Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On North Korean Nuclear Test 20160116

Colleagues, i think it is important to learn from what we have seen in the past. The conundrum is north korea is not easy and it will require partnership with the countries in that region and in many cases we have all landed in the same place, china really does have to take a leadership role. It is the one country that does north korea, with but it will take a partnership between the Chinese Government and the russians, japan, are korean allies, along with u. S. Leadership in order to adjust this. It is in all of our interests to deescalate tensions, to try to bring north korea into the 21st century, and the other goal i think many koreans have is the reunification. It will not be easy. It will take world leadership, it will take nations along with the u. S. In that region working together. But it can be done if we put our minds to it. We have to. There is an urgency as indicated by their recent, north Korean Nuclear test. It is compensated and the president complicated and the president talked about the challenges we face in the middle east, but those are not threats to our existence. And north korea with a Hydrogen Bomb and a Ballistic Missile, they are a threat to more stability. And there is an urgency of now here to mr. Chairman, i will look forward to working with you. Irman thank you. Representative chabot there is no question that the world has had a problem for a long time with respect to north korea. Particularly their leadership, whether the grandfather, the son son now. N now their own people continue to suffer and star. Ve. They are the most politically isolated country on the globe and they have contempt for most of the world, including their neighbors. This in thes now, last number of years, the nuclear tests. We have reason to believe it is hydrogen, although it has not been confirmed necessarily, nonetheless it is terribly disturbing. I think every administration from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration to the obama administration, has failed with respect to north korea. And that is most unfortunate and now with the increasing sophistication of their missile systems, the u. S. Is at risk as well. Two countries that are more at risk, obviously south korea and japan. As my colleague from california indicated, china is the key. They are the only country with any real influence over north korea. And the only thing that will get chinas attention is if those two countries seriously consider Nuclear Programs of their own. That is the only thing that will get chinas attention. The last thing china wants so i would urge those two countries to think seriously about this. I am not encouraging them to do it, but even thinking about it and discussing it will get chinas attention and maybe they will finally act with pressure on north korea, getting them to one off this insanity of the poorest countries in the world spending money on Nuclear Weaponry. I yield back. Mr. Chairman is there anybody else who seeks recognition . Thank you for holding this hearing. I think the focus, what you have heard a lot is china. What can we do to deal with china . To me there are a couple of questions i would like to understand, before we get into what we have a do to pressure to do to pressure china, what do they want . Past yearn over the or so articles, especially in the new york times, about chinese officials, former military officials, retired, talking about the unsustainability of the regime. There is a concern in china about instability in north korea. I would like to hear that discussion, that there is going to be pressure from the bottom up. People cannot live under those conditions and the chinese know and there are real worries about the chinese and with that in ability instability will lead to. That leads me to the third point, when we talk about china, knowing that china china is very involved, it may have its own agenda about what it wants to do, but the question is besides pressure on china, we have heard a lot and i am not saying that is not important, but what are the ways of harnessing with china . What are the opportunities at this moment . Thank you. Mr. Chairman thank you. If there are no other opening totements, then i will move the panel. First of all, introducing three vexperts. First is dr. Cha. It is good to see you again. Gner. R. Bruce klin a seniorbonnie glaser, advisor for asia at the center for international studies. We are thrilled to have all of you today and thank you for making time available. First of all, dr. Cha. Mr. Cha thank you mr. Chairman. Representative sherman and members of the committee, it is an honor to to you speak to you today. Urgency and i think there is a great deal of urgency. There are elements of deterrence and crisis and instability. I do not think the north korean fully comprehend. It can also be the case that this Young North Korean leader views Nuclear Weapons as usable weapons, rather than Strategic Elements of deterrence, viable only in their nonuse. The urgency is the result could be a disaster at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, at which point the world will wonder why the u. S. Did nothing to stop this before it was too late. So what have we done . In the administrations words, the streets strategy of patients had two objectives. To break the cycle of negotiations that was a flaw of past administrations policies. And the concept of this nine dollars nondialogue would force the North Koreans to come back to cut a deal. When this did not work, the administration tried to reach out and engage them about all of the offers had been spurred. We are in the worst of all worlds, there is no diplomacy and there is a growing program for we have had for nuclear tests, three of them during the obama administration, two of them before the president s state of the union speech. At the rate we are going, this will get punted to the next administration and will be exponentially worse. So a new approach needs to focus on what bob believe ge and i describe as asymmetric Pressure Points. In my experience, being involved in negotiations, there were only two times where i felt like the North Koreans were caught off guard. Uncertain of how to respond. The first of these was in september 2005 when the Treasury Department took action that led to the freezing of assets at a bank in china. And the second was in february 2014 in the aftermath of the United Nations commissions of inquiry report in which the major recommendation was referral of the north korean leadership for crimes against humanity. These are the only two times i felt the North Koreans were frazzled. I think a new study needs to build on these Pressure Points. Let me highlight a couple of them. First, sanctions. Bruce will talk about this. It is a policy misstep, the chairman cited statistics for how the sanctioning against iran is much higher than north korea, so there is more space to operate there. Secondary, sanctioning should be given positive consideration. This was talked about with significant escalation and this will complicate our relationship with china, the European Union, Southeast Asia and africa, but it is also certain that many of these entities will comply when given a choice of dealing with north korea or losing asset access to the u. S. Financial system. Givee should also consideration to putting them back on the terrorism list. There will be lawyers who dispute the criteria for putting them back on the list and i will only urge that attention be given to their siebel Cyber Capabilities and we did research that shows that these activities are instigated by the same entities within the north korean government that have been responsible in the past for terrorist acts. Human rights has to complement sanctions. One of the potential targets would be north korean slave labor. There are over 50,000 workers in africa, the middle east, russia and china that are operating in subhuman conditions that are being paid nothing, revenues are going back to the north korean government. There are estimates between 260 million and , this is something that should be targeted. Isther useful Pressure Point a project to provide currency to authorities with little wages going back to factory workers. The south korean government will be opposed to Something Like this, because even conservative governments have become attached to conservative programs. They have proven to be hypersensitive to criticism. With renewal of the human rights , i entirely agree with the chairman on the idea of trying to increase funding and basically think about new ways to bring information into the country. As some of the work we have done with the Bush Institute has shown, north korea and the u. S. Can come up with a copper has a strategy of breaking down information barriers. In the end, we need to improve the human condition of the people in north korea. Thank you. Mr. Klinger. Mr. Klingner thank you. It is an honor to be asked to present to