tv Sanctions and Other Diplomatic Options Against North Korea CSPAN October 19, 2017 12:00pm-1:26pm EDT
post" columnist sally quinn. watch after words sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span2's book tv. >> well, state department officials testified at a senate banking housing and urban affairs committee last month on the effectiveness of sanctions against north korea. in response to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. they answered questions about what legal authorities the sanctions were tendered under and in what ways those could be strengthened. this is about an hour 20 minutes. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. today we're going to proceed a little differently than usual.
one of our witnesses, ms. thosht needs to leave by 10:30 in order to join secretary tillerson on a trip to china and we have a vote at 10:30. in order to allow more senators time to ask their questions, senator brown and i have agreed to submit our opening statements for the record. and we have also asked each of our witnesses to shorten their open statements to just a couple minutes each so we can get right to the questions. obviously, i'm also going to ask the senators to be very careful to follow the five-minute allocation for their questioning. first we will receive testimony from the honorable siegel, the undersecretary of for terrorism and crimes. >> and following her susan thornton, acting assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs. without anything further, let's proceed. undersecretary, please proceed. >> thank you. chairman crapo, distinguished members of the committee, i'm
honored to appear before you to discuss the treasury department's strategy to combat the provocative destabilizing and repressive actions of north korea. this administration is applying maximum economic and diplomatic pressure to counter this threat. treasury tools are central to this campaign and have become among this administration's top nonkinetic tools of choice. today, i will share with you aspects of our strategy which we are executing at a rapid pace. we are focused on attacking north korea's key financial vulnerabilities. first, any revenue that north korea generates can be used to support, directly or indirectly, its weapons development programs and so a key part of our strategy is to suffocate north korea financially by targeting the regime's most profitable industries including coal, labor, and the sale of weapons
and other goods. we have designated dozens of individuals and entities that support these lines of business and are also focused on the shipping networks that enable them. second the regime needs to move funds through the international financial system in order to acquire foreign currency, transfer funds, and pay for goods. and so we are intent on stopping this and on thwarting their ongoing efforts to evade sanctions through front companies and other deceptive means. last week, the president issued a new executive order that are gives us greater ability and leverage to target foreign banksing that support the kim regime. on tuesday, we took action on north korean banks and designated financial facilitators across the globe. in my first week on the job, we acted for the first time in over a decade against a nonnorth korean bank china-based bang of
dandong for facilitating north korean financial activity through the lus financial system. banks should take note. close collaboration with our international participants is critical and we are working very actively with partners around the globe. time is not on our side. we have an incredibly dedicated team at treasury working around the clock on this urgent problem. our success in curtailing north korea's revenue streams and severing its access to financial systems is essential to a peaceful resolution of this growing crisis. i look forward to working closely with this committee and other members of this of congress as we seek to fulfill our shared responsibility to keep america safe. >> thank you. miss thornton. >> thank you very much, chairman crapo and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the ever
increasing threat that north korea poses and i'll make a very brief statement. today we face a north korea that has demonstrated unwavering determination to achieve an intercontinental ballistic miff capable of delivering a nuclear payload to our homeland. in the face of this escalating threat, we have the ability to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack as president -- at the president and secretary of defense mattis made clear. we also have a clear and aggressive strategy to count they are threat and bring about a diplomatic resolution employing all available levers of economic and diplomatic pressure on north korea in order to change the kim regime's strategic calculus. our diplomatic pressure campaign is aimed at bringing the dprk back to the negotiating table where we hope to achieve an agreement on the denuclearization of north korea and we recognize that the success of this pressure strategy will depend on heavy cooperation from our
international partners, especially beijing. we are working closely with china to execute this strategy and are clear-eyed in viewing the progress growing if you know even that china has made on this front. our task now is to hold china and others to these internationally binding obligations and to convince china's leader to more fully exert their decisive leverage over north korea. we do not seek an accelerated reunification of korea nora excuse to garrison troops north of the dmz. what we seek is a peaceful denuclearization of the korean peninsula and a north korea that stops belligerent actions and does not threaten the united states and our allies. we appreciate the strong interest in this issue from congress and we look forward to continuing our cooperation. thank you for inviting me to testify today. i'm pleased to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. i'll begin with you. executive order is 13810, like
other authorities empowers treasury -- i should probably ask both of you this question. empowers treasury to go after north korean facilitators and evaders. press reports suggest the united nations was not able to pass stronger sanctions because of the objections of china and russia. in your opinion, what must be done to put a hard stop on those who continue to choose to enrich the kim regime by facilitating illicit transactions with north korea? our secondary financial and trade sanctions the answer? >> you want to go ahead? >> sure, mr. chairman, thank you for that question. we think as you know, we have the ability now in the executive order to impose secondary sanctions against financial institutions and we taking that new authority very seriously. we believe that the uns kers while the strongest measures ever passed by the united nations they represent the floor and not the celing package we have 0 constantly take
additional measures to make sure they are implemented with full force and that we are holding all countries can accountable to cut off any revenue stream that's going to north korea and we are doing that and will continue to do so. >> thank you, miss thornton, do you want to add anything to that? >> thank you. i think what i would say is that we are looking very hard now at implementation, the uns kers we've passed have covered a lot of north korea's export hard currency earning trade and we're doing now is working hard to implement the new executive order gives us much greater tool to go ahead and work on implementing and trying to ferret out these illicit underground networks that north korea uses that have been much of the life blood of their proliferation networks. so i think implementation is key. we're working with international partners as the under secretary mention and i think. >> tom: continuing an full-court press with suppose international
