Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130310

Recent developments in north korea most notably the february 12, 2013 nuclear test and the december 12, 2012 missile test highlight the growing threat that north korea poses to the United States, our allies and friends in the region, and the increasing dangers of severe instability on the Korean Peninsula. Given this growing threat i believe that this committee needs to take a close look at current u. S. Policy towards north korea; evaluate its effectiveness; and identify any midcourse corrections or new measures that are required to get our north korea policy right. I understand that as we convene this hearing this morning that up in new york the United Nations Security Council is sitting down, right now, to consider a resolution that imposes additional sanctions on north korea. This new Security Council resolution, based on a u. S. China draft, includes tough new sanctions intended to impede north koreas ability to develop further its Illicit Nuclear and Ballistic Missile programs. These sanctions include targeting the illicit activities of north korean diplomatic personnel, north korean banking relationships, illicit transfers of bulk cash, and new travel restrictions. I think that these actions are a step in the right direction and very much in keeping with the sort of approach that the Ranking Member, senator corker and i called for in the north korea nonproliferation and accountability act of 2013, which the Senate Passed on february 25 and i congratulate the administration on moving things forward so effectively at the United Nations. But i also believe that we need to do more to better determine how the United States can combine effective sanctions and military countermeasures with strong and realistic diplomacy aimed at north korea and at china, and with a clear goal of north koreas abandonment of its Nuclear Weapons program. North korea yesterday made what i consider to be an absurd threat, of a Preemptive Nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors in response to the action the United States, china, and others are seeking at the United Nations. There should be no doubt about our determination, willingness, and capability to neutralize and counter any threat that north korea may present. I do not think the regime in pyongyang wants to commit suicide, but that, as they must surely know, would be the result of any attack on the United States. But even as we assure that effective military countermeasures are in place to safeguard the United States and our allies, there should also be no doubt about our determination to work with the International Community, through peaceful diplomatic means, to achieve a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. Today it is estimated that north korea has accumulated between 20 to 40 kilograms of plutonium, enough perhaps for six to eight Nuclear Weapons. It has now conducted three Nuclear Explosive tests. It has developed a modern gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Program to go along with its plutonium stockpile. And it is seeking to develop the capability to mate a Nuclear Warhead to an intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Taken together, these developments present a growing danger that north korea may well become a Small Nuclear power a scenario which, while bad enough on its own, could well have additional dangerous effects if it leads other nations in the region to reconsider their own commitments to non proliferation. Moreover, there is also the continuing danger of further conventional military provocation from north korea that results in a serious military clash between north and south, and the potential for unintended escalation that could draw in the United States and china and result in a deadly and dangerous confrontation on the peninsula. And, beyond these security concerns, there are also on going questions about human rights and the lot of the north Korean People. Security concerns may be our most important priority on the peninsula, but they are not our only priority. It has now been a little over a year since kim jung un took power amid speculation that this transition could lead to a period of instability inside the north, perhaps even leading to collapse. Yet that instability does not appear to have materialized although of course we can never be sure about the future in north korea. By all appearances, kim has asserted control over the military and strengthened party institutions. And, contrary to some media hype focused on his education in switzerland, he has not proved to be a reformer. It is unclear whether he has any objectives other than maintaining tight control of his political and economic system. Above all else, north korea clearly represents a real and growing threat to u. S. National security interests, and therefore deserves our close attention. In time, if its present course remains unaltered, north korea will pose a direct threat to the United States. Today, north korea certainly poses a growing threat to our allies and to American Forces in region. It also threatens to undermine the International Nonproliferation regime particularly, as its arsenal grows, by spreading its threat to other counties through a transfer of Nuclear Technology and materials. We know, for example, that north korea has made efforts to proliferate Nuclear Technology in the past, building a plutonium separation plant in syria which israel destroyed by bombing it before its completion, and we know that there is a long history of north koreaniranian military cooperation. I hope that this hearing, as well as a continuing dialogue with the administration on this issue, we help us explore several key questions that are critical to informing our future policy towards north korea does north korea pursue a Nuclear Weapons program as a deterrent, for defensive purposes, or does it pursue a Nuclear Program as part of a policy intended to reunify the peninsula by force . Could the current regime ever conceive of parting with its Nuclear Capability, or does it view these weapons as essential tools to deter the United States and continue its hold on power . Getting these answers right will be critical to determining if there is hope for diplomacy or if a different approach is necessary. It is also important to note the coming to power of a new south Korean Administration led by President Park at this difficult time. And i offer her my congratulations on her inauguration last week. There is no basis for successfully dealing with the north absent a Solid Foundation for policy rooted in the usrok alliance. With President Parks inauguration we have an important opportunity to consult and work closely with a close ally to chart out future course in dealing with north korea. Finally, we need to consider how recent transitions in other countries in the region including our close ally japan, as well as china may present new opportunities in building a more effective approach to dealing with pyongyang. Whatever ones views on the various policy efforts of the past two decades what has worked and what has not worked and why there can be little question that these efforts have failed to end to north Koreas Nuclear or Missile Programs, failed to reduce the threat posed by north korea to our allies, and failed to lead to greater security in the region. Certainly there are no easy answers when it comes to how to be successful when dealing with a regime like north korea. But i am hopeful that todays hearing, and the conversation we start today, may help us to get to a place where, twenty years from now, we can look back at successfully having ended north Koreas Nuclear and Missile Programs, and built greater stability and security on the peninsula and throughout the asiapacific region. Let me call on the distinguished Ranking Member, senator corker. North koreas Nuclear Weapons program, Missile Program, and proliferation activities pose a threat to the United States security interests. Policy makers have attempted to influence north koreas behavior through deterrent tools, including inducements and punitive measures. U. S. Officials have used diplomacy, a system of financial sanctions, and counterproliferation tools, including proactive interdiction activities. Despite the combination of tools, the United States has failed to persuade the north korean regime to abandon its Nuclear Weapons program. We know north korea continues to engage in a range of illicit activities to generate hard currency to support the regime. Simultaneously, the situation for the north Korean People has continued to deteriorate, with rampant human rights abuses, the continued expansion of north korean prison camps, and some analysts estimate they may hold as 200,000 prisoners. China continues to serve as north koreas primary benefactor, accounting for 60 of north korean trade. Beijing remains pyongyangs source of food and fuel. Policymakers have not been able to persuade china that the cost of beijings continued support far outweighs any benefit. It is clear we must maintain our efforts. I recognize that north korea is a complex policy conundrum and there is no Silver Bullet solution. After 20 years of unsuccessful policies by successive administrations, is logical that we ought to undertake a comprehensive review of our north korean strategy, including new tools to crack the north korean policy knot. That is why i will work with senator menendez and other members to work on the accountability act which would require undertaking the review does not require abandoning efforts, nor terminating sanctions. It necessitates we redouble efforts to think outside the box. In recent months it has become increasingly clear to me that u. S. Policymakers often pay closer attention to the non military aspects of deterrence, including efforts to weaken and debilitate the north korean regime. In particular, we often do more to expose the norths hostility toward its own citizens as a means to influence the kim regime. We should promote the flow of information, including our broadcasts. Do not mistake my interest in the nonmilitary aspect as a call to abandon the military posture security aspects of our north korean policy. I believe that a robust u. S. Nuclear deterrent is the central to u. S. Security and remains critical to maintaining our security commitments to allies in the asiapacific, including japan and south korea. Ambassador joseph will speak about our deterrent later during this hearing. I look forward to hearing from you in regarding the administrations efforts, including efforts at the Security Council on new sanctions resolutions. I look forward to hearing from you and all our expert witnesses about our capabilities to deter north korean provocations, options to elicit enhanced chinese cooperation, and opportunities to improve the lives of the north Korean People. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Our panel has put together the top Decision Makers on north korean policy from several Previous Administrations. They represent decades of experience. I can think of no better group to analyze what has worked and what has not. I expect they may hold in some cases different views in this regard, and that is only natural considering the importance of addressing north korea, and we are going to look forward to this discussion. We start off with the distinguished ambassador glyn davies. He oversees u. S. Involvement in the sixparty talks process, as well as aspects of our Security Assistance policies regarding north korea. He is a career member of the foreign service, serving previously as a permanent representative to the u. S. Atomic Energy Administration and the u. N. Office in vienna, as well as the Principal Deputy assistant secretary of state and executive secretary of the national Security Council staff. An extraordinary wealth of knowledge. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on u. S. Policy toward north korea or, as it is called, the democratic peoples republic of korea. North koreas announcement of its Third Nuclear test and its threats to conduct even more are only the latest in a long line of reminders that the Nuclear Weapons programs proliferation activities pose serious threats to u. S. National security, to Regional Security in the asiapacific, and to the global nonproliferation regime. Pyongyang continues to violate its commitments, and its human rights record is deplorable. Its people are impoverished. It pours huge sums into nuclear and Ballistic Missile programs that are forbidden by the United Nations. North koreas provocative threatening actions, meanwhile, continues to grow to take advantage of the alternatives available. The United States offered and has continued to offer pyongyang an improved relationship with the United States and integration into the International Community, provided north korea demonstrate a willingness to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and address other concerns. The dprk rebuffed these offers and instead responded with a series of provocations that drew Widespread International condemnation. 60 countries criticized the december launch. The february 12 announcement of a nuclear test which was proclaimed as targeted against the United States represents an even bolder threat to National Security, stability of the regime, and the global nonproliferation regime. The International Response has been unprecedented over 80 countries condemning the test. We are working with the International Community to make clear that north Koreas Nuclear test has costly consequences. In adopting a resolution 2087 in january, the u. N. Security council pledged to take action in the event of a nuclear test. Were working hard at the United Nations Security Council to make good on that pledge, and, mr. Chairman, that is occurring even as we speak. Were hoping that the Council Adopts a resolution that the United States put forward, that the Security Council will deliver a strong response that further impedes the growth of north koreas Nuclear Weapons and ballistic weapons programs and its ability to engage in proliferation activities. The resolution today that we tabled builds upon, strengthens, and significantly expands the scope of the strong u. N. Sanctions already in place. The sanctions contained in this draft resolution will impede north koreas ability to proceed in developing its nuclear and Missile Programs and expand the scope of the choices the u. S. Has available to counter these and other elements. We are strengthening our cooperation with our allies, working closely with partners in the department of defense and other agencies. We will take steps necessary defend our allies, particularly the republic of korea and japan. Multilateral and National Sanctions will remain a vital component of our effort to impede the dprk and its activities. We continue to exercise National Authorities to sanction north korean entities and those that support them and facilitating programs that threaten the American People. Most recently, on january 24, the department of state and treasury designated a number of north korean individuals and entities under executive order 13382. We will continue to take National Measures as appropriate. Sanctions are not a punitive measure, but a tool to impede the deployment of north Koreas Nuclear Missile Programs and its proliferation, as well as to make clear the cost of north koreas denial of its International Obligations, and working toward our endgame will require an openness to dialogue with the dprk. We are committed to negotiate since the implementation of the september 2005 joint statement of the sixparty talks and to bring north korea into compliance with its International Obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. The United States will not engage in talks for talks sake. It will require a change in north koreas priorities, demanding that pyongyang will meet its obligations on denuclearization. This leads to a few important other principles. First, the United States will not accept north korea as a nuclear state. We will not compensate them for returning to dialogue. We will not tolerate north korea for bullying its neighbors. The United States cannot approve without improvement in interkorean relations. In the meantime, at the u. S. Diplomacy on north korea on a wide range of issues continues. Close coordination with our treaty allies, including japan, remain absolutely central to our approach. We have expanded our engagement might develop a new dialogue key global actors who have joined the rising chorus of voices, calling on the dprk to comply with obligations. China does remain central to altering or koreas calculus, and close u. S. China confrontations will remain a key focus of diplomatic efforts. While a denuclearized korea is a goal, so too is the welfare of north koreas 25 Million People, the vast majority of whom bear the brunt of the governments decision to perpetuate an unsustainable selfimpoverishing military first policy. Improving human rights conditions is an integral part of our overall north korea policy, and how the dprk addresses human rights will have an impact on prospects for improved u. S. Dprk ties. The entire world is increasingly taking note of the Grave Human Rights Violations in the dprk. The United Nations high commissioner for human rights has called for an inquiry to document abuses. We support this call. Next week my colleague will travel to attend a session where he will call attention to north koreas human rights record and urge adoption of an enhanced mechanism of inquiry into the regimes abuses. The obama administrations policy of engagement and pressure recognizes that only a policy of openness to dialogue, when possible, combined with robust pressure of sanctions when necessary, can maximize prospects for progress in denuclearizing north korea. Genuine progress requires fundamental shifts in north koreas leadership. The leadership must choose between provocation and peace, isolation, or integration. North korea will not achieve security, economic prosperity, and integration into the International Community while it pursues weapons, while it threatens its neighbors, and while it tramples on International Norms and abuses its people and refuses to fulfill its longstanding obligations and commitments. The leadership in pyongyang faces increasingly sharp choices, and were working with our friends and allies to further sharpen these choices, if the north korean regime is going to embark on a path to denuclearization for the benefit of the north Korean People, the northeast asian region, and the world. Thank you again for this chance to appear before you today, and i am happy to try to address any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. We will start a round, and let me just take off of that, your almost closing comment that you made, that progress depends on north korea changing its strategic calculus. The question is, what is it that we and our allies can do tomoves in a different directio, and in that context, it isnt the key here china and its potential influence with the North Koreans . And if that is the case, how is it that we get the chinese to be more robust in their efforts to get north korea to change its calculus . You have asked the biggest question that can be asked about north korean policy, and you are hitting on key themes. Calculusnorth koreas is proving to be a challenge. Administrations of both strikes have been at this at least since Ronald Reagan was president , and one can argue even before that. What we are trying to do is continuing to present a united front in terms of concentric circles, extending to our partners in the sixpart process, and going beyond that to try to build an International Coalition that understands the threat that north korea poses to the International System, not just on proliferation, but on human rights and how it comports itself with the International Financial system and so forth. North korea appears not yet to be absorbing those lessons, but we will continue to sharpen them, working with colleagues and with our friends. On a more basic level, we are working very closely as we have for decades with our south korean ally to ensure that should north korea miscalculate and we call on them not to do that, once again, in the face of these new threats emerging from pyongyang, even in recent hours and days and how we work with the South Koreans to make sure we are ready from an alliance standpoint militarily to deal with any threats that arise. That is very much at the macro level, how we are dealing with this problem. You mentioned china. Youre absolutely right. China is a critical piece of this challenge. They are north koreas closest neighbor. They are often north koreas protector, and certainly an ally of north korea. They have had a special relationship of sorts for quite a while. Were concentrating a lot of diplomatic energy and effort on deepening our dialogue with china, to present the proposition that there is still a peaceful diplomatic way forward to deal with the north korean issue. It will not work and cannot work unless china steps up in bringing home to pyongyang the choices it faces and setting the table for any return to negotiations. I am afraid the history of trying to draw north korea into talks that can deal with its Nuclear Program, its Missile Program, and all the other issues were concerned about has not been fully successful, because the North Koreans have been able to split us. We think it is time to work more closely with china, but also of course with our close allies and other partners in the sixpart process to bring home for china, it seems to me there are two calculuses here. They can deal with us at United Nations, which is pursue a new set of sanctions, and that will rattle the North Koreans, or they can choose to cut back on that which is essential to north korean excesses, which is its assistance in fuel as well as other sources. That would be far more significant. From your perspective, what is the chinese calculus . They have not chosen now they are joining us, which is a welcome thing that that has occurred at the council, but they have a much bigger, more significant ability by virtue of the incredible assistance it gives north korea. The safest thing to say about china is it is cooperating. Yesterday we were greeted with the news that chairman maos grandson, a general in the Peoples Liberation army, called on north korea to move forward on denuclearization. They are developed in china. One could describe it as the beginning of debate about how china will deal with its neighbor. Relations have not always gone smoothly of late between the two countries. I do not think it is up to us to figure out how to engage too deeply in that internal dialogue and china, but those are helpful sides. Youre right, china is always the getoutofjailfree card for north korea. They can provide ways for the North Koreans to export, import materials. China is part of the Security Council. I have been given a note that the resolution has passed. China has played a bigger role in crafting that resolution that contains the provisions we talked about. There are signs that china is beginning to step up more robustly to play its role. They say they enforce these sanctions. We take them at their word. We trust to verify at the front, and will continue to engage the chinese to deepen our dialogue and to insure the chinese do the maximum amount they can to deal with this problem. Senator corker. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony. I hear of the things that you are working on, and we thank you for your work, and we understand this has been going on for 20 years in too many administrations, but when you talk about verifiable denuclearization, it seems to me that we can just continue to go in the opposite direction, and while we talk about additional sanctions in the Security Council, it feels to me more like were at a crossroads, that this is not about additional stages, but were at a crossroads where if something it does not happen soon, there is no way that we can begin talking about verifiable denuclearization. Do you agree with that, or to you think adding on additional pressures and the way we have been doing it will work . T has been a combination of all the above, plus more. We need to continue to press north korea when necessary, and right now it is necessary to do that because they are in a provocation staged, so you are getting a reaction from the Security Council. Pressure to sanctions is important. We need to stay strong, and our alliance with the rok, japan, continues to sharpen and deepen our capabilities. It is important to build this International Coalition. 80 nations is somewhat stunning, nations like south africa, brazil. Even the communist countries laos and vietnam are condemning this most recent nuclear test. The greek chorus out there in the world is growing in volume. Goode right, that is only as far as it goes, because what is most important is to change north koreas calculus, so we also need to be ready to engage north korea in authentic talks if we can ever see that they are prepared to take a real step to denuclearization and address our concerns. I think all of those can things are exceedingly important, and also very quickly we need to take account of what we have achieved over the last 60 years. In south korea, we have worked with them, helped them create a bit of an economic miracle. I think the ratio is now 361 in terms of the amount of goods and services produced per capita versus the average north korean. Things are not going well in terms of the correlation of forces when it comes to north korea right now. I think we move on all these fronts, diplomatically, militarily, in terms of the International Coalition. We need to keep drawing attention to their human rights, and by continuing to press them and continuing to present to them the opportunity should they choose to accept it, to come talk to the International Community and find a different way forward, away from provocations, away from threats and move toward a different feature that is absolutely available for them. I am at least guardedly optimistic that at some point they will see that is the way to go, and i think that is why we need to stay true to that. You talked about insuring japan and south korea and allies understand we are going to be there to protect them, and yet you are aware we are not investing in modernization in our own country regarding our nuclear armament. Does that concerns the allies that we are not doing the things in our own country to ensure that that deterrence is there . To be fair, i work for the state department, and that is a question for our defense planners, but i can take a bit of a stab at it. I have not seen in my frequent travels in japan in the rok that there are deep concerns that our commitment to them is that all in jeopardy, and because we have begun this pivot to asia, we have begun to devote even more research into the asian theater, and that is going to reassure them. The mechanism that is funding this Nuclear Activity uses illicit activities, and we have ways of countering that. There are people who are saying we should call the entire north korean government as a Money Laundering concern, and we condemn the thirdparty candidates, some of which might reside in china. Can you talk to us about ways of getting involved in stopping Illicit Activity so it is not finding what theyre doing from a nuclear standpoint, and what are your thoughts about us being involved in cutting down on entities that are allowing that money to flow through . Some of the sanctions that have been part of the many resolutions to get at this, it is important we remain vigilant at present they are not doing what needs to be done. Some of the sanctions get at that, but we are still not stopping the flow of money to these Nuclear Activities from a list of concerns. Is there more that we should be doing there . We are slowly doing that, and that is good because it makes it more difficult for the North Koreans to gain the input they need for their program. It is important that in a kind of all aspects of policy to look at that, that is something we continue to work on, and it is interesting if you look at the trend of great number of years there was a time that, not too many years ago, these problems with methamphetamine exports, with counterfeiting cigarettes and drugs, this was really epidemic. I am not saying it is not a problem. It is, and we are vigilant about it, but a lot of the steps were taking did a good job of making it more difficult for them to do that. A lot more work to do, no question about it, and it ought to be a focus of attention. My time is up, but i want to say i agree with efforts to point out the human rights issues that are taking place. That would help us build an even greater coalition, and i would like to share some point how we might influence citizens through better broadcast activity taking place there. Take you for your testimony, and i look forward to the rest of your answer. Thank you. Thank you, ambassador, for being here, and i very much appreciate your service and willingness to go in to these difficult situations. Could you tell us with regard to the wmd programs, what is the current estimate on when north korea would have a warheadmissile combination that could strike the United States, and what are the most effective means of this occurring or slowing down progress in that area . Great question. It is a subject of a lot of debate among some highly qualified experts in the government and among the Experts Community beyond, people like a professor at stanford, who has expertise. He was the director of our laboratory at los alamos. That is exactly right. What i am going to have to do is take a dive, because youre asking a question that does good deeply into intelligence matters, and i do not want i would rather not get into what i know, and i got to be honest, i am not an expert on these matters. I think as a general proposition, a lot of what is written in the popular literature about this and the think tanks and others, they are not too far off in terms of the estimates, some of which youve eluded to. But i cant get into those highly classified intelligence matters. I wanted you to just give us a general answer as you did. I think various folks have talked about a matter of months or even a year in those kinds of situations. And im sure that well be getting briefings on that. A lot has been said about chinas great cyber wall which blocks information critical of the communist party or policies from the chinese people. But my understanding is north korea has even a more robust restrictive policy in terms of the internet. And it seems to me that one of the things were seeing around the world when you see democracy movements is the internet playing a role, is the people being connected, people turning out in the streets as a result of that interconnectedness. And you may have noticed recently and i know the administration didnt bless this, but our governor recently visited to try to promote the idea of the internet in north korea. And i was wondering should the United States be actively engaged in helping to create access to the internet in north korea. And do you believe that this is in the interest of the north Korean People as well as the other people in the region . Great question. And it is in our interest to do that but its a tough target to convince the North Koreans to open up. While we werent crazy about the time of the trip to pyongyang, i was interested to see him make those statements. Funny things are happening in north korea that could eventually have an effect. You have 1. 