you. North koreas recent nuclear test has triggered widespread calls to do something tougher on north korea, but we have been here before and each time administrations claims of top action have been taken at face value. Interest was eventually diverted elsewhere. More effective action was also hindered by several minutes myths about sanctions. The first, sanctions cannot affect north korea. Targeted measures, which are a Law Enforcement mechanism, are directed against specific entities that violate law. Even the most isolated regime or terrorist group is tied into the Global Financial order. The vast majority of all International Financial transactions including those of inth korea, are denominated dollars, they must go through a u. S. Treasury department regulated bank in the u. S. That gives the United States tremendous power and leverage to fines,assets, to impose such as a 9 billion fine imposed on a french bank for improper Financial Transactions with cuba, iran and sudan, and to deny access to the Financial System. As you pointed out, a second myth is that south korea north korea is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. It is the most sanctioned, the most cut off nation on earth, that is not true. The u. S. , the European Union, morethers gave much prevailing measures against iran. And unilaterally the u. S. Has entities forfewer north korea than zimbabwe. We have also designated iran and more thanney concerns north korea, which is counterfeiting our money. Congo, iran, zimbabwe, they have Human Rights Violations and we have sanctioned by name the president s of belarus and zimbabwe, but not yet have we sanctioned a north korean entity for Human Rights Violations. A report concluded the regime was conducting such egregious violations as to constitute crimes against humanity. The u. S. Has frozen the assets of sudan and iran, but not north korean. And i havees on included other examples in my written testimony. The third is, there is nothing more the u. S. Can impose on north korea. After he left office, the former secretary of state Kurt Campbell stated it would be possible to put more pressure on north korea, we can make it more currency through sanctions and he said he was surprised to find out that there were about 10 times as many sanctions on burma than on north korea. Present obama and john kerry have made similar statements indicating that there are other measures we could impose, but have not. A fourth is that sanctions do not work. Tougher measures were effective when applied. In 2002, the u. S. Designated a bank as a Money Laundering concern for facilitating north korean and facilitated activities. As a result, washington related lawsbelated and enforcing and two dozen Financial Institutions voluntarily cut back business with north korea. A north korean negotiator admitted, you finally found a way to hurt us. Instead with the u. S. Should be doing is implementing the iran model against north korea. Strong measures that induced iran, these measures are needed to leverage north korea. While implementing new measures is important, fully implementing and enforcing already existing farreaching measures is also critical. The u. S. Has the tools, but we lack the result to fully meet use them. The obama administered has been hitting the snooze bar. They have been holding some sanctions and rolling others out ruling others out. They need to sharpen choices by raising the risk and cost for those violating laws and you and resolutions, not only north korea but those who facilitate their actions. In my written testimony i have provided a list of recommendations for the u. S. And south korean actions that should be implemented. Neither sanctions nor diplomacy alone will be enough, both are a essential. We should be reinforcing elements of a conference of strategy. I will conclude my presentation with the same question i proposed two years ago, why has the United States hesitated to impose the same legal measures against north korea that it has already used against other countries for far less violations of u. S. And International Law . Thank you. Mr. Chairman thank you. Ms. Glaser members of the subcommittee, i am honored to have the opportunity to testify today in this important issue. As it so many of you have pointed out, cooperation from china, north koreas main benefactor, is essential to achieving a nuclear free peninsula. Their biggest trading partner account for 90 of north koreas global trade, provide at least 70 of north koreas crude oil requirements. 80 of its consumer goods, proximally 45 of its food, and chinas investment accounts for almost 95 of foreign investment. The u. S. Is not expecting them to forge a common strategy with washington to squeeze north korea until they give up Nuclear Weapons. But it may be possible to persuade china to strictly comply with its existing International Commitments to further tighten sanctions on north korea and to reduce its support or may continued support contingent upon specific actions from north korea to return to the nuclearization de nuclearization pledges. Especially in summit meetings. Cooperation on north korea should be identified as a test of the propositions that the u. S. And china can Work Together with interest overlapping. And the u. S. Should take the following steps. First, they should call out china for their failure to enforce u. S. Even sanctions. North korea has a deep network with Chinese Companies and uses these relationships to parker get items from all of the world. Designate a north korean entities continue to do business with Chinese Companies and visit chinese ports. North koreans are reportedly still able to conduct thinking transactions banking transactions on the border of china. China does not enforce the ban on luxury goods. Second, the u. S. Should oppress china to agree to entities in new Un Security Council resolutions. Third, the u. S. Should encourage china to use leverage over north korea in targeted ways, to pressure for change in its behavior. China could refuse to engage in new economic projects with north korea until the government returned to negotiations in good faith. They could reduce the flow of Chinese Tourists to north korea, which has become a significant source of exchange. And the u. S. Should encourage china to leverage its assistance to north korea to influence their behavior. To the terror longrange missile launches, they could agree to say that feature provocations and askublications that they face substantial reductions in diesel and gasoline. And the u. S. Should press china to not obstruct discussion in human bodies on human rights in north korea. We have already underscored sensitivity to this issue. Securing cooperation from china increasing pressure on north korea may be more feasible than in the past. The leader of china is a decisive leader with a clear vision of what is needed to achieve what he calls the chinese dream, the rejuvenation of the chinese nation. Under his leadership, china path to aed on a normal state to state relationship. Widely viewed as the most powerful leader china has had, ping have clout to overrule opposition that would resist a tougher stance towards north korea. Asia is not prepared to assume sole responsibility for addressing the north Korean Nuclear threat, but it might be willing to do more along the lines i have outlined. If it believes the u. S. Has a thetegy, it is prioritizing goal of creating a nonnuclear peninsula and it does not seek to use the Korean Peninsula to harm chinese interests. What does china want . A balance of power in northeast asia that is favorable to chinese interests and it does not threaten chinese interests. I believe china does not adamantly oppose korean unification, but the known burdens and the dangers of the status quo today are less risky for china than the uncertainty at unification that unification may bring for chinese interests. Thank you. Mr. Chairman thank you. I would like to thank the Panel Members very much for making the time to be here. Unnerving when seth rogen gets more reaction out of the north korean demand are policies do. He certainly hit a nerve when he put that movie out, a lot more than any of the blustering that has been coming out of washington dc. It has been a conundrum as pointed out by my colleague that this is not new, this is not an issue that was resolved at one time and has degraded, this has never been resolved. Every time i have spoken with to getert about how north korea to start living with norms,d international every one of those conversations always involves china. Because they are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to dealing with north korea, because of their dependent on them for food and energy. Astute made some very observations on what china could do, but how do we motivate them properly to get that done . There have been a lot of things talked about, maybe targeted sanctions that involve chinese banks that fund north korea. Maybe that is something we can look at. I spoke to mr. Sherman