partners on implementation is the key to really upping the pressure on the kim regime. >> and just quickly, miss thornton, how successful do you believe we can be in getting that international cooperation? >> well, what i would tell you is that we have been raising this issue, every single international partner that we've been meeting with, and we've had international parents coming to us and volunteering their own national measures that go beyond the u.n. security council resolution. so what i have seen and i saw also up at the high level week at the u.n. in new york last week that all countries have been -- are seized with this matter looking actively at what more they can do to choke off illicit trade and other kinds of diplomatic and presence and labor presence in their country. so i think we will keep up that pressure and we need to keep it up. we need to keep a unified international coalition on this, but having countries and our partners raising it with other
countries as well as has proven to be very effective. >> thank you and miss handle occur, when the president announced executive order 13810, he referenced a chinese central bank directive sent to other chinese banks that sounded like the central bank instructed the others to cut off new business with north korea and wind down existing loans. there's even less known about what will happen to china's current north korean business or future ability to deposit or transfer dprk funds. can you shed any light on this directive by the chinese central bank? beak the question is, is the policy of china truly changing? >> thank you, chairman crapo. i think china is sending very deliberate messages to its banks and to other companies in china. there was an announcement today, in fact, that the chinese commerce department sent an announcement that all north korean firms and joint ventures
with china had to be shut down. we are working very closely with the chinese. we think that they are taking this seriously but we're going to continue to monitor it. we continue to share information with them on actions that we think they need to take. this is obviously a very serious problem. and the urgency within which china takes it is going to be key to any successful economic pressure campaign. >> thank you. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you both for testifying and for your service to our country. i want to dig down deeper on this on the sanctions issues. start with you, miss thornton. you've testified that terms you used maximum pressure, peaceful pressure, strategic accountability describe our policy towards pyongyang, that the essential elements of the strategy haven't changed to push for further multilateral sanctions, continue enforcement of u.s. sanction authorities, improved u.n. sanctions, enforcement globally and urging other nations to cut off what
you said normal political relations and trade with north korea. are you taking full advantage of the sanctions authorities you have including those congress enacted last month? have we seen concrete quantifiable outcomes at this point? what are the -- especially in terms of reduction of pyongyang's revenue streams and significant impacts on the regime's ability to advance its weapons program? for you, miss thornton. start with you. >> so i think we are taking maximum advantage of all of the tools that we've been given and we're also taking maximum advantage of our diplomacy with countries all around the world. i believe that we have instituted a number of designations. we've had you know, a series of designations. we've been rolling out sanctions on various entities in china, in other countries.
all of these designations target north korean trade ta, north korean illicit proliferation. it has had an impact on the ease with which they are able to make transactions. it's cut down on their hard ability to earn hard currency and it is having an effect of increasing pressure on the regime. >> thank you. this is a question for both of you and start with you, miss mantle occur. many of us here in this body and all of our allies are concerned about the president's statements about the jcpoa. the president indicates he intends to blow up the joint comprehensive plan of action, the iran nuclear agreement. many argue this seriously undermine u.s. credibility on nuclear issues with north korea and others. are you concerned that this -- that the president's position undermines our diplomatic efforts with north korea? >> no, senator, i'm not concerned. these are two very different and
zing problems. north korea needs to understand that we are very serious when it comes to applying our maximum using our maximum authorities to applying economic pressure and frankly, this is an area where the world is coming together. we are seeing the strongest u.n. security council resolutions we have ever seen and seeing countries take steps over and above. >> that's surely good news. but the world came together on the jtpoa too and do the cranes well if the u.s. is going to pull out of this agreement which clearly is work to stop the nuclear program in iran, why would we have had that credibility and why would the world think we have that credibility in your dealings with the chinese and only the north koreans? >> again, senator, i'm personally involved in working very closely with our allies in europe, japan, south korea and elsewhere. and the message that i am hearing is that we are very unified in this effort.
we're not equating one issue with the other. i can't tell you. >> you're not equating one issue to the other, but don't our allies see that when we as a nation renege on one nuclear agreement that we are not as trustworthy as i thought we were? as a nation for the next round? >> again, i can't tell you what our allies think but what i can tell you. >> you just did. you said our allies are all in the same place and told us what you think. now you're telling us you don't know what they think. >> we are very unified in sending a joint message to north korea that we are all using our maximum economic pressures and diplomatic pressures to get them to change their behavior. >> do you disagree with our allies that who all say virtual everyone that iran is complying? i know this hearing is not about iran but do you agree with them when they say that? >> senator, i would refer to the iaea and the state department with respect to iran's compliance with the jcpoa.
>> miss thornton, respond to that if you would and also, does it concern you that we are working with the chinese as we should and in trying to work to get north korea to change its policy that our allies, some of our allies question whether we are reneging on a something we already did on nuclear weapons just a year and a half, two years ago? >> yes, thank you. i'm not the iran expert obviously. but i know that we have certified continuation of the jcpoa in the most recent process. i think on the connection between that and north korea the thing that's important to remember is we've been down this road with north korea several times already. and that they have continually undermined, cheated and disregarded the agreements that we've entered into with them in an attempt to do what we are also attempting to do obviously with iran, which is stop, freeze
and roll back an illegal nuclear program. so i think the what we want to do with north korea is make it clear that we are not going to go down the road again of being you know, cheated or fooled and that we are going to enter into this agreement and expect that they would live up to their side of the bargain. and that is what the maximum pressure campaign is about to build that kind of pressure and leverage which will convince them that they really need to engage seriously in a discussion about freezing and rolling back their program. >> thank you both. >> thank you. before we go to senator toomey, since more senators are here, he wanted to make an announcement i made at the beginning of the hearing. miss thornton has to leave at 10:30 for a trip with secretary tillerson overseas and we have a vote at 10:30. we've both foregone our opening statements.
