tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 14, 2016 2:07am-4:40am EST
security picture northeast asia. this is about one hour and 45 minutes. >> on the evening of january six, north north korea likely conducted its fourth nuclear weapons test. north korean leader kim john you the test was a read active hydrogen bomb. most experts are skeptical giving the seismic evidence, is nonetheless incredibly concerning. we can be mishearing today not only to join the international community in condemning the test but to work to find a feasible, lasting solution to a dress than north korean nuclear threat. for many in the united states, if we think of north korea it is
usually the butt of a joke, the reference of american movies. they cite north korea as a top threat, north korea seems to have an off the obama administration radar. instead, they have dismissed the imminent threat by employing its so-called strategy of patients, our allies in the region, it means so much more. it should for the united states as well. history has proven that north korea has every intention to continue advancing its nuclear program. in an effort to strengthen both domestic and international position the united states has shown a willingness to negotiate with north korea if it simply is willing to take steps towards
the nuclear is 8 inches north korean has shown no interest in doing so. it has successfully extracted food assistance and other foreign assistance from us by threatening nuclear activity. this is an unacceptable cycle that cannot continue. due to north korea's nuclear threat in proximity to our allies, south south korea and japan, our response options are limited. they largely fall into two categories. sanctions and information flow. some argue for united nations sanctions but others say that would exert little pressure on north korea. largely largely due to china's lack of enforcement. some speak of north korea as the most heavily sanctioned state in the world, but that is simply not the case. for example, iran is subject to sanctions under 18 u.s. orders and north korea subject to six. i applaud sherman royce for his
work on north korean sanctioned legislation which passed the house yesterday. i'm proud to vote for that i think it is a good start, i think there's much more to be done. that is why we're here today. china's relationship with north korea continues to be a problem. china favors north korea status quo over the do mine the kim regime. which could mean a unified united states ally korea as it neighbor and a sizable flood of refugees crossing the border. these vested interests are why china continues to prop up the state with food, oil, and assistance. i am deeply disappointed that china continues to allow north korea to destabilize the region in this manner. china must tighten sanctions and really enforce the sanctions that are in place, and apply only what they can provide.
while it brings the attention to north korean leadership we must remember there are 24 million people living in this closed off state, start the basic necessities. furthermore. furthermore, citizens are brainwashed into believing their leadership is actually helping them. the north korea human rights act of 2004 initiated radio broadcasting to provide basic knowledge of the outside world to the people of north korea. twelve years have passed in technological advancement have been made and our policy should reflect that reality. i intend to introduce legislation that would update this program to provide greater, more useful information to inform and empower their citizens. in 2006, north korea was removed from the state sponsor of terrorism list in an attempt to bring it to the negotiation table and openly halt the nuclear program. congress has debated this issue and many members believe it should be put back on the list.
count me in that category. given those cyber attacks on south korean ships, north korea's alleged tied to hamas, hezbollah, and iran, this fourth test perhaps they should be placed back on the list. the leaders of north korea as well as chama should understand that any provocation should induce a response to alter north korea's ways. there is calamity across the globe blurring our focus but the obama administration has employed strategic patience comes at our peril. let's be done with strategic patience, it is time for strategic clarity. we must be proactive in our efforts and i look forward to this important discussion and any recommendation, this distinguished panel can offer. members present will be permitted to summit written statement to be included in the
official hearing record. without objection, the hearing record will remain open for five calendar days to allow statements, questions, and materials for the record subject to limitations of the roles. i would like to turn the time over to the ranking member for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you. north korea probably tested a hydrogen boosted device, one that made use of hydrolyzed isotopes but cannot get get its power from the fusion of hydrogen atoms. that being said, it is perhaps half a decade or a decade before north korea tested a genuine thermal nuclear weapon. i'm sure our witnesses will be able to clarify and give us a more precise estimate. we have, throughout the century, which is now in the 16th year, had a policy which has completely failed us as foreign policy.
but, has achieved what some would argue is the guiding force behind foreign-policy, which is meeting domestic political concerns. we have not, neither the last administration of this administration, has has slowed down north korea's nuclear program for any significant time. continuing this policy will be repeating what we have done but only in a louder voice, it is not going to yield different results. but our policy has allowed us, for various times to see tough and we have avoided defending wall street. these are important domestic political objectives which have been fully achieved. so, if viewed from the standpoint of being popular domestically, our policy is success.
if we want to protect our world from north korean nuclear weapons, it has been a complete failure. in terms of what we could do if something tough was not important, we could make it clear to china that if there was a unified korea, american forces would not be north of the 38 parallel and might even be further south, there would be less reason for them to be there. we do not have any military forces defending any other china neighbor from china. our troops in south korea are there to defend south korea from north korea. we could offer north korea a package of aid, that has been done before but a nonaggression pact that they had asked for and we refuse to provide. because dick cheney imagined invasion. or at least did not want to give up that opportunity sometime in
the future. but the most important thing we need to do, and the thing we are least likely to do, is to make it clear to china that their access to u.s. markets depends upon them getting tough with north korea. wall street would be aghast if we actually did it, so we won't. we are likely to continue this current circumstance, china is in deed miffed by what north korea has done but is unwilling to change its policy. of course china has been miffed by north korea many times in the past. china will not change its policy unless the reality changes. the current reality is they haven't free access to u.s. markets and that won't be changed if they choose to continue the policy that they have continued throughout the century.
that is to subsidize north korea. so, if we want a policy that doesn't meet political domestic political objectives, just maximizes north korea, it it would be a matter of nonaggression pact, 38 parallel, and the threat of tariffs on chinese goods if china continues. while always questioning it but he continues a policy of subsidizing north korea. so my guess is it will simply continue to pull our hair out, and worry about north korea, and talk tough, do nothing that
offends wall street, and, and if you keep doing the same thing for now a 16-year-old century and expect a different results, that is the definition of insanity. the final thing i will will ask our witnesses to comment on is whether we would actually get somewhere if we agree that north korea could have a very limited number of atomic but not thermonuclear weapons. or is there a real prospect of getting them to be a nuclear free state? i yield back. >> i just want to comment for the ranking member that i think that many of the issues you have raised are thought-provoking and reasonable. i would like to extend a hand across the partisan divide to work with you in any way, shape, or form but not just below her hair out but get some results. if that offends some folks, some special interest, then so be it. i think the more important goal
is to have success. i think all of the world expects success and so i just want to say that i think you have raised some legitimate issues that need to be explored and i intend to work with you to do that. >> i look forward to it. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing at a very significant moment. our relations with both korea's go back a long way and i have a long memory. i still remember sitting right here in this room when the clinton administration was proposing to us that we cut a deal basically with north korea. that that we would be providing them food and fuel for an agreement not to do what they apparently have been doing.