5 million cell phones now ,mostly among the elite and on a closed system. Hume limits there, not able to access the outside. But nonetheless it promotes the spread of information within north korea. We know from lots of good studies that have been done by private organizations interviewing these 23,000 north Korean Refugees who found their way to south korea that there is a surprising degree of understanding about the world outside their borders. South korean soap operas are popular and it is probably a bit of a shock when they get a thumb drive and watch one of these to see South Koreans with one or two cars in their garages. So i think the media picture is changing. That is happening organically because of the trade between china and north korea and i think we do need to look at entrepreneurial ways to promote more of that, get more information in. I think broadcasting is a part of that. The broadcasting board of governors spends a lot of time on this issue. We work with the r. O. K. On that as well. We work with private groups. There are a number of organizations who work hard to try to alleviate the challenges faced by average North Koreans and their presence in the country i think is a great way to bring to the North Koreans an image of what americans and the outside world are like. So i think across all of these fronts, there is much that is happening. There is much more to do and im very glad you raised it. Ambassador, back to the Nuclear Weapons and i think this is less in the classified area, is getting north korea to dismantle the weapon the goal of u. S. Policy and under what conditions might north korea give up its Nuclear Weapons . It is still the goal of u. S. Policy to achieve a korean p e anyone you is la that is free of that. We had a few short range went thans we had there. We know this is not going to happen over night even if were able to get some sort of diplomatic process started. I was personally engaged in following up the work that Steve Bosworth did before he left my position to try to draw out the North Koreans to begin a process to go down that road and bound their Nuclear Program and give them up. I think there is still a chance for i did police woman ma si, there is still a chance for talks to work. But it will require a united front. And most of all, it will require a change of calculus in pyongyang. And that is what were working to. Im hopeful we can get to that. Im hopeful in a generation we can see a different picture. Thank you for being here with us. This is a difficult assignment youve been given by evidence of the fact that ambassador rodman visited north korea and wasnt able to accomplish much either. But he gave up the baseline. You said a moment ago you are guardedly optimistic. That at some point this could be resolved through negotiations. I want to share my impressions and get your impressions of that. Some of this is not novel but i want to share it with you and get your impressions. My impressions are that the north korean regime seeks legitimacy for who they are and what they are. They want the world to accept them as a Nuclear Power. They want to be legitimized as a world government despite all the atrocities they commit and all the weird things they do abroad. And they want to be insulated from foreign interference in their affairs. And theyve concluded the only way to accomplish these things is by being a Nuclear Power which and their strategy is this series of escalations with potential offramp as long the way they conduct. They conduct weapons test. They say outrageous things like they are going to i forth the rhetoric used a week ago about wiping out the u. S. Forces if they conduct a joint exercise. They said they are going to strike us here in the homeland. They use this rhetoric and actions they take to scare people or get a reaction from the world towards one goal. And that one goal is very simple, to get the world to say fine north korea regime, you can keep your weapons and well accept you for who you are. Thats their goal. I dont know how we can negotiate them out of that position at this point. They decide do we want to be kadafi or hussein. And once we have the capability of striking the u. S. At the homeland, they will have no choice but to accept us and everything they do between now and then is to delay or buy time. That doesnt mean i also hope one day they will wake up and say this is bad for us. I just dont think a government like this can survive if they had to get rid of their weapons and engage the world in a civilized way. My concern is why does this matter . Number one, because i believe if injury japan or south korea or other countries in the region. If north korea continues to expand and gets global acceptance of their Nuclear Program, they are going to want one as well. So this fear of an escalation of Nuclear Weapons in the region is very real. The second concern is other countries are measuring their behavior. Iran is closely watching what happens with north korea. They want to be accepted as the government they are. And they want to be insulated from foreign interference and they think a Nuclear Weapon system is the way to do it and they are watching how north korea is being treated by the Global Community and determining from that how they need to proceed forward. The reality is i think the best we can hope for is three things. Number one we have to delay and preferably prevent them from a goal of reaching the u. S. Or the west with these weapons. Number two, we should never allow the world to forget who these people are and what they are doing. The list of atrocities is too long for today. They kidnap people abroad. Any religion is banned. Punishable by death. The list goes on and on. And we need to create the conditions for reunification which is impossible today. But we dont know when the moment comes those conditions become possible. I think we need to do everything we can with our partners in the world to create the conditions where we can have a unified peaceful korea. And thats not possible today but we can create the conditions where hopefully that will be possible. Who could have predicted east germany would have fallen but it did. We have to strengthen. I know as a diplomat your job is to try to bring a resolution to this. I dont think that is going to happen with this guy. They are convinced the only way they can accomplish what they want is to have a Nuclear Program. I dont disagree with anything youve said. This is one of the hardest Foreign Policy problems out there and not just for this particular administration, but for many predecessor administrations. So youre right about all of that. Everything you prescribe i think is being done in one form or another. Delaying their acquisition of these materials, working hard to prevent them from proliferating these technologies, never letting people forget the nature of this regime and what it is theyve done to their own people, what it is their doing to the International System by remaining an outlier. And you talk about creating conditions for unification. I think here, youre right, we need to continue to support the republic of korea. What the r. O. K. Has done over the last couple of generations is nothing short of a miracle in terms of the way its pulled itself up by itself boot straps and created the largest economy in the world. Become a much stronger nation. And i think we need to do all of this. And we certainly need to work more closely every day with the r. O. K. And its new president to present this united front to north korea. And to do that also more broadly, within hours of their nuclear test, all of the other five parties, china and russian i cant included denounced what they had done. Are we potentially in the midst of a recalibration amongst policy makers in regard to north korea. Is it possible we are in the moment that the chinese are looking at the situation and saying they are no longer what they once were . We dont need the headache they are . They are clearly not pleased in beijing that every time they try to impress them to take a different path, they thumb their nose at them. We see stunning articles with knowledge poft central authorities. I mentioned youve got the chinese blog sphere are saying what goes here. There is a nuclear test right across the border in north korea. This country is testing weapons 15 years after the last country tested. Things are changing in china. Will it create a fundamental shift . Very hard to say but were watching it closely. Thank you. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony. There are three major challenges that i want to talk about. Weve already talked about them. One, its clear that north korea is moving aggressively on its Nuclear Weapons program. Secondly as senator rubio pointed out, the record on Human Rights Violations is the worst of any country in the world, the way they treat their people, no opportunity for decent or criticisms. They are kidnapping and torture, notorious and the third is the condition of their own people. The level of poverty and hunger. I want to ask you three points that have been raised. One is that north korea has threatened to cut off the military hot line. How important is that in dealing with the threat of confrontation . Secondly, the United Nations is looking at a commission on human rights. Should we have any confidence that that, in fact, would put on adequate spotlight on what is happening . And the third is our contact in north korea is limited. We dont have a great deal of ngos to work with. We are not providing any significant aide at all. Should we reevaluate the participation with ngos to try to deal with the population itself in north korea . Great questions. The hot line cut off, theyve done this before. Its one of the things they do on occasion. I dont know that its necessarily the case this latest threat to cut off the hot line or perhaps theyve already cut the line is going to be at the end of the day is going to be different from what weve seen in the past, nonetheless its serious. Have we used it in the past . Yes. At the peace village on the border its often used to convey messages back and forth. Your question about what is happening in geneva and the likely we hope establishment for the first time of a permanent mechanism of a Commission Inquiry to look at human rights. I think this is a significant development. Somewhat stunning this hasnt been the case in the past. But we hope the u. N. Is going to take that step. Its not a magic bullet but i think it will be a great way for the entire International Community institutionally and indefinitely to look at what is going on in north korea and broadcast to the rest of the world the results of their efforts. Are there still hurdles that have to be overcome for that commission to be established . Its not done yet. They havent looked at it and having served a couple of years i know nothing is done until its done in u. N. Land. But we have i believe there is the right kind of correlation of forces, japan is behind it, the r. O. K. Has announced their support for this mechanism. We are actively seeking it. And i mentioned in my statement that u. N. Officials are behind it and promoting it. I think its going to happen. And were going to do what we can to make it happen. And it will have an effect. On ngos, thats a great point. Yesterday, during the snow day that wasnt, i was in the office and i was on a wonderful Conference Call with 7 ngos many of them religiously based. These people do work in north korea. They do medical programs. They get out of pyongyang and get into the country side and they do everything from tuberculosis work to digging wells and hospitals and dental clinics. And i think it is important to clear the path for them to do what they can do. Its not easy. And one of the concerns they had was about sanctions and whether that will affect their ability to bring things in to do the work they do. I think we need to find a way to promote their work because i think that is important that this kind of people to people work go forward. Why . Because 1 3 of North Koreans according to a number of studies are severely chronically malnourished. They are forgotten by the elicit in pyongyang building parks and holding rock concerts. So its important that we do what we can to work with them. We have in past when weve imposed sanctions tried to figure out ways to get direct aid to ngos we have confidence in to provide humanitarian aid ha is appropriate. Do we have confidence if that aid were to be made available that the ngo network is Strong Enough and there is enough account ability that kecked ensure this the aid went for the designated purpose and was not diverted to compromise the importance of the sanctions . Well the ngos take it very seriously. Theyve got decades of experience. A lot of their work is scaled such that a lot less likely that the regime is going to try to divert the resources they provide, the services to the military or the elicit. Ive been impressed as ive looked at the specifics of the programs they have under way, theyve to a great extent figured out how to do this. And whether its flood relief or bringing Nutritional Supplements to malnourished children, they are one of the ways we ought to go. And when we have done big feeding programs in north korea. There was the 500,000 met trick on the program under the Previous Administration this North Koreans cut off only a third of the way into it. And the most recent one we put into place. We do the work through ngos because they are that good and they ensure that the goods and services they provide get to the right people. I make the final point, for congress to allow that type of assistance, we need to know and have confidence that we can account for how the aid is being used since were not present in the country to be able to do that. We have to have that type of confidence, so its something you need to be able to build up as far as the questions that will be asked in congress. Thank you, sir. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Can you bring me up to speed in terms of the progress of the new leader and the consolidation of power and how much of that consolidation really leads to the hi jinx weve been seeing recently . Thats a really hard target. A lot of terrific intelligence professionals work at that. We stay in touch with allies. I a week ago spent a couple of hours with an ambassador with one of the nations who had lots of insights to provide about the thinking of the government. Just as a general matter, i think what has happened is kim came into power in december of 2011. There was a period that lasted a few months where everybody was saying this is maybe a new day. One think tank even talked about a cam lot moment occurring in north korea. I wasnt buying any of the stuff at the time and nor were many in government. But what weve seen is that debate has gone away. That the hope for the kind of more enlightened approach to these issues, thats fading fast. I think he has consolidated his power. Hes got the six key titles. Hes the head of the military and the government. The logic of their system is such. Its such a dictator system that in order for that system to operate as it has for the last three generations, there has to be a man at the top to whom all issues are referred and from whom all wisdom flows. We think that he is for all intents and purposes in charge. As to why hes taken the steps hes taken, some of the purges, thats been consolidating his power, firing the generals and so forth. And all of this tough talk, hard to say why they are doing it. I think its the classical reaction to the fact that community is coming together and making it tougher to operate. I think thats the kind of acting out we see from north korea. Thank you. Im new to the committee but ive been watching the laying out of sanctions and relaxing a little bit. Basically the dual strategy here. Can you tell me in your mind what was the most effective set of sanctions . Ill start there. What worked best . I also want you to speak to what mistakes were made . What lessons have we learned in terms of effectiveness of sanctions and how we relax them and how the United States has been played like Charlie Brown more than once here. On sanctions the most important sanctions often tend to be the buy into the broadest number of nations and here i talked about the role of china and the importance of working with them to ensure that they follow through on their commitments when it comes to sanctions. Whats the most effective set of sanctions . Thats hard to say. Im tempted to say the sanctions that have helped to cut off the flow of luxury goods is pretty important because its prevented the regime to some extent of rewarding members of the elite. But i think a more serious answer is the sanctions that are getting at the Nuclear Program, getting at the Missile Program, preventing the inputs they need in order to build up the mass destruction weapon program. Those are important. The latest resolution i was given a note that was passed contains not only a tightening of existing sanctions, but its got some new sanction that is get at that problem. I think we need to keep building on that. I think what youll see is there will then be National Sanctions that will be by us and others that will tighten down sanctions further. But i think its in the nuclear and missile areas where the sanctions are having the most effect. And finally interdiction which is to say and this new resolution has a lot of good stuff in it about preventing the export by north korea of its armaments which is a key source of income by sea and by air. And there is a lot in this resolution that gets at that. And i think thats what we need to keep working on. Didnt we freeze Bank Accounts for leaders . Weve done a number of financial sanctions. There are more in this resolution approved just minutes ago. There are individual designations of key people and their apparatus who play key roles in exporting their materials, importing what they need to build up their programs. Travel bans on these individuals and so forth. So its a combination of individual designation s, institutional designations and the inputs, the actual machinery and technology that they need. We just need to push on all of these fronts and keep it up. The word recalibration was mentioned and strategic calculus. Of the members of the six party talk, what has been the most significant recalibration of the strategic calculus, whether its russia, china, japan, can you speak to that . Where has been the move just to give me a sense of that history . I think the movement, i have to admit its like watching paint dry sometimes its such a long process. I think the movement has been incremental. All of the various efforts and there have been quite a variety of approaches to this problem by various administrations in the past, whether engagement, whether pressure, different architectures internationally, there were Six Party Talks, four party talks. At one point here. And bosworth can speak to a great deal of this. I think the biggest change has been the steady accumulation of experience, of pressure, of sanctions, over the years, over the decades and i think thats made a huge difference. Then the final thing ill say is that the world is beginning to weak up to a greater extent to this problem. There were 80 nations from every corner of the world would issue statements condemning north Koreas Nuclear test. This coalition is building, its growing, its strengthening and its meaningful. Because these are people who sent messages to north korea and to china. Ans very difficult in International System for a nation like north korea to ignore the fact that increasingly their actions are seen as deleterious to the functioning of the world system and to the interest of these countries. Hard for me to point to one calibration thats occurred. Maybe whats going on in china will fit that bill. But i would just say its this incremental broadening pressure thats been important. Thank you very much. I wanted to start by talking about the north korean economy. There is a popular impression that the north korean economy is a vast waste land of work camps and starving people, while that is true for a big part of the country, there is a relatively stable economy in the capital. There is a class of ruling elicit that are doing fairly well. You mentioned briefly about the impact that euro sanctions have had on holding back luxury goods from that class of individuals that has seemingly been pretty resistant to the type of poverty that has struck the rest of the nation. Can you talk a little bit about the state of the north korean economy . Can you talk a little bit about our relative success or lack of success in trying to change the calculus for the ruling elite based on their economic 1259 us the and any new tool may be at our dispose toll try to change that . Well, the economy question is a great one. And there are a number of experts who look that the hard. Its tough to measure. They dont produce statistics that are reliable. The scope of it, many people are fooled when they go to pyongyang which as ive said is a bit of a walled city state, you cant easy get in or out where the elicit live. You see people with cell phones and cars in the street and restaurants and they conclude that north korea is really coming up in the world economically. I dont think that is the case. They have some goods and services to offer to the world. They have Mineral Deposit that is are of value to china which seeks to exploit them. They export laborers to places around the world who remit moneys to north korea. Their economy is in some sectors has done reasonably well but the problem is their Agriculture Sector remains unreformed. When the new leader came in, he made a number of promises at hinted at reforms he would institute. We have yet to see that for whatever reason. He seems to have drawn back from Going Forward with those reforms. To some extent the reform of the economy would be good for the people. The chinese are telling us we should help the North Koreans reform their economy and i beg to differ on that. The second question is this so to what extent is food aid an actual tool to recalibrate their strategic interest . We have had success in these temporary agreements by exchanging food aid for concessions on their Nuclear Program. But it can blow up within months. Is this a real Pressure Point in negotiations or have they just used this as a means to delay and postpone . I think the latter is the case. We dont link Food Assistance to political matters. What i found when i came into the process towards the end of our year long effort to negotiate this deal with the North Koreans that was the North Koreans were insisting that the offer we made of 240 tons be linked to the concessions they were going to make only nuclear missiles. They enforced that from their side. We dont use food as a weapon or a tool and we dont link it to political matters. And no country has been more generous than the United States over the years in providing food to the north Korean People. I think since 1997, its been on the order of some 800 million of food. So we support the people of north korea. We try, and its not easy, to bring them aid and comfort, bring them food because its quite clear that the authorities in pyongyang dont care about what happens in the inner land of north korea and they allow this malnutrition and sometimes starvation to occur. So we dont link the two. I would never put forward that food aid is something we should use as an inducement to political change or change on denuclearization. And then one last question on china and you may have responded to this. But in particular to what senator rubio talked about with regard to the arms race that could develop in the region, we can control the North Koreans if we are responsible for 70 of their economy. Even if they do get Nuclear Power capacity, we can deal with that. But they have to understand that the power shifts if ten or 15 years from now there are five Nuclear Powers in the region s. That a bright line for them . Do they view that as a serious threat . Sure. The last thing ill do is speak for the chinese on this. But there are sign that is the chinese are watching closely these debates that are occurring in japan and the r. O. K. Among some. I dont think any consensus is developing or will develop in favor of Going Forward with developing Nuclear Weapons. I hope not. Its important for the standpoint of the non proliferation treaty they not go forward in doing that. The chinese are taking notice and it concerns them. One of the things we say to them when we have conversations about what is happening in north korea is if you have concerns about americas kind of recalibration of its force posture toward asia, then if north korea continues to go on the same direction and we cant resolve it, youll see more of the same and youre not going to like it. Yule see more developments such as the extension of the r. O. K. By the range of its missiles. Youll see more developments like the placement of radars in japan. Youll see more on Missile Defense and on the rest of it. So you have some voices in china saying its the United States trying to encircle us. Thats not it at all. Were trying to defend ourselves. They know these phenomenon are related and we hope it becomes an incentive for them to step up and do more and try to resolve this problem. And we stand ready to work with the chinese 20 do that. Thank you. Im going to pick up on the chairmans opening question which is what is the right way to change the calculus and many questions have been about external measures and i want to get to those in a second. But id like to get your sense of internal measures. Nations that have abandoned Nuclear Programs, often its been an internal calculus thats caused them to do. So in looking at the arab spring, people grow to tolerate and live under dictatorships but they get restless under he are red tear dictator ships. At once dictatorship starts to become a hereditary dictatorship there is unrest and the population wants to throw it off. Lets talk about the internal dynamics of north korea and educate me a bit on that. Is there any potential for it internal decent that could drive a rethinking of the Nuclear Program . And is there anything we can appropriately do . Its like hydrofracking, is there anything we can appropriately do to drive that decent and increase snit we dont see signs of significant internal descent north korea. And maybe thats often the case before changes occur, i dont know. That presents a challenge to us where do you drill and what do you pump in that whole to engage in this kind of fracking. I love that image. Its tough. And i think the important thing is to keep firing on all cylinders. To keep broad casting into north korea and work with our allies. Work with n. G. O. s. I think the situation is changing in north korea. They are educated. I think many of them are hungry for information about what is happening on the outside. But when it comes to the classical stuff we all know from history about is there a unit of the army or is there somebody in the regime who is susceptible. There is nothing like that that presents itself to us that we can exploit or reach out to. And it makes it a very, very tough problem. Explain that as somebody who is an expert in this area, the absence of this kind of visible descent. And nurfwood touch with nature that is have diplomatic presence in north korea. Is it the sheer demoralization and poverty of those who dont have any credible ability to match up against a military power . Is it the long term affects of famine . How would you describe what were seeing elsewhere we dont see there given famine and the poor Economic Conditions that would drive decent elsewhere . Sure. Thats really hard for me to answer. Im not a life long north korea expert. I dont think were going to know if and when that opportunity necessarily presents itself any better than we have in recent years when weve seen dramatic change in parts of the world where there were dictatorial systems. And the problem with north korea is it is the most sealed, high walled paranoid state out there. I dont think it really has its equivalent anywhere in the world. Since albania fell, maybe it doesnt have an equivalent. I have to admit even though a lot of very dedicated qualified people work this issue in the Intelligence Community n our military out of the state department. And we do that on a daily basis, there isnt anything there that i could point to now that is the Pressure Point, the fisher that we can exploit. I keep coming back to the necessity for staying true to our principles, staying close to our allies, working hard with our partners, in particular china given their relationship, highlighting the human rights deprivations in north korea. And i believe that there will come a day when things will likely change. I dont think that north korea has forever to make the strategy choice to go in a different direction that will involve reaching out to the world and fulfilling its promises and going down the path of denuclearization. 