about that. Said inklinger, you your submitted speech that you will be talking about several of the sanctions that could and should be on the table. I would like us to look at entertainment, a bill that was passed yesterday on the house waswas a good move floor a good move, but there is more to be done. You pointed out rightly so that we have not even considered or donesimilar things we have for far less offenders in the world today. And i think that is abominable. We ship all things on the table. I would like to ask, mr. Klinger, why do you think there has been such restraint on dealing with north korea in the same way we have dealt with far less offenders . What is the rationale . It does not make sense to me. Mr. Klingner that is an excellent question which i really do not have an answer to. It really is counterintuitive. If you compare iran and north korea. Iran remains in the nonproliferation treaty and north korea is out. Irans claims that the Nuclear Program is for civilian purposes and north korea says it is to destroy allies. Iran has not exploded a Nuclear Korea has done for. You would think we would have more pressure on north korea, but we have not. Tore are perhaps concerns as how north korea will respond if we impose additional measures, i do not think that we should be hesitant to enforce our laws because of the concerns of what they will do if we enforce them. And how will china respond . When i advocated additional measures against north korea, i have said, let us let the Law Enforcement people go where evidence takes them. Somebody commented, so you want to sacrifice the u. S. China relationship. I said, no, i do not want to give them immunity because they are china. We should go where the evidence takes us, we should sanction whatever entities are violating International Law, not because they are chinese but because they are violating laws and resolutions. I think that your answer dovetails with the opening statement. Mr. Chairman these comments have a lot of bearing on going forward. I think that they really should not be any secondguessing when it comes to enforcing laws. And protection of special interests or ongoing concerns over bilateral relationships with china. These are a serious issue and china has not stood up for its obligations. One thing that has been mentioned that might get their attention and it is also good policy, what about the u. S. Bolstering our support for Missile Defense systems, for south korea. And maybe japan. What do you think about that . So, i think that is a great idea. On the china piece of it, first a bruce said, when there was section 311 against a chinese bank in 2005, that was a Law Enforcement action. In the end, the u. S. China relationship survive. It was effective. And it may take things like that to actually motivate china. We are almost self deterring in equities infar as the relationship. With regard to measures in the region, i think absolutely. All of our activities speak to the need for Missile Defense systems in asia, including the u. S. , japan and south korea. This was mentioned, the relationship between japan and korea have gone to rough. Periods, but they are on the mend. To talk about Missile Defense and better intelligence and information sharing among the three countries, these have been on the agenda with allies for some time and we have not been able to push them forward. Unfortunately it is, when we were working on the policy, every time north korea did something bad, the motto was, lets make lemonade out of the lemons. One way is to really consolidate our defense alliances and that also complicates the environment for china and may motivate them to do more. Last year i wrote a Detailed Research paper that south korea should allow the u. S. To employ a different system. They have not wanted to publicly discuss it. As i pointed out in the paper, sad is better than anything the South Koreans have or will have for decades to come. I also want to point out that the chinese claims that it will assaultheir ability to the United States, these are red herrings. Effective, but it will not have a constraint on chinese missiles. I think that we should deploy thad, it will improve defenses there. And to have south korea integrate its system into a more copperheads of and effective comprehensive and effective situation with japan. A missile could be on the same trajectory for south korea, u. S. Forces in japan, this is critical. It is no secret that the relationship between china and south korea has blossomed over the last several years. Mr. Chairman they have done everything they can to improve trade. It is also no secret that china has lobbied and i think that is the understatement of the universe, south korea against thad. I think it is time for us as leaders in the region to step up our voices and are commitments to security in the region by putting forth things like that and try to reignite some support for those things, because maybe, besides being good policy from our strategic interests, it might be a really good motivation factor for china to finally get off its duff and is something about this serious problem. Mr. Sherman . Oneesentative sherman question has come up, why did we do it in iran and not north korea . When Congress Passed the sections laws sanctions laws, they provided secondary sanctions. If the law had been enforced, would have made irans trading partners very angry. Administrations refused to enforce those laws and it allowed iran more time to get close to a Nuclear Weapon. But they began to persuade iran to trading partners that they should go along with this pressure. And only to the extent that we could carry out the sanctions regime without angering irans tradingining partners, did we carry it out. We used persuasion and who we were persuading, europe. So we had a sanctions in iran only to the extent we could get europe not to be terribly angry if we forced them to go along. As to china, persuading them would be more difficult. The chair man and i are talking about sanctions on chinese banks, that will make china angry and dealing with iran the administration got as far as it did without making anybody really angry. Any of their partners. I think this north Korean Nuclear program is significant enough that we should be willing to make china angry. I might talk about a tariff on goods, that could make them angrier than i could persuade the congress to go along. But it will be pretty angry with the banking sanctions. Doubta, you say that some that north korea is a terrorist state. One act of terrorism is when you see civilian hostages. And it continues at least until you release the hostages. Sieze sees japanese japanese homemakers and hold them hostage because you want somebody to teach you how to 40 pour tea, that is an act of terrorism. Is there any doubt that north korea is engaged in terrorism until they release the hostages . I think that there have been many actions in that vein, almost a regular state practice, detaining innocent individuals in the country for no apparent reason and that is unacceptable. My only point was that i think that the other areas that we could investigate in terms of criteria for putting the back on the list is the cyber area. Representative sherman that is bad enough, but when you sees sieze people and hold them for decades because you want them to teach ats ceremony a tea ceremony. And the very conscious biggest boost to in ego is to have a Nuclear Weapon. The cheesy way to deliver a Nuclear Weapon is to smuggle one. You could smuggle it into a bail of marijuana and in fact you have the addiction advantage to ing plausible deny ability deniability. It does not occur after an investigatory process. Al kabar in syria, north korean technology. A quick question, do any witnesses have any guess as to how much money north korea was given for cooperative with alkali are al kabar . The estimates have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We know two things come iran wants a Nuclear Weapon and there are about to get their hands on 130 billion. It would north korea be willing to sell, they have already proven they will sell Nuclear Weapons kits, if you will, or , is norththat plans korea do they have enough weapons and they would be willing to sell one or two and is this a multibilliondollar cost for anybody who wants to buy it . Mr. Klingner i was going to address the, about north korea as a terrorist nation. In my written testimony i have a long list of actions that north korea has taken which i think fulfill the legal obligation to list them as a terrorist nation. Perhaps the most relevant is code 2331 which defines International Terrorism as involving acts that would be a violation of criminal law in the u. S. And appear to be used to coerce a civilian population. I think the threats of a 9 11 type attack for citizens of the u. S. To go to theaters to watch that movie is considered trying to coerce a population and there have been a number of items i attempts at assassination and kidnapping that have been