which is we will call it a hydrogen booster device or a hydrogen nuclear weapon, the fact fact is they obviously have been spending their money on developing ways of that mass murdering other people while we have been providing them the money for their food and fuel. to say that that is absolutely unacceptable is to put it mildly. at that time i indicated, and several other republicans i might add, and, and a couple of other democrats as well i might add, pointed out that that is what would happen. here it has, surprise, surprise. they have surprise. they have used their resources to develop weapons of mass destruction, we had subsidize them in using our money to provide them with food and fuel. which they should be coming out of their hydrogen boosting device budget.
let me just suggest that this nuclear explosion and they continued the obvious continued work that north korea is doing a nuclear military devices, that should at least put us into a mindset that we have to do something different than what we have been doing. let me note that presidents of japan has made it very clear that there are threats to the pacific and i would applaud the president of japan for reaching out to south korea at this moment. the president of japan has gone the extra mile to address sensitivities in south korea that are left over from world war ii. he needs to be applauded for that, he also needs to be encouraged to rebuild japan's
military strength so they can work with the united states of america in preserving the peace in that part of the world, instead of having the united states carry the entire load on our own. with that said, i would finish by saying the other factor is, which the german mentioned is china. just as it was obvious that the north korean regime is corrupt and belligerence, and as we pulse of his that is they be using their money to use weapons while we provide enough food and fuel, it is just as evident that they have a relationship with beijing that puts a beijing into a position of influence in north korea if not dominance of north korea. so, let us again, to the point
that we applied the president of japan and policies that are going to ultimately bring more stability to that part of the world, let us condemn beijing for not using it influence in a way that would bring more influence and peace to that region. we need to work together on this , mr. chairman thank you for calling this hearing. i look forward to hearing more specifics and information for the witnesses that will help us develop our policy, now as we start into this new era. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from california. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for that time for this hearing. a few weeks ago i had a chance to visit the republic of korea. visit with our troops and spend a few days run christmas with our troops, also visiting with the korean secretary. i also had a chance to go to the demilitarized zone and chat with our troops, see the republic of
korea troops. the demilitarized zone is an oxymoron. this is the most heavily militarized stones in the world. it is a constant reminder that we are in a cease-fire, we are not in a state of peace. listening to the remarks of my colleagues i think it is important to learn from what we cite in the past but the conundrum is north korea is not easy. it will require partnership with the country in that region. in many cases, we all land at the same place. china really does have to take a leadership role here. china is the one country that does have some leverage with north korea but it will take a partnership between the chinese government, the russians, japan, are korean allies, along with u.s. leadership in order to address this. it is in all of our interest to de-escalate tensions, to try to
bring north korea into the 21st century and the other goal i think that many koreans have seen reunification, it is not going to be easy. it will take world leadership, it will take the nations along with the united states and the region working together but it can be done if we put our minds to it. we have to, there is an urgency of now as indicated by the recent north korean nuclear tests. it is complicated and the president talked about the threats that we face in the middle east. those are not threats to our very existence as a nation. north korea, with a hydrogen bomb, with a ballistic missile and other capabilities are a threat to world stability. we have got to direct this, there is an urgency of now
mr. chairman i'll look for for to working with you to navigate this path forward. it's incredibly important. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this important hearing. there is no question the world has had a problem for a long time with respect to north korea , particularly their leadership with the grandfather, the the father, or the sun now. they are our all equally as crazy. particularly the newest one. their own people continue to suffer and starve, they are most politically isolated country on the globe. despite that, they continue to have absolute contempt for most of the rest of the world including their neighbors.
with this force in the last number of years in the nuclear test that we have reason to believe that it is hydrogen, although it has not been confirmed necessarily a, nonetheless it is terribly disturbing. i think every administration from the clinton administration to the bush and missed station, to the obama administration has failed with respect to north korea. it is most unfortunate. now, with the increasing sophistication of their missile systems, the united states is at risk as well. two countries that are even more at risk are obviously south korea and japan. as my colleague, mr. roberg indicated, china is the key here. china is the only one who has any real influence over north korea. the only thing that is going to get china's attention is that if those two countries, japan and south korea, seriously consider nuclear programs of their own. that is the only thing that is going to get china's attention. that is the last thing china
wants. so i would urge those two countries to think seriously about this. i'm not encouraging them to do it, but even thinking about it and discussing it i think we'll get china's attention. maybe china will finally act with the pressure on north korea and get them to back off this insanity of one of the poorest countries of the world spending their money on nuclear weaponry to thread the world rest of the world. i yelled back. >> i think you gentlemen. is there anyone else who seeks recognition on the panel. >> thank you mr. chair for holding this hearing. i find it interesting. i think the focus of what you have heard a lot is china. what are we going to do to deal with china in terms of the pressure that china has. to me
there a couple of questions i would like to understand. before we get into what we have to do to pressure china or do anything else, that is, what does china want? where is china? china? not because of our pressure. i have seen, over the past year or so some articles, especially in the new york times about chinese officials, former military officials, retired, talking about the unsustainability of the kim regime. there is a real concern in china about instability in north korea. i would like to hear that discussion. there's going there's going to be pressure from the bottom up. people cannot live under those conditions. the chinese know this, the chinese know and there are real worries about the chinese and about what that instability will lead to in terms of them. so that that leads me to my third point, that is, when we talk
about china, it's not getting china involved, china is very involved with the consequences. it may have its own agenda about what it wants to do this. the question is, besides pressure on china, and we have heard a lot, i'm nothing that's not potential, what are the ways a partnership with china? what what you see is opportunity at this point? thank you very much. i yelled back. >> thank you. that was very insightful thoughts and questions. if there are no other opening statements then i'm going to move to the panel. first of all introducing three great experts honest icy issue. first is doctor victor, senior advisor at the -- mr. bruce, senior research fellow for northeast asia at the heritage foundation. and ms. bonnie glaser, who is a
senior advisor for asia at the department of china power project. we are thrilled have you here today. thank you from making the time available. first i will introduce doctor cha. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee, it really is an honor to speak to you today about a very difficult topic and that is north korea. you mentioned urgency, i think there's a great deal of urgency. there are elements of deterrence and crisis instability that drive from north korea's nuclear weapon status that i do not think the north koreans fully comprehend. it can also be the case that the north korean leader, this young north korean leader views nuclear weapons as usable weapons rather than strategic
elements of deterrence. valuable only in their nonuse. so the urgency is that the result could be a disaster at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, at which point the world is going to wonder why the united states did nothing to stop it before it was too late. so what have we done? in the demonstrations own words, strategic patients had to objectives. the first was to break the cycle a provocation for negotiation that was a flaw past administration policy. second, the concept was that this idea of pressure non-dialogue would eventually cause the north koreans to feel compelled to come back to negotiations genuinely willing to cut a deal. when this did not work, the, the administration to try to reach out and engage him about all of these offers have been spurned by the regime. we are in the worst of all worlds right now. there is there is no diplomacy, there's more test, a
growing program, a new cycle a provocation, we have had for nuclear test, three during the obama administration, to before the present state of the union speech. at the rate we are going, this issue is going to get punted to the next administration and it is going to get exponentially worse problem. so a new approach to north korea has got to focus on what bob and i described in the new york times as asymmetric pressure points. and mike spears, being involved in the negotiation and previous administration there are only two times where i felt the north koreans were truly caught off guard. uncertain of how to respond. the first of these was in september 2005, the treasury department took actions that led to the freezing of north korean assets. that was at a bank in china. the second was in february 2014, the aftermath of the united nations commission of inquiry report in which the major recommendation was referral of
the north korean leadership for crimes against humanity. these were the only two times that he really felt the north koreans were frazzled. i think a new strategy has to build on these pressure points. let me just highlight a couple of these. first the sanctions. i know bruce i know bruce will talk about this as well. as a chairman said, it is a policy that north korea is the most ancient country in the world. the chairman cited some statistics about how the sanctioning against iran is higher than that against north korea. secondary sanctioning should also be given positive consideration. i know this has been talked about in policy circles with significant escalation. this will sternly complicate our relation with china, the european union, the european union, southeast asia, south america, and africa. but it is also certain that many of these entities will comply when given the choice of dealing with north korea or losing access to the u.s. financials.