24e have an off ramp. There is a way to work this out diplomatically weve given them time and time again. Theyve chosen not to do it. Well continue to do it. When the pounds per square inch pressure builds up enough, they will see the light and take door number one. Let me ask about the five parties to the Six Party Talks and china especially. But there are other nation that is we have strong relationships with that aid and abet or at least have interactions with the north korean government that help them to gain or continue momentum on their activity that are not the direct part of those talks. But talk about our abilities to utilize those relationships and either through the u. N. Action today or other actions get them to stop anything that would promote north koreas Forward Momentum on Nuclear Proliferation . Thats a great question. We work at it all the time. There have been some successes. Youre familiar with the burma example where the new government has made the strategic decision to go in a different direction and change the nature of its relationship with north korea. Thats very important. That will take time to play out and work through. The same is true of many of the other traditional customers or states that have dealt with north korea. Since the al cabar reactor since the al cabar reactor was taken care of in syria, i think thats a relationship that is no longer what it was. So i think the truth is we take it case by case. We work with these countries that still maintain an arms relationship with north korea. I think the effort to expand the International Coalition and consensus about north korea is important because the moral has saturday of dealing with north korea becomes a more important factor for many of these countries. But i guess the short and honest answer is its a case by case effort that we undertake and were seeking to step it up. And this resolution passed today in new york i think is going to help us to a great extent to get at that problem. Thanks very much. I just want to ask and im not sure how this has been asked or answered before. But do you believe for the reductions on our part as a result of the treaties will do anything to persuade the North Koreans to move ahead with reductions or not move ahead with what they are doing . How effective is what we do with their own actions or is that completely independent . Here i can draw on my couple of years working at the National Atomic Energy Agency where in the wake of speech where he said a World Without Nuclear Weapons, i found representing the u. S. In that body, 150 nation body that that had a tremendous effect on convincing a lot of the fence is iters around the world that the United States was serious about trying to move forward. If you go back to eisenhowers Nuclear Bargain which he laid out in the speech it was clear those with Nuclear Weapons would seek to get rid of them. Those without would pledge not to acquire them. So for many countries in the world the United States demonstrating that its serious about keeping up its end of the bargain has a tremendous effect. When it comes to north korea, im not going to spin you and tell you the North Koreans are going to pack up their Nuclear Weapons and give them up if we pass further treaties with russia and so forth. But it has a tremendous affect on all 189 countries of the treaty and it makes it easier for us and others who care about this treaty to move that agenda forward, reduces north koreas running room, makes it tougher for them to climb they need these went tons defend themselves. So i think its a vital aspect of winning over hearts and minds globally and eventually setting up asset of circumstances in which its very, very difficult, if not, one hopes eventually impossible for them to continue to maintain as an international outlier to maintain Nuclear Weapons. I listened to you and i know that you are working hard and many people have for many years. But i think have you acquiesced and said this is probably going to continue on and we dont see any changes and more pressure will be a34r50eud. Will be applied. Im curious. We have a situation with iran where there is a red line. And weve been pretty bellicose about the line we would use military action to keep them from having Nuclear Weapons. And in korea, equally nutty folks and human rights even worse. Why is it we have a policy in north korea that is so different than in iran when you have equally bellicose and i would say regime that is are rogue regimes. Why would we have such a different policy . Actually the policy has more commonalities than differences in both cases what we seek to do, as i said earlier, in the case of north korea use pressure when we have to use pressure and seek to exploit engagement when its possible to engage them. I dont agree theres been no change. I think that the pressure, the sanctions, the coalitions weve built, the work in six party, a lot of the diplomatic efforts went a great distance to they are certainly way past any kind of red line that we would accept in iran. They are way beyond anything we as a country stated publically we would accept in iran. It seems to me we have two very different policies. Im just curious why that is the case . I think we have two situation that is have developed. And i think its because of the different set of circumstances in both. Im not an iran expert. I could quickly get myself in trouble by trying to compare the iran case to the north korea case. But as the north korea case developed. I think we have slowed their efforts to create these weapons. I think weve built this coalition that is going to dont decrease their running room and space in which they can operate. I have faith if we stick with the principle that is have be devised in a bipartisan basis over 20 or 30 years that we will see the kind of changes we would like to see. And im sorry, its true, these are persistent problems. This is the land of a lot of bad alternatives. And so i think the way you deal wit you is stick to your principles, you stick to your allies. You have modest progress here, sometimes dramatic progress there. Occasionally there are set backs but you keep at it. American leadership is essential. Its born a lot of fruit. Sadly it hasnt changed the strategic situation yet. But if we keep at it, if we keep together, we are going to see sooner or later, hope its sooner, the kind of changes we hope are needed and i want to reemphasize this one point, its up to north korea to understand that it has another path that it can take. It has a partner in the International Community that will engage with north korea but it has to be the one to make this decision, make this strategic choice to ban Nuclear Weapons and if they do there will be a different future and one that will be for the benefit of all the careen people north and south. I think thats a highly aspirational statement that doesnt seem to be based on reality today. But i thank you for your optimism. And ill go back to my original premise and would like to understand that more fully. Thank you. Let me make an observation. First of all, were very aspirational here. You have to be on north korea. I think in part just an observation on the question which is that obviously one of the reasons we have so vigorously pursued a sanctions regime on iran is because y va iran is not where north korea is in terms of its Nuclear Program and we do not desire it to get to the point north korea has. Whether or not it was a different point in time maybe a Previous Administration should have adopted a similar position as we have now with iran. We are past that moment. And the question is how do we deal with the realities of the moment and change the calculus inside north korea and i hope the strategic calculus of china which plays a key role of getting us to the point we want to be. With the thanks of the committee. We appreciate your appearing and we look forward to the continuing dialogue and the administration on this critical issue. As we excuse ambassador davies let me call up the next panel. He served as the u. S. Special representative for north korea policy. From 1997 to 2001. Ambassador bosworth was the ambassador to the republic of korea. He was the executive director of the Korean Organization and japan. And ambassador bosworth has a distinguished career in the u. S. Foreign service for nearly three decades. Joseph is the president of the intelligence and National Security aligns. Alliance. He previously worked as the Senior Advisor in the office of the director of national intelligence, Proliferation Center and as the north Korean Mission manager. Prior to his work at odni he served as the special envoy for north korea. Hes worked in numerous roles throughout the Central Intelligence agency and has extensive experience in that regard as well. Robert joseph is the senior scholar for Public Policy from 2005 to 2007 it was the secretary of state for arms control and National Security. And he served in the national Security Council as special assistant to the president in home lapped defense. He also served on the department of defense as secretary of defense for interNational Security policy and Deputy Assistant secretary of defense in arms control which we have a very distinguished panel here. Im going to ask each of you to summarize your statement in around five minutes. Your full statements will be entered into the record so we can have time for dialogue here as we move forward. We want to pick up on your expertise to draw some of questions and answers to some of the issues thats already been raised with our previous panel. So well start in the order that i recognized you. Ambassador bosworth. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Im grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I will not try to summarize the current scene with regard to north korea. I think ambassador davis did that quite well. I would say a few things as an opening. First, this is a very, very difficult problem. And it follow that is there are no good options for dealing with it. If there were, i trust that some of us would have found those in the past. Instead i think what weve found is that north korea by enlarge has continued to exceed continued to exceed what they could accomplish both in their Missile Program and their Nuclear Program. Having followed this issue for now 20 years, i would venture to say they have consistently outperformed the expectations of the outside world. And i dont think we have time to get into the question of why. But they have created a situation in which now they are demonstrable within reach over some period of time of being able to mate a Nuclear Device with a missile. And that changes the strategic balance in a number of ways. As i said, the options for dealing with them are very limited and very ob cure. Obs cure. We can as we have in the past as various times simply stand back and wait for what we consider at the time to be the inevitable collapse. That policy has not succeeded. We waited for their collapse back in the late 1980s and when i last checked, they are still there. Similarly, we can rely on a policy of containment and deterrence which we will have to do in any event. But i think what weve found is detainment and deterrence do not prevent the threat from growing more acute. Also we can, of course, as has been hinted in various questions this morning, we can rely more heavily on china to solve this problem for us. I am not optimistic that china is going to do that. I am encouraged by their willingness to continue plate contemplate tougher sanctions as they have this last time around in the u. N. But i think china continues to face an essential conundrum which is on the one hand they do not want north korea to become a nuclear state, on the other hand, they do not want north korea to collapse. In their view they are concerned that bringing sufficient pressure to bear on north korea to stop their Nuclear Program, much less to demantle it would risk creating a situation in which north korea could collapse. And for china, an equally undesirable outcome of all of this would be to wake up and find the border of south korea is now the river because its collapsed and south korea with a military aligns of the United States. That changes in a fundamental that changes in a fundamental way what has been called the correlation of forces on the Korean Peninsula and chinese strategic thinkers have this very much in mind. All this being said, my own personal view is that at some point, i cannot say exactly when, but i would think sooner rather than later, we will come back to an effort to engage with north korea. In some manner only because the alternatives are so bleak. And i think that that is what we should try to do because we have no good options. The question that will exist at that time is, engage on what basis . Do we again seek to engage on the basis of denuclearization pretty much by itself at least as a primary objective, or do we seek to engage on a broader basis going back for example, to the joint statement negotiated in the sixparty process in september of 2005 in which all the parties signed on to a four goals, and for your objective four objective agreement. They agreed to provide energy and economic assistance to north korea. In my view it would be more productive to look from the outset to engage with north korea on the basis of that broader agenda which seeks in my judgment to get at what is the fundamental problem on the Korean Peninsula. The problem which gives rise to the Nuclear Threat and that is the inherent weakness of north korea and the strong conviction of the north korean regime that it will not do anything which will risk its demise. Only by my judgment, only by addressing these broader considerations of a peace treaty to replace the armistice, economic and energy assistance, and diplomatic relations, do we have a prospect of getting at where it remains and will remain our central and abiding concern which is the north Korean Nuclear problem. Rather than simply focusing on that and try to identify it and to try to resolve it, in and of itself, which is not proving to be very feasible over the last several years, we would be much better off looking for a broader focus and i think the prior agreement of september, 2005 provides the seed for such a broader agreement. And with that, i will conclude my remarks. Thank you for the invitation. My statement is on the record. A few comments. I agree with senator bondsworth. Denuclearization is the name of the game with north korea. Committing north korea to maintain that program and as we see, enhance their program with additional Nuclear Weapons not only plutonium but uranium, would be a destabilizing factor for the countries in the region. It is a fair question. Countries will be looking to acquire similar capabilities, were talking about the potential for a Nuclear Arms Race and the potential for nuclear terrorism. Others who want to get their hands on Nuclear Devices. In 2002 we confronted the North Koreans with their Uranium Enrichment Program. It was a clandestine program. They denied having that program. In 2010 the admitted to it. They had 2000 functioning centrifuges operating. As he said this was the state of the art facility. Austria was and is ensuing the the assessment here is that north korea was ensuring a Uranium Enrichment Program to a company Nuclear Program. Point to and i agree totally with the ambassador, the september 2005 joint statement as a single statement. Kim jong il committed to this when he said even in beijing they commit. And it says clearly in exchange for economic assistance, security assurances, ultimately diplomatic relations with the address the Illicit Activity issues of counterfeiting currency and pharmaceuticals and cigarettes, trafficking in methamphetamine. And where this there is transparency on the human rights issues, then we would talk about diplomatic relations. With denuclearization comes normalization, no. That is a process toward normalization. Hopefully that would be enough of an inducement and the North Koreans signed up to the statement and also in that statement, the provision of eight lightwater reactor. They have a bright to a civil Nuclear Program and is in there. Coming back as a nonNuclear Weapon state back to the ntt and so forth. That fell apart. On 19 september the North Koreans were offended by the fact we had [inaudible] that was the patriot act, section 311 and that was the predicate being Money Laundering. North koreans or laundering their money. There retained 25 million of the money current north korea had in the bank. Eventually the bank was in compliance and the money was returned. It was referring to returning to our Banking System. The North Koreans insisted they did not want to get back into the International Financial market. Thank god it is back on the path to and denuclearization. We eventually took them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That was to be in response to north korea committing to a verification regime that moves us toward comprehensive, verifiable irreversible dispense and of their programs. They refuse to sign a verification protocol and that led to the unraveling of where we were with the september 2005 joint statement and that is unfortunate because it has gone downhill ever since. In 2006, 2009, nuclear tests, missile launches, we have seen in 2012, and we have seen last month in february with the Third Nuclear test. North korea is enhancing their Nuclear Capability and enhancing capabilities. China in april of 2003 brought north korea to the table after holding back on some fuel that went into north korea. It sent a message. Come to the table. That was the beginning of the six party process. My personal view is china can do the same thing. We bring south korea to the process and sit down no. Sit down north korea and 3 and say what are you doing . And say, what are you doing . Is kim jong un committed to denuclearization . And determine if there is any viability to go back to the joint statement. That is a process and that is a meaningful one and my last comment is, i was one of the few in 2012 who was optimistic. I saw some personnel moves being made by kim jong un. He replaced his ministry of defense and replaced his chief of staff. He put people in there, the Party Officer who is overseeing the military general. He put his uncle into a high position where he treated there was some momentum and that fell apart. Because of the process. They Just Launched an they tested and that has come to this position where were at. A very dangerous stalemate. The chinese now can move this process forward. Get them to the table and get some momentum going rather than continued escalation and potential for confrontation. Thank you. Ambassador joseph. Would you put your microphone on, please . Thank you for the invitation to be here and to testify. I will try to be very brief. While one can argue and i think some would legitimately that u. S. Policy has succeeded in slowing the norths progress and galvanizing international support, the successes that we have reached that we have achieved our at best, tactical. As president john adams once said, the facts are stubborn things and today, north korea has declared itself to be any clear power. To be a Nuclear Power. And it seems determined and well on its way to acquire the means to hold American Cities hostage to their longrange missiles and Nuclear Weapons. I see a long pattern of failed policies that must be changed. This change should be based on experience, not on hope and is on this basis that i offer the following Lessons Learned from my own experience. North korea will only agree to abandon its missile and Nuclear Programs if it is judged essential for survival. The d p r k places the highest values on the these cable on these capabilities. These are means of preventing intervention such as occurred in libya. They are building prestige at home and earn hard currency. The north has used its Nuclear Program to extract inducements to those who seek its elimination. The should be seen as a long shot. At times Previous Administrations have thought they were all but there. But it never happened, whether it was in 1992 and 1994, orion or in 2005. Pyongyang would agree to abandon its Nuclear Program only to violate its commitments each time. This pattern of failed negotiations followed by violations of obligations, provocations, and the offering of more inducements in turn by the u. S. And others to get north korea back to the negotiating table, has been the main characteristic of u. S. Policy for two decades. The u. S. And others have and will no doubt continue to apply sanctions on the north but imposing economic hardships and threatening isolation have not alter the regimes behavior. In part, this is because the dprk cares little about whether its people start and the its people starve and in part its ability is dependent on isolation. In part its because china has kept open all lifeline of assistance to the north no matter how blatant or lethal its activities and it is in part because of our own practice in releasing pressure on north korea in exchange for empty promises. The record of failed negotiations is not an argument that diplomacy should be abandoned. But negotiations by themselves is not a strategy. A comprehensive approach that integrates all tools of state craft is required if negotiations are to have any chance of success. These tools, financial, intelligence, interdiction, Law Enforcement, and diplomacy and we talked about the mall this morning, must be brought together to bring sustained pressure on the regime. Pyongyang must be faced with a choice. It can retain its nuclear and Missile Programs or pays a high price. It must no longer be allowed to use these programs as a means to extract concessions that only serve to strengthen the regime and perpetuate the missile and Nuclear Threat. As for diplomacy, our main focus should be on china. The principal obstacle to bring effective pressure on north korea. Four, the promotion of human rights. While part of u. S. Official talking points for years has not been a significant element of u. S. Strategy. It should be as it was in the Reagan Administration and its dealings with the soviet union. Exposing the domestic brutality of the regime is the moral course and potentially an effective means to influence dprk leaders. Because north korea is likely to retain its as nuclear and missile capabilities the u. S. Must insure that it can defend against the threat. This requires Missile Defenses that protect allies and the u. S. Will lead from attack, failing to deploy offenses defenses that keep pace with the growing threat, whether as a means to encourage russian participation or reduce the budget will only undermine deterrence. And increase the risk of destruction to the United States. Similarly we must continue to deploy a credible Nuclear Force that can meet the spectrum of deterrent requirements and provide solid assurance to allies. Going to lower and lower levels of forces in pursuit of a nuclearfree world is likely only to embolden our adversaries and shake the confidence of our friends and allies. If our allies doubt our capacity or will to meet security commitments, the outcome will be the reverse of the goal rather than fewer lechler weapons. The u. S. Must lead. We have failed to show the required leadership, avoiding confrontation on a number of its most harmful activities including its missile and Nuclear Proliferation. This absence of leadership affects not only the calculations of pyongyang but also of tehran where another repressive regime is seeking missile and Nuclear Capabilities to undermine u. S. Interests in a region of vital interest. Iran does watch closely u. S. Policy and u. S. Resolve to reverse what three president s, clinton, president bush, and now president obama have declared to be unacceptable, and Nuclear Armed north korea. What they have seen so far is certainly not dissuaded them. Thank you again for the invitation of being here. I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you for testimony. Your testimony. Lets start and i would like to have an interplay between ambassador bosworth and if this was the best pathway toward achieving our goals, and you suggested that the issue of patriot sanctioning of the bank and the 25 million, that would flow back to north korea and that was a disruptive element in pursuing the process. In any such process there are going to be bumps along the road. Does that not call into question how serious no. North korea was in even in this more expanded process of 2005 to achieving its goal and i would like both of your observations on that. It sounds to me that especially when the money ultimately flow back to north korea that the process would have resumed again if there was a real desire to pursue it. You are right. My point on the 2005 was this. We told the North Koreans clearly, illicit activities will not be permitted. Diplomacy is one thing. You can continue to counterfeit our currency, you continue to deal with the methamphetamine and traffic in methamphetamine and we will continue to go after you. Do not marry that to this policy diplomacy. The federal registry put that out that the bank was being sanctioned because of the predicate of Money Laundering based on the section 211311 of the patriot act. That was a message that cannot link them and try to get us to go soft on illicit and human rights and put out denuclearization as a carrot for us to go on. While that may have been our message, that did not they did not accept that message as a means to move forward. They protested and the walk away from the table for about eight months until that money was returned. The bank was in compliance of the work they were permitted to return. If that is the case and so easily disrupted, how do we see that as the path we forward . It is easily disrupted. We have seen north koreas adherence is tenuous at best and they have to be continually reassured theyre not giving up their pace of negotiating leverage. In return for an empty promises. It is important that as we try to move forward, north korea come away with some conviction that it is not just denuclearization were going to make progress on. We are encouraging making progress on a peace treaty to replace the armistice and that is a very high priority from a north korean point of view as well as diplomatic relations and economic assistance and energy assistance. Please understand me. Im not saying that this is somehow a magic solution to the problem. It is the one piece that we still have that they have agreed to. And as has constituted a foundation to move forward. They have not disavowed it in that sense. There is some pressure reports that suggest you have been on jocose egressions to two secret missions to north to two secret missions to north korea. I am wondering if you could tell us what was the temperature of the interlocutors that you met with. Those reports have been addressed to the senate and