recognized by south korean courts. I think anyone of those should have put them back on the u. S. List and certainly can the delay. As for whether North Koreans will sell i a Nuclear Weapon, they have shared and sold Nuclear Technology with a list of rogue nations. I question whether they will sell it completed weapon. Beyond whereght go they would be willing to do, but i could be wrong on that. As certainly as they develop a large arsenal, they may do that. Representative sherman they need their first 12 weapons to defend themselves from us, the other ones could be available for sale. There is a history there. Every major weapons system they have developed they have sold. Theysentative sherman have not drawn the line at nuclear. Every country would have a Nuclear Device and it is not that north korea says it is immoral. Mr. Cha it is definitely a concern. Both in the case of, you know , part of thessiles effort of developing longerrange and more accurate missiles are part of this, see cannot put it past them. Even aside from the start of over proliferation, just the fact they have a Nuclear Arsenal that is growing, create a serious crisis and stability problem for the u. S. Keep aion that they can dozen or two dozen bombs and as long as we deter them we are saved is completely wrong safe is completely wrong. Should any crisis develop on the peninsula, there abilities their abilities are at the isense of what it means that any crisis, we will be forced to consider preemption. It is highly unstable. And it gets lost to the general public. Representative sherman i am over time. I yield back. Representative rohrabacher. Letesentative rohrabacher me thank the witnesses. Your testimony is of great value. The points you have made, you have made a very serious point and given us information that we will utilize in this coming year as we try to come up with a policy that can deal with this threat. It is ironic, i believe the United States and the world is entering a new era, the cold war is being left behind a long way and even the postcold war era is being left behind now. And what the new era will be, what is the parameters of how we operate in the world is going to be different. Ironically, the country that may be and the government that may be forcing us into a new definition of what our responsibility is our and what we are going to do is one of the most inaccurate a stick regimes in the world. They do not even fit into the cold war. And the way they handle themselves, i really appreciate the information also about the specifics that the north korean government is doing and the actual people who are running the north korean government put ofwith in terms of the idea slavery. That they are actually engaged in slavery, which i think is an important you made an important point today, this is what that type of activity is intolerable. Thousands of north korean workers that are overseas and salary given to the government, that is a virtual slavery. And thank you for drawing attention to that. If is something we should be able to do with and something we should be able to work with with international organizations. Let me know that i agree with and am very pleased with mr. Sherman who have pointed out has pointed out that the North Koreans are Still Holding japanese hostages after all this time, decades. I agree, that should not be overlooked as a past issue. The fact that North Koreans are holding kidnapped, japanese civilians in north korea is something that should be a matter that is not regulated to the past as long as they are holding them. That should be part of what we are looking at. What ever we know, whatever era we are entering, we know it will be different. I think that what may come of all this is that we may find koreaeunification of becomes a reality after all of these decades and that reunification will itself create a new world that we have to deal with. We are talking about historic moments in the world, that is where we are at and is brought about by this crazy regime in north korea. It is forcing these changes upon us. I would like also to mention , we are now entering an era also of, where our technology is not just utilize for offensive weapons systems, thanks to Ronald Reagan we started down a path of focusing on defensive systems which make more sense to me, especially in cases like this, where let me know, there note, there are several new technologies that will give us an even greater ability to defend ourselves against a missile attack. We should certainly make that available to south korea and japan. And that would certainly be a message there. Let me ask for more information from you folks. Somewhere in my mind is an covertwe took, maybe it action, to prevent a transfer of money that was going to specific sndividuals in north korea government. We know that north korea, with all that poverty and a lack of food has not prevented luxury cars and booze and consumer items to go to the elite. I seem to remember that there were banking transactions that we challenged somewhere and it had an impact on north korean policy. Can you refresh my memory on that and is there a methodology we should try to look at to try to reestablish that policy toward the new challenge we face . Think what you are referring to is section 311 by the Treasury Department in 2005, that advised u. S. Financial institutions not to deal with a particular bank in macau because of laundering concerns. Koreactioned north financially. We advised institutions to be wary of business with a particular bank and that created a ripple effect. Many other banks that had north korean accounts decided, we will freeze these or investigate them, regulators all started to target these accounts and it had the effect of completely shutting north korea off from the International Financial system. They could not do a wire transfer, they could not access accounts. It was a powerful and forceful thing. Yes, i think we can do it again. They have tried to adjust, but at the same time they are able to operate in the Financial System and there are things we can do. Are wentative sherman talking about think accounts accountrate bank the operate for the specific leaders of north korea and decisionmakers there . Mr. Cha i cannot give you the answer to that question here. What i can say is that when the action happened, the north korean negotiators had only one demand and that was to unfreeze the 25 million that was sitting in that bank. They do not want to talk about anything else under the sun. They do not want to talk about peace treaty, nothing else, all they wanted to talk about was that. Representative sherman do the other witnesses have a comment . Ms. Glaser i think this takes us back to the issue of china where there are so many small banks that exist on the border and sometimes they shut down and popup someplace else, maybe even half a mile down the road. There are journalists who have gone into some of these banks and pretended to make transactions to demonstrate how easy it is to transfer money to north korea. Again, this goes back to the issue raised earlier of shutting down these transactions, putting sanctions on these banks. This is it is essential to get the chinese to comply with these sanctions that are already on the books. The chinese have supported them in the United Nations and when it comes to things like luxury goods, just inspections on the border, they are episodic. There are times the chinese want to signal the North Koreans that they are sad dissatisfied, but then they go back to business as usual. We talktative sherman about Chinese Government resistance, but we can actually get chinese banks to work in our interest. Within issue i mentioned before, sending officials throughout asia, including the bank of china, to talk and to say that we can have seizure in the United States and really was access to Financial Institutions. Mr. Klingner even though the Chinese Government was the banks had to worry about their own access to the international system. So they complied. The bank of china severed its relationship with north korea, even if the Chinese Government did not want it. They needed to do it to maintain the bank of china as an entity. Representative sherman thank you. Representative connolly i begin rankingg issue with the members narrative with iran and comparing it to north korea. Minard of would be my narrative would be that this administration took up from the neglect and ineffectiveness of the Previous Administration in respect to iran and whether you like it or not, the agreement, the Nuclear Agreement is working. They are complying. If you want to remove and excess israel,eat threat to that is the way we did it and it has the best probability of working of any solution. Maybe one does not like that. Maybe one wouldve preferred a different alternative, but this is the one that the United States government pursued, this is why they did it and i think in the long run it will be the best alternative for peace in the region and for taking the Nuclear