i'm going to ask the senators to pay close attention to their time allocations. >> thanks to our witnesses. i want to draw a different parallel with iran, if i could. and but to back up just a second, i don't think anybody questions how grave a threat north korea poses to us. we've seen a nuclear weapons program for over a decade. a tremendous acceleration in their missile delivery capabilities. this threat is growing and it seems to be at an accelerating pace. and despite the many sanctions that we have on north korea, our allies have joined us, the south korean government reports that are north korea's economy grew at the fastest rate in 17 years last year. that their gdp managed to expand by 3.9% admittedly off a low level.
but they are experiencing economic growth and it's hard to imagine they're going to abandon these programs if they're discovering that they have greater prosperity year in and year out. i want to commend the work you guys are doing is terrific. it's really important. i am grateful for it. i agree fully with the executive order to further pursue sanctions but we have had witness who have reported to us and i don't think that our current witnesses will disagree, we are not yet at the maximum level of possible sanctions against north korea. for instance, we're told by past at past hearings that there are financial institutions conducting transactions with north korean entities that are not subject to the secondary sanctions today. do you both agree with that? >> senator, any financial institution would be subject to our authority. >> i understand that, but is it true that there are financial institutions including chinese
institutions that are conducting financial transactions and have not had sanctions imposed directly on them? >> well, senator, as you are probably aware in june we in fact took action against one such. >> listen, i'm in favor of that. i'm glad. my point is there are many other institutions that are conducting transactions and you've acknowledged today there is one chinese bank that has had sanctions imposed directly. my point in all this is, we also have learned i think that the mandatory sanctions of the iran sanctions legislation probably played a big role in bringing iran to the table. and it is my belief and i think it's shared by my league colleague, the senator from maryland with whom i'm working on legislation and we've been working with treasury and want to continue to work with you on this, but the threat of mandatory sanctions immediately once that legislation passes, sends a very, very powerful message to financial
institutions, and i think that's the tool that we need, that is the tool that worked with iran. we have not adopted that yet. and it's my hope that we will and i welcome your thoughts on it. >> senator, of course, we think that having the authority to go after financial institutions is incredibly important. that's why we had the strongest executive order the president's just signed the strongest executive order we've had which gives us the authority on a going forward basis to impose secondary sanctions against financial institutions. we think banks are taking note. we are carefully monitoring their ongoing activity and behavior and look, the safety and security of the american people come first and we won't hesitate to act where we think it's warranted. >> yeah, i understand that. but having the authority to do something is not the same thing as being required to do something. and the latter simply sends a stronger message. now i think there should be a way for an institutioning that ceases and desists for instance
to no longer be subject to sanctions, right? we want to have a mechanism that doesn't permanently disqualify an institution from u.s. markets if they have ceased and desisted. but my own view is we haven't taken the most aggressive steps possible and this is as serious a threat as i can plausibly imagine. so i hope you'll continue to work with us in this effort. i want to thank my colleague senator van hollen for the great work he's done on this and mr. chairman, think i've come in 30 seconds short. >> thank you, senator toomey. senator reed. >> thank you very much. i was, i'm tempted to commend the chairman and ranking member for the best statements they've ever given. so forgive me. secretary thornton, in the past, we have used the five-party or
mechanism with south korea, japan, russia, china and the united states. and at this point, it seems that a lot of the diplomacy is one off. you're going to china, talk to them. someone presumably is talking to the russians, efforts. why don't we if we're serious about this convene the five-party talks and show not only strength but concerted effort? >> yeah, thank you. we are convening -- we don't have that specific mechanism invoked but we're doing a lot in the u.n. security council. we're doing a lot with various multilateral partners and we had a very strong statement out of ashjian at the recent ministerial in october in manila. we have gotten a lot of different actors to step up and help us with this effort. certainly we're doing a lot of consulting with the regional stakeholders especially our two
very strong allies south korea and japan. the president met with them both in a trilateral format last week in new york. but we've also been consulting very closely and had long meetings and had extended discussions with both russia and china. i think we're doing as much as we can with those regional stakeholders but we don't want to be tied to one particular format. and we're certainly open to any formats or opportunities that would put pressure, more pressure on north korea. and so i think we're open to it. we just haven't found it necessary to do it in that format. >> do you concur with ambassador haley that the united states has exhausted its usefulness? >> well, i mean, i think she was referring to the issue of unskers that could be passed and increasing the level of sanctions within the unskers. i think we all agree that almost all of north korea's external
hard currency earning trade has been captured in one way or another u.n.en security council resolutions and i think there's probably some more that could be done there, but mostly it's been already incorporated into the uns kers we have so far. the main task i see going forward is on implementation. >> no, i concur. and with that regard -- secretary, you have lots of authorities but do you have priority? i mean most important is to identify go after this company, second important is this company, and shipping is the third, et cetera. can you give us that kind of strategy not just we've got lots of things we can do. >> yes, so are constantly thinking how we can exercise our authorities to achieve maximum strategic impact. we're looking at the biggest revenue generators to north korea and taking action against those generators. we're focused on sanctions of
asia. part of the reason we're in the place we are today is that north korea has been incredibly adept at evading our sanctions. we want to cut that off at the pass. so we are focusing on high revenue generators, foo focusing ongoing after those financial facilitators they have planted all over the world. we just announced designations of 26 of those this week that were situated in different countries. and again did, always focused on maximum strategic impact. so just as an example, in august, we went after of three coal companies that had generated a half a billion dollars worth of revenue to north korea and we designated them to cut them off again at the pass so that they can no longer, they can no longer generate that sort of revenue. so yes, focus on highest priority impact always. >> those three companies you've effectively shut them down or just indicated to them we're going after you. >> we've indicated they cannot have access to the u.s.