house intelligence oversight committees and i am not at liberty to discuss it here. You have discussed this with the house . The house and Senate Oversight committees have been addressed. These issues have been addressed with these committees. We will pursue it with the Intelligence Committee. Let me ask you, with reference to your comment that the chinese were the ones who got the North Koreans to the table in 2005 as a result of tweaking them with some of their assistance. What was the calculus at that moment that made them do that and how do we think about, how do we get them to make that calculus now . April 2003, it was a very tense time. North korea said they were processing the spent fuel rods. They had asked the iaea monitors to leave the country. They left the mpt and asked the auditors to leave in 2003. They advance their reprocessing the spent fuel rods that were in the cooling ponds. With the indication they would represses with the purpose of weapon is asian. They would reprocess with the purpose of weaponization. How do we defuse this tense situation . A number of days prior to this meeting, there was a few shipments that were not as extensive as they were in the past between the countries and that was the reporting at the time. Some analysts at the time, it could have been a message from beijing to the dprk. They should comply and if theyre being asked to sit at the table they should sit at the table. Thank you and thank each of you for your testimony and or past efforts. Regarding this issue. It does not sound hopeful to me as i listened to each of you and you agree with that. And let me ask this question. We had some discussions about our libya intervention. Here we had a person that was not a good person. We had a person who had done away with weapons of mass destruction. We had a person who was working with us with al qaeda. We took them out when they did not have weapons of mass destruction. What kind of learning moment was that for the leadership of north korea . I suspect it took lessons from that that were inevitable. Theyre going to complicate our policymaking with them for the foreseeable future. The most obvious lesson would be if people think you have weapons of mass destruction and you take action to show that you do not have weapons of mass destruction, this gives your adversaries room for maneuver they might have might not have had previously. There are legitimate reports that the North Koreans came away from iraq and libya with the conviction that if these countries had in fact had weapons of mass destruction, what happened to them would not have happened to them. The point i was trying to make at the time and go ahead. I would agree. The message in pyongyang is they saw what happened to sit down and to saddam and gadafi. We dont want to move down that path. There are those in pyongyang who are committed to retaining Nuclear Weapons. I do not see any i cannot imagine why north korea would not consider going down the path theyre going because of recent experiences. It does not sound like we have much of a way to deter that. I have not heard anybody speak to how we do that. Other than china. Sounds like theyre the only ones that have any cards that are worth playing here. Other than something i think our country does not want to engage in at this time. It seems to me that the entire issue around north korea is not us but china. And i wonder if you might speak to that. I was i would look to my colleagues. It is a failed economy. North korea now with the additional sanctions, there are three sections in play with this mornings. They are having consequences. When that leadership realizes theyre not getting the funds necessary to sustain their lifestyle there will be pressure at a higher level. Beside the provinces that are not getting much of the benefits because it is a twostate system. Pyongyang feels theyre having problems sustaining, i imagine there would be leadership to change and take some of the pressure off and to live as a prestige. One has to wonder how they will survive to the mid term. There is one time in my experience in which i observed the chinese on the cusp of making a strategic decision to change its relationship and that was in october 2006 after the first test. The First Nuclear test was a profound shock. It was a profound shock in the region and it was internationally giving the risk to the nonproliferation regime itself. Within a couple of days of that test, Condoleezza Rice was asked to go to the recent region and asked me to go with her. We stop in japan and in japan, the focus of Prime Minister shinzo abe, the foreign minister also, was on the reassurance of the japanese public that the United States would stand by its security commitments and explicitly restate its nuclear guarantee to japan. What is interesting is when we got to beijing, the first thing the chinese did was think as for reaffirming our security and our nuclear guarantees to japan. What china was concerned about was unclear dynamic. It was the dynamic of the possibility of japan and south Korea Going Nuclear in that context. That was the only time that there seemed to be a prospect, a window of opportunity for getting china to change its policy. This is the first time that china went along with the u. N. Security Council Resolution which had real sanctions. 1718. China offered to work with us to implement those sanctions including denying the luxury goods for the elites of north korea. But it was not too long after that that china went right back to its comfort zone and did not challenge the north korea provocation and it did that in the context of the United States and others releasing pressure on north korea. Instead of increasing pressure, we released pressure. We did that because of the false prospect of negotiations. The false promise that north korea would stand come back to the negotiating table and it did. Only to start once again this cycle of negotiations, provocations, concessions, and failure to live up to its obligations. I do not know what is going to take to get china to change its assessment. China has many reasons for supporting north korea. The concern about what happens with unification, concern about refugees coming over the border. It is going to take a real concerted effort and it is offering to take pressure on the part of the United States and china to change. More dialogue about the Six Party Talks is not going to do it. Were going to have to decide whether this is important enough to us that we put some pressure on china to change its policy but even if china changes its policy that will be a very important step for getting north korea to alter course but that is not enough either. We need a comprehensive strategy to deal with this. Thank you. Thank you. Let me follow up on that important point. I asked a version of this question to special representative davies. I tend to agree that possibly the only thing that brings the chinese to the table is the fear that there becomes a Nuclear Arms Race in the region and we throw around the inevitability of Nuclear Arms Races in the middle east and that sector of the World Without term understanding of all the barriers that would stand in the way of that happening. Particularly in a place where we hold a lot of cards with the other players in the region. You may be just answered this but you talk about applying real pressure to china but without china feeling that they lose control of the Nuclear Situation in the region, what cards do we have to play there and the second question is, is there any chance that we do lose control of the Nuclear Capabilities in the region . Is there any real chance that the japanese and the South Koreans do change their disposition and decide to remove themselves from our Nuclear Umbrella and develop their own capacities, or is that not realistic . Senator, i am taking your second question first. I think there is a chance that if we fail with north korea, and if we do not demonstrate through both our declaratory policy and our capacity in both the nuclear area as well as the Missile Defense area, there is a likelihood that japan will overcome its long term allergy about nuclearweapons. And begin to hedge. South korea also very much a concern about proliferation in the future if we fail. If we fail with north korea. In terms of what cards we have to play with china, there are not an easy ones. If there were easy ones i think it would have played them by now. This has been going on for 20 years. I think we have to make the assessment whether or not this issue, the issue of north korea and china pose a continuing support, continuing lifeline of assistance to north korea, is sufficiently important to us that we begin to put economic pressure on china, that we began to call out china for its part in sustaining what is most the most abhorrent to regime in the world today. There are a number of things that we can do but up until today we have been more interested in chinas role as a facilitator in the Six Party Talks. That does not get as to where we need to be with china. Do you agree that the thing that china fears most is the Nuclear Arms Race and whether that is a concern . Tschida is concerned about proliferation within the region. Is that their primary concern . No. One of several concerns. They are concerned about the stability of north korea for the reasons we spoke of earlier. Theyre concerned about the nature of their relationship with the United States and i think it has been made clear to them that north korea policy is not a pit of that relationship. It is very important to that relationship. They have very many points of interest at play here. I think we sometimes make the mistake of thinking that china is somehow a policy monolith in which problems are fed and Solutions Come out. One of the things i came away with dealing with this problem convinced of is that the chinese are of various lines of how to deal with north korea. There is no single fuel and is something that is debated and addressed within the policy circles of north korea. Within the government, the party, and the socalled think tank world. They do not have a solution for these concerns. They recognize the nature of these problems. It is something they have to deal with. They also understand how complicated and how many different points of interest in china our concern about possible outcomes in north korea are. That includes the party, the military, and the government. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all the panelists for being here. I am sorry i missed the earlier part of the hearing. I appreciate your insights into what is happening in north korea. Nice to welcome you here. I want to followup on the proliferation issues that have been raised because it seems to me that given the past history, given their efforts to help syria building Nuclear Weapons facility, that we may not know exactly what we do not know about what china north korea is doing with respect to proliferation efforts. I wondered how comfortable each of you are with where our knowledge of what is happening with respect to north korea and proliferation might be right now. And if you can elaborate on exactly what we now about that. Can i just comment briefly, i look to my colleagues and you mentioned syria. That was in many ways a week of call for many. That was going on for a number of years and until the israelis took it out in 2007, that was almost going operational. Nuclear proliferation is so central to the issue of the nuclear station for north korea and that drives china and everyone else but china is a neighbor and ally. If there is any instability, what would happen with Nuclear Weapons or fissile material . We know the element of the potential of nuclear terrorism. There is this is a central issue to why denuclearization has to be part of the goals and objectives. It is not arms control. It is denuclearization. Proliferation is central. Anything either of you would like to add about what we know about those efforts . I would only add that as a longtime consumer of intelligence, i have been impressed on the one hand by how hard our Intelligence Community works on north korea but i have been impressed by what a difficult target north korea is. I think their ability, their capacity for surprise is not limitless, it is greater than we might expect. I come at this from a non proliferation expect perspective. That is my expertise if i have expertise. Clearly, north korea has been the no. 1 proliferators. It is a serial proliferators. We know from its missile sales and the transfer of Missile Technology to a number of countries. We know it from the syrian experience and providing a plutonium reactor to syria. North korea will sell what it has. I am very concerned not only about state proliferation relationships but also as the ambassador mentioned, the non state and access through north korea to fissile material and weapons. It is a hard intelligence problem. And we have been subject to a number of strategic surprises in this area. Despite knowing how hard the Intelligence Community works on this problem, i also share the sense that there is a lot we simply do not know and we need to be prepared for the worst based on north koreas experience. You have dashed my hopes to be reassured. As we enter another round of sanctions, how can we be more successful at implementing those sanctions in a way that really has real impact on north korea, because maya understanding is that today, we have had a rather sporadic success at implementing the sanctions. We have to start with the realization of the reality. Sanctions by themselves are not going to solve this problem. Sanctions can make life even more difficult for north korea. Sanctions can force north korea to contemplate issues they might not have contemplated without them. Sanctions are not the solution to this problem. It is part of the solution. Sanctions have the effect of making us confident where we are doing something, were not sitting here passively and waiting for divine intervention of this problem. Were taking some action but we should not be under any illusions that sanctions are going to solve this problem. I would look to the ambassador joseph and i do not disagree. I will say what we saw today was china part of this new un Security Council resolution. It is indicative of the fact that china is saying what is going on here . When we have the countries coming together whether it is proliferations or going after the Banking System or the diplomats and how to move money, that is causing pain. Is that going to be the answer . That is not the answer as such but it is part of a process to tell north korea you have to change your behavior. You need to come back to the table and you need to commit to denuclearization. Just to add to my colleagues comments with which i certainly agree. Sanctions will only work and they have limited impact. There will work in the context of a broader strategy. We have to put these various instruments together and that has been lacking. What has also been lacking is a sustained effort. When we have made a difference, when we have created pain and the Bank Experience is apt here. When we have put pressure on the north, we have allowed that pressure to be released and we have done that through this false and fanciful promise of negotiations. Negotiations will only work if we apply pressure and that is one thing we learned from the libyan experience. It was not you get into negotiations and release the pressure this is negotiating 101 but time after time, republican and democratic administrations made the same fundamental mistake. We hope north korea will change. We ignore our experience for the sake of hope. Thank you. I am out of time. I would love to followup and see how that fits with what is being proposed on iran but that is a different topic. Thank you. Thank you for your very insightful comments and answers to questions on a very challenging but important National Security and National Interest issue before the committee and before our country. With the thanks of the committee, the committees record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow and with that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] now the United National Security Council votes for tougher sanctions for north korea after its nuclear test. Its closest ally is china. The u. S. Ambassador spoke about the sanctions after the meeting. The agenda is adopted. Under rule 37 of the councils provision of rules and procedure, signed by the representatives of belgium, canada, denmark, italy, japan, and the philippines, to participate in this meeting, it is so decided. The Security Council will begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. Members of the council also have before them a document, the text of a draft resolution submitted by australia, belgium, canada, denmark, france, italy, japan, morocco, the philippines, the republic of korea, rwanda, togo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern ireland, and the United States of america. It is my understanding that the council is ready to proceed to the vote. From the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. Will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in documents s136 please raise their hand . The results of the vote is as follows. The resolution received 15 votes in favor. The resolution has been adopted unanimously. The Security Council has concluded the present stage of the item on its agenda. The meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] today the Security Council adopted resolution 2094 conditioning condemning north Koreas Nuclear test and imposing significant new sanctions under chapter 7 of the un charter. The strength and severity of the sanctions will raise the cost to north korea of its Nuclear Programs. It will further constrain its ability to finance and source materials and technology for its Ballistic Missile, a conventional, and Nuclear Weapons program. Resolution 2094 imposes a top new financial sanctions. North korea tries to move money to pay for its nuclear and Ballistic Missile program, countries must now block those transfers even if the money is being carried through suitcases full of bulk cash. Likewise, a north korean banks will find it much harder to launder money for the dprk Nuclear Program. Todays resolution imposes a new travel restrictions. If a north korean agent is caught making arms deals or selling Nuclear Technology, countries will be required to expel that agents. Countries also must prevent the travel of people working for designated Companies Involved in the nuclear and Missile Programs. States will now have new authorities to inspect cargo and stop north korean arms smuggling and proliferation. If a country has cargo on its territory that might be carrying items like ballistic material, at this requires that the cargo be inspected. It also make it harder for north korean vessels to off load such prohibited cargo if a ship refuses inspection on the high sea, forcing it to return to its port of origin. Airplanes carrying smuggled items confined themselves grounded. This will also counter north korean efforts for diplomatic privileges to advanced nuclear and Ballistic Missile activities. It will now be much harder for such a diplomat to procure a technology or divert funds to the Nuclear Program without being detected and expelled. Resolution 2094 further bans the transfer to and from north korea of specific Ballistic Missile, nuclear, chemical weapons technology. It lists a new prohibited items and calls on state to block any item at all that could contribute to these activities. It names additional North Koreans and north Korean Companies whose assets will be frozen and the individuals will also be subject to a travel ban. This lists a number of luxury goods that cannot be sold to north korea. As a result, the ruling elite who have been living large while impoverishing their people will pay a direct price for this nuclear tests. A detail fact sheet outlining all key measures in resolution 2094 can be found on the u. S. Mission website, ww wusn. State. Gov. The sanctions will bite hard. The increase in north koreas isolation and raise the cost to north koreas leaders and defying the International Community. The entire world stands united in our commitment to the denuclearization of the caribbean Korean Peninsula. In the demand that they comply with their International Obligations. If it does not, then the Security Council demanded today in this resolution to take further significant measures, that there is another nuclear test or launch. We regret that north korea has chosen the path of provocation and said the path of peace. Far from achieving the stated goal of becoming a prosperous nation, north korea has opted to further impoverished its people and increase its isolation. We hope instead that north korea will heed president obamas call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with the international obligation. Priorities for the year ahead including the keystone pipeline. As the Supreme Court prepares to your samesex marriage cases, we will talk with brian brown followed by stuart bowen. He will break down, 60 billion spent breaking this down since 2003. I believe the United States has many fantastic qualities. I do believe that many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. I think every year that is less and less probable. The United States and its Foreign Policy is not the great nation. It is an intervention of state. It is extremely aggressive militarily. We mess with other peoples politics and way that i cannot imagine americans tolerating. Imagine if some country invaded as to bring their system of government the way we did in iraq. Can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that is ok. Some call we still have a myth that people are thrilled with me in bade them. That is insane. I believe 99 cermet the time we create new enemies. She has made a career as an advocate for world peace. More with Jody Williamson added 8 00 we did at 8 00. Eric holder testifying about the constitutionality of a drone strikes against american citizens suspected of being terrorists purity answer questions about Voting Rights in the impact of spending cuts. This is to 0. 5 hours. But bridge a 2. 5 hours. Thi sis 2. 5 hours. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. If you join us please. Because the session has begun, nobody will stand and block people behind them. This is a meeting of the United States senate could Judiciary Committee. Everybody here is a guest of the senate. We expect you to be aware of your fellow guests. Everybody has an opportunity to be here. I would hope nobody would be so arrogant that they would feel they should have an ability to view and block the view of others. This week is the anniversary of bloody sunday. People were beaten by state troopers as they tempted to cross the bridge and in alabama. Laws protect the rights of all americans. That is what this attorney general is dedicated to doing. In 2009, the attorney general worked with us in congress to pass landmark hate crimes legislation to address crimes committed against americans because of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Mr. Attorney general, i am glad the Justice Department is enforcing the law. This week the president will sign legislation on the violence against women act. And the trafficking victims protection act to protect all victims of abuse. I know the Justice Department will implement those lawless. The Justice Department is defending the protection as provided by section 5 of the Voting Rights act to insure all americans have the right to vote and have their votes matter. After nearly 20 hearings, thousands of pages of testimony, before the house and Senate Judiciary committees, we found modernday barriers for a boating persist in our country. We passed the bill. I remember talking with president bush the day of the signing and how proud he was to be signing it. Republicans and democrats came together to craft the legislation because of its need. I commend the attorneygeneral and fbi director miller and all those working today to keep americans safe. A followup attack to 911 has not occurred. Part of that is vigilance. I thank the attorney general for reaching out on issues of our National Security. [indiscernible] i remain troubled the committee has not yet received the materials are requested regarding the legal action of the targeted killing of United States citizens overseas. [indiscernible] i am glad to see it was provided to a sinister Intelligence Committee to senator feinsteins Intelligence Committee. A nominee coming out of the committee will be because of the inability to get that memo here. We have worked together effectively to help keep americans safe from crime and health crime victims rebuild their lives. We have worked to strengthen federal Law Enforcement. Crime rates have experienced a historic decline. I remember hearing senator coons in delaware where we saw parole officers, members of the Community Coming together [indiscernible] Congress Passed a recovery act. The Justice Department has broken records over the last several years for fraud recoveries. The committee has worked to ensure the criminalJustice System works as it should. This month is the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision. I remember as a young lawyer reading a book on that, gideons trumpet. We need to do more to ensure justice for all. I was glad to see the announcement of a joint initiative to help improve Forensic Science across the country. I appreciate the attorney general and joining me in recognizing the problem of our growing prison population, having devastating consequences. There is also a human cost. We have to find more constructive ways to solve it. Turning away from mandatory minimums for nonviolence would be a good start. The Senate Confirmed attorney general eric holder four years ago. The credibility of the department among the American People has increased dramatically. I am glad to see the morale that hardworking agents, prosecutors, many who have been there from both administrations has improved considerably. I apologize for the allergies and the voice. Before i speak, could you inform us how you will handle it when we vote . Apparently we have a vote scheduled for 10 30. I would encourage us to for time, we keep the Committee Meeting going and try to get out and vote as quickly as possible and come back as quickly as possible. Go ahead. Welcome, general holder. This hearing affords us opportunity to clear the deck on many outstanding questions we have yet to receive from the department. Example we have not received questions for the record and the last oversight hearing held nine months ago. We also have questions for the record from Department Officials at various hearings that remain outstanding. There are a number of inquiries that have not received a response on important issues. I cannot go through all of them but an example, i have not received a response to a letter i sent on the impact of budget sequester. Another letter outstanding on the failure to prosecute individuals at hsbc for Money Laundering. That was sent in december. I have an outstanding request related to investigation if fast and various of fast and furious. It is unfortunate we have to always start hearings with the same request of the attorney general to respond to the unanswered questions. That said, i have a number of topics i want to discuss with the attorney general, including the latest letter to senator paul, arguing in favor of the president s ability to use force to kill american citizens on u. S. Soil without due process of law. This letter is extremely concerned, not just in its content but classify but they but doubled with the classified memoranda. This oversight hearing also comes on the heels of an extremely important hearing before house judiciary on the topic of target killing of americans using unmanned drones. This is an issue chairman leahy already referred to. I have asked repeatedly the attorney general about our electors on this matter that have gone unanswered, including our most recent letter to president obama seeking access to classified memoranda of the rise in the targeted killings of americans abroad memoranda on the target the killings of americans abroad. I joined chairman leahy in discussing the importance of the damage of the Judiciary Committee obtaining these documents, despite opinions of this administration and the previous one to the contrary, congress has a significant role to play in conducting oversight of National Security measures. We have the right to receive classified information through appropriate channels to determine if the activities of the executive branch are appropriate. This committee has president has precedent of obtaining highly classified information. For example, her in overseeing the fisa Amendment Act for example, in overseeing the fisa Amendment Act. And as part of the oversight conducted by the committee reviewing the enhanced irrigation techniques. In light of the march 4, 2013 to senator rand paul, with the attorney general argued the president could use lethal force on u. S. Citizens on u. S. Soil in an effort to protect the u. S. From a catastrophic attack, it