we should also give serious consideration as the chairman said to put a north korea back on the states terrorism list. i know there'll be lawyers who will dispute this, here i would only urge that particular attention be given to north korea cyber capability. we did research at csi s that shows the activity, the cyber activity are instigated by the same agencies, entities within the north korean government that have been responsible in the past for terrorist acts. human rights have to complement sanction as an asymmetric strategy. one target would be north korean slave labor. there are over 50000 after workers in africa, china, and other places that are in subhuman conditions. the money is all going back to north korea. it estimates up to 2 billion in
our currency. another useful asymmetric pressure point is the case on industrial complex. this project provides 90 million and hard with little wages going back to the factory workers. the south korean korean government will be opposed to something like this because even conservative governments have grown attached to the industrial complex. difficult times call for difficult measures. lastly, on information, north korea is hypersensitive to external criticism. with renewal of the north korean human rights act, i entirely agree with the chairman of the idea of trying to increase funding i basically think about new ways of bringing information into the country. some of the work that we have done with the bush institute has shown that the united states and south korea can come up with a competent strategy for breaking
down north korean information barriers. in the end, we need to improve the human condition of the people in north korea. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking members and other distinguished members of the panel. it truly is an honor to be asked to appear before you on such an important issue to our national security. north korea's recent nuclear test has triggered widespread calls to do something tougher on north korea. we have been here many times before, and each time administration claims of talking tough action at face value, he pledges to pledges to be even tougher the next time, and interest is eventually diverted elsewhere. more effective action action was also hindered by several widely accepted myths about north korean sections. the first myth is that sanction cannot affect an isolated country like north korea. targeted financial measures which are a law-enforcement mechanism are directed against specific entities that violate u.s. laws. even the most isolated regime,
criminal organization, terrorist group is tied into the global financial order. the vast majority of all international financial transaction, including those of north korea are denominated in dollars. that means they must go through u.s. treasury department regulated bank in the united states. that gives the united states tremendous power and leverage to freeze and sees assets, to impose fines such as a $9 billion fine imposed on the french bank for improper financial transactions with the cuba, iran and sudan. also to deny access to the u.s. financial system. as you already pointed out, second myth is that north korea is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. president obama claims that north korea is the most isolated, the most sanctioned, the most cut off nation honors. that is simply not true. the u.s., view. union poses far more in vases
against iran then korea. unilaterally the united united states has targeted far fewer north korean than the balkans, iran, and zimbabwe. the u.s. has entered twice ancient twice as many zimbabwean entities the north korean entities. we have also designated iran primary laundering concern but not north korea which is counterfeiting our currency. the u.s. sanctioned officials from burma, brenda, congo, iraq, sudan, and zimbabwe from human rights violation and sanctioned by name but not yet sanctioned a single north korean entity. human rights violation. that was nearly two years after the un commission report said that the regime was conducting such egregious human rights violations. the u.s. has also present the assets of sudan, iranian and iranian and syrian, but not north korea. officials in entities were
centris it. the list goes on and on, i have included other examples of my written testimony. a third method is that there is nothing more the u.s. can impose on north korea. after he left office, former assistant secretary of state kurt campbell commented that it would be possible for us to put more financial pressure north korea. we can make life much more difficult through financial sanctions in north korea. he was also also pointed out that he is a pricing government to find out there is about ten times as many sanctions on burma as there was a north korea. president obama, secretary of state john carey, and other officials have made similar statements indicating their other measures the u.s. could impose but have not. a a fourth myth is that sanctions don't work. as already pointed out, tougher measures were effective when apply. in 2002, the u.s. designated a bank as of monday laundering concern for facilitating north korean illicit activities. as a result the washington enforce it laws as well as a
series of meetings by u.s. officials throughout asia, two dozen financial institutions voluntarily cut back or terminated their business with north korea. north korean negotiator admitted to a senior white house official, you finally found a way to hurt us. instead, what the u.s. should be doing is implementing the iran model against north korea. just a strong international measures brought iran back to the negotiating table, more measures are needed for north korea. while implementing more sanctions is important, fully implementing and enforcing already existing, far-reaching measures is also critical. the is also critical. the u.s. has the tools, we just locked the resolve to fully use them. for years, the obama administration has been hitting the snooze bar on sanctions. it has pursued up policy by
holding some sanctions in advance to be rolled out after the next north korean violation, or provocation. the u.s. instead needs to sharpen the choices of north korea by raising the risk and cost for those of violating laws and un resolutions. not only north korean but those that facilitate its action. in my written testimony, i have testimony, i have provided a lengthy list, very specific recommendations for u.s. and south korean actions that should be implemented against north korea. neither sanctions nor diplomacy alone is a panacea. both are essential essential and along with fully funding u.s. defense requirements should be mutually reinforcing elements of the strategy. i will conclude conclude my presentation with the same question i posed to this committee two years ago. why has the united states hesitated to impose the same legal measures against north korea that it has already used against other countries for far less egregious violations of u.s. and international law? thank you again for the privilege of appearing before you. >> thank you. >> chairman and distinguish
members of the subcommittee, i am honored to have the opportunity to testify today and this very important issue. so many of you have already pointed out cooperation from china, north korea's main benefactor is essential to achieve a nuclear free peninsula. china is north korea's biggest trading partner and accounts for 90% of the global trade, provides at least 70% of north korea's crude oil requirements. some 80% of its consumer goods, approximately 45% of its food, and china's investment accounts for almost 95% of foreign direct investment in north korea. the u.s. should not expect beijing to completely abandon its ally and forge a common strategy with washington to squeeze north korea until it gives up its nuclear weapons or collapses. it may be possible to persuade china to strictly comply with
its existing international commitment to further tighten sanctions on north korea and to reduce it support or make continued support contingent on specific actions to return to its denuclearization plans. the u.s. must have a high priority to north korea especially in summit meetings between presidents. cooperation on north korea should be identified as a litmus test of the proposition that the united states and china can work together where their interests overlap. the u.s. should then take the following steps. first the u.s. should call out china for its failure to enforce existing un sanctions. north korea has deep networks with chinese companies and uses these relationships to procure prohibited items from all over the world, brought in them through china before onward shipment to north korea.