financial system and sent a very strong message that it is our view that nobody no one should be dealing with nel company that's continuing to trade with north korea. >> but companies are still dealing with those companies? >> i can't tell you in an open setting whether or not companies are still dealing with those companies but the message is clear. we will go after nel company that does trade with north korea. >> i think that's a good message but again, i think i propose to my colleagues you know, specific evidence that it's working. senator toomey mentioned that the growth in their economy was not insubstantial last year. and you know, we're messaging, we've been messaging for two decades. >> i agree with you, senator. look, that is why in this administration we are taking the strongest measures we have ever taken. we've had many unskers in the past and they have not worked. these are the strongest u.n. security council resolutions
we've ever had. the executive order that the president signed last week is the strongest across the board executive order that we've ever had. we are taking this with utmost seriousness and we're pushing countries all over the world to do the same. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> yes, sir, thank you both for being here. i -- do we all agree that in essence, north korea is a defacto nuclear state? >> sorry. is that for me? >> well, look. >> she already. >> i don't know what the threats are, senator. they have been able to row live rate at an unprecedented stage. >> i don't want to get into a long debate. we do agree there are defacto nuclear state, is that correct? >> i don't think that's the position of the state department. it involves a number of different technologies and i don't think that we would be
able to say with concrete certainty that that's the case. >> i'm going to state they're a defacto nuclear state. that would be my position. i applaud the efforts that are underway. i really do, and as you know work closely with secretary tillerson and others. and i, every one of our intelligence agencies tells us there's publicly even that there's no amount of pressure that can be placed on the leader of north korea to get him to stop. he views this as his ticket to survival. and he's changing the balance in the peninsula. so i applaud the efforts that are underway. i really do. are there -- are there -- is there any course of action though we've been doing this now for 25 years. this is the most robust effort that i applaud. is there anything you see that is possibly changing the dynamic that exists where they're in the very short term are going to
have a deliverable to the united states nuclear weapon without a changing in trajectory? >> i mean, tillerson is work against and a proud what he's doing, but he's working against unified view of our intelligence agency which say there's no amount of pressure that can be put on them to stop. i'm just asking is there some dynamic out there that you see is going to overwhelm that will unified view and change the trajecto trajectory? >> i think that that is the intelligence community's assessment or at least the assessment of many of them. but i think what we are doing is testing that assessment. i think what's changed is the sort of growing level of international isolation and pressure especially from the leading enabler of north korea up to this point which is china. and i think we do see china as the under secretary mentioned earlier, policy shifting. we're trying to turn china's
position from looking at north korea as some kind of asset to looking at them as a liability. i think that secretary tillerson has made a lot of progress on than front. and so the pressure that is being applied now to the kim regime is greater than any at any time in the past and we need to test that proposition, i believe. so that's what we're up -- >> is the denuclearization of the peninsula still the absolute objective? >> yes. >> is it helpful, you know, congress has taken the lead on many things. there's no question that congress took the lead for years on iran. i don't think there's any way without the pressure of many people on this committee for a long, long time and on the foreign relations committee, i don't think there'sness way we would have ever gotten iran in into a place to negotiate. congress passed some sanctions on russia recently. congress passed additional sanctions, the house actually
took the lead on north korea. i'm at the point personally where i wonder whether additional congressional activities is helpful when we're on the brink of something that could become a catastrophe. i applaud all those people who want to play a role. i do, and i'm not in any way being pejorative as it relates to that effort. from your perspective, is it helpful for congress to pass additional legislation right now and i know no administration ever wants congress to do anything. i got that part, but are there heightened concerns currently about congress taking additional steps as it relates to sanctions? >> well, what i would say is that we all want this to be resolved diplomatically and peacefully. we think that this maximum pressure campaign is the last best chance to resolve this peacefully but what that also means is eventually we'll need to get into some diplomacy and
we will need flexibility when we get to that point. so i think we want to keep in mind that you know, we want to get to the diplomatic solution and when we get there, secretary tillerson will want to you know have space to negotiate. i think the you know, the members of congress i've spoken to i know many of them travel, many of them are going around the world and talking to people about these issues and i spoke to one last night who was just in beijing and met with chinese officials for an hour and a half on north korea alone. i think that kind of message coming in a unified way from every single government official in the united states is very helpful and also we've been telling all of our global partners coming from all of them. >> you didn't address sanctions. i'm trying to. >> oh. >> you're avoiding that. that's fine. i know my time is up. >> i would be happy to quickly
address. of course, we're grateful for the authorities that congress has given us. as i mentioned the president has also signed the strongest executive order we've ever had. i think it's also incredibly important that we have the ability to remain flexible. we have 0 move and strike in our use of our economic powers rd according to what the intelligence is telling us will be the best targets to exact an enormous amount of economic pressure. when our hands are tied in different ways, it keeps us from being agile in the way you would want us to be agile in order to maximize that economic pressure. we're always happy to work with the congress and legislation. i would caucus taking away our ability to be flexibility because it inadvertently could decrease our ability to exert maximum economic pressure. >> senator heitkamp. >> thank you.