is imperative we understand operational boundaries for use of such force. The letter deals with extraordinary circumstances. American citizens have the right to understand when their life can be taken by their government as in due process. Providing these memorandum for review would go a long way toward complying with the president s election promise to have the most Transparent Administration ever. Move on to another issue gun violence. Tomorrow the committee begins mark up. We have held three meetings it into the past 2 months. Both times the department testified we heard a reiteration of the departmentss support of a ban on semiautomatic rifles with certain features. Both times when i asked whether in the deficit in official opinion determining whether a ban was constitutional in light of the Second Amendment, i heard no opinion has been issued. We are martin of the bills tomorrow. It would be good to hear out we are marking the bill tomorrow. It would be good to hear on the attorneygeneral in advance of the mark up. These Companies Settle for pennies on the dollar and the costs become the costs of doing business for these institutions. It has led many to believe Financial Institutions too big to fail are also too big to jail. While this distinction was mostly reserved for financial crimes, and portion, a position i find flawed, this policy appears to have seeped into other misconduct enforced by the department. December 2012, the department entered into a deferred protection agreement. Dpa with the bank hsbc. That is a global bank, violating federal laws designed to prevent drug lords and terrorists from laundering money in the United States a deferred prosecution agreement for a Company Involved in Money Laundering for drug lords and terrorists. I sent a letter to the attorney general extras expressing my outrage on december. I asked why no employees were prosecuted. Senator brown of ohio and i sent a letter in january seeking the right to know. The response was will fall and failed to answer our questions. This is a leadership problem, and the one that needs to be fixed quickly and one that needs to be fixed quickly. But also want to hear from the attorney general about i also want to hear from the attorney general about a concerning new studies. I requested the gao conduct a report. The Department Executives reimburse the government for part of the trip but only the cost of regular coach fare. This is less than the thousands of dollars an hour that these planes cost. The report found that between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011, total flight time was 60 of the time. But accounted for millions of dollars of tax payer expenditures they accounted for millions of dollars of taxpayer expenditures. In light of sequester and the dire fiscal situation the federal government faces, this trouble was concerning yet it was especially concerning getting the justification provided to congress in 2010 was for counterterrorism measures. The g20 general and at shiite director are now the attorney general andy fbi director had the discretion to use commercial air travel. This report raises a number of troubling questions in light of the proposed spending reductions because of the sequester. Most pressing of which is should the executives at the department be using these claims for non mission travel on a jet purchase for Counterterrorism Missions . I yield the floor. We will again, i would add i realize some in the audience feel very committed to their positions and feel whatever their position is is far more important than anybody else in maybe sitting here. I ask you not to block other people. Please welcome everybody whether they agree with us or not. We have a responsibility to the people who are also trying to [indiscernible] attorney general, earlier this week worked with senator collins to produce a bill to adjust the problems of fire arms trafficking. The current law need to be strengthened and fixed and close the gaps that makes it too easy for by the criminals, gangs and Drug Trafficking organizations to obtain guns. Do you agree there is a need for specific statutes criminalizing gun trafficking and straw purchasing . Yes, mr. Chairman. There is no question there is a need for a stand alone trafficking bilbray what we now have is a hodgepodge stand alone trafficking. What we have now is a hodgepodge. It is not likely to induce cooperation from people we are charging. Mr. Attorneygeneral, i realize i forgot to give a chance to give your opening statement. Please give your opening statement. [laughter] chairman leahy, Ranking Member and distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to provide an overview of the Justice Departments recent achievements in the park the accomplishments my colleagues have made possible. I look forward to working with you all to take on critical efforts to a new level. Before we begin this discussion, i must acknowledge three correctional workers employed by the federal bureau of prisons to over the last week had made the old men sacrifice. Officer erik williams, the gregory bineski and the tenant oswaldo. I am determined to ensure those responsible to the acts that led to the deaths of these brave individuals are led to justice. We are committed to honoring the service of these officers by doing everything in our power to treat the women and men in Law Enforcement safe. In this regard, i am proud to report the department has made progress in battling by the crimes, financial fraud, upholding the civilrights of all, safeguarding the most vulnerable members of our society and protecting the American People from terrorism and other National Security threats. Since the horrific tragedy in newtown, the urgency of our Public Safety efforts have come into sharp focus. Earlier this year i joined president vicepresident crichton Vice President biden. In january, president obama announced a comprehensive plan that includes 23 executive actions of the Justice Department and other agencies working to implement common sense legislative proposals. I am pleased to join the president , Vice President and countless americans in calling on congress to enact legislation adjusting gun violence. Including measures to require universal background checks to impose tougher penalties on gun traffickers, to protect Law Enforcement officers, to ban high capacity magazines and militarystyle assault weapons. And to eliminate misguided restrictions that require federal agents to allow the importation of dangerous weapons and because of their age. I am pleased toecho the s call for the senate to confirm todd jones i am pleased to echo the president s call for the senate to confirm todd jones. We are determined to combat Domestic Violence as well. I am pleased this bill will finally close in loophole that left many native american women without adequate protection. The Justice Department looks forward to implementing this historic legislation. We are committed to become smarter and tougher on crime and remained aggressive and fair in our enforcement of federal laws. Thanks to countless employees and partners, we achieved extraordinary results. Nowhere is it more clear than in our work to protect americas National Security. The department has bought cases and secured convictions against numerous terrorist. We have identified and disrupted multiple plots by terrorist groups as well as homegrown extremis history article 3 as well as homegrown extremists. Article 3 works. Last summer, the department created the National Security cyber Specialist Network to spearhead these efforts. The network is comprised the prosecutors and other specialists across the country who work closely with the fbi and other partners to investigate militias cyber activity and to bring criminal prosecution as part of our government white effort to deter and disrupt Cyber Threats to our National Security. The department has taken significant steps to ensure enforcement of antitrust laws to protect the environment crackdown on tax cut schemes. In cooperation with the department of health and Human Services over the last fiscal year, we secured 4. 2 billion in recoveries related to Health Care Fraud and abuse. As a result of our commitment to achieve justice on behalf of the victims of the 2010 oil spill, we secured a guilty plea and a record 4 billion criminal fine and the penalties from bp. The court settled settled a settlement. On, february 20 we commence trials of civil claims against bp and others. We are working closely with authorities to take our fight against fraud targeting consumers, investors, and home owners to new heights. We have about 10,000 financial fraud cases, including 2900 mortgage fraud defendants. Last month the Department Filed a civil suit against standard and poors, seeking at least 5 billion in damages for alleged conduct. We are striving to boost the capacity of our Law Enforcement allies and provide access to the tools, training and equipment they need to do their jobs as safety safely and effectively as possible. We are working to promote the highest standards of integrity. This commitment to integrity and equal justice has also driven the Departments Civil Rights Division in an effort to address discrimination from the housing and lending markets, schools, workplaces, border areas and to our voting booths. The division has caught has bought more civilrights cases. We have also led efforts to implement the mac to shepherd a crimes prevention act the Matthew Shepherd crimes prevention act. We are fighting to preserve the principles of equality and justice. In the days ahead as Congress Considers ways to make fair and effective changes to americas immigration system, these same principles must guide our efforts to strengthen our borders. They must continue to inform our actions as we adjudicate immigration cases, and force existing law and hold accountable lawyers accountable those who employ illegal workers. I must note that our ability to complete this work and continue building upon the progress i have outlined will be hampered unless congress adopts a balanced deficitreduction plan that ends the reductions that last week said in a motion to cover 1. 6 billion of the departments budget. These cuts are already having a significant negative impact on employees and programs that directly impact the safety of americans across the country. Our capacity to respond to crimes, investigate wrongdoing, has been reduced. Despite our best efforts to limit the impact of sequestration, unless Congress Quickly pass a balanced deficit reduction plan, the effects of these cuts may be profound. I urged congressional leaders to act swiftly to keep our citizens state. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you and i apologize again. We are watching the clock because we have to go to speak on the halligan combination. You mentioned the cuts at 1. 6 billion across the board. I worry what that will do to critical Grant Programs in small, rural states like vermont. I do not mean that to be parochial but in smaller areas in every state, has a disproportionate effect. I hope you would be able to continue to work on programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program and victims assistance program. We will try to do the best we can. The cut is 9 out of our budget over the course of seven months. It will take 100 million out of our grant making capacity. We will try to minimize the harm and make sure the mission we have is not compromised. I have to say, you cannot take 1. 6 billion out of our budget and expect us to be as effective as we once were. Is it safe to say this will affect National Security . I fear that it could. We will try to suggest things so we have agents with the need to be. To adjust things so we have agents where they need to be. People will have to undergo furloughs. Thank you. And we talked about the memos on targeted killings. Ive been asking about that for some time. You and i have had discussions about this. I realize the decision is not entirely in your hands. It may be brought to a head from a subpoena by a letter from this committee. You mentioned 9 11 and drones. Is there no scenario a puppet to use an armed drawn on u. S. Soil to strike an american citizen . What i said in the letter as the government has no intention to carry out and joan strikes in the United States. Any drone strikes in the United States. We have the ability to use our Law Enforcement capacity. I gave his speech at northwestern with regard to the use of these legal forces. One of the critical things with the possibility of captor was difficult, in foreign lance of capture was difficult in foreign lands. The use of drones is entirely hypothetical here. What i try to say in the letter to senator paul was that. I may want to meet with you and discuss particular points. Last year the committee had a provision that would amend the act to prohibit prosecutions based on the violations of the terms of use agreement. We were concerned [indiscernible] innocuous, but such as violating the terms of use agreement. I think i supported the franken amendment. Can the doj review its guidelines for Computer Fraud and abuse cases and consider revising the base upon the conduct in violation of the terms of agreement . We are always revising. There are issues in statutes. We always want to correct that. We constantly monitor that and we want to make sure we use those tools in appropriate ways and only asked for jail time where that is absolutely needed. That is something we can look at. Thank you. Last november, voters chose to legalize personal use of 1 ounce of marijuana in several states. Last year i asked the director of the aphis office of National Drug control policy how the administration prioritizes resources to determine policy. In light of the choices made by voters, there will be other states that do the same things. Are you prepared to note the federal governments policy in response . I have had the opportunity to meet with the leadership from colorado and washington. We had a good communication. We are considering what the federal governments response could this new statutes will be. I expect we will have an ability to announce our policy relatively soon. This is simply an editorial comment but if youre going to because of budget cuts prioritized on matters, i with to just more serious things than minor possession of marijuana. That is a personal view. Senator grassley raised the fact that secretaries are prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons. A recent report confirms a counterterrorism [indiscernible] you and director muller have complied with reimbursement orders in all cases. Is it to your predecessor views the aircraft used the aircraft personal travel twice as much as you have . Yes, we took a look at the numbers. My predecessor took 54 trips. These plans are always hes first and foremost for mission purposes as well as official travel. The planes are used 92 of the time for those two purposes. That includes chips made on the plains trips made to afghanistan, guantanamo, haiti, ottawa. Thuis notion this notion that these planes are being misused is belied by the fact. I was in haiti right after your trip on a government plane with republican and democratic members of congress high. I understand the reason why they are there too. Whos next . Good morning, general holder. I wrote you a letter on january 18, 2013, about the prosecution of Aaron Schwartz who was prosecuted in massachusetts for allegedly breaking into the Computer Networks act mit and downloading without authorization thousands of academic articles from a Subscription Service. He was charged with crimes that would have carried a penalty of up to 35 years in prison and 8 million fine. Superseding indictment which was actually filed i wrote a letter raising questions of prosecutorial zeal and i would say misconduct appeared have you look into that matter and reached any conclusions . Mr. Schwartzs death was a tragedy. He was always the bright young men and had a good future in front of him. As i talk to the people will look into this matter, the reports about what he was facing in not consistent with the interaction between the government and mr. Schwartz. The plea offer was made 3 months before. After the indictment, an offer was made that he could serve four months eric after that, a plea offer made from a range of 0 to 6 months. There was never an intention for him to go to jail for longer than a 5 month range. That was what the government said specifically to mr. Schwartz. Those offers were rejected. He committed suicide, correct . He did. This Subscription Service did not support the prosecution. Does it strike you as odd the government would invite someone for crimes that carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and then offer him 3 or 4 month prison sentence . That is a good use of prosecutorial discretion to look at the contact regardless of what the maximum were and to fashion a sentence consistent with the nature of the conduct. What the prosecutors did a in offering 3, 4, 0 to 6, was consistent with that concept. You do not consider this a case of prosecutorial overreaching . No. I would suggest if you are an individual american citizen and you are looking at criminal charges being brought by the United States government with all the vast Resources Available, it strikes me as disproportionate and one that is being used inappropriately to try to bully someone into pleading guilty to something. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my letter in writing dated january 18. I know senator grassley listed other letters your department has not responded to. Would you commit to responding to that letter and answering the questions in writing . We will get responses to that letter. I think it will probably encapsulate what i just said in terms of how we viewed the case. I want to make sure you have done it thorough investigation in the matter and youre not just speaking off the cuff. It is not off the cuff. A good examination has been done. The prosecutors were talked to in people in the Department Responsible for those inquiries. One of the reasons im skeptical is because the prosecution of senator ted stevens. The prosecutor is in that case overreached, without the permission that should have been divulged under the rules of ethics. Im concerned that average citizens like Aaron Schwartz, people who do not have status or power, could be bullied and we have seen members of the United States senate like ted stevens who have been on the receiving end of prosecutorial conduct. What we did in that case was not consistent with a High Standard i expect the people who work in the Justice Department. That is an example of how this department conducts itself and where we make mistakes, but we do to try to protect them try to correct them. I would not hesitate to do what i did for example in the stevens manner. I respect that. Unfortunately in both these cases, both the men are dead. I know we are going to take up various gun legislation. I want to ask you i have a copy of the speech you gave to the Womens National Democratic Club january 30, 1995. It is not enough to have a catchy ad on monday. We need to do this every day of the week and brainwashed people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way. I was talking about young black men who have had all kinds of images thrown at them. At that time, washington, d. C. , was the murder capital of young black men. I said we need to counter those images and i used the word brainwashed to get those young black guys to think differently about the possession of guns. Do you think the aggressive prosecution of gun crimes as part of the answer as well is part of the answer as well . Absolutely. I also think preventing people from acquiring guns and using them in inappropriate ways i saw an ocean of young black men who should have been a feature of this community go to this jail because they have guns, use them inappropriately, killed people. I thought in that speech what i tried to do with to come up with ways to talk to these young guys and convince them that acquiring guns and using them to sell drugs, robbed people was wrong. In addition to strongly prosecuting them, when i was a judge, i send people away for possession and use of guns for extended periods of time. In conclusion, the fbi figures revealed from 2010 that more than 76,000 people attempting to buy guns built background checks. We do not know how many of these people have committed crimes the bureau of atf have committed crimes. Out of 76,000 failed background checks, your department pursued a guilty verdict in just 13 cases. How is that consistent with making violation of crime in deterrence at the likelihood of prosecution is so slight . The primary purpose of the background check is to make sure people who should not have guns denied get them. Since 1998, 1. 5 Million People have been turned away. Of all the federal gun prosecutions bring, one seventh are gun prosecutions. Those cases for people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution and purposes and determinations are made as to whether they should be prosecuted. One of the things i want to look at is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. If we are going to be cracking down on gun crime, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have those numbers but i want to make certain we are prosecuting all the people we should who had been denied failing one of the background checks systems. We have limited resources and we have to try to figure out where we want to use those. One has to look at why the gun was denied and determination on whether or not we should use those sources to bring prosecution against that person. A crime not prosecuted does not produce the kind of deterrence we would want to prevent other people from committing similar crimes. Do you agree with that . You are several minutes over. You have been very indulgent but i would like a simple answer to the question. Deterrence comes in a number of forms. Some are deterred by the prospect of jail, others by the prospect of having filled out a form and then having been turned down. It depends on the individual. Those are the kinds of factors be taken to account when making determinations as to whether a prosecution should be appropriately brought. Thank you very much. I want to say welcome attorney general holder and thank you for your service. It is apparent you have a very hard job and a hard time. I want to Say Something to you on the office of Legal Counsel opinions. Our job is vigorous oversight of the Intelligence Community. We cannot do this unless we see the legal underpinnings for certain kinds of activities, particularly clandestine activities. I believe the committee is fully united on that point. I believe the administration will have to come to terms with this. I would like to ask you to spend time and take a good look at it. I have been sitting here reading the white paper you sent to this committee on the subject of lawfulness of the illegalthes a 16 page, very hostile and aggressive opinion yet it cannot go into the public domain. I cannot ask you about some of the factors of this opinion even here and i think thats a mistake. I think the world we are now living in is so different and precise that the legal underpinnings for action really are important. It is one thing for a president to ask for a legal opinion prior to something that is ongoing. It seems to me that after words, we should have the opportunity to assess the legality of that and if necessary, be able to clarify law, change a law, do whatever a constitutional legislative body does. I would just ask you to take a look at this. We have now i just got a note. It has been release now because it was leaked first. That is one way of getting it out. I think that gives you an idea of the situation we are in from an intelligence point of view, it is vital. You get down to different committees. Lets say that predator is taken out of the jurisdiction of intelligence and put in the military agreed that transfers the jurisdiction to armed forces. Lets say it is used in some way that brings the jurisdiction to this committee. I think we now have to look at that arena and make some decisions as to the administration being more forthcoming with the legal device that underpins lawmaking. [applause] please dont. Would you agree. The president has heard you and others who are raised this concern on both sides of the aisle. I think what you will hear from the president in a short period of time we have talked about a need for Greater Transparency in what we share, what we talk about. I am confident that if the American People had access to for instance some of this stuff could not be shared but some of those olc opinions, there would be a greater degree of comfort and. This government does the things reluctantly but we do it in conformity with international law, domestic law and with our values. I think there is going to be a greater effort at transparency. And number of steps are going to be taken. I expect you will hear the president speaking about this. Right now we have someone exercising a hold on john brennan said what we are talking about is your eating dinner in your house or at a cafe and walking down the road in this country and can be targeted for elimination. I do not believe that is true. It is one thing after a major attack like 911 where we saw a great people take down a plane because they heard his claims were being crossed into buildings and there was a likelihood this one was going to crash into the u. S. Capitol, so people on the plane to get down. Then there was discussion as to whether a president should order a plan taken down with american citizens if it was going to jeopardize a greater number of american citizens. This to some extent is something we have to grapple with in a legal way as well. In reading the opinions i have just read, i believe they are very sound opinions. I have also read opinions from the bush administration, one of which was withdrawn from the bush administration, two of which were withdrawn from the obama administration. They are not, in my view, a good opinions. They were opinions designed to divide whatever the president or the administration was asking for. I think this is where transparency is important. Years after, we have an opportunity to look and make judgments as to whether our democracy and our values are being operated by the executive in a proper manner. I think there is a greater need for transparency, a greater need for appropriately sharing information, and we are struggling with how to do that. It is something the president feels strongly about. Over the next few months, you will see an effort on the part of the administration to be more transparent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being here this morning. I would like to address three areas and i would like to start at the topic you were discussing, the topic of drums. Drones. In your response yesterday, you suggested there may be circumstances in which is permissible to use drones to target a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil. You pointed to deed two, pearl harbor and 911, both average both of which were extreme military attacks on the homeland. If an individual is sitting quietly at a cafe, in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the constitution allowed a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Store u. S. Oil to be killed by a drone . Sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee . If that individual is not posing an immediate threat of death corporate bodily harm . I do not think you could arrests that person on that basis. The person is suspected to be a terrorist. Have abundant evidence. He is involved in a terrorist spot. He is not planning a bazooka at the pentagon. The United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they are sitting at a cafe. A u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the constitution allowing drawn to kill and citizen . I do not think that it be inappropriate use of any kind of legal force. We would deal with that in a way we would typically deal with that situation. My question was not about the appropriateness or discretion. It was a simple legal question. Does the constitution allowed a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil who does not pose an imminent threat to be killed by the u. S. Government . I do not believe that again, all of the facts. On the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, i do not think in that situation the use of john or legal force would be appropriate. Use of drones or legal force would be a corporate. In that, which was deliberately simple, you could not give the answer now. I think it is very simple. If that individual did not pose an individual threat, it would be a deprivation of life without due process. I said the use of lethal force, drones, guns, or what ever else would not be appropriate that circumstance. You keep saying appropriate. My question is about whether it would be constitution or not. You are the chief legal officer of the United States. Do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil in those circumstances . A person that was not engaged. This is a hypothetical. The way you