designated north korea entities continue to do business with chinese companies and visit chinese ports. north koreans are still able to conduct ranking in small banks operate in northeast china like the border. china does not enforce the ban on luxury goods. second, the u.s. should press beijing to agree to the north korean entities in new un security resolutions. third, the u.s. should encourage you beijing to use its leverage over north korea and targeted ways to pressure for change and its behavior. china could refuse to engage in new economic projects with north korea until the government returns to negotiations in good faith. patient could reduce the flow of chinese tourists to north korea which has become a significant source of foreign exchange. fourth, the united states should encourage china to leverage its assistance to north korea to
influence its behavior. so to deter north korea's long-range missile launches, china could agree to warm north korea that further provocations could result in a cut back in a period they could also insist that they return to the commitment for the six party talks or face substantial decrease in of deliveries. fifth the u.s. should press china to not obstruct discussions and un bodies of human rights abuses in north korea, and my colleague has already underscored that north korea's sensitivity to this issue. securing cooperation from china to increase pressure on north korea may be more feasible than in the past. the north korean leader is decisive and bold and has a clear vision of -- china hasn't
barged on a network to end the relationship between beijing and replace it with a normal state to state relationship. widely viewed as the most powerful leader, chinese and have efficient power to resist a tougher stance against north korea especially in the part of the military. beijing is not prepared to assume sole responsibility for addressing north korean nuclear threat. china might be willing to do more along the lines that i have outlined if it believed that the u.s. has an effective strategy, is prioritizing the goal of creating a non- nuclear korean peninsula and does not seek to use the korean peninsula to harm chinese interests. what does chinese want? a balance of power in northeast asia that is favorable to chinese interests. it's really does does not threaten chinese
interest. i believe china does not adamantly oppose korean unification, but the known burdens and dangers of the status quo today are less risky for china and the uncertainty that unification may bring for chinese interests. i i look for to the discussion. thank you again. >> thank you. i would like to thank the distinguished panel, members very much for making the time to be here today. it is kind of unnerving when seth rogen is more reaction out of the north koreans that are american policies do. he certainly hit a nerve when he put that movie out, a lot more than any of the blustering that has been coming out of washington d.c. it has been a conundrum as pointed out by my colleague david, that is not new. it is not an issue that was resolved at one time and has been degraded, it has never been
resolved. every time i have spoken with any expert about how to get north korea to start living with accepted international boards, especially when it comes to proliferation, every one of those conversations always involve china because they are the 800-pound gorilla when it comes to dealing with north korea because of north korea's dependence on them for food and energy. ms. glazer, you have made some astute observations on what china could do. how do we motivate them properly to get that done? there has been a lot of things talked about. maybe targeted sanctions that involve chinese banks that fund
north korea, maybe that is something that we can look at. i have spoke to mr. sherman about that, may be looking at that in a bipartisan way. mr. klinger, you have said that in your submitted beach, your written speech that you're going to be talking about several of the sanctions that may be could and should be on the table. i would like like us to really look at entertaining those. i think the bill that was passed yesterday in the house floor was a good move. i think it moves the ball up the field, i think there's more to be done. you point out rightly so mr. klinger, that we have not even considered or done similar things that we have done that are far less egregious offenders in the world today. i think that is obama double. i think we should put all things on the table. i like to ask you, what you think there has been such restraint in dealing with north korea in the same way that we have dealt with far less others.
what is the rationale crushed market mark it doesn't make sense to me. why have we been so reticent to do so? >> that is next line questions are, i really don't have an answer to. it really is counterintuitive. if you just compare iran and north korea, iran remains in an opera inflation treaty, north korea's out. iran claims its nuclear program is for civilian purpose, north korea quite clearly says it's to incinerate the united states and its allies. iran has not exploded a nuclear vice, north korea has done for. one would think we'll have more pressure on north korea and iran but we haven't. there are perhaps the concerns that of how north korea will respond if we impose more measures. i i do not think that we should be hesitant to enforce
our laws because of the concerns with the criminal do if we enforce him. similarly it has always been talked about is how will china respond. when i advocated additional measures against north korea, i said let the law-enforcement people go where the evidence takes them. someone once commented to me and said also you want to sacrifice all important u.s. china relationship over north korea. i said no, what i'm saying is i do not want to give china immunity from u.s. law simply because they are china. so we should go where the evidence takes us, we should sanction whatever entities are violating u.s. and international law and un resolutions, not because they're chinese, but are chinese, but because they are violating our laws and the resolutions. >> i think your answer kind of dovetails with the opening statement of the ranking member. i think these comments really have a lotta bearing on going forward. i think there really should not
be any sacred cows when it comes to enforcing our laws. protection of special interest, ongoing conserves of a bilateral relationship with china, these are serious issues. china has not stood up to its obligations i believe in this realm. one thing that has been mentioned that might get china's attention, i think it it is also just good policy, is what about the u.s. bolstering our support for missile defense system for south korea, at the least and maybe japan. what you think about that? >> so, i think that is a great idea. on the china piece of it, first
when there's a section 311 against the chinese bank in 2005, that was a law-enforcement action. it was not a chinese bank. in not a chinese bank. in the and the u.s. china relationship survive. and it was effective measure. it actually may take things like that to motivate china. we are almost self deterring and a sense. with regard to measures with other countries in the region, i think absolutely, all of north koreans activity speak for the need of a much more robust missile defense system in asia including the united states, japan, south korea. this was mentioned, the relationship between japan and korea has gone through some rough periods but it is on the mend. i think there are opportunities here particularly in south korea to talk about more missile-defense, as well as better intelligence and information sharing among the three countries.
these have been on our agenda with our allies for quite some time, we have not been able to push them forward. unfortunate as it is, when we are working on the policy, every time north korea did something bad the motto in the office was, well let's make lemonade out of this lemon. one of the ways to make lemonade out of this lemon is to consolidate our defense alliances. that also complicates the environment for china. >> thank you. >> last year, i wrote a detailed research paper that south korea should allow the u.s. to deploy the high-altitude defense system. today the south korean administration has not even wanted to publicly discuss it. as i point out in the paper, this sad is better than anything south korean's have or will have for decades to come. it is much more capable. also, i point out the chinese
claims that it will impair their ability to assault the united states were allies with missiles, those are red herrings. the thigh out is very effective against north korean missiles but it will have no constrained men on chinese missiles so therefore china's objections are politically based. so, i think the u.s. and constant with our allies it will improve the defense of our forces there but of south korea. also as doctor cha said to have south korea integrate the system into more conferences, effective allied system with japan, because we are all in this together. the same north korean missile could be aimed at the trajectory toward south korea, u.s. u.s. forces, u.s. forces in japan which are critical for the defense of the republic of korea. >> it is no secret that the relationship between china and
south korea has blossomed over the last several years and they have tried to do everything they can to improve trade and all aspects of that bilateral relationship. it is also no secret that china has lobbied, i think that is the understatement of the universe, south korea against that. i think it is time for us as leaders in the region to step up our voices and our commitment to security in the region, by support for things like that and try to reignite some support for those things. because may besides being good policy from our strategic interests, and might be a really good good motivation factor for china to finally get off its duff and do something about the serious problem. the chair recognizes --
>> usually to the witnesses that answer questions but one question has come up than that is why did we do it in iran and not north korea? i think i'll answer the question. when congress passed a sanction laws, they provided secondary sanction which is the only way you go after these regimes. that if the law had been enforced it would have been made iran's trading partners very angry. administrations refuse to enforce those law. they gave iran more time to get very close to nuclear weapon. but, they began to persuade iran's trading partners that they should go along with this pressure and only to the extent that we could carry out the sanctions regime without angering iran's major trading partners do we carry it out.