>> run through this quickly. can we be effective in any kind of sanction policy or regime without total cooperation from china? yes or no. >> okay, i think total cooperation from china is key. can we be effective? absolutely. >> but i'm saying, now, i'm going to get to the point. does the united states and the chinese, the united states government and chinese government have identical or at least wildly similar goals in dealing with the korean peninsula? >> so i think we do have broadly similar goals. >> what would those be? >> the chinese government wants to see a denuclearized korean peninsula. that is one of their main key objectives. they also want there not to be chaos, war, and war on the korean peninsula for obvious
reasons. it's right on their border. but their main goal for the current process is to denuclearize and rid the crane peninsula of those programs. >> if that's true, then why isn't the chinese government doing everything that it can to achieve that goal? >> well, i think that they've done a lot. >> no, i'm talking about you know, full-on maximum effort, max mux restrictions on trade, maximum restrictions on doing business with north korea. why -- if that's true, then why hasn't the chinese government exerted the kind of authority and force on a diplomatic and on a sanctioned regime that would achieve that result? >> it's hard for me to get exactly to inside what their policy process is and what they're thinking. what i would say is that the calculus that they have about
the line between war and chaos and getting to denukization might be slightly different than the line that we have and that they seem to prioritize very much the you know the economy of north korea's is dependent on china. so they have said that they want to make sure that the people of north korea are not adversely ached. of course, we don't want that either. but they seem to have a different calculation about that is how i look at it. >> i think that's the ultimate challenge here going forward which is finding parallel purpose with the chinese in achieving this result. and having a coalition of, you know, extreme willingness to trael do everything that we can to achieve that result. and short of that, i guess secretary, short of that kind of collaboration and cooperation,
how is this going to work to actually change behavior in north korea? >> senator, of course, we are intent on working very closely with the chinese to make sure that they are likewise maximizing economic pressure. we're in very regular discussions with them. we've seen some recent steps that they've taken that suggest that they are increasing the economic pressure that's going to be brought to bear but we are moerping it very, very carefully. and i think the authorities that we now have and the executive order also send a message that if countries, any country doesn't take this as seriously as we think that they should, then we will not hesitate to act. so it's partially working closely coordinating carefully, collaborating as we are doing but also sending the message that the president has sent, that secretary mnuchin has send, that we're constantly sending where we think it's warned we're going to continue to up the
pressure. that's the stlat ji. >> if the chinese government did everything possible economically with sanctions with trade, with relationships, would it effectively achieve a deterrence from further progression in north koreaing to acquire nuclear weapons? >> senator, that's the strategy. time will tell what we're trying to do is change the strategic calculus of north korea and we have to do that in concert with all of our partners around the globe. i can't tell you that it's going to change the calculus but that is our ultimate objective to achieve a denuclearized peninsula. >> you believe that's the ultimate chinese objective. >> i can just tell you they are working intently with us on this urgent matter. >> thank you, senator scott. >> thank you both for being here this morning. in 1994, we struck the agreed framework with north korea with the goal of eliminating the regime's nuclear ambitions.
in 2000, president clinton relaxed the sanctions under the assumption that north korea was upholding its end of the bargain. in 2005, the united states, china, japan, north korea, russia and south korea put out a joint statement celebrating north korea agreeing to abandon its nuclear weapons program again. 2006, north korea tested its first nuclear weapon. since then, north korea has conducted five more nuclear weapon tests and dozens of ballistic missile flight tests threatening american targets. i'll ask you both. if a denuclearrization agreement is reached how can we ensure that the kim regime does not fool us again like they have over the past couple of decades? >> nor i agree with you. that is the challenge. we have to -- if an agreement is reached we are going to having to very carefully hold them to
account. we cannot get to the same place we are in today and again, we would maximize it the pressure that we've put on in a calibrated way to avoid that, the perilous situation we're in today. >> do you care to comment? >> yeah, i think what we would have to do is make sure we have the entire international community on board for the enforcement of the agreement and it's very clear what the stipulations are in the enforcement that we have inspectors in. it would be an intrusive inspection regime and we would have to lay out of that out in the process of getting to that agreement. >> senator heitkamp started to talk about it the chinese influence on north korea and my last question goes in that direction. the president's recent executive order allowed treasury and state to impose secondary sanctions on financial institutions who continue to do business with north korea. but the president gave your
departments discretion as to how to implement such measures and who to go after. that latitude you've been given is a deterrent to north korea's enablers. case in point, the same day the executive order was announced, the people's bank of china told financial institutions to wind down their books of business with north korean clients. i previously made the point that our deep economic enter dependence with china hurts our ability to incentivize them to take action. did the simple threat of secondary sanctions bring about the bank's announcement? >> senator, i can't tell you what has motivated the chinese, the various announcements that we've seen from the chinese. i can only tell you that again we are continuing to work with them and to put pressure on them to take the steps they need to take. i think that the executive order sends a very important and careful message that if we see continued evasion of our sanctions regimes, if we see
banks not complying with their obligations to restrict this kind of activity, we won't hesitate to act. that in and of itself should be sending a very clear messagetom banks around the world. >>. >> anything else? >> have the chinese, this is, of course, in your opinion. i know that you can't tell me what the these think. my question is, do you think the chinese have come to a similar conclusion about the interdependence of their economic future on america? >> so you mean are they concluding because of the interdependence that they can stop short of fully implementing the sanctions? >> i mean the reverse. if they send 700 to 8 had $00 billion worth of goods to america. >> they need to comply. >> part of their challenge is that they will have a lot to lose if we shut down. >> sure, i think that's right. i think they care a lot about the relationship with the united
states. they're very concerned about what's going on in north korea and very concerned about what it implies for their picture, the strategic security picture in the region. and for them for their own national security and i think they also are determined to comply with the international sanctions regime that they will voted for in the u.n. and they've said over and over again that they will strictly implement the sanctions and i think they care about being see as strictly implementing the sanctions and so that's where i think a lot of their recent efforts and initiatives have come from in concert with that. >> certainly seems to me if come compliance of the north korean regime flows through the actions of china, we should spend as much time delving into the relationship that we have with china to make sure we will doll everything possible to control north korea through that medium. thank you.
>> senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both for being here. secretary mandel ker, i was wondering if you have met with adam szubin yet? >> i've met with adam a number of times, yes. >> i would recommend to you that you stay in contact with him. that you stay in touch with him. he has worked this side of the street for a long, long time. is extraordinarily talented worked for both republican and democratic administrations. and is a patriot above all. and so whenever i have somebody who can help me as a resource, i try to use them. he would be a great resource for you to use. senator sasse and i held a subcommittee hearing on the subject in may. one of the key findings was our sanction efforts can't be effective unless they're within a clear comprehensive strategy. in your written, miss thornton, in your written testimony to the house foreign fairs committee on september 12th, you wrote in
regard to the administration's strategy on north korea, we're not seeking regime change or collapse. nor do we seek an accelerated reunification of korea or an excuse to send troops north of the dmz. my question is that this week there was a statement from the commander in chief that the north korean regime won't be around much longer. how do we put those two things together and how do we can create a strategy when there appears to be two different programs rolling around here? >> thank you very much, senator. i think our strategy is -- has a primary goal of denuclearization. that's what we're working toward. the president's comments have been directed more at the issue of threats emanating from north korea to our homeland and what would be our very reasonable and likely response to an attack from north korea.
so i think these two things are a little bit different and i don't think that the clear statements that we're trying to make in order to make sure that the north koreans understand what would happen if they made a miscalculation and initiated an attack on us or our allies, i don't think that that undermines our declarative statement of our purpose in the negotiations and in the diplomatic process of being aimed at denuclearization and not the other things that you mentioned. >> secretary mandel ker, are sanctions efforts undermine fundamental they're not, if they don't follow with a clear message as to what we're trying to achieve? are we making that clear message. >> yes, senator i believe we are making that clear message. >> okay. then let me ask you in regards to oil exports from china to north korea. where are we with that? what are our success opportunities with that? will it be completely cut off and when? >> well, that is in part up to
the chinese. but we are also again sending a message at large that we will cut off or we are able and have the authority to target any company that's continuing to trade with north korea in any industry. so that message is coming clear from the united states. >> isn't the oil exports the key sanction that's needed to get the attention of jim kong u.n. to grind their economy up to actually make a dent? >> i think the oil exports certainly are very important. and we again we are not limited in our ability to target any oil company that's continuing to do business. >> no i understand that. but the oil continues to flow, doesn't it? >> it does continue. my understanding is that it does continue to flow and i believe that it should stop. >> and what are the plans over next five months to dry that up
completely? >> senator, i'm not going to prognosticate what our next steps will be. all options are on the table and we're going to continue to aggressively implement our sanctions regimes, continue to deploil other economic tools that we have. we're going to continue to engage very seriously with our allies and our partners. we're going to continue to have discussions with china about measures that we think they should take. we are also sending as you know an important message to financial institutions that they need to cut off any activity ongoing financial activity with north korea and to that end, we're also having conversations with banks around the world about steps that we think they need to take. >> let me ask you about the like the four or five biggest banks in china. we've been able to obtain parts from some of the north korean missiles. we know who makes some of those parts. we know the banks that finance the companies that make those parts that are on the missiles that are aimed at our friends and allies.
we know the five most significant chinese banks that are the parent banks or banks with relationships to these other banks. what are we doing to those five banks to put pressure on them to make sure that these parts are no longer built? >> no, senator, i'm not going to prognosticate the next steps -- >> what steps have you taken with those five chinese banks. >> as a general matter the steps we have taken is sending an important signal through our action in june an through this next executive order that we are not going to tolerate continued financial activity that helps to -- the kim regime and we are -- >> have any sanctions been put on those banks. >> not on those banks, senator, not at this time. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cotton. >> i've seen a report recently that says north korea is the fourth or fifth most sanctioned nation in the world by the united states, is that accurate?
>> i can't give you a competitive, but at this time we the united states have maximum authorities to go after any problematic behavior or activity, economic activity with north korea. >> is there any reason why we shouldn't throw the kitchen sink at them economically? hit them with as much as we can, as fast as we can as hard as we can? >> that's exactly what we're doing. >> ms. thornton, i want to turn to something you said earlier that i have to disagree with, i think it's a fundamental disagreement and yogi berra said if you don't know where you're going you might not get there. you said you believe that china seeks denuclearization to the peninsula. i know that mouthpieces say to the united states and western audiences but i can't agree with it. they claim that they are worried about a war that would lead to a refugee crisis on their border or a unified pro american korean
peninsula. i find this to be specious. refugee crisis, i'm pretty sure that the chinese government can build a wall on their border and they've proven that they have a backup method to deal with a refugee crisis as well, tanks like they used at tiananmen square. second, if they were really worried about a refugee crisis or a pro american unified state on their border aren't there numerous diplomatic measures they could take? i'm pretty sure the united states would agree to no forced reunification as we did with east and west germany after 1989, i'm pretty sure he would agree to no troops, we would work to set up refugee camps supported by the united nations inside of north korea. and then finally i just look at china's actions. they blocked us from imposing those oil export sanctions at the united nations security council a couple weeks ago. north korea's economy has grown over the last six months.