have described this person sitting at the cafe not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force legal force would not be appropriate, would not be about would not be something i find it remarkable you will not i thought i was saying no. While, then, i am glad. After much gymnastics, i am glad to hear is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil if he did not pose an immediate threat. I wish you had given that statement in response to the letter asking you it. I will be introducing legislation in the senate to make clear the u. S. Government cannot kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil absence of an imminent threat. Based on that representation, i hope the department will support that legislation. That is consistent with the letter i sent. I talked about 911 and pearl harbor. Those are the instances where i said it might possibly be considered. Other than that, we would use our normal Law Enforcement authorities in order to resolve situations along those lines and use the normal things you would do. I like to move on. In 2010, congress and heard evidence and the department of justice declined to enforce voting Discrimination Laws against members of the black panther party. In 2011, the department of justice released a statement saying that the department would no longer defend the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act, which passed with overwhelming both houses of congress and signed into law. Last year in 2012, the department of Homeland Security announced that it would no longer enforce our nations immigration laws against individuals designated by the president. My question to you is, are there any other laws passed by this congress that the department of justice does not intend to enforce . It is the tradition of the department to always enforce laws where there is a reasonable basis to argue for the enforcement of those laws. I have sent memos or letters to the speaker of the house where we have declined to support laws and enforce laws that congress has passed for a variety of reasons. With regard to doma where we declined to defend that statute that courts subsequently have agreed with us applying that standard of heightened security that in fact, doma was unconstitutional. There was a bit of a slight of hand. You said courts goode on the merits of the issue, that is different from saying there is no reasonable basis to defend the statute. Surely its not the departments position every case that the department loses a case i will will not defend the statute. What process does the department engage in to determine which federal laws it will follow and which it will not . There is a presumption that we will apply and support any law that congress passes. It is the rare instance that we will not. Doma was one of those and there wasnt a reasonable basis to defend the statute applying the heightened scrutiny statute. Let me very briefly address one other area. Many attention has focused on the fast and Furious Program and the tragic consequences of that. Was the white house involved in any way whatsoever inDecision Making concerning fast and furious . No. Given that, last year, my understanding is you asserted executive privilege against handing over documents concerning fast and furious. Executive privilege protects communications and advice with the president. If the white house was not involved executive privilege does not apply to those documents. If executive privilege does apply to those documents, it necessarily implies that the white house and the president personally was involved. Which of the two is it . You are cutting too fine a line. The president , the white house is not involved in the operational component of fast and furious. There were conversations between the Justice Department and the white house about the operation after all of the operative facts had occurred, after all of the cover controversial actions were taken and got into the situation where we were talking about the congressional investigation of fast and furious, there were communications between the white house and Justice Department. Did i understand you correctly my time has expired. Is it your position that executive privilege only applies after the details of fast and furious became public and subsequent communications but no executive privilege that is applicable before it becoming public because as you said, the white house was not involved in any way, shape or form . The executive privilege protects the white house and executive Branch Agency and to my knowledge, there are no communications that deal with the operational components of fast and furious between the white house and Justice Department. So the executive privilege does not apply . There is nothing there for executive privilege to apply to. Senator whitehouse. Thank you for the initial statement that the administration has put it under a separation of powers framework. There is a lot of work ahead of us to work out the details but its an important for the administration. And thank you for your executive order which was a vital step and remain disappointed that we didnt pass legislation to address this pressing issue. Senator graham and i are continuing to work on supplementing the executive order with Bipartisan Legislation that i think is vital for our country. Let me chime in on the question of getting the response to the request for the record that was made last june when you were last here and which we still have no response to. I understand that its tied to o. M. B. But presumably they could put it into the calculation of when letters are prepared for you. Not only o. M. B. There is something within the department where we need to be more responsive. But executive branch agencies, equity in these responses. Its not strictly o. M. B. Pretty long run for getting an answer. I agree with that. We are looking forward to having a hearing on the resources of the department and the strategy of the department on cyber prosecutions and on the actions against the case was good and i understand there have been awards given to the participants, which i commend you for. But i would have it would have been a model for a great number of other type of legal efforts to clean them out of the web and hasnt been pursued as a model or strategy. And to my knowledge, there hasnt been a single cyber prosecution brought against a hacker like we know china is doing that comes in purely through the web, raids an American Company for its intellectual property, takes the property out and uses it as industrial espionage. I know there have been cases made for espionage and sometimes involve cyber, but there has been a tangible link of some kind, somebody with the cd in their pocket leaving the factory. So i think anybody who has been in the trenches understands how immensely complicated and resourceintensive these cases are and at a time in diminishing budgets its time to focus the real light to focus on how important these cases are and would you be willing to work with us and send appropriate d. O. J. Officials to a hearing. That could be particularly useful as we try to explain the issues that we confront in bringing these cases, the resource issues that we have. But also to hear suggestions. With regard to how we might do these cases so i think that kind of interaction would be something we will send witnesses to. Appreciate it. Similarly, we are looking at the enforcement of Campaign Finance laws. There appears to be a considerable zrep answery between in zrepssi, between applications made to the i. R. S. Status and the identity once its out acting in that political world and we would like to look further into that and would ask cooperation from the department from a witness at a hearing to that question. We will be glad to participate in that we have as one of our enforcement responsibilities the Campaign Finance laws. There is an election crime section within the Public Integrity section. This is something that we do. And we would be more than glad to interact with you and have a hearing in that regard. Good. And the last thing that ill raise, the margolis memorandum needs to be retracted by the department. It is a continuing burr under my saddle that we could expect of the members of the department of justice, particularly those at the office of Legal Counsel who are often the best and the brightest that the Legal Profession has. They are on to a Supreme Court seat and immensely talented people and the notion that they dont have to meet the same stands of diligence and candor that an evidence lawyer does hustling into the courthouse in providence with five files under his arm is to me something that im just going to continue to press on until that gets resolved. Ill mention that to you once again now and well continue to follow up. I bring it up every time from a person from the department of justice comes to see me and whenever candidates for nomination for confirmation come to see me. I know it brought a resolution to an unhappy period in the department but it did so by cutting acorn that should not have been cut. And i think the standards should be higher, not lower. I appreciate very much your service to our country, as former member of the department of justice. I look at real dismay what is happening to it prior to your tenure. And i continue to express pride and enthusiasm and increasing morale as the leadership you have provided. Very kind. You and i can have a conversation about the margolis theory memo. You and i can have a more detailed conversation about that to the extent you have those issues. I would like to hear what they are. Thank you very much, senator whitehouse. Senator flake is not here. Senator klobuchar is not here. Senator graham is here. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. We have been talking about the war on terror ever since you have been doing this job. And i want to congratulate you and the president. I think you have thought hard and long under difficult circumstances. I want to applaud your efforts with the drone program. It has helped us in afghanistan and pakistan and i just believe this is a tactical tool that this president should be using and using it responsibly. Is al qaeda actively involved recruiting american citizens to their cause . I certainly know of efforts that al qaeda has made. We dont disclose that the Al Qaeda Organization is actively involved in seeking american citizens support. In every war we have had, unfortunately americans have sided with the enemy, few in number. We had american citizens helping the germans who tried to blow up infrastructure in the United States. Those cases were tried right down the hall from my office. Its a long standing proposition that an american citizen who joins the forces of our enemies can be considered an enemy combatant, do you agree with that . Yes. The point im trying to make, hypothetically, if there are Patriot Missile batteries around this capitol and other key governmental infrastructures to keep the capitol from an attack, it would be lawful for those batteries to launch, is that correct . To launch against the threat . If there was intelligence that an airplane was coming towards the capitol or the white house that had been hijacked, it would be ok for our military to act, wouldnt it . Yes. It would be an imminent threat and the military has the Legal Authority under the constitution and the authorization to use military force to strike back against al qaeda, is that correct . Yes. When we say Congress Gave every administration the authorization to use military force against al qaeda, we didnt exempt the homeland, did we . No. Wouldnt it be crazy to exempt the homeland and say for some reason the military cant defend here . Thats right. The question is what forces do we use. And i totally agree with you that the likelihood of capture is very high in america and we have a lot of Law Enforcement agencies available and that we would put them out front, but certainly most Law Enforcement agencies dont have Patriot Missile batteries. So thats a good example of where the military can provide capacity to protect the homeland against a terrorist act that Law Enforcement cant. That would be the real case, but in the letter that i sint to senator paul is one of the reasons i referenced september 11. Lets go back in time. What we would all give to have those Patriot Missile batteries available on september 10, 2001 in new york city and washington . It would have meant we would have lost a plain load of american citizens but saved thousands more. Thats the world in which we live in. And i want to stand by you and the president to make sure that we dont criminalize the war and the commander in chief continues to have the authority to protect us all and ive got a lot of my colleagues who are well meaning, but there is only one commander in chief in our constitution, do you agree with that . Thats true. One of the most difficult decisions to give that order. And i want you to know from senator grahams point of view that you have the authority and authorization to use military force to take such action and i know you will if put in that position. About where this war is going, we are winding down afghanistan, do you think the al qaeda threat is over . No. The al qaeda threat as we knew it traditionally focused in pakistan, core al qaeda has been greatly weakened, but there are nodes in different places on the Arabian Peninsula and north africa. What would your message to any american citizen thinking of col baiting with al qaeda at home or abroad, what would you say to them . If you align yourself with al qaeda, you are taking arms against your nation and you then will be subject to the full weight of the american military. And Law Enforcement community. And Law Enforcement. Whatever tools we have. I want to say i believe article 3 courts have a robust role on the war on terror and i want to say that military commissions have their place also, do you agree with that statement . Sure. Lets turn to another topic where we probably wont agree. This committee will be taking up legislation about banning assault weapons. Are you familiar with the ar15 . Im familiar with it, yes. Just generally speaking. I might have shot one at the f. B. I. Academy. You are aware over four million have been purchased by american citizens . Its a very popular weapon. Any weapon can be dangerous, i will be the first to admit that. Can you imagine a circumstance where the ar15 would be a better defense weapon than a doublebarrel shotgun. Where you have a Natural Disaster or some catastrophic event and those things do happen and law and order breaks down because the police cant travel, there is no communication and there are armed gangs running around neighborhoods, can you envision a situation where if your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group, that it might be better to have an ar15 than a doublebarrel shotgun . We are dealing with a hypothetical. Am i unreasonable to say i would prefer an ar15 . When you are dealing with a hypothetical im afraid that world existed, to some extent in new orleans. If there is a cyber attack against america and the power grid goes down and the dam is released and chemical plants discharged i dont think new orleans would have been better served with ar15s. If my family was in the crosshairs of gangs roaming around neighborhoods and new orleans or any other location the deterrent effect of an ar 15 is greater than a Double Barrel shotgun but the Vice President and i have a disagreement on that. Can i ask one more question . There was 76,142 people filled out a background check. 1,362 denied the background check because they were fugitives from justice. How many of those fugitives were apprehended . I dont know what the numbersr but each of the cases are individually examined and determination is made as to whether or not prosecutions should be brought or where the prosecutions are. If you are talking about somebody who is a fugitive, i would agree with you, that should be a priority prosecution, but that person may not be there. I would suggest that 76,000 people failed a background check. Only 62 were prosecuted and less than that number were convicted. Obviously, we have some work to do when it comes to the current background system. Thank you for your service. There have been questions asked about drones in the u. S. This committee will be holding a hearing on march 20. Senator franken. I want to thank you, general holder for the department of justices action in the proposition 8 case and the Supreme Court, brave decision on your part and powerful statement of the departments commitment to seek equality under the law for all people. In your testimony, you talk about the departments civil suit against s and p and you say the quote is you are seeking billion dollars in damages for alleged conduct that goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, and i totally agree with that. I think the Credit Rating agencies because of the basic conflict of interest that is inherent and the issuer pays model where the issuer of a security chooses and pays one of the big three it was, moodys, s and p and some degree, fitch and the rating agencies gave out a. A. A. Ratings to junk because they wanted to keep the business. And in the d. O. J. Case, as part of the evidence, emails from between people at s and p saying look, we know this isnt deserving of a a. A. A. But we have to give it that. I dont want to go beyond the indictment. But that information or those kinds of emails are contained in the indictment. This is a statement by d. O. J. S and p falsely represented that its ratings were objective and not influenced by saps relationship with jefment banks but its desire led it to favor the interests of these banks over investors. We believe our evidence will show that. Now you say this goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis. Isnt that because once they ran out of mortgages to securityize and subprime mortgages, and they gave a. A. A. Ratings, right . Im not an expert but when you Start Talking about the bets on bets, that is correct. But im not an economist or financial guy. I understand that. When you say it goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, what im saying is is that this house of cards that collapsed would have been one card high if they hadnt given a. A. A. Derivatives and derivatives on derivatives. The asergs you are making are correct that the Financial System made bets on bets giving ratings to derivatives that were not necessarily deserved. Im not talking s. A. S. And p now. This prosecution, it goes to the heart of why our economy collapsed and what it was was that the Credit Rating agencies had there was a conflict of interest they had because they knew if they gave a a. A. A. Rating they would get more business. Thats essentially what the case is about. Thats the essence of the governments theory. Senator wicker and i wrote an amendment to doddfrank which said that gave s. E. C. The ability to address that, to eliminate the conflict of interest and that passing the amendment was in a bipartisan way, 64 votes, it got to conference and became a study that said that if the s. E. C. Finds this conflict of interest still exists that they will address that conflict of interest and get rid of it. Thats happened. And i think that is absolutely crucial that the s. E. C. Act on that. So i wanted to just use your testimony get on my little soap box big soap box here, but i think its absolutely crucial. I want to ask you about an entirely different matter, last fiscal year, 14,000 children arrived at our borders alone and subsequently entered our immigration courts system. Since 2008, the department of health and Human Services has been in charge making sure that these children have access to legal representation. Unfortunately, experts report half of these children are getting lawyers. My office has started to hear stories of eightyearold kids, sixyearold children going before Immigration Judges by themselves without representation. Attorney general holder, experts have suggested that transferring the job of getting these kids lawyers to be transferred out of h. H. S. And into the department of justice im considering this proposal closely. Do you support doing this . We want to work with you in coming up with ways to ensure that children do have legal representation. If this is something that is better housed in the Justice Department, it is something we are willing to consider. But this is going to be a resource issue. Thisouldnt give responsibility to the Justice Department. As part of the Immigration Reform pack acknowledge we are considering it is inexcuseable that young kids and you are right, six, sevenyearolds have immigration decisions made on their behalf, against them, and they arent represented which counsel. That is not who we are as a nation. I hope our offices can Work Together. You are absolutely right. This is unconscionable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator grassley . Once again, thank you for coming up here. I want to follow up on your response to senator cruz and i think he talked about introducing a bill. Do you believe that congress has the Constitutional Authority passing a law prohibiting the president to use lethal force against american citizens on u. S. Soil . And if not, why not . Congress has the ability to pass whether the legislation well, congress has the Constitutional Authority to pass a law prohibiting the president s to use lethal force against american citizens on u. S. Soil . Im not sure such a bill would be constitutional. I would have to look at the legislation, but i would have that concern. But your basis is is because of article 2 . I believe so one last question in that area, given the belief that it would be constitutional to use lethal force against american citizens on u. S. Soil in some instances as you said, would that theory extend to permitting the executive branch to use enhanced interrogation techniques against american citizens on u. S. Soil to avoid a catastrophic event . I dont think those techniques should be used against anybody. They are ineffective and inconsistent with how we think of ourselves as a nation and outright torture. On another issue in regard to a letter you wrote to chairwoman mikulski on the budget control act in cutting 1. 6 billion from the current level which would have serious consequences. Specifically the letter detail cuts to the f. B. I. Suggesting furlough of 775 special agents, most important assets to the National Security and Law Enforcement. But the reality is as of yesterday, the department of justice was advertising for over 100 job openings on u. S. A. Jobs web site. These include positions such as cook supervisor, dental hygienist, law librarian. And the departments web site has over 50 attorney positions listed since january 14. The memorandum was being issued by o. M. B. So im skeptical about your description of severe negative impacts on the impact including the estimated loss of federal agents fighting National Security. Further, your letter to the chairwoman failed to discuss cuts to conference expenditures, which more than doubled between 2008, 2010 and failed to discuss reductions in travel or other nonmission expenditures. What has a high priority when it comes to sequester . How do you reconcile the fact that the department is actively recruiting for hundreds of positions, including cooks and dental hygienists but you threaten to furlough 775 f. B. I. Agents working on Violent Crimes . If the sequestration stays in effect, we are going to have to furlough f. B. I. Agents. What i have told the people in the department is that hiring has to stop. Doesnt mean that we should stop the process of going through the interviews so when the sequestration is over and funds are returned to us, we have the ability to fill gaps that we will have through attrition. We want to be in a position on the other end to have people in line to take positions that might be available but there wont be anybody brought on into the department of justice while sequestration is in effect. I made that clear to the heads. You can do the interviews and all that stuff and maybe have a person that you want to have in place once we are on the other side of sequestration. How does your direction to the chairwoman comply with o. M. B. s memorandum to cuts . Well, what we are talking about is just interviewing people and making sure that these are potentially people we might want to hire. The costs are minimal. How about cutting the 700 or so f. B. I. Agents . How does comport with the memo of o. M. B. On minimizing . We have a certain amount of flexibility in the way the sequester is structured. You look at the various components within the department and there is little or nothing i can do with regard to the f. B. I. Has taken in terms of a cut and we are the resources that we have, the money in the department of justice is in our people. We dont have airplanes. We dont fly huge amounts of planes. We dont have planes like the Defense Department. When it comes to reducing costs, i can furlough people and do things on the other side, conferences and things of that nature. The main we we have to reduce costs is with regard to furloughing our people which will have a negative impact on our ability to do our job the American People expect us to do. The o. M. B. Memo requested proposals from the department and i asked you for a copy of these. Would you provide these draft proposals to the committee so we can review what cuts the department requested and what o. M. B. Recognized . Im not sure i understand your question. O. M. B. Sends you recommendations and then you send back what you are going to do. I want those documents so i can compare the what you recommended to what o. M. B. Said should be have a higher priority. Im not sure called passbacks. Im not sure what the administrations position. But draft correspondence between an agency and o. M. B. About decisional matters would be the kinds of material we would seek to protect. My time is up, i heard in an interview that you said for the people that voted for the effort contempt effort against you that you didnt have respect for people like that. Im extremely disappointed. I voted for you based on the fact that giving you the benefit of the doubt and disregarding previous cover cyst. It seems to me your comments show a disregard and that is quite shocking and i dont think you should have said it and you owe the people an apology. Let me just say what i dont respect is the process. It was an effort that had a predetermined result. Whatever we did in good faith was met by passing political determinations and that is a process that i dont respect and the people who pushed it are people as i said before, i stand by that, the people who pushed it i dont respect because it isnt consistent with cabinet members werent treated when the gun lobby decided to score that vote, it was clear how the vote was going to turn out and it became something other than what it was portrayed to be and i dont respect. How can they take it up. History has shown in the past there was a much greater period of time for those kinds of negotiations to occur. If you look at what happened with Harriet Meirs and josh bolton, you will see the period we were given to try to respond to and negotiate was much, much shorter. There was a desire to get a certain point and they got there. I would say i agree with your answer. Senator klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, attorney general holder. I told you the other day senator lee and i are heading up the antitrust subcommittee and holding a hearing on the merger. But im wondering your views on some of the areas where we will see more potential action in antitrust, whether its transportation, whether its in health care industry, whether it is with communications where there has been a lot of action in that area and what direction do you see the Department Taking with antitrust . You have hit many of the areas that are going to be our focus. Communications. And talking about spending time with regard to airline mergers. Health care. All things that impact the american consumers. What we have tried to do in the antitrust division is focus our efforts in such a way that we benefit the American People with regard to lower prices, more competition and wherever we find the agricultural field, wherever we find instances there is inappropriate activity being taken that will have a negative impact on the american consumer, we will be there. I look forward to that hearing. Second thing i want to talk about was the issue of i have seen increases of it in my state. We met at an Electric Company in minnesota about this. Senator graham and i have a bill to up some of the penalties when copper and other metals are stolen from critical infrastructure. We are seeing nearly a billion dollars in damage across our country. The most striking example, 200 bronze stars were stolen from a grave in minnesota, from the graves of veterans and people are getting desperate to steal this metal. Electric companies have been broken into 10 times in st. Paul that experienced hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. And one of the fears is because people have died