Option with respect to iran off the table. One of the pieces of leverage we had in addition to sanctions was choking off irans ability to sell the one product it has, that is oil. When it comes to north korea we do not have this situation, other than weapons. I am not quite i am not sure what the North Koreans have to sell. With that be a fair statement . Ms. Glaser yes, i would agree with you congressman. I dont know what north korea has to sell that we can choke off. That is a big difference. Between north korea and iran is apples and oranges. Iran has oil, north korea doesnt have anything, maybe weapons. Ms. Glaser there are very important differences. Weaponsrea has nuclear and has tested them and iran has not. At the same time, i would agree by mr. Chaints made that there are sanctions we have used, authorities we have used against iran that exist that we have not used against north korea. There are many more ways that we could pressure north korea that we have applied to iran, fairly successfully, and have not applied to north korea. Ly is that the best way to try and restrain and shape north korean behavior . To tighten sanctions because they will have to scream uncle at some point . Is that what history tells us about north korea . Both of the other panelists are free to comment as well. Ms. Glaser my view is that it must be part of any strategy. In itself, if we are not offering north korea some positive vision of the future, then the pressure of sanctions are unlikely to work. Rep. Connolly alone. Ms. Glaser alone. But i believe this administration and prior administrations have made it clear to north korea there are many things we can put on the table security assurances, assistance, diplomatic relations. There is such thing, if you want to call it, a grand bargain. The North Koreans are aware that there would be benefits from that if they give up their Nuclear Weapons. Pressure by itself will not work. But pressured sanctions must be part of any strategy. I agree. I have always emphasized the context that it is one instrument, and not always ineffective one. An effective one. We often get into a binary debate of sanctions versus engagement. We need both. Its part of a comprehensive integrated strategy. We need to continue offers of continued of Conditional Development based on reciprocity. We have had four agreements never to pursue Nuclear Weapons. Additional pressure, and then those two tracks we hope will convince north korea to alter its behavior. You need the 30 track the third track, having sufficient defenses for yourself and your allies. When people say sanctions dont work because north korea has not caught up its weapons, diplomacy was unequally able to do that. Sanctions have another a number of purposes. One is to enforce u. S. Law, two is to enforce a penalty once one violates our International Law, hopefully a deterrent. Three is to put into place mechanisms to impede the inflow of prohibited items and the money from illicit activities. Four, to constrain proliferation. And five, the most difficult, to alter behavior. And four of the five, theyve had some success. Mr. Cha quickly on the question about what they export of value. What is of value to them . Couple of things come to mind in addition to the things bruce re talk about. When is the issue of slavery were. One is the issue of slave labor. The are not a signatory to ilo. Its not iranian oil, but certainly something of value to them. There is a lot of raw material in north korea. And china, since 2008, has extracted a lot of that for their two inland provinces. When people are in pyongyang, they say things look good. Thats all because of the chinese money from contracts. On the diplomacy side, i dont think anybody on this panel is against diplomacy. I think we all believe diplomacy is important. But having participated in negotiations for the last agreements with north korea the Nuclear Agreements, and knowing a lot about the Clinton Administration agreements, and president obamas, they know what they get. We put everything on the table. The issue right now is that this young leader is not interested. Hes looking to build his programs. He wants to confront the next administration. Rep. Connolly one more question, i will try to be brief. It seems that if we have leverage to north korea, it is through china and our relationship with them and the relationship with pyongyang. How much leverage to the chinese really have . From a distance it looks like the chinese are in a conundrum themselves. They have relationships they dont want to walk away from. They dont even want to unwittingly destabilize the peninsula and have to deal with that mess. If you gave them 80, they would probably them a truth serum, they would probably love a peaceful reunification with the south. But that is not possible right now. How much leverage to the chinese have, and how well are we pressuring them to try to effectually better behavior from the North Koreans . Chinese, as ie said in my earlier remarks, has enormous potential leverage. They are unwilling to use it. Because the chinese are fearful of instability in north korea, the leverage they have, in essence, becomes north koreas leverage over them. Kim jongun and his father have done quite a good job of playing a weak hand, not only with the United States, but particularly with china. Koreans occasionally cause trouble for china in a variety of ways across the border. In terms of the threats that they make towards south korea. Motivatede need to be to use the pressure that they had. I dont think we have done a good job of doing that. I agree that we should not be self deterred in putting pressure on china. We should not be worried that if we put pressure on china on this instance, that they will somehow noncorporate thus on somehow not cooperate with us on climate change. We can use pressure, if properly a private properly applied and welltimed. Xiould cite the example when jinping was planning to come to the United States last september. The administration considered imposing cyber sanctions, and had the executive authorities to do so. The chinese got very motivated to set up a mechanism, to send a standing number of the politburo to discuss this issue. Solveay not, in the end, the problem of the cyber hacking and cyber enabled theft. I think we certainly have to keep their feet to the fire on that issue. But the point is that when you threaten sanctions, when you have the executive authorities to do so, and the chinese take you seriously that yes, you can motivate their behavior. There was also the discussion about bolstering missiledefense in the region. I do think that taking steps that the event american interests and the interests of our allies and if they happen to create a more negative security environment for china in the region, that may motivate the chinese to do more as well. This is not something that they want to see. It does not benefit of their interests. Rep. Connolly thank you very much for your indulgence. Possibly they could export some cyber hacking training seminars. [laughter] chairman desjar lais. Rep. Danger lay desjarlais do you believe that the North Koreans would use their weapons for aggressive actions . Mr. Cha i dont think it is their intent. Areng said that, there instances when can imagine where a country, especially like north korea, can miscalculate. They could have no intent to use Nuclear Weapons, but because of military miscalculations, they are compelled to. That is what is inherently destabilizing about the region. Desjarlais i want to talk about perception. I have not been to south korea or japan. Do they feel the same threat from north korea that israel does with iran . Mr. Cha i certainly think that japan feels more threatened by the developments in north kore. It is the clearest existential threat to japan today. With regard to south korea, they have always been under the fear of artillery attack from north korea. Artillery tubes are only seconds away from the capital city of seoul. There is a growing concern about the broader nuclear question. If youve been on the conventional military threat, biochemical artillery shells, all of your life, you can get a little jaded. I think there is a growing concern about the broader strategic implications of north koreas Nuclear Program. Rep. Desjarlais im going somewhere with this. My sense is that, here in this country, we are the only one in this century testing Nuclear Weapons a week ago. After the news comes out, oh, it wasnt a thermoNuclear Weapon, it was just a fission weapon. Therefore we dont need to worry about it. We are having a hearing today. But i will tell you that every member of congress understands the threat israel feels from iran. Hass something that israel done to raise that perception. Everyone has learned to respect that threat. Im not sure that is the same with north korea. Maybe our problem is that we need to raise that perception. Every member of congress, democrat or republican, generally takes a trip to israel when they first