we used persuasion. who we were persuading, europe. so we had sanctions on iran only to the extent that we could get europe not to be terribly angry if we force them to go along. as to china, persuading them will be considerably more difficult. so the chairman and i are talking about, for example sanctions on chinese banks. that will make china angry. and dealing with iran the administration got as far as it did without making anybody really angry, any of iran's trading partners. i think this north korean nuclear program is significant enough that we should be willing to make china angry. now i might talk about a tear from tear from their goods, that would make them angrier than i could persuade my colleagues in congress to go along with. they will be be pretty angry with the banking
thing. doctor cha, you say there are some that doubt north korea is legally a terrorist state. one act of of terrorism is when you see civilian hostages, that active terrorism continues at least until you release the hostages. if you sees japanese homemakers and hold them hostage for decades because you want someone to teach you how to port team, that is an act of terrorism. is there any doubt that north korea is engaged in terrorism until they release the hostages they have seized? or their bodies bodies for those who have died? >> you have no dispute for me there. i think there have been many actions in that bank, almost a regular state practice of
detaining innocent individuals, americans and other nationalities for no apparent reason. that is just unacceptable. my only point is that i think the other area that we could investigate in terms of criteria for putting them back about list is the cyber area. >> that cyber terrorism is bad enough, but but when you sees people and hold them for decades because that you want someone to teach you a t ceremony, my one comment and that is north korea is very status conscious. of course, the biggest boost to your ego is to have a nuclear tipped icbm. the the cheesy way to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon is to smuggle one. but i will point out that you can smuggle the nuclear weapon
inside abella marijuana and a nuclear defense program is not good to stop that. in fact you have the additional advantage of having plausible deniability or delay. so retaliation does not occur in cold blood, doesn't occur after a 90 day investigatory progress. i want i want to go to warmer line a question. alcove are in syria? north korean technology. just a quick question, does does any of our witnesses have any guess as to how much money north korea was given for cooperating with outcome are? the estimates have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars. we know two things, i read once a nuclear weapon, iran is about to get their hands on hundred $30 billion. would north korea be willing to sell, they've already proven they are willing to sell nuclear weapon kits if you will, or equipment and plans.
is north korea have enough atomic weapons that they will be willing to sell one or two of them, and is this a multibillion-dollar cost for whoever wants to buy them? >> i was going to address your comment about north korea as a terrorist nation if i could. in my written testimony i have a long list of actions that north korea has taken which i think i fulfilled the legal obligation of relisting them as a terrorist nation. there are number of your statues, perhaps the most relevant is 18 u.s. code 2331 which defines international terrorism as involving violent acts to be a violation of criminal laws of the u.s. and that appear to be intended to intimidate or course the civilian population. i think the threats of a 911 type of attack is considered
trying to course the population. there have have been a number of items that i have listed of north korean attempts of assassinations, and kidnappings kidnappings that have been recognized by south korean courts. i think any one of those should have put north korea back on the list and certainly cumulatively. as for whether north korea would sell a nuclear weapon as you correctly point out, they shared and sold nuclear and missile technology with a list of nations. i question whether they would sell a completed weapon. i think it might go beyond what they would be willing to do. i sternly could be very wrong on that. certainly as they develop a
the points you have made them all of you, some very serious points and given us information that we will utilize in the coming year as we try to come up with policy that can deal with this threat. it is ironic. i believe the united states and the world is entering a new era on the cold war is being left behind. even the post-cold war era is being left behind now. and what the new era will be , what is the parameters of how we operate in the world, we will it be different and ironically the company that may be forcing us into a new definition of
what responsibilities are is one of the most anachronistic regimes in the world. they don't even fit in the cold war. the way they handle themselves. i appreciate the information also about the specifics of the north korean government is doing and the actual people who are running the ideas of slavery, that they are actually engaged in slavery which is important, you made an important.today. that type of activity is intolerable. and those thousands of north korean workers, and all the salary being given to the
government, that is the virtual slavery. and thank you for drawing our attention to that area that is something we should be able to deal with. national eight i agree. and then pleased with the ranking member pointing out that the north koreans are still holding japanese hostages after decades and i agree with them, that should not just be overlooked as if it is a past issue. the fact that north koreans are holding a kidnapped and are holding japanese civilians in north korea is something that should be a matter that is not relegated to the past as long as they are holding these people. that should be part of what we are looking at.
we may find that reunification acharya becomes a reality after all these decades and that reunification will itself create a new world that we have to deal with. historic moments in the world. that is where we are at is bring brought about by this crazy regime in north korea for some changes upon us. i would also like to mention that we we are now entering an era also of technology is not just being utilized for offensive weapon systems and thanks to ronald reagan we
started down the path of building and focusing on defensive systems which makes a lot more sense to me even in space -- cases like this and let me know there are several new technologies being developed that will give us a greater ability to defend ourselves against a missile attack. we certainly should make that available to south korea and japan. that would certainly be a message there. let me ask again for more information from you folks. somewhere in the back of my mind is an action that we took command i believe -- maybe i'm just exposing something, to prevent a transfer of money that was going to specific individuals in the north korean government. we know that north korea
with all its poverty and lack of food has not prevented luxury cars and booze and very expensive consumer items to go into there very elite, and i seem to remember that banking transactions that were going to be challenged in some way that an impact on north korean policy. could you refresh my memory on that? is that a methodology that we should try to look at to reestablish the policy? >> yes. i think that what you are referring to is the section 311 treasury department and 2005 us minutes substitutions.
>> i can answer the question here. only one demand and that was to unfreeze the 25 million that was sitting that they could count. they did not want to talk about piece treaty or anything else. gives you a sense of how important it was. >> congressman, i icongressman, i think that this also takes us back to the issue of china.
sometimes they shut down and pop-up someplace else. there are some journalists have gotten in and pretended to make transactions so this goes back to the issue you raised earlier this is essential to get the chinese to comply with the sanctions. supported in the united states and when it comes to things like luxury goods inspections the chinese appear to want to signal the north koreans that they are dissatisfied.