because taking one pipe can do millions of dollars in damage. And i wanted you to comment on that. As i said to you, this is something that had not entered by consciousness and i have talked to a couple of people in the department who indicate that what you said was, in fact, true, that this is a growing problem and it is one that i think we need to devote resources to, attention to. This is not something that i was frankly aware of. But given the nature of what people have told me within the department, which is the potential harm not only in the theft of the material, but the problems that the theft actually present sip tates, houses blowing up, gas lines being ruptured, that this is something that we have to its a new problem that we are going to have to focus on. Briefly on this, i wanted you to know im continuing work on drug courts. A former congressman talked about this in the last congress about how drug courts have transformed the way we handle criminal cases. They are incredibly important as a prosecutor. I know you cared about this. We have a groundbreaking court and we have one in hennepin. The New York Times had a story last weekend about federal judges administering drug court programs. If you want to comment briefly on that. I think that we have to try to use drug courts to a greater extent. They have germly proven to be successful. What we try to do is to use the criminal Justice System in an appropriate way. Sometimes people have to go to jail. A great number of people need to kick their habit. And if we can use the criminal justice the penalties of the criminal Justice System as a hammer to keep that over peoples heads and keep them in treatment, we have seen amazing success rates and a much lower residism rate and saves us money over the long haul. And something that is worthy of a greater support. In our state, we have one the lowest rates in the country and we we have one of the lower crime rates. I think its important and i hope youll support and the administration will support continued funding. We do have bipartisan support for it. Thats one of those areas where we have to understand that whatever we invest up front, we are going to reap more money in savings down the roads. It is clear. And last thing i wanted to mention, you and i were in selma, alabama and part of the weekend was the way the police chief in montgomery handing over to john lewis to apologize. And you gave a beautiful speech on sunday. And i wanted to follow up with some questions about that. We know the Supreme Court recently heard the Voting Rights act case. Can you talk about the implication of a Court Decision for Voting Rights . I cant comment too much because it is an independent case. The United States were a different place. The south is a different place, and yet the need for section 5 i think is still evident. If you look at the cases we brought in the last 18 months, two years or so, in texas, South Carolina, florida, the ability to preclear things that those states wanted to do, the findings made by the three judge panels that supported the Justice Departments position, given all the progress we have made, the problems persist and section 5 which is a critical part of the Voting Rights act should remain a tool that we have the ability to use. Also just to note, im reintroducing the sameday registration bill and we have been able to have elections with the highest if not one of the highest voter turnouts in the country and i dont know if you know that is a longterm solution . We need to try to expand the number of people who participate and make it as easy as we can being mindful for the potential for fraud but come up with ways, sameday registration, portable registration and expanding the number of days people can cast ballots, that is the thing that dines this nation, our ability to vote, our ability to shape the congress that represents us on the state level as well. Thats how people decide the future of our nation. And efforts to restrict the vote i think have to be fought, efforts to expand the vote, ability of people to vote have to be supported. Thank you, attorney general, for your good work. Last month, i joined a Bipartisan Group of senators in sending a letter to your department asking for any and all memoranda you might have that seek to provide legal justification or Legal Framework for making decisions regarding the targeted killing of american citizens using drones. The letter noted that Senior Intelligence officials have indicated that your Departments Office of Legal Counsel had prepared some written, but nonpublic legal opinions that articulate the basis for that authority. And notwithstanding that request, neither i nor members of this committee have received the o. L. C. Memoranda. Now somebody indicated earlier during this meeting that they thought that that memo, that the o. L. C. Memo might have been leaked. It is not my understanding that it has been. What has been leaked is something that has been released by nbc news. It carries a heavy nbc watermark on it. It appears to provide a narrower perhaps more condensed legal analysis than what is available in the office of Legal Counsel memoranda. I turn back to the white paper in a minute, dont you think that this committee has an important oversight role over the department of justices role in this analysis . Yes, i do. And i have heard the committee expressly desire to see these memoranda and i will be bringing that to the attention of the appropriate people within the administration. Im not unsympathetic to what you are saying. You are the attorney general and they will respect the process. Are you saying you will make that available to us as members of the Judiciary Committee . I will bring that desire and my view to those are in a position to make those kinds of determination. Im only one of those people. I understand. You do have clients within the government and you have to consult with them. I would strongly urge you to make that pitch quickly and thats important for us to review that as members of the Judiciary Committee which has oversight over your department. One of the reasons i think that is so important as i reviewed this department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel not sure where, but the white paper, as i review that, it raises more questions in my mind than it answers. The gist of this white paper as i see it says that the u. S. Government may in fact target and kill american citizens using drones where there is an imminent threat, imminent threat of a National Security sort to the United States, its citizens, its installations and so forth. That is a fairly familiar standard in the law and yet as you read on in this white paper, it becomes apparent to me that the definition of imminent used in this paper is different than almost any other definition i have seen. On page 7 of the white paper, the white paper goes so far as to suggest that imminent doesnt mean too imminent. Specifically, it says that this condition, that of imminent, does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u. S. Persons and interests will take that an operational leader dustup require the United States to have clear evidence that this will take place in the immediate future. But i have to ask, mr. Attorney general, what does it meanf it doesnt mean something imminent . Part of the problem is what we talked about in the previous question. I think the white paper becomes more clear if it can be eed in conjunction with the underlying o. L. C. Advice. In the speech that i gave at northwestern, i talked about imminent threat and i said it incorporated three factors, a relevant window, opportunity to attack, the possible harm it would cause to civilians and heading off all future disasters and attacks against the United States. Thats part of it. And without taking the position one way or the other, it is one of the strongest reasons why the sharing of the opinions the advice, the o. L. C. Advice of this Committee Makes sense. You can understand my concern, as a lawyer who really knows a lot about these things you understand if that were the standard could be manipulated and give americans a lot of pause. I strongly encourage you to make that available to us. There are other aspects of the white paper that trigger this concern and i would like to find out if your response is the same. The white paper notes that the president must find in order for a drone attack on a u. S. Citizen to occur, that the president must make a finding that capture of the individual is not feasible. But then the white paper goes on to state that capture is by operation of the memos analysis, not feasible, if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window. It makes no definition of the relevant window of opportunity. Meaning whatever it is that the president decides it is. And can you understand how that could be cause for concern . And isnt that fraught for manipulation . There is a certain degree of objectivity there in the sense that people become potentially captureable overseas venues at certain times and they become that window of opportunity creases to exist when they move or we lose track of them. So that i tend to understand. So do i understand you saying that the office of Legal Counsel memorandum which we might have the opportunity to review would provide further clarification on this point and would answer some of the questions that we have about the vagueness of that standard . Im not sure. Im just not sure. Let me ask one other question, on another related point. In the last few months members of your department including assist ant attorney General Perez have stated that the department of justice is considering certain reforms to the Voter Registration system. For example, perez stated that it should be the governments responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote compiling from data bases that exist. These statements and others can be read to suggest that there might be an increased role for the federal government to play in Voter Registration. Voter registration is something as you know has been carried out exclusively by the states so it raises some federalismrelated concerns with regard to the traditional role in running elections. Is it the departments view that it has current Statutory Authority to promulgate regulations that would centralize Voter Registration in the federal government or increase the federal governments role in elections . The department of justice trying to incentivize states to come up with mechanisms so they would come up i mean, this is something that is of primary responsibility of the states. I think the federal government can help the states in the carrying out of that responsibility. You would agree that the federal government lacks Statutory Authority to centralize it . Yes. But there are certain times when the federal government there are statutes that allow the federal government to become involved in the election processes that are normally carried out by the states. Thank you, attorney general. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Great to be with you again. Let me start with one question that has been fairly uniform across this entire committee today from chairman leahy to senator lee about the killing of the target. I share the frustration and concerns about transparency on targeted killings and one specific question on that. Would you as we go Forward Support any form of judicial review in this context including the limited sort we have in fisa. Would this move it forward . That is worthy of consideration. I want to make sure that the inclusion of a court did not, for instance, have some kind of inhibitting impact in the operations, but i think as john brennan testified during his confirmation hearings that is Something Worthy of consideration and something we ought to think about potentially making a part of the Decision Making process. I look forward to working with you on that. You can hear unanimous concern about transparency and how to move forward in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation. We just spent a great weekend together in selma and wonderful to meet your wife and hear her familys role in an important piece of american history. As we sit wondering what will happen to section 5, im concerned about section 5 of the national Voter Registration act, the motorvoter act, something that isnt currently under review. Im hoping that the department is going to take up its enforcement obligation more actively. My sense is there have been very few actions taken on motorvoter and could make a positive contribution to voter participation. Is the reason that there really hasnt been an active d. O. J. Action a resource issue . We heard about sequester, or things we need to be doing to ensure that the critical part of this is used more actively . We have taken certain actions and we fide lawsuits against rhode island and louisiana, something going on in florida, these are matters that i think im not sure we are underenforcing it, but you hear this from all of the agencies that appear before you, we could use more when it comes to resources. Its a vital tool. And to increase the number of eligible citizens that can vote and make sure they are accurate in federal elections. This is something we want to know and one of the things we talk to tom perez, my guess would be we would like to do more i need more people. I think thats what he would say. We would be happy to have that conversation given the critical importance of voting. And as you have discussed with other members of this panel today, should there be a change in the section 5, i would love to work with you if there is room Going Forward for expedited proceedings and making sure that the voting cases get heard and strengthening or placement of the Voting Rights act. Another area where i think resources is a critical issue and there may be a solution. In intellectual property, i come out of manufacturing and manufacturing relies on trade secrets protection as much as on patenting for critical steps in manufacturing. And there has been a barage of assaults and theft of theft of intellectual property. There was a report documenting just widespread and you have spoken to this theft of American Intellectual property. But the number of prosecution around trade secrets has been very light and i understand the limitations of resources. Would a federal private right of action help accelerate perhaps some of the assertion of rights and the ability to pursue justice on behalf of american manufacturers . That is something we should talk about and discuss. My instincts take me in the direction where you are and perhaps something we ought to do. But i would like to work with you and have the appropriate people from the department sit down and meet with your staff and talk about that possibility. But i do think the theft of intellectual property, trade secrets has a devastating impact on our economy, threatens our National Security and is worthy of our attention. This is a problem that is large but is getting larger and something as you look over the horizon this is an area we will have to devote more attention as a nation. Im glad to hear you say that, probably the most greatest widespread theft in Human History and it does have negative impacts. Let me point to a few programs that have a positive impact and with a modest investment of federal resources have a positive impact on Public Safety. We were suppose to have a hearing today from kentucky and delaware about the initiative. You feel, the weather has led to its cancellation. It is a place where bipartisan bills at the state level have led to critical investments in improving criminal Justice Systemses. The partnership is something i value highly. I had a Police Officer from that was shot twice in the chest and survived. Their lives were saved by this program and we should reauthorize this program and i look forward to working with you on that. The victims of child abuse act and the choiled advocate centers it funds, that youre familiar with, i think they are an enormous resource. They are interviewed once and it has all the relevant folks there. The ones that i visited in new castle county, the circumstances that leads to these interviews are tragic, the resource by our Law Enforcement community is terrific. Im hoping i could rely on your support for restoring funding for this small but powerful program in the f. Y. 12 budget. Any thoughts on the centers . I was one of the people that started the children advocate centers. I know the positive impact it has on victims of crime. The decision to eliminate this funding was a difficult one. The office of justice programs, as i talked to them after i spoke to you has come up with ways in which they think they can prioritize grant making and training to help in that regard. But im going to, you know, i think as we look at the budget for the next year that given what we get from the advocate centers and the relatively small amount that is involved that this has to be part of the next budget. Im not satisfied with where we are now on the present budget. I think that was a mistake. Thank you mr. Attorney germ. I look forward to working with you. All of us here recognize we have forced far too many of the cuts we made in the last two years just in the narrow area of domestic discretionary area that has affects on criminal justice, infrastructure and education. I look forward to finding a brooder solution. Im grateful for your service. Thank you. \[inaudible] senator blumenthal. Good morning. Thank you for being here and thank you for your leadership of the department of justice in scenarios that are so important. I want to thank you you and the president for your leadership on gun violence prevention, in particularly his and your commitment to the victims of newtown that are still grieving and hurting and your personal involvement trying to ease those continuing trauma that still affect themselves as repeatly as yesterday in our telephone conversation. I want to fose for the moment on gun violence prevention. As a Law Enforcement professional, not just as attorney general but one that has been a judge and a prosecutor, we both agree that this ought to be the goal. Yet, enforcement of some of these laws is em peeded by gaps in those laws, such as the absence of background checks on firearms, which now enables about 40 of all firearm purchases to go without any check whatsoever. You would agree with that, wouldnt you . We have loopholes as we describe them that makes the enforcement of existing laws difficult and render those existing laws not nearly as effective as they might otherwise be. Those laws prohibit purchase of firearms by categories of people, convicted felonies, drug addicts and Domestic Violence abusers. Purchases of firearms and ammunition. Both firearms and ammunition. Right now there are no background checks as to purchases of ammunition, none whatsoever. As a matter of common sense as well as Law Enforcement professionalism, i think you would agree those laws are better enforced with background checks as to ammunition purchases. Would you agree . I think i would like to discuss this with you some more. One of the concerns i have is a resource concern. I think theoretically what youre talking about makes sense i dont mean to diminish it. I think it would have a positive impact. But the system i worry about being overburdened and making sure we would have the resources to do that. By way of background, ive asked two of the u. S. Attorneys who have been active and aggressive and enforcers of these laws whether these laws can be enforced effectively without background checks on ammunition. To both both of us without a background check you do you have any effective way of enforcing that law, the prohibition of enforcing that law . His answer, no. When youre asked by my colleagues, why arent you more aggressively enforcing these laws, why dont we have more prosecution . The simple answer is there is no real way to enforce these bans on ammunition purchases or firearm purchase unless there are background checks. I understand and recognize with your point about resources. If were serious about these gun violence prevention laws that keep ammunition and firearms out of the hands of criminals we need to strengthen the system so that we make these laws something more than just something that is a feel good set of words on a statute. Youre slewly right, senator. That is absolutely right, senator. That is part of what the president has proposed to make more Resources Available a so it can be used in a way to support existing laws. People who say you dont enforce the laws dont want to give us the tools to enforce those very laws. Exactly. I want to thank you you and the president for that comment on resources. As a major component for the background check of ammunition, im looking for ways to modify this proposal so as to perhaps make it voluntary and give licensed dealers the access that they need to the system. As you know right now, they are barred from checking. They see somebody come in, a potential adam lanza who is buying hundreds of rounds, they have no way of checking whether he is a drug abuser, a domestic abuser, akon victed felony, a fugitive, anyone in those prohinted categories. They are at a loss for basic information to try to protect the public. Helpest intention cant them help you enforce the law. Im hoping we can Work Together on this provision. Im sympathetic on the resource issue. If it were my say alone, those resources would be available right now. Lets see if we can work something out so you have that ability. Thank you. Let me move to another subject and i appreciate your answers on that one. Wrongful foreclosures. Among the military mortgage holders, there has been recent reports, just a few days ago in the New York Times, 700 members of the military had homes seized and other borrowers who were current on their mortgage payments had homes seized. Those improper evictions are dwarfing the numbers that were previously known. It is a sign of larger problem. A sign that the recent settlement may be based on untruthful information. More than an ample basis for an investigation for wrongful improper statements under federal law, punishable criminally. I would like your commitment, again, to work with me and others here to work on the possibility of investigation based on those disclosures that undermine the good faith and fairness of the settlement and the governments involvement in it. I will make that commitment. When i saw that in regards to military service members, i did a take for something that is for veterans to make them aware of basic fraud that goes unreported by them. I tried to encourage them to share information of the chain of command. Also make sure there is a mechanism from the Defense Department to the Justice Department that were aware of trends they may exist along the line that you are describing. I will work with you on that. Thank you. One final area that i think that should be an interest to you, Sexual Assault in the military is prosecuted and punished under its own system and yet, it is a predatorry criminal act that, in my view, should be punished with a severety and aggressiveness that is lacking right now. As a member of the Armed Services committee, im seeking to help increase the completeness and fairness of this system to protect men and women from Sexual Assault. Sometimes the most severe Sexual Assault imaginable. You have resources, a perspective as a prosecutor, obviously, the best prosecuters and Investigative Agency and i ask for your help with your expertise and prosecution of these laws. Those are primarily the responsibility of the Defense Department. Secretary panetta focused on that and i suspect that secretary hagel will as well. If we can help in that effort we want to do all we can. I think about the young people who put their lives on the line in service to our nation, young women in particular and look at numbers that you see repeatedly year after year. That is a disturbing thing to think that you volunteered for your nation and as a result you become a victim of Sexual Assault. That is not acceptable. I want to make clear that my asking for your assistance is not to den grade the good faith and efforts of secretary hagel and the joint chiefs and all the military leadership to making this system work better. They are, in my view, thoroughly committed to that goal. Thank you. Thank you. Its been my experience that any time i call attorney general holder on any issue i was able to contact almost immediately and i appreciate that. I appreciate that you came here today, i realize were under horrible snow conditions, i think it is half an inch now. I had i head a Weather Report that for home that we had a Weather Report and snow would be gusting no more than 56 inches. In other news today, that the 56 inches would be interrupting a president ial press conference. One more question and well wrap up. This wont take seven minutes. I did run over seven minutes, like we had several people here run over three minutes. On the issue of bank progs. Im concerned that we have a mentality too big to jail spreading from fraud cases to terrorists cases and i site msnbc. That is background for this question, i dont have recollection of d. O. J. Prosecuting any high profile financial criminal convictions in either companies or individuals. Assistant attorney general brewer said that one reason why the d. O. J. Has not brought out prosecutions because it reaches out to experts to see what the prosecutions would have on the financial markets. So senator brown and i requested on details on who these socalled experts are. So far we have not received any information. Maybe youre going to but why have we not been provided the experts that the d. O. J. Consults that we requested on january 29. We need to find out why were not having these highprofiles cases. Then i have a formalup. We did not, as i understand it, retain experts outside the government in making determinationses. If we can put that aside, the concern that you have raised is one that i share. Im not that you can talking about hsbc now. Im concerned the size of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when were hit with indications that if you do prosecutor, if you bring a prosecute, if you bring a negative charge it will be have an impact on the world economy. That is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. This is a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting impact to bring resolutions that i think would be more appropriate. Ic that is something that we all need to consider. The concern that you raise is one that i share. Then do you believe that the Investment Bankers who were repackaging and selling bad mortgages were committing a criminal fraud . Or is a case of just not being aggressive and effective enough to have the information to prove that they did something fraudulent and criminal . We looked at those kind of cases and i think weve been appropriately aggressive. These are not easy cases to make. You sometimes look at these cases and you see that things were done wrong. The question is whether or not they were legal. The people in our Criminal Division and in our Attorneys Office has been as aggressive as they could be. I know in some instances that is not a satisfying answer to people but we have, as i said, as aggressive as we could have been. If you constitutionally enjail a c. E. O. A Major Corporation youre going to send a wide signal to stop active ty that people think they can get away with. Thank you very much. Youre absolutely right. The greatest turn in effect is to prosecute the individuals in the cooperation that are responsible for those decisions. We did that in the u. B. S. Matter that we brought and we try to do that when we can. The point you make is a good one. Thank you. Again, i appreciate you being here. Ill probably see you at the signing of the violence against women act. Tomorrow. We had to leave out the important Law Enforcement and i hope you work with us when we do Immigration Reform. That will complete the whole legislation. It would protect victims but it will help Law Enforcement have a better chance of prosecuting people who have shown violence against women. Mr. Chairman, thank you for you leadership on that. You were every step of the way. The fact that we could get a strong bipartisan help and i know that the senator from minnesota talked to a lot of people on the other side of the aisle. It was nice to have senators do things together and the country is better off for it. We stand in recess for it. We the public have the right to know how many civilians have been killed and where. What about secondary strikes to rescue workers. We just came back from pakistan and we met family who is lost their loved ones, 176 children killed by drone strikes . How can we say that is legal . If it is a mistake, who is going to pay for that mistake . Attorney general we have the right to get answers for this, not just the people no congress but we the public. Youre doing the drone killing out of our name. Three out of four americans killed by mistake. You admitted. Is it true that the c. I. A. \[inaudible] is there more to the new york time senator feinstein said that she was