go to congress. They see and feel that threat. Maybe that is something japan and south korea and other nations should do to help increase the perception here in congress. Hear theright now, you news about syria, isis, the iran deal, that is what people are paying attention to. You all have a lot of great ideas of what to do, but how do we get action . That is why we are here today. In your opinion, what do we do to elevate the reality, that this is a real threat . I have been sitting here with my colleague, this problem should just solved. It does not seem that hard, but apparently it is. What would you suggest . Mr. Cha i would agree that more broadly there is a tendency to discount, dismiss north korean activities as a crazy regime that blows up bombs in a cave somewhere near china, and that we dont have to worry about that. I think that is completely the wrong attitude. In part it is because there is a feeling that the u. S. Sometimes has overreacted in the past to north korean actions. I think we are now in a period in which we are under reacting. I think that is dangerous. Desjarlais north korea is easy to ridicule and make the blood of jokes. It is a very real threat. Make the butt of jokes. Threat. Ghts it runs the gamut. It is not only against our allies, but increasingly to the United States. Last year three u. S. Fourstar commanders said that north korea has Nuclear Weapons that can hit the u. S. Today. They must know something. A year or so ago, the south korean press had a lot of articles from defectors about kim jongun had directed a new warplane be implemented after he came out of office war mplemented after he came out of office. That would require the use of Nuclear Weapons. It is a real threat. It is also disheartening to me that there is an under appreciation for how much of a threat North Koreans Nuclear Weapons poses. Israel does such a terrific job in congress and the American Public at large. More can be done in public education, in hearings such as this. I think highlighting their human rights record would be important. More action at the United Nations as well to get more people involved in this discussions. Help people to understand that we need to dissect what the threat is, see that it is increasingly an axis and still threat. An existential threat and not put this on the back burner. I share your concern. I appreciate mr. Desjarlais appreciation bringing up this issue. I represent hawaiis Second District here. Being out in the middle of the pacific, every time north korea starts making threats, launching somethings, this is that hawaii in the west coast at a minimum already are within range of north koreas ability, both of an icbm and a Nuclear Weapon. This is something that rings true and is deeply understood by folks in my state. They recognize the need for a stronger missiledefense, the withfor taking this threat seriousness that it deserves. Ive got a few questions. The sanctions bill that we passed yesterday as it relates to hard currency. Do you think it will have the same effect as in 2005, when it was first put in place . Ms. Glaser i think the deal is great mr. Cha i think the bill is great. North korea, since 2005, has tried to circumvent this. A lot of it depends on what entities refused to sanction, what entities which used to target. That, i can easily imagine things we could do that would not collapse the u. S. China relationship. There is plenty of to operate. Rep. Gabbard and that will directly impact their pocketbooks. Going back to 2005 and what led to their agreement in 2007 when the sanctions were lifted, i would like to hear your thoughts on what you see as a viable path forward shouldnt that end should that end be reached. Where we have an opportunity, understanding that north korea sees their Nuclear Program as an insurance policy against regime change. Seeing what they learned in andwith gadhafi, i would like to hear your thoughts on engagement with north korea. How understanding this climate, there is a path forward. Mr. Klingner on yesterdays bill, it closes a number of loopholes, elevates orders to legislation, giving it executive power. It gives a number of mandatory implementations rather than discretionary. It will provide a number of benefits to the u. S. Effort. The bill, as well as existing measures, is dependent on the implementation and our willingness to use the powers that we already have. Last year the executive order released in january allows the u. S. To sanction north korean officials simply for being north korean officials. We dont even have to provide evidence they conducted illegal activity. That gives us tremendous power. 16 russian officials after the crimea incursion. We have not used that power is much as we could. The target has changed. North korea has adapted since then. Its like the cockroach theory of Law Enforcement. You go into a kitchen, turn on the light, see where the cockroaches are and where they run off to. If you take off the first node, the plan a, you alert your Law Enforcement authorities so they watch where the money gets redirected, where the cockroaches go. It is then that you go after the plan b. Ms. Glaser on the issue of have aent, we have to strategy that is composed of engagement as well as course of steps. Steps. Ell as coerviccive we have a channel in new york, we do talk to the North Koreans. About have to be careful revising the 6 party talks mechanism, as the chinese encourage us to do, in the absence of some return to the commitments that North Koreans made under the 2005 agreement. The North Koreans want to engage in dialogue so that they can get a peace treaty and be recognized as a Nuclear Weapons date. I think that is a bad outcome for the United States and our interests and allies. To engage north korea in a way that they understand there are steps that have to take. They have to go back to these commitments of giving of Nuclear Weapons. If they are willing to go ahead with a freeze as a first step, with the understanding that the goal is the eventually give them up, then i think the u. S. Has been willing to work with that. I dont think there are signs under kim jongun, that the North Koreans are willing to engage in serious negotiations with the wnend goal of denuclearizing. So engagement, yes, but we have to be careful how we use it. Gabbard thank you very much for organizing this hearing. Thanks to the chairman and the panel. A couple of questions. We are reportedly in talks with south korea regarding the reintroduction of Nuclear Weapons onto the peninsula. What is the status of that . Why wouldnt south korea be interested . Regarding the introduction of that missiledefense interceptor system, why is south korea concerned it would vocative . O ales,urtailing arm s how would that be done . You folks are the experts, and you dont know why we arent doing this. Maybe you can give us expert insight into that. And their human rights atrocities, which are unimaginable to me. What is the best way to do that . From my standpoint, i, like you folks, dont understand why we arent imposing these financial sanctions out of hand. Like with your Morning Coffee, the president should sign that and move on to the next future. That is my perception. What would be the response to these things from our allies and trading partners . Mr. Cha i will take a piece of those. In regards to why we have not done more. One aspect of this is china. Weve had a very full discussion on that. It is priority and commitment. This has not been a priority, unfortunately, even though as i said it is a very dangerous situation. There has to be a political commitment to make the north korean regime feel like there is a cost to their behavior. There has been a commitment to make the machinery, but are not to implement. There has a was been some hope that there is a chance for diplomacy. Ore with iran, with cuba myanmar. I am of the view that we will not see any diplomacy until the end of this administration. Interrupt, is there a Downside Risk . I understand my to spend some capital, what do we lose by doing this . Mr. Cha the primary downside has to do with china,. And its relationship that is the perceived downside. And there is a degree of inertia, there really is. This is an issue, traditionally, that past administrations want to put on the shelf. They dont necessarily want to commit to solve it. There is a most a pattern to this. They do a provocation, we issue a statement, we slap a section on them a sanction on them, and everybody goes back to other issues. That is a rapidly deteriorating situation. Mr. Klingner on human rights atrocities, there are a number of cases where we have imposed sanctions and measures on other countries for their Human Rights Violations, but not north korea. We have the authority to do so. Tomorrow with his Morning Coffee the president could add 50 north korean entities, including kim jongun by name, as well as every agency named in the inquiry report and he has all those agencies. I dont know why we dont do that. Curtailing