>> if i could just down and talk about resistance, we can get chinese banks to work in our interest. as i mentioned before the u.s. senate officials including to the bank of china to talk and.out that could face seizure of their assets and be precluded from accessing the us financial system which is a kiss of death. even though the chinese government was urging the chinese government to resist pressure the banks themselves had to worry about their own reputational risk and access to the international system so they complied. even if the chinese government did not want it they had to take those actions themselves to
maintain the bank of china as an entity. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i begin by taking issue with the ranking members narrative. this administration took up the neglect and fecklessness of the previous administration and whether you like it or not the nuclear agreement is working. they are complying. if you want to remove an existential threat that is very good. this is the one that pursuit. i'm glad they did.
they will have to scream uncle at some peemack.point. is that really what history tells us? >> it must be part of any strategist. if we are not offering north korea some positive vision of the future and pressure sanctions are unlikely to work. >> alone. >> alone. i believe the united states makes it quite clear the north koreans are aware there would be benefits for them if they give up the nuclear weapon.
pressure by itself of course will not work. pressure sanctions must be part of any strategy. >> i agree. i have talked about these and others i've emphasized the context that it is one instrument and not always an effective one. we often get into a binary debate, and we need both. we need the conditions -- continued offers of engagement.
when people say sanctions now work diplomacy was equally unable to do that. impose a penalty of cost of pain and hopefully a deterrent to other would-be violators, put in place mechanisms to impede the inflow of prohibited items components for the nuclear missile programs. prevent or constrained proliferation. >> thank you. >> very quickly. the question about what is of value. so a couple of things come to mind.
that is certainly one area. the other, there's a lot of raw material since 2,008. the two and the provinces. that's another area. i don't think anybody on this panel gets diplomacy.is diplomacy. it's important. but i have to say having participated in negotiations and knowing a lot about the agreements, they know what
they get. we put everything on the table. >> of the chair would allow me one more question and i will try to ask. it seems to me is to china. it is in our relationship with china how much leverage to the chinese have? from a business ita business it looks like the chinese are in a conundrum themselves. they have relationships they don't want to walk away from.from. they don't want to unwittingly destabilize the peninsula have to deal with that mess. if you give them truth serum
it would probably love peaceful reunification organized by the south, but that is so far away they can't really effectuate that. how much leverage do the chinese have and how well are we pressuring them to try to effectuate better behavior from the north koreans? >> well, the chinese as i said in my earlier remarks have enormous potential. they are unwilling to use it because the chinese are fearful of instability the leverage that they have an essence becomes north korea's leverage over them. kim jong on in his father have done quite a good job of playing a very weekend, not only with the united states and other countries the particularly with china. and so the north koreans i think occasionally cause trouble for china in a
variety of ways along the border and in terms of the threats that they make toward south korea. the chinese need to be motivated to use the pressure that they have, and i do not think that we have done a good job of doing that. i agree that we should not be self deterred and putting pressure on china. we should not be worried that if we put pressure on china that will somehow not cooperate on finance. we can use pressure i think that can have an impact on chinese behavior and would cite the example, preparing to come to the united states and the administration considered imposing cyber sanctions. have the executive authority to do so.
standing member of the politburo. this may not in the end solve the problem of cyber hacking. i think we certainly have to keep there feet to the fire on that issue. the.is when you threaten sanctions to have the executive authorities to do so then you can motivate their behavior. bolstering missile-defense and i do think that taking steps that defend american interest in the interest of our allies and if they happen to create a more negative security environment for china in the region, that may motivate the chinese to do more as well. this is not something that they want to see. >> thank you for your indulgence. raise the issue that they don't have much to export.
some cyber hacking training seminars. >> thank you, mr. chairman and our panel of witnesses for your thoughtful insight. do you believe that north korea would use nuclear weapons for aggressive actions? >> i doi do not think it is the intent of any nuclear weapons state including nuclear teeth go north korea to use them purposefully for aggressive purposes. there are contingencies one can imagine where you can miscalculate. they had no intent of because of military miscalculation they are compelled to. that is what is inherently destabilizing. >> i just want to talk a little bit about reception.
i have not been the south korea or japan. do they feel the same threat from north korea that israel this? >> i certainly think that japan feels morally threatened by the developments of north korea, the missile program as well as the nuclear program. is the clearest existential threat. with regard to south korea the heaven under the fear of artillery attacks. artillery tubes are seconds away, and there is now a growing concern. if you have been under conventional military, biochemical all your life you get a little jaded, but there is a growing concern about the broader strategic implications. >> and i am going somewhere with this. my sense is that here in
this country we have a country, the only one in this century testing nuclear weapons a week ago. well it was not a thermonuclear weapon. and therefore we don't need to worry about it. i will tell you that every member of congress understands the threat israel feels. it is something that israel has done to raise the perception that everyone has learned respect the threat, and am not sure that is the same with north korea. maybe we need to raise the perception. every member of congress generally takes a trip to israel and see and feel the threat. maybe that is something japan and south korea and other nations should do to
help increase the perception hearing congress because right now,, you this news about syria, isys, the iran deal, that's what people are paying attention to. give a lot of great ideas about what to do, but how do we get action? so in your opinion what do we do to elevate the reality that this is a real threat? this problem should just be solved call it does not seem that hard. what would you suggest? thirty seconds each. >> how entirely agree with you that outside of this chamber more broadly there is a tendeny to downgrade, discount, dismiss, averaging regime the blows of bombs in a cave somewhere in
real have to worry about that. in part it has been because there was a feeling that the united states overreacted and played into their hand. we are now in the period in which we are under reactive. >> north korea is easy to ridicule and make the butt of jokes. it is a very real threat, nuclear threat, biological chemical threat. conventional forces, cyber threats from human rights threats, it runs the gamut not only against our allies that increasingly to the us. three us four-star commander said that north korea is a nuclear weapon that can hit the united states today. they must know something. a year or so ago the south korean press a lot of articles about kim jong-il
and have directed a new war plan the implemented were created after he came in office ofnorth korea could take over the peninsula and seven days. that would require the use of nuclear weapons. it is a real threat. >> it is also disheartening is an appreciation for how much of a threat they pose. israel does such a terrific job in congress and the american public at large and more can be done in the area of public education. i think it would be very important in highlighting this issue. more actions. get more people involved in the discussion to help people understand we need to really dissect with the
threat is, see that it is increasingly an existential threat and not just put it on the back burner. >> i think the panel. >> thank you. >> i appreciate you bringing up this issue and each of you expressing there shared concern. i represent hawaii 2nd district. being out there in the middle of the pacific every time north korea starts making threats, launching tests, this is something hawaii and the west coast at a minimum are already within range both of an icbm as well as a nuclear weapon. this is something that rings true and is deeply understood. recognize the need for
stronger missile-defense, the need for taking this threat with the seriousness but it deserves. the sanctions bill that we passed yesterday in particular as it relates to our currency, do you believe it will have the same as when it was put in place? >> ii think the bill is great. and i think that mechanism is still there to carry out the same sort of targeted financials. north korea has tried to circumvent, but a lot of it depends on what individuals we sanction and target and chinese compliance with that.