trade with north korea was up earlier this year. so all of these things suggest to me that when china says they want to dee nuclear rise north korea they are misrepresenting their intentions because what would be the consequences for them if that were the case? north korea would become like an isolated weird stalinist state the way east germany or romania was in the cold war but they wouldn't pose any real threat to the united states or allies in the nation. we would be having hearings about chinese economic warfare and espionage against the united states, the armed services committee would be having hearings about china's building and militarizing islands in the south china sea. so i would say that it actually benefits china strategically in their competition against the united states that north korea remain nuclearized and therefore
they are not going to take steps to dee nuclear rise north korea as well as the costs of keeping a nuclear north korea exceed the benefits they get interest it. that's my perspective on what china's motivations are here. i'd like to hear your perspective on mine. >> so i think where i probably would not share exactly your assessment is what the chinese assessment is of the security implications for them of a continued nuclear program in north korea and they are very clear that would there be a nuclear state in north korea that there would be nuclear proliferation in the region on their border and that there would likely be a catastrophic acceleration in the breakdown of the nuclear nonproliferation regime around the globe and that that has far reaching security implications for them. so i think that's probably the place where i would have the
most difference with the assessment that you mentioned. >> and i agree that from a beijing standpoint a nuclear japan or south korea both of which could achieve that aim at a year, two years, would be detrimental to their interests but if that's the case why are they not doing the kinds of things we just outlined. why are they seeking the diplomatic agreements with the united states that would allay their concerns in advance of any effort to dee nuclear rise north korea. >> i think we've seen them adopt the most far reaching u.n. security council resolutions we have ever seen in the quickest amount of time we have ever seen. i think they changed slowly and they're getting increasingly concerned about the behavior out of north korea and increasingly it's becoming clear to them the implications for them which they had maybe not fath omd clearly enough earlier.
>> our time is up. thank you for the testimony. i'd just say the consensus in washington that china is the partner this issue, i don't think that that is the case, i believe they seen the current status quo as benefiting their interests and i think that our committee needs to take that into account as we're crafting any sanctions measures to bring more pressure on to beijing. >> thank you. >> ms. thornton, i know you have to go at 10:30 if i'm still talking i won't be offended. first of all, what is u.s. policy with respect to the korean peninsula, specifically you say the primary goal is denuclearization, that's u.s. policy? >> yes. >> when you say primary goal does that indicate should we infer from that that there is a secondary goal? >> no, i mean, i think that is our overarching goal in our current strategy that we're
bringing the massive pressure to achieve. >> following up on what the chairman of the foreign relations committee said, that the intelligence community's assessment is that that is vanishingly unlikely, and i understand what you have to do what you have to do and we appreciate it, but understanding that here we are with a state department representative and treasury representative and you are all in your own way doing that which is strategically necessary in your own lane and yet we have an objective that may not be achievable at all. so i guess the question is are there short-term objectives setting aside that goal and whether or not we are going to argue about the extent to which it's realistic to dee nuclear rise the peninsula, do we have a short term objective we're trying to i a chief here? >> well, i think the objective is to change the calculus of the regime about their nuclear
weapons program and show them that the cost of that program is unbearably high and that they won't be able to maintain it. >> that sounds like a long-term objective and i go he is it goes to my second question is is it fair to say we are in a crisis situation right now? >> well, i think almost every high level official in the u.s. government has noted north korea as our most urgent and compelling national security challenge, so, you know, it has been said that the timetable that north korea is moving on to develop its weapons program is much more rapid than we had foreseen and that we are working as fast as we can and as intensively as we can to get sanctions herb sheems put in place and implemented, that's why we are engaging everybody in the world. >> i want to be respectful of your time but those all still don't sound like crisis
management enterprises, those sound like -- i am with you on the strategic objective of getting kim jong-un to change his calculus, but i don't see that happening in the next three to six months or even in the next, you know, six to 18 months and yet we are in a crisis right now. so the question is the state department or department of defense, the white house, the national security council in a crisis management mode which int grates that which we are doing for our long-term objectives which our intelligence community are saying may not even be realistic and the question becomes we have these long-term objectives which have a call it 30% chance of success, many say zero, but whatever that percentage chance is they have some low likelihood of success but they also may have the intended consequence of escalating the short term cliess. i think we need to know what we're up to right now which is that all of this sounds good and
to chairman corker's point is incredibly politically satisfying for us to criticize china and to pass new sanctions and to do our oversight, but if we are in a crisis and the u.s. government's policy is to do something that most people think we can't do, then i think we are in a dangerous situation and you compound that with the fact that you basically have three levers, right, you have the sanctions, which i think you are doing an incredibly effective job with, you have readiness and then you have diplomacy, but then you have this commander in chief who uses belligerent rhetoric and i don't want to ask you to comment on that because you work in the administration, but it has to be recognized that your strategy may work in another time with another president, but to the extent that you have co err sieve diplomacy and you've got
bombers flying across to send, i think, appropriately the signal that we would be ready for any contingency, it's viewed differently if that is concurrent with a threat via twitter that we're going to wipe them off the map. i mean, we can't view our strategy as separate and apart from what the president of the united states says. and i would just ask you to consider the possibility that we are in a crisis and that the commander in chief says things that are not irrelevant to what we have to do. my time is up, thank you. >> thank you. and, miss thornton, senator warren has asked if you could stay three minutes, she has promised to stick to three minutes. >> i promise. >> i appreciate your doing that. thank you, tmr. chairman. president trump has made the nuclear crisis worse by threatening fire and fury, by vowing to totally destroy the regime and by engaging in name calling with an unstable leader in north korea.