conventional arm sales. The u. N. Resolutions not only cover the nuclear and missile programs, they also prevent trade on conventional arms. There have been at least 3 interceptions of conventional arms shipments to other nations from north korea. Apparently in in the resolution sanction hierarchy, they are not worth enforcing. We did not even convene u. N. Meetings about those violations. One thing we should be pushing for at the u. N. Is chapter 7, clause 42 authority, which allows military enforcement of the u. N. Resolutions. It does not mean attack or invasion. It means a coast guard interception of ships. Weve had cases where u. S. Warships have been trailing north korean traders for miles because we do not have the authority to inspect them. I can send you a copy of the report on that. South korea has been hesitant because of chinese pressure and economic blackmail. Last night during a major spe ech, the south korean president said she wants to discuss the possible deployment of fad to the peninsula. Reintroducing Nuclear Weapons that is very contentious. Both the u. S. And south korean government dont see a military necessity of putting Nuclear Weapons on the ground in south korea. We have seabased and airbased weapons that can do the job and would not provide a premium to target for a preemptive targe t for the North Koreans. Ms. Glaser President Park has attached a great deal of priority to china, hoping for reunification, but also putting more pressure on china. I agree with my colleagues that the main issue. I dont think President Park is unmovable on this issue. With the growing threat, she may agree. The chinese seek to weaken u. S. Alliances. This is a major problem in trying to deal with the north korean problem. Unless we can have a bigger strategy with the chinese, make this a priority, and perhaps give china some of the reassurances that congressman sherman was talking about earlier. We dont need to necessarily have troops along chinas border. The chinese are very concerned that the situation could be far more detrimental to them today than in the futre than in the future than it is today. Supporting a you and security n. Securitya u. Council resolution. That it has diluted banking sanctions. Just because the u. S. Wants to isolate north korea. That is a valuable goal. Yes, we should seek to isolate north korea. At the same time we should be putting far greater pressure on china to do more. The chinese believe that the u. S. Is not prioritizing this issue. They see us as having put this on the back burner. There is little incentive for them to attach a priority to it either. I think we continue to reward bad behavior. As much as the chinese are doing a delicate dance with their economy and political system, at the end of the day, it serves their purpose to have north korea remain communist or totalitarian. With all due respect to south korea and the president , i understand what she is trying to get to, but at their heart, they are communists. Thank the like to Panel Members. Congressman perry, you asked a lot of questions. A lot of us have been entertaining ourselves, a lot of the whys. Is north korea less of a threat than it was when there was a lot of Media Attention and concern across america . Just three short years ago in the president ial debate, it was front and center. One of the most important issues of our time. The only thing that comes to mind is an old adage, if the tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound . We have just not focused the attention. Have, what isn i it going to take . I think that is why we are here today. In the absence of leadership on this issue, i think that realm falls to us. We have a responsibility to stand up and try and take matters into our own hands, whether its trying to influence south korea on thad, or looking at potential new sanctions. At at the very least, declaring north korea a terrorist state. Lots of options that are on the table. That is the reason we did the hearing today. Not just to shine light and talk. Our goal is to put together legislation, a bill, or several bills, that will try to move us in the right direction. My intention is to work with the panelists to try and craft that legislation and makr irk it up r a full committee hearing. While other parts of the globe are in jeopardy, that does not diminish the threat that this part of the globe holds. Just because we are not paying attention to it does not mean that it is not a serious threat. It is time that we focus our attention on this serious serious issue that poses a threat to not just our national security, but Global National security. The threat of a nutjob like kim jongun having deployment capabilities with a Nuclear Weapon. That is incredibly frightening. One of the things we did not talk about today what about the possibility, even remote, of a partnership between north korea and iran . With all the money that iran has now or will have and Nuclear Capabilities and north korea, what about joining forces . This hearing is not an ending place, its a beginning place for what needs to take our attention. Mr. Sherman, you wanted to make a comment. Rep. Sherman they say in it journalism, if it bleeds, it leads. The middle east gets the attention. And it deserves attention. But these north korean problems are a threat to asia and the united staes. Tes. As to the possible connection between north korea and iran, we need an agreement with china that there are no nonstop flights between north korea and iran. They would all go over chinese airspace. We dont have to make a big political deal. Thathey, inform the planes if you have to fly over your airspace, they have to stop in a chinese city four refueling. It would be unsafe without stopping. I am sure the chinese will take a look at the plane. If we dont have that, the money is there, the desire for Nuclear Weapons, and the 13th Nuclear Weapon goes on ebay. I yield back. We have to break outside the existing paradigm. The status quo is not working. We have to be creative and start coming up with, maybe old ideas, or some new ideas. I am open. Thank you very much for the panelists. Thank you Committee Members as well. This meeting is now adjourned. U. S. And you and Atomic Energy officials and u. N. And atomic officials announced iran has met all of its requirements. You can read immediately recoup some 100 billion in frozen assets. Iranian officials held a series of meetings with the European Union and u. S. Officials, including john kerry on implementing the accord. President obama has sent a message to congress, which says he is looking the sanctions by executive order. Secretary of state john kerry made the statement in vienna a short time ago concerning the lifting of sanctions. Sec. Kerry good evening everybody. Thank you very much for your patience. I apologize for the fact that i cantt stay to take questions, which i would like to do, but we are operating under very tight constraints. For our pilots, as a result, i need to get to the airport and get on a plane. But i will make a statement before doing do. I hope it will cover much of what you are concerned about. This evening, we are reminded once again of diplomacys power to tackle significant challenges. Work and yearto years of hard committed dialogue, we have made vital breakthroughs with both the Nuclear Negotiation and a separate longterm diplomatic effort. I am very happy to say that as we speak, we have received confirmation that 5 americans who had been unjustly detained in iran have been released from custody. They should be on their way home to their families before long. The president will have more to say about their release later. But i can tell you one thing. While the two tracks of negotiations were not directly related, and they were not theres no question that the patient progress of the unitarian talks accelerated accelerated talks in light of the relationships forged and diplomatic channels on marks during the channels unlocked during the Nuclear Talks. Since last july, it was a significant pickup in dialogue. We have also reached a critical an auspicious milestone on the Nuclear Issue as well. Today, more than four years after i first traveled to iran at the request of president obama to discreetly explore whether the kinds of Nuclear Talks that we ultimately entered into were even possible. After more than 2. 