unaware. Is that legal to kill every male military aid, what happens if another country tried to do that here in the United States . The precedent that were setting that were a world of chaos. Because this hearing is over we the public finally get to Say Something. Because during the hearing we could not hold the signs above our shoulders. We need to stop justifying killing drones. Stope justifying killing drone strikes. Were making more enemies and were playing in the hands of extremists like al qaeda. This is a National Security threat and were the citizens speaking up for our National Security because our government isnt doing anything to make us secure. Hated making us more around the world, which means more attacks against us. Target of assassinations is not what this country stands for. This is an outrage against our way of life. How are they supposed to do any kind of oversight . Senator lee said he was disappointed. Why does want he issue a subpoena . The president wants transparency, who is keeping this away from the president , who is above the president . For more than a year they asked for the memos and the administration didnt give them. When they said they would hold off brennans confirmation the administration handed over the memos. Senator lee wants the memos he has to issue the subpoena. We the public need to see these memos. Why this administration, who said they would be the most transparent have not been transparent. It is more than just the memos, we want to see how they can justify how they kill americans, what about 176 children that have been killed by the drobe strikes . Are those mistakes . Will somebody be held accountable for those mistakes . Those mistakes will continue. We want to know why the c. I. A. Has the right to use lethal drones. It is not a military organization. It should not have the authority to use lethal weapons like drone. I would like to ask senator graham about killing americans, which he seems to condone. Senator graham was one of the torture component is now acomponent for drones that are killing american citizens. We have a lot to hold the Congress Accountable for. Not shutting down the government to get after these memos. There are ways to go after getting the memos. Can you go out in the holloway. We dont allow press conferences in here. Senator feinstein said after the hearing she was unaware of reports that the c. I. A. Was counting military mail as militants when they were justifying drone strikes. Six months after this was reported after the New York Times. Six months. Senator feinstein, unaware of what was reported in the New York Times on drone strikes. That is not an area of her official responsibility. We appreciate your attention. The Senate Judiciary committee will debate on a gun safety measure. He ran a filibuster on john brennan as the director of the cia. He questioned the authority to use a drone strikes against u. S. Citizens. Allow us today to filibuster John Brennans nomination for the cia. I will speak until i can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm had sounded from coast to coast. The constitution is important. The rights to trial by jury are precious but no american should be killed by drones on american soil without first being charged by a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in houston are at their home in kentucky is an abomination. It is something that should not think cannot be tolerated in our country. I do not want to oppose it simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights and the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held with that capital offense without being guided, and this is an american dream. During the 13 hour filibuster that lasted into thursday morning, met he had to stay standing on the floor of the senate. He was joined by other senators that as questions theyre up the day and night including ted kreuz, marco rubio, back to me , umpat toomey, ron johnson and minority leader mitch mcconnell. Dick durbin ask questions but did not officially speak as part of the filibuster. Here is a look at senator pauls closing remarks. Mr. President , i am hopeful that we have drawn attention to this issue. Its not fade away. That the president will tamara come up with a response. I would like nothing more than to facilitate the continuation of the debate. I hope the president will respond to us. We have tried repeatedly. We will see what the outcome of that is. I would like to thank my staff for being here for a long day. I would like to thank the centers for being supportive of this cause. I would like to thank the members of congress that came over to support this cause. The staff comedy doorkeepers, and anybody else it can support this even the senior senator from illinois for better or worse for being here to support the cause. Because here is one that i think is important enough to have gone through this procedure. I sit at henry clays desk. They called henry clay the great compromiser. When i came to washington, one of my fellow senators said to me i guess you will be the great compromiser. I smiled and laughed and learned a little bit about henry clay and his career. People think that some of us will not compromise. There are many compromises and things i am willing to split the difference on. If the democrats will ever come and say we will save Social Security, and how fast we did it, and there are a lot of things we can split the difference on. The issue is one that we do not split the difference on. I do not think you get half the fifth amendment. I do not think you get banded the fifth amendment when you choose. I do not think you can have this occur behind closed doors. While i am a fan a in a clay of kenneth klee, i am also a fan of cassius clay. His weapons of choice for his pen and billing knife. He was so good with the percy often have recourse to the latter. With the first that he often had recourse to the latter. He did not compromise often. It is worth fighting for what you believe then. I think the American People can tolerate a debate. There has been nothing mean spirited about this debate for 12 hours. More of it would be even better appeared i wish we had more open and would be even better. I wish we had were open debate. I think there is much discussion. I hope this will not to be swept under the rug and that this is not the end of this, that it is the beginning of this. I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond post a record but there are some limit to filibuster in. I will have to take web hear one of those in a minute. [laughter] i do appreciate the since. Senate. Hope there are some on the other side of the abbott can agree on these issues and use their ability region of the aisle that agree on these issues and use their ability. Theyre doing what was really in his heart. That is to say absolutely were not going to be killing americans not in a combat situation. We will obey the constitution. The fifth amendment does apply to all. Thank you very much. The signature from illinois. Expressions of approval or disapproval are not submitted in the senate. On thursday, a number of signatures responded to the filibuster including john mccain. Here is a quick look. We should not have any doubts that there are people inside and out of its few are members of terrorist organizations that want to repeat 9 11. They got there has not been in a repeat feared most was say theres been a certain elements of luck a smaller. It is an element of lot such as they, and others that have prevented a devastating attack on the United States. To somehow alleged or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like jane fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination which is frankly ridiculous. It is ridiculous. I do not disagree that we need more debate and discussion and probably more legislation. To make sure that america does protect the rights of all of our citizens, to make sure at the same that if someone is an enemy combat and hasy nowhere to hide. Not in a cafe. Not anywhere. To say that somehow that even though we would try to take that person, to say that we would hit them in a cafe with a hellfire missile, there are no drones with hellfire missiles anywhere near. Their places like yemen and afghanistan and other places in the world. I think we have done a disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow they are in danger from their government. They are not. We are in danger from a long standing, and easily replaceable leadership enemy that is bent on our destruction. This leads us that having to do things that perhaps we have not had to do in other more conventional wars. I do not believe on where a lofty on where a lot he should have been protected anywhere in the world. That is not mean they will take him out with a hellfire missile. It means we use our best intelligence to apprehend and to debrief these people so we can gain the necessary intelligence to bring them all to justice. All i can say is that i do not think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American People. We need a discussion about exactly how we are going to address this new form of warfare. It is very different from anything we have ever faced in the past. Somehow to allege that the United States of america, our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on jane fonda that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about u. S. Policy to the realm of the ridiculous. On thursday, eric holder sent a letter to senator paul saying later senator paul responded saying we can not look back years from now and wonder why we did that thing in the face of a real threat to our security. That is why earlier today i signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by developing standards to protect our National Security, our jobs, and our privacy. There are some things that clearly need to be done with an executive order. Some things could only be done with legislation. I wish the president had put as much efforts into getting some legislation passed and then come out with the executive order rather than the other way around. It has been around for a long time. We finished talking about it. Were wondering what is going to happen. It has been happening every single day. They are destroying our intellectual property. People are very casual about it. We are not. We cannot afford to be. A look at the Cyber Security executive order was to deter Jay Rockefeller monday night on the communicators at 8 00 eastern on cspan2. Now centers announce a proposal to prevent gun violence. It will strengthen background checks and limit access to firearms based on mental illness. This is about 25 minutes. Whats everybody ready on the right and left . As to my dinner plans will talk about that later. I want to focus on this important topic. We are trying to fix a problem that most americans would be astonished exists. To people in the charleston area, have heard your voices. Let me tell you the problem we are trying to fix. Alice is a young lady who, in 19 2005, threatened to kill the president. She came across the border into the United States. An investigation was done about the threats she may. I will not read the threats because some of them are pretty tough. It resulted from being indicted for making threats against the president. And psychiatric evaluation was ordered. Any psychotic drugs were administered to make sure she was competent to stand trial. She went to an evaluation facility. She was found legally insane. In federal court, she pled not guilty by reason of insanity and was ordered to undergo commitment proceedings for long term care, which she received. Is formative fast forward to 2013. She previously pledged not guilty by reason of insanity for but it killed the president of the United States. She was admitted to a Mental Health treatment since the pedestrian and facility. She went to South Carolina in she was admitted to a Mental Health facility. She went to South Carolina and legally purchase a firearm. According to aft authorities in South Carolina, there was nothing illegal about her entries. She was sold a pistol. She went to gasohol, a private school in South Carolina, ashley called in South Carolina, a private school. She tried to kill soft staff members, but the gun did not fire. She legally bought a fire arm after having been in federal court and found to be dangerous to herself and others. Past a background check. What have we learned . Our Current System has major gaps. This Bipartisan Legislation. I want to thank senator begich for helping fix this major flaw in the system. We have legislation that will make sure that people who find themselves in this legal category of having gone to a federal court and pledge not guilty by reason of insanity and having been judged by a federal court to be dangerous to themselves and others would no longer be able to legally pass a background check. Here is a lot of emotion around the gun violence issue. I am hopeful this is one area where we can find tremendous bipartisan support to fix a keeping that in our law. To the people of charleston, South Carolina, i thank god every day that the gun did not discharge. I will make sure this mistake is sticks. There is an effort that the state level to record all adjudications in finding someone mentally incompetent and injuring that data into the federal system so that people in that category in South Carolina at the state level cannot buy a gun. There are 14,000 to fall in that category. With that, i will turn this over to senator said its who co authored senator bank which begich, who coauthored this legislation. Thank you, senator graham, for working with me on this. I was pleased to help negotiate the part of the bill to strengthen the background check system. Clearly, the system as defined in detail here has many holes in it. Dangerous people can fall through the cracks because the background check system lacks a clear definition of mentally incompetent. By creating a clear definition, this bill will help prevent individuals with Dangerous Health with the Health Issues from buying a gun. This is an important step forward. The bill will strengthen the rights of people with Mental Health illnesses. It provides a specific the physician of mentally incompetent. That only includes individuals involuntarily committed to treatment. It changes outdated and office of terms such as mentally defective. Outdated and 0 cents if offensive such as mentally defective. This bill is in step in the right direction. I like to thank the nra and the National Alliance of Mental Illnesses for their help in this effort. We worked closely with both moves to make sure we had a bill that made sense and could be implemented. It is an honor to be here. I want to echo what senator graham said. This is a bill that have strong bipartisan support from. Members of the senate. As we go on in this debate, hopefully this is a bill that can move forward and pass the senate and the house and move on. The language seems to be fixed and this is one way to do it. It will protect those experiencing Mental Illnesses. I will turn it over to senator flake. I appreciate the opportunity to come out in support of this legislation. In arizona, Gabby Giffords and mark kelly came to talk about some of the problems with the background check system. There are more than 120,000 mentalhealth records that have been adjudicated that the state level. Those are not part of the nics system. There is this piece of legislation and other things we can do that will allow individuals authorities to determine who is incapable and should not be in a position to get a weapon. I appreciate the time that has gone into this, particularly by the primary sponsors. Thank you, jeff. After the shootings in connecticut, i spent a lot of time with people in arkansas asking them about gun issues. We certainly have people call in and say, you need to do something. Also, one of the things we recognize in our state is the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are lawabiding citizens. They are completely responsible gun owners. They have those guns for various reasons. Here it is something that people so it is part of our discussions as we reach out to prosecutors, local police, and we talk to a gun store owners, many, many gun owners in the state of arkansas. One of the things we keep hearing is, mets enforce the laws we have on the books. We are taking an existing law an increase in the integrity of the data base of the background check as it currently exists. People say that the laws we have on the books can be improved, that the system can be improved, and that there are holes, gaps. Here and from around the nation. Trying to improve something that we do have on the books that we think will work and be effective and will keep guns of the hands of many, many people who should not have a gun, so on what to thank my colleagues, all three of them, in the senate today. One of the things i love about this effort is it is bipartisan, and if we are going to get things done in washington, we have to do it in a bipartisan way. It needs to be done in a bipartisan way. So thank you. Any questions about this . Senator, what are the agencies that are responsible for reporting the information in the database . Well, the regulations, it does not pick up a guilty by reason of insanity finding, and this happens in the federal system. We would change it so that the objective is that after you have had a Competent Court find that you are a danger to yourself and others, to capture that, there is due process and all of these systems, but in this case, pleading not guilty by reason of insanity of trying to kill the president does not disqualify you. Nine out of nine americans will say that is a mistake that needs to be fixed. I do not know how many state adjudications there are in the United States where people have been found by a Competent Court to be a danger to themselves and others that are not in the federal system for background check purposes. I think there are 14,000 in itself carolina. They are trying to fix that by requiring the state Law Enforcement division to take all of these adjudications and put them in the federal system. I would urge every state to do that. Just as jeff has said. We have had thousands of people out there who have had their day in different courts, found to be dangerous to themselves and others that the system does not know about. I think this is one area we should be able to rally around. Senator, under the current law, she would be allowed to go to a gun show, right . This would not change it. Are you still ok with leading those holes in place . The situation of regulating private sales. One thing i am not going to support is if i bought a shotgun and give it to a family member, putting that into the federal system, that is not practical. I think there is some work being done with senator coburn about somebody taking public firearms, whether or not they should go through the background check purpose. I think that is a work in progress. But i would just add this one thing. In 2010, 70,000 people failed a background check, and there were only about 62 prosecutions. 19 of those who failed the background check in 2010, over 13,000 were fugitives from justice. Not any of them were picked up. Clearly, we have got a long ways to go in improving the system. One, if you are dumb enough to go buy a gun when you are on lamb, we need to catch you. A fugitive from justice goes in to buy a gun, fills out the form, and they pop up in the system as being a fugitive from justice, and nothing ever happens to them, i think that is a good place to start. Oh limit of what you would support with background checks . I will just speak for myself. Anything that tom coburn thinks is a good idea, i will certainly look at closely. If they can ever reach a bipartisan agreement on the background checks, i would be open to looking to that, but i will say this. As my colleagues have said. We have a background check system that really does not prove any deterrent. It is against the law to fill these forms out, and they are not confusing, to fill the forms out, and if you break the law, nothing ever happens to you. Expanding the number of people we do not do anything with is not a deterrent. If i can add another part to that. This is a piece of the puzzle that we can get fairly strong bipartisan support of. We do not want to be caught up and all of the other issues, but lets try to make some difference. I can tell you as a former mayor, we went after some of these. People who are crazy enough to go buy a gun when they are a fugitive or a felon, as a former mayor, what we had to deal with was felons that had guns. We hired two city prosecutors. We worked with the Attorneys Office. And i tell you what happened drilquip. Once there is someone on a gun case, in a federal court, it is five years. So in the street when they found out we were putting people away for five years, it circulated very quickly on the street. It is a very tight community out there. When you look at where these gun offenses occurred. A sizable amount are related to drugs, those types of activities. So we entered in a very fast pace. What we are trying to do here is recognize there is an inconsistent language, as proven with the case that the senator just talked about. We want to clear it up, plain and simple, and also, the system actually references this type of case. At the same time, being very careful that we do not stigmatize those with mental illness. If the legally disabled, if it no longer applies, this is part of due process and back in legal rights. It is confusing. My point is you are always quite to have a lot of issues on the table, but we have got one that we think psalms a significant problem with bipartisan support, and it has a great chance of moving forward through the system. Just to make a point, if there is any item in this whole debate that can make a difference, a real difference, i think this is it. In other words, to make sure that we strengthen the background checks to include those who are not mentally able, should not have guns in this way. When you think about it, if you are a criminal, to get a gun, you typically have criminal networks where you may not be able to get it at a gun show or somewhere else. Through the back road system, you are not going to be caught anyway. But in the case of people with Mental Health issues, often, they are loners and people without these networks. It may delay them long enough where there might be some type of intervention or something that can stop them from the path they are on. And i think when you look at this case of one man, this would have applied. If you want to make a real difference, here is where you can make a real difference. Two more questions. Very often, the issue of Mental Health comes up as far as guns are concerned, you often have veterans groups that bring up the issue of ptsd and being treated for ptsd recently or in the past. How does this law address that . This log captures decisions by courts that have found someone to be a danger to themselves or others. In this case, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was lost in the system. People with Mental Health problems need to have due process. We are not willing to take your Second Amendment rights away because someone said something bad about you down the street, somebody saying something bad about your Mental Health. You had an episode in the military where you are receiving treatment. I think there needs to be a mechanism as to whether or not we can determine in a rational way that disability renders you and say to yourself and others, so this is a difficult balance. What we are trying to do is capture Court Decisions. There are over 14,000 people in South Carolina that have been adjudicated a danger to themselves or others and who are not in the system. That is what we are trying to fix, and your example, we just have to be careful. Again, that part i just mentioned is very critical. This no longer applies when someone has recovered from mental illness. The other part is, it just to make sure it is clear, what it used to be is adjudicated as a mental defect. Now, it is adjudicated incompetent. It is an important distinction. We want that distinction to be correctly done. Senator, this week, looking to improve the existing law, is that something you can support . I understand many people are trying to look to find something bipartisan. Yes. Punishing people who go out and purchase a gun it is already illegal. We are just trying to tighten up the law. I would be willing to look. If they work on it, there is a pretty good chance that this will happen. The three of you. I am curious where you guys are. I will not have a chance to vote on it until it goes through the process. Like i said, i think we ought to enforce the law we have on the books, and you take that general approach, there are things like cleaning up databases, things like that that are already there. I am like senator lindsey graham. I like seeing what the Judiciary Committee comes up with. I would hope it would be bipartisan. I am not opposed to the assault weapons ban of dianne feinstein. We will look at things as they are presented. I think right now, from my standpoint, because i am not on the committee, it is still early in the process. I know you have a lot of senators working very hard to get something through the committee. Can you talk a little bit about dinner . [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] we are going to try to. Please. Senator, can you go back to the podium . Please . Yes, that will make it harder for me. I want to give you one quick statement about the dinner that was supposed to be quiet, and everybody knew about it. Just ask yourself this. You have been in this business a while, most of you. Ronald reagan or bill clinton, i think you would have a hard time. The factor is a lot of interest in a dinner between the president and a handful of republicans is a pretty good statement as to where we are as a nation. I am not blaming anybody. 16 trillion in debt, it will take both parties to get out. The president called senator mccain and myself. I see the president reaching out. Everybody wants to be dr. Phil about what he is doing. I am assuming the president wants to talk seriously about the issues of the day, and if he just wants to have a downturn a dinner to get to know each other better, that is fine with me. How do you say no to the president of the United States who wants to have dinner with you and some colleagues . You cannot. Anyone who would say no would be wrong. I willingly and was honored to try to do that. Where this goes, i do not know. I do believe that the president has been getting off the campaign trail, back into the normal way of doing business, talking to each other. I cannot think of any major accomplishment in america or the private or Public Sector where no one ever talked to each other, so i want to compliment the president for reaching out. I think he is doing the right thing. We need to stop campaigning. The election is over, but i do know where this is going. If we do not fix entitlements, all of the money, Social Security and medicare, they are going to collapse. I have publicly said i am willing to do more revenue if we can get the entitlement curve. I am just speaking for myself. There are other senators who will be giving their views to the president tonight. They will try to talk sense into him, and he will try to talk sense into us. I am encouraged by the president s outreach. I hope it bears fruit, but i notice. If we never talk to each other, i know exactly what will happen. This country is going to fail. A look at congress this week. The house returns at noon eastern on tuesday. On the agenda, a bill that prevents the health and Human Services department. Welfare recipients. Also, a measure aimed at streamlining federal training and programs. Once the house live on cspan. The Senate Returns live monday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern would vote scheduled at 5 00 on two issues. Later, the funding the government for the rest of the year. The current budget runs out march 27. The house has already passed the resolution. Follow this on cspan2, and president obama will make several trips this week to the hill. Tuesday, he meets with democrats, wednesday, House Republicans, and then thursday, first with House Republicans and then later with house democrats. Last week, the Senate Judiciary committee passed a bill tightening rules on Drug Trafficking. It would toughen things for those who cannot legally own them. The Committee Also began debate on an assault weapons ban bill offered by californias dianne feinstein. This is about one hour, 40 minutes. Good morning. ,e have, lets see, one, two three, four, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Senators, we can get going. First off, i want to thank senator paul for having a filibuster which kept everybody still in town so we can have a quorum to talk about guns. We take ancillary benefits wherever they come from. Last week, we all have the opportunity to talk about legislation before the Committee Regarding gun violence in america. We gave our speeches, hoping we make significant progress. Earlier this week, i was joined by senator collins,