having said that, i can easily imagine things that we can do that would not collapse the us china relationship or not have a major effect on wall street. >> it will directly impact their pocketbook. what back to what happened in 2,005, i would just like to hear your thoughts on what you see as a viable path forward. understanding the north korea sees the nuclear program as an insurance policy against a regime change seeing what they learned from what happened in libya and really what caused that window to close. the united states would not go after them to implement the regime change.
i would like to hear your thoughts on engagement with north korea and how understanding this climate is a path forward. >> just commenting on yesterdays build command closes a number of loopholes , elevates, elevates a number of existing executive orders and regulations to legislation, make some number of implementations mandatory rather than discretionary. i think it will provide a number of benefits to the us effort. but the bill as well as existing measures, is dependent on the fermentation and implementation and our willingness to use the powers we already have. last year the executive order that was released allows the us to sanction north korean officials simply for being north korean officials. we only withouthave to provide evidence that they have conducted illegal
activity. us sanctions 16 russian officials. we have not use that power is much as we could. the target has changed. effective because it was a large conduit. north korea has adapted since then. it is sort of like the cockroach theory of law enforcement. going to the kitchen and turn on the light and see where the cockroaches are and where they run off to. take out the 1st note and alert your intelligence and law enforcement authority so they watch for the money gets redirected. then you go after plan b. >> on the issue of engagement comeau we talked earlier, we have to have a strategy that is composed of engagement as well as course of steps.
asas far as i understand the united states engages with north korea, we have a channel in new york, we talked to the north koreans, but we have to be careful about agreeing to revive the party talk mechanism in the absence of some returned to the commitments that the north koreans made under the 2,005 and other agreements. the north koreans want to engage in dialogue so that they can get peace treaties and be recognized as a nuclear weapon state. i think that is a bad outcome for the united states and our interests and allies. we have to engage north korea in a way that they understand that there are steps that they have to take they havethey have to go back to these commitments of giving of nuclear weapons command if there willing to go ahead with the freeze is
a 1st up with the understanding that the goal is they eventually give them up that i think the united states has been willing to work with that. the north koreans are willing to engage serious negotiation with the end goal of the nuclear rising the peninsula. so that engagement yes, but we have to be careful about how we use it. >> thank you for holding a hearing and continuing to help increase awareness. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes brigadier general. >> congressman, you will be fine. questions, maybe all at once understand we are reportedly in talks with south korea regarding the reintroduction of nuclear weapons onto the peninsula. what is the status of that
comeau why wouldn't south korea be interested? regarding the introduction of that missile-defense interceptor system, why not? is south korea concerned that it would be to provocative? why wouldn't they want that? regarding curtailing conventional arms sales how would that be done? again, i have been listening is everyone else as saying why are we doing this? you folks are the experts and don't know. maybe you can give me some insight. regarding increasing pressure on the human rights atrocities which are just unimaginable to me, what is the best way? what is the best way to do that? and from my standpoint i like you folks don't understand at all why we are not imposing these financial sanctions out of hand. the president should just sign that and we want to do
next. that is my perception. what would be the response to some of these things from our allies and trading partners in the region? thank you. >> i will take a piece of those and then looked appears to take other pieces of it. in terms of the why haven't we done more question, one aspect of this is china. the other part of it is that it is priority and commitment. this has not been a priority even though it is a dangerous situation and there has to be a political commitment to make the north korean regime feel like there are costs for the behavior. there has not been a political commitment to implement. there has always been some hope that there is a chance for diplomacy like with iran
and cuba me and mark, but i am of the view that we are not going to see any diplomacy until the end of the administration. >> if i could interrupt you, is there a downside risk? i don't see a whole lot of downside risk. i just don't see -- what do we lose? >> the primary downside has to be with china. at least that is the perceived downside. and then there is the degree of inertia. the really is aa degree of inertia because this is an issue traditionally that the administrations want to put on the shelf. there is almost a pattern. we slap sanction on them and everyone goes back to dealing with other issues.
which is a rapidly deteriorating situation. >> if i can address them in reverse order. human rights atrocities, a number of cases where we have imposed sanctions and measures on other countries punish human rights violations, we have the authority to do so. we have done it in other countries. tomorrow the president could add 50 north korean entities the heads of all those agencies. i don't know why we don't do that. curtailing conventional arms sales notfinally cover the conventional but the trade unconventional arms. there have been at least three interceptions of conventional arms shipments
and reintroducing nuclear weapons. that is very contentious seltzer military necessity. we have preemptive target in south korea for north korea. support for reunification. and i agree with my colleagues i don't think he's unmovable on the issue. the chinese seek to weaken us alliances. this isthis is a major
problem in trying to deal with the north korea problem unless we have a bigger strategy with the chinese and make this a priority and perhaps give china some reassurances. very unified peninsula and don't need necessarily have troops along china's border. far more detrimental today very small steps, supporting the un security council. diluted the application of economic sanctions, banking sanctions., banking sanctions. because the united states wants to isolate north korea and that is a valuable goal. we should say to isolate, the same time we should be
putting far greater pressure on china to do more. the chinese believe that the united states is not prioritizing this issue. incentive for them to attach priority. >> we continue to reward bad behavior. as much is the chinese are doing a delicate dance of the economy it serves the purpose. that is what they want to maintain with all the respect to south korea in the president i understand what she's trying to get to that is who they are. >> i like to thank the panel members. this has been incredibly productive hearing. you asked a lot of questions. a lot of us have been entertaining ourselves. a lot of the lives. his north korea less of a
threat than they were several years ago whenhere was tons of media attention and concern across america? just three short years ago and the presidential debate it was one of the most important issues of our time. an old adage of a tree falls in the woods the nobody hears did it make a sound. we just have not focused the attention. i don't think it has been a priority. >> in the absence of leadership on this issue i think that we have a responsibility to stand up and try to take matters into our hands whether is trying to influence south korea to whether it's looking at potential new sanctions were at the very least requiring north korea a terrorist
state. there are lots of options on the table which is the reason we did the hearing today. our goal is to put together legislation, a bill are several bills that will try to move us in the right direction. my intention is to work with the panelists to try to craft legislation and market up for a full committee hearing because while other parts of the globe are in jeopardy that doesn't diminish the threat and just because we're not paying attention to it doesn't mean is not a serious threat. it'sit's time we focus our attention on the serious serious issue is not just our national security the global national security. the threat of a nut job like
kim jong in heaven upon the capabilities. the partnership between north korea and iran and nuclear capabilities in north korea. what about the possibility of joint forces the becoming over threat to everything we hold dear. i think that this hearing is not an ending place but a beginning place for what needs to take our attention. >> as to our attention, the middle east therefore gets the attention and it deserves some attention. the north korean problem is
a threat to asia and the united states. and then as to the possible connection between north korea and iran, we need an agreement with china there are no nonstop flights between north korea and iran. they would all go over chinese airspace. just inform the planes that if they want to fly over your airspace they have to stop the chinese city for refueling. it would be unsafe to go the extra mile without stopping, stopping, and if that happens i'm sure the chinese will take a look. the money is there. the desire for nuclear weapons. the 13th nuclear weapon goes on ebay. >> we have to break outside the existing paradigm.