5 years of intense multilateral negotiations, the international Atomic Energy agency has never verified that iran has honored its commitments to alter and in fact dismantle much of its Nuclear Program in compliance the agreement that we reached last july. Andnt to thank the iaea director of mono. I know that he will go to tehran to dittman to begin the process of implementation. To get to this point, iran has taken significant steps that many, and i do mean many, people doubted would ever come to pass. That should be recognized, even though the full measure of this achievement can only be realized by assuring continued full compliance in the coming years. Steps thatfor the iran has taken, the United States and the eu will immediately with Nuclear Related sanctions, expanding the horizon of opportunity for the iranian people. Before even coming over here tonight, i signed a number of documents over those sanctions that the state department has jurisdiction over in order to affect that lifting. In the words of the agreement today, january 16, 2016, we have reached implementation day. Iran marks the moment the Nuclear Agreement transitions from an ambitious set of promises on paper to measurable action in progress. As a result of actions in ju ly, the United States, our allies, and the entire world are safer. The threat of a Nuclear Weapon has been reduced. Today, we can confidently say that each of the pathways that iran had torn up missile enoughl had for missile material has verifiably been closed down. That begins with the iranian path. Before the negotiations, iran was adding rapidly, and without constraint, enriched uranium. As it committed to do back in july, iran has not reduced that stockpile. Has now reduced that stockpile to less than 300 kilograms, sending the rest of it out on a ship, which has gone to russia to be processed there. That means their current level of enriched uranium is 2 of what it was before we completed the agreement. The rest is shipped out of the country. Iran has also removed a full 2 3rds of its centrifuges from nuclear facilities. Along with the structure that supported them. They have nearly literally taken it out, dismantled it. That includes nearly all of its advanced centerpieces. The hardware is sealed up under a round clock monitoring by the iaea. Iran has now ended all uranium enrichment at its facilities, disconnected all related fuchsias, and removed related centrifuges, and removed all missile material from the site. The second path with the plutonium path. Before we sat down at the negotiating table, irans heavywater reactor had the potential to produce enough weapons grade plutonium annually to fuel 2 Nuclear Weapons. Iran has now begun the process of modifying the entire iraq reactor. It will only be used for peaceful purposes. It is removed the reactors core and filled it with cement. Ensuring that it can never be used again. Finally, the third path. The most troubling path, in many respects, was the potential for iran to pursue an of missile material enough missile material for weapon covertly, using a facility not publicly declared. Before the talks started, the iaea did not have a short access to investigate assured access to investigate where these covert activities may be carried out. It also like to the ability to track uranium as it was mined, milled, and turned into jello cake. Into yellowcake. Today the iaea has been at the place the verification measures called for in the agreement. That means, in addition to the 20 47 monitoring of all of irans declared nuclear facilities, the iaea now has visibility and accountability of the entire supply chain that supports irans Nuclear Program. From start to to finish. Tom Uranium Mines and mills centrifuge manufacturing and operations. Today, iran would need far more than one covert facility in order to try and break up. It would need to develop an entire cohort supply chain. From start to finish. Which experts around the world agree is not possible without early detection. As i said, the steps that iran has taken to fully implant the theear fully implement agreement. Two years ago, we assessed that irans breakout time, the amount of time it took to go from producing missile material, to have enough for one bomb that amount of time has gone from 23 months, where tit was. Now today we are confident that based on the reductions in its stockpile, center fuses, it would take iran at least a year to try and break out of the agreement, kick out the inspectors, accumulate the amount of missile material needed for a single bomb. And if iran ever did decide to do that, because of the steps that are in disagreement, we would know it almost immediately. We would have enough time to respond accordingly. Let me underscore verification remains, as it always has been, the back of this agreement. The backbone of this agreement. We welcome that iran has kept its word. And we will continue to do the same. But we will also remain vigilant in verifying irans compliance. Every hour of every day in the years ahead. I emphasize, todays announcement gives us even more hope, more confidence in the possibilities about this effort going forward. Thus far, iran has taken every step that it committed to take, dating back 2 full years. Not just back to july, but dating back to the interim agreement that we announced in geneva, switzerland. We now havet two years of compliance already under the belt, with another 13, then another 15, then another 20, 25, than the lifetime of this agreement under the Additional Protocol and modified code 3. 1 past performance does not guarantee future results. We know that. Furthermore, while we welcome implementation day, we understand that this marker alone does not wipe away all the concerns that the International Community has rightly expressed about irans policies and actions and choices in the region. We also know without doubt there is not a challenge in the entire region that would not become much more complicated, much worse if iran has a Nuclear Weapon. That is why this agreement is so important. With the agreement fully implemented, the International Community can work to address the of the regional challenges without the looming threat of a Nuclear Armed iran. Syria,ng the crisis in on which we have made important progress in recent months. Before i close, i want to thank a few important people who brought us here to this day, who have been critical to the process brought the negotiations. That starts with the person i work for, president obama, who has been resolute and insisting that iran must never have a Nuclear Weapon, and equally strong and courageous in asserting that diplomacy should be given a fair chance to achieve that goal. His courage to pursue a path that many people deemed impossible, and some deemed inadvisable, is the reason we are where we are, marking implementation day. Bilaterally,t but with france, germany, britain, china, russia, all of us joined together in an effort to create this accountability. I also want to thank the delegations representing all of our p5 partners. All of them have worked unbelievably hard and has set a standard for international cooperation. I particularly want to thank dane for helping to leave this process for 2. 5 years, and her successor for expertly coordinating International Efforts during the final stage in the last two years to bring us to this announcement. I want to express my gratitude for the superb efforts of my own delegation. Whom from the state department, the white house, throughout the interagency system that we work with in the United States all of them, the justice department, ernie moneys and others have done an extraordinary job. They richly deserve the gratitude of our nation, and i believe other nations that benefit from this. Let me also thank the government of austria, switzerland, and oman for their enormous hospitality. For their existence all the time assistance all the time, and the International Work to make this possible. I am grateful to the government of switzerland and all of those that have worked in the last days as our representative in tehran regarding the release of the americans, which you will hear more about from president obama later. Finally, i want to express my deep respect for the serious and constructive approach that irans delegation brought to this effort. The foreign minister and his team from day one demonstrated their deep commitment and seriousness of purpose. They have worked diligently with secretary moniz. We had a mutual respect. The hard work will continue, the question. The tough politics surrounding this issue in many countries, including the u. S. And iran, will obviously not any easier overnight. The fact is today marks the first day of a safer world. One where we believe it is possible to remain safer for years to come, and particularly with the compliance of this agreement. We have also proven once again why diplomacy has to be our first choice. And war, our last resort. That is a very important lesson to reinforce. We have approached this challenge with the firm belief diplomacy before choosing war is an imperative. We think today marks the benefits of that choice. As president himself has acknowledged, iran is likely to use this cash infusion. More than 100 billion in total to finance terrorists. This comes after tehrans most illegal Ballistic Missile test and after the irgc detained 10 american sailors. A bipartisan majority in the house voted to reject this deal in the first place. We will continue to do Everything Possible to prevent a nuclear iran. That from House Speaker paul ryan. Secretary kerry mention his remarks that president obama may have his own remarks about i run