts that japan is undertaking as long as they are undertaken transparently and obviously what's very important for all of us and this is a shared concern of the japanese is that we have
10:52 pm
this paramount concern of the n north korean missile threat. the japanese have been very explicit in agreeing that they agree with that. we watch. we are supportive of it. north korea is on the hook. they've got to conduct this investigation that they promised the japanese they'd conduct. so we'll be watching very closely to see what kind of results the north koreans come up with and whether or not it meets the tests that the jap japanese are imposing on them. >> also, ambassador, in your prepare statement, you said that china is quote north korea's last remaining patron. considering its budding relationship with russia and elicit networks with countries in the middle east, iran, especially, i wonder if that's completely accurate.
10:53 pm
the recent economic trade deal between russia and north korea comes at a very opportune time for them. it provides them with economic boosts that it needs to counter the sanctions and also to counter balance the chinese who have been putting some pressure on them but not nearly enough. i think a lot of our minds. for russia this deal undermines u.s. efforts to cut off north korea's finance and economic well being while enhancing its own web of influence by the u.s. in for example, the ukrainian crisis. can you tell us what sort of goods russia is providing to north korea. weapons or oil or gas or food or whatever? how is the russian/north korean relationship being interested as part of the administration's strategic calculus and efforts to effectively pressure north
10:54 pm
korea since russia is also trying to bolster ties with china. is anything being done to try to counter this trilateral cooperation between these nations. >> well, mr. chairman, russia and north korea, the relationship is very small in terms of trade and some of the stuff moscow announced were basically a recognition of the existing state of affairs. for instance they announced some debt relief for north korea. i don't think anybody in moscow ever expected they'd get that dead repaid so the trade is measured in the few hundreds of millions of dollars a year. they've been talking about some new projects that could -- infrastructure projects. these are longer term undertakings. so far they are still a bit at the margins. so we stay in touch with the rugs.
10:55 pm
i go out to moscow and try to talk to them about this problem. we have a shared interest in denuclearization. russia is a stakeholder nonproliferation treaty. they don't want north korea to develop nuclear weapons. they are serious about that. right now, i think it's fair to say that the -- the level of agreement we have on strategic issues with russia outweighs the deals we're talking about at the margins we're talk being right now. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. my staff has given me an article from yesterday's paper that said that north korea threatens nuclear threats on the white house. i will not take that seriously other than they are watching dvds from hollywood as well. i do take seriously that they continue to try to develop
10:56 pm
longer range missile technology and so forth. as they acquire and develop that technology, they really are a threat to not only our region partners and allies but then guam and some of our territories all the way to hawaii that we do have to take very seriously. that does create a sense of urgency in moving things forward. my colleague from virginia mr. connelly, kind of underscored the challenge here. sanctions with the regime that does not seem to care about what happens to its people are very difficult. all indications suggest that the kim regime is not taking the interest of the north korean people at stake here. so they are the ones that clearly are suffering.
10:57 pm
we have a limited tool box here. so certainly we need to ratchet up those sanctions. just thinking through various scene scenarios. our chairman touched on your opening testimony ambassador davies where china is north korea's last remaining patron. what would happen if china joined us in the sanctions? if we're just thinking through the -- and really did cut north korea off. how would north korea respond? >> yeah. well, china has said that we support fully the united nations sanctions. i talked about some of the signs that the chinese are beginning to take unprecedented action in that direction to signal to north korea that they will pay a price if they don't come around in particular in the nuclear issue. this is why when we talk to the chinese we try to talk about how
10:58 pm
we can work in concert to bring pressure to bare on the north koreans in a surgical way. we don't want to do anything to the people of north korea but we do want to affect the interests of the regime when it comes to obtaining these weapons we're going to keep at that. we think the core interests on the peninsula and our core interests are converging concerns. we are seeing signs for the first time in decades that the chinese also recognize this. that their stability will be affected unless we can address proacti proactively the pursuit of these weapons. so that's where we're concentrating our energy. we're saying to chinese there's more you can do. we respect the fact that you will make decisions about how you can do it. we need to do more. it's more affective if we can do it together with our partners.
10:59 pm
>> we need to do this in partnership as we're increasingly showing north korea there really is only one path forward that's deescalation, denuclearization and becoming a more conventional nation. shifting to a different scenario. again, north korea continues to posture with missiles toward the south korea border and so forth. again, not helpful. what would south korea's response be at this juncture? i think south korea has shown incredible restraint given some of north korea's provocation in recent years. if in fact there was a misfire accidentally or intentionally that were to land in a south korea city, what have the south
11:00 pm
koreans indicated would be their response. >> the south koreans increasingly resolve that there should there be a provocation on the part of north korea that they will respond. this is due to the fact that in 2010 there were two dead rily attacks by north korea to south korea including the death of civilians. this is what our alliance with south korea is all about. ensuring that we can present a front on the peninsula to make them understand that they cannot have the aggression. that those days are gone. that the best path forward is the vision that has been laid out by the president of south korea who has talked about a path forward including person to person
72 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3Uploaded by TV Archive on
![](http://athena.archive.org/0.gif?kind=track_js&track_js_case=control&cache_bust=1413505681)