the great state of her job. welcome. [applause] >> speaker, president, house leaders, senate leaders, chief justice, members of the legislature and judiciary, fellow arizonans i thank you and good afternoon. i also want to give a special welcome to the newest member of the states. [applause] tomorrow marks one year since he 1st welcomed me
[applause] opportunity for all. i am convinced our accomplishments his first year have a commitment to that vision in the ability to work together to tackle problems. lawmakers year stepped up in the speaker and the president delivered on the promise of legislative leadership. [applause] when it came to balancing our budget we were told just could not be done without raising taxes. but we were going to make the people of arizona pay as politicians we got the job done and instead of raising
taxes we lower them. [applause] one year later the big spenders who told us we cannot balance the budget celebrating our hard work with plans to spend a and a party like it's -- like its 1999. [laughter] so people never learn no matter how much their head hurts in the morning. someone needs to be the voice of sobriety. when they bring a punch bowl i will be here to say once again, not on our watch. [cheers and applause] on on friday i will release my budget the big spenders and special interest will not like it. it prioritizes commitments like education child safety
and public safety to eliminate waste, balance and most importantly it does not raise taxes. [applause] i am understand it is unusual for elected leaders to keep promises but let me assure you i intend to keep my and. together we will overtaxes this year, next year, the end of the year after. [applause] end we will invest in education. they share common next year and the year after. [applause] it doesn't have to be either/or. we can be responsible with
our budget, invest in the future and allow the people to keep more of the dollar's that they earn. after all it is the people's money. not the government's. [applause] those same taxpayers expect results from us but all too often success in this building is measured by how many bills we pass and how many laws we put on the books the result is more than 10,000 pages of statutes with 20,000 lots. they all have priorities but as we debates, calling you to ask is this the proper role of government? are we expanding freedom or limiting it?
344 across my desk and 324 became lot. i enjoyed reviewing all of them, even those i did not sign. but sometimes look you want to learn something new read something old as barry goldwater wrote, my name is not to pass laws but to repeal them. [cheers and applause] in that spirit in the governor's office, we have identified regulations that state agencies to come to the back door slid to stifle job creation and progress.
fortunately the process to get rid of these the necessary regulations is not as easy as the process to create them. said the legislation to allow agencies to wipe them out easier and faster and i will sign it. [applause] don't stop there. there are far to the licenses for far too many jobs resulting in a maze of bureaucracy for small business people looking to earn an honest living. believe aeronaut, the city of arizona actually licenses talent agents. i say let's leave the job of finding new talent to the
stars. not states government. [applause] delete and special interest will tell you they are necessary but often they have been designed to kill competition or keep out the little guy. eliminate them. [applause] if we must have government, make it work. we're transforming how we operate in a pilot project across 23 state agencies agencies, arizona was able to deliver services to our citizens 65% faster on average without sacrificing quality. before we started, if things were moving slowly. government was sitting on applications in in the case of qualified bus drivers drivers, four days of work
was taking 46 days now four days of work takes four days. [applause] expects more of these improvements as we create results driven government that works at the speed of business. [applause] last year's state government finally enter the 21st century 15 years too late whether allowing vendors greater freedom to crowd fund or sting operations against ridesharing by overzealous state regulators we have embraced innovation and we are not done yet. [applause] more than 40 million
passengers enter our airport every year since you cannot order lift or uber because they are protecting special interest city harbour maybe a city airport but issues by citizens all over our state in our economy is dependent on its success. i call on phoenix city government to lift these unnecessary regulations immediately. [cheers and applause] i also encourage all cities and towns to put the brakes on ill-advised plans to create a patchwork of different wage and employment laws.
if these political subdivisions don't stop they will drive our economy off a cliff. 91 cities and towns with 91 different or employment laws is not local control is california style chaos. [applause] these efforts are based on the trendy feel good policies better stifling opportunity across the nation with a feeling everywhere they have been tried. why would we tried that here? let me be more specific. i will use every constitutional power of the executive branch and leverage every legislative relationship to protect small businesses and the working men and women day employ up to and including
changing the distribution of state shared revenue. [applause] we ensure that arizona continues to grow not destroy them. [applause] as our economy advances our government and laws need to modernize also. arizona should be to the economy what texas is to oil and silicon valley used to be to the tech industry. moments ago i signed an executive order creating the governor's council on the sharing economy with an mission to stop shackling innovation instead put the cuffs on the out of touch regulators.
[applause] i want start-ups in the sharing economy to know california may not want you but arizona does. and i would be remiss if i did not stop to think my partner in growing arizona's economy. california governor jerry brown. [cheers and applause] it is often is reported there is a water crisis but the facts show it is more a california water crisis. we planned ahead. if there is one thing in arizona is best in the nation at, it is water. [applause]
we sit in the capital city in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation in the middle of a desert. thanks to the revolutionary planning efforts like the 1980 ground water management act, arizona has grown and thrived. [applause] we are building on that and we have a plan in motion right now top water experts experts, users and providers are charting a path for word. i have directed them to investigate new long-term sources for water in our state, explore additional conservation opportunities, identified future infrastructure needs so we don't end up like
california. [applause] i've also given the green light to the arizona department of water resources to use existing dollars to hire new staff that the water community has been requesting for years with these experts to take the plans to make them work. [applause] when it comes to our economic future or planning for tomorrow and innovating. starting with the arizona commerce authority we know what businesses look for, quality of life, lower taxes, light regulation and qualified workers. it is time for a c8 2.zero
with renewed focus the marketing and promotion. we have a great state with amazing assets and we know life is better here. now was to a better job to get the word out. [applause] governors compete. states compete. the goal is simple. to grow our economy to take fuller advantage of our geography to better address the needs of businesses fleeing california and other states on the decline. and to ensure job creators who are already here stay. [applause]
a great economy and great public schools. it is important to note we're already doing a lot of things well. three of the top 10 public high schools in the country hard-working dedicated and nationally renowned teachers and principals. while scores on the nation's report card dropped across the country, arizona students continued to improve. [cheers and applause] together we made substantial progress toward getting educators the resources they're asking for. last year, faced with one of the most contentious legal issues in arizona history history, leaders of education and the legislature stepped-up the
result was a monumental bipartisan, 3.$5 billion solution to go to the voters in 127 days. [applause] this is a once in a generation opportunity to change the trendline on education funding. the stakes are high. for the cynics out there looking to stop this plan or for its defeat, if you hope this lawsuit will be resolved any of their way, it won't. to my democratic friends friends, even if you voted against sending it to the ballot but now it is. you can sit on the sidelines