the president is struggling to deal with north clae which already has nuclear weapons and is advancing its capabilities but he is also about to create another crisis by suggesting that he may not certify to congress by the october 15th deadline that iran is complying with the nuclear agreement which so far has prevented iran from getting a nuclear weapon. now, the president has already certified twice that iran is complying with this deal and if he fails to certify again next month then he could blow up the agreement and iran may restart development of a nuclear weapon. i get it, iran supports terrorism, engages in human rights abuses, works to develop ballistic missiles, but i think it's easier to counteriran's destabilizing behavior if it has no nuclear weapon than it would be if iran had a nuclear weapon. if the states causes the iran
nuclear deal to fall apart would it make it easier for harder for us to resolve the north korea nuclear crisis through diplomacy? >> well, i don't really want to speculate on a hypothetical, but i do think that it is very important to hold countries with which we have agreements to account for the implementation of those agreements and in the case of north korea and in the case of past agreements we have had with north korea, we have seep that these agreements have been undercut by north korean -- >> i understand you're concerned about their undercutting. the question is about our undercutting. so far the iranian nuclear deal is working and my question is if we blow that up does it make it harder to get to an agreement that the north koreans cobble in if we try to negotiate with them? >> well, our objective here is on denuclearization with the
north koreans. we know that they are engaged in a lot of other nefarious behavior that is concerning but what we would want to focus on is that the agreement covers all the provisions -- >> okay, i'm asking about the relevance of blowing up the iran deal on trying to get a diplomatic solution with korea. >> yeah, i mean, i know that there's speculation about what's going to happen with the iran deal and i'm not the iran person, but we have of course the secretary has certified compliance the last two times, so i can't get inside the head of the north koreans and tell you how they look at it. >> okay. i will just quit because i promised i would by quoting adam suben who said great nations do not play games when it comes to their international agreements. doing so would be especially short-sided when we're trying to convince the world to join us in a north korea sanctions campaign whose stated objective is nuclear diplomacy. i think he's right and i think
president trump would be wise to take his advice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. miss thornton, you are excused. thank you for making the effort to be here today when you had this problem come up. >> thank you, ms. thornton. >> thank you. >> senator van holland. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. senator corker indicated in his questions that administrations whether they are republican or democrat, democratic administrations prefer for congress to give them the maximum authority but also the maximum flexibility. in fact, back in 2009 when congress was considering the iran sanctions legislation the obama administration indicated, quote, the problem with congressional measures is that you can't turn them on and off as you like, unquote, similar to the response that you provided to senator corker. the congress nevertheless on a bipartisan basis went on to pass the iran sanctions legislation
and as senator toomey said i think there's strong bipartisan consensus here in congress and also ultimately the executive branch that those congressional sanctions backed up by the president's signature are what brought iran to the negotiating table. do you agree with that? >> senator, i think it was the full range of authorities from the executive branch and the congress that brought iran to the table and of course we welcome working closely with the congress on these critical issues. >> right. but the distinction that you have made many times this morning as did secretary thornton is between authority and implementation and you both indicated that enforcement and implementation is the key right here and the question is whether we are fully implementing those powers and the purpose of having sanctions like the iran sanctions legislation is to make sure there is a constant driver there. have you had a chance to look at the u.n. expert's report for both february and then the
interim report that lists a whole bunch of chinese firms and banks and from other countries that they assess to be violating the u.n. sanctions? have you seen that? >> i have seen the panel of expert reports and we have taken some action based on those reports, but the importance for us is that we have the ability to remain agile so that -- so that the treasury department can deploy our economic authorities and tools in the way that's going to maximize our strategic impact. >> i understand. i mean, it's another version of we want a lot of authority with maximum flexibility, but i think the question is whether we need to do more. i think that it was premature of president trump to sort of heap some congratulations on, you know, president xi. i understand we want the chinese to work with us, as secretary thornton indicated they've been quote, the leading enabler of north korea.
and as of today there are a whole lot of chinese banks or firms that we believe are continuing to violate the sanctions. why aren't you naming those banks? why aren't you identifying them publicly even if you are not taking action against them now, isn't there a benefit in publicly shaming those banks that are engaged in that kind of activity? >> no, senator, in june of course we did name the bank of dandong which we thought was a gateway for funding that was going to north korea. we are actively monitoring the activity of the banks, we have this forward looking authority to allow us to impose secondary sanctions, we take that authority very seriously and we will continue to deploy our economic tools in the way that we think enables -- >> mr. chairman -- look, i appreciate that. the executive order could have been issued day one of this administration, there's nothing that would have stopped you from doing that. so if i could, mr. chairman, put in the record the full list of the entities that were
identified in the interim report of the u.s. policy panel of experts that continue to evade sanctions. >> without objection. >> the bank of dandong is one and they've got over 58 here, there are others that i know that you've targeted, but the point is if we're serious about getting china to work with us and cooperate we have to increase the leverage. i understand the desire for maximum authority combined with maximum flexibility from the congress, but i also think on a bipartisan basis most people agree that it was ultimately the sanctions legislation that sent a message that we are very serious about making sure we implement these sanctions going forward. so i believe that there's a lot more we can do, this is why senator toomey and i have introduced legislation really patterned after the iran sanctions legislation and i hope, mr. chairman, and ranking member, we can move in that
direction. thank you. >> thank you. dr. cortes mastel. >> good to see you again. >> good to see you. >> i noticed it seemed like when senator shots was talking with you and kind of giving his perspectives you wanted to respond. i want to open that up to let you respond. >> thank you. i think dr. schatz was asking what are our short term and long-term objectives. one of our short term objectives is to cut off all revenue streams to north korea to keep it from having the ability to continue to fund its wmd programs and that is what we are constantly intent on doing, whether it's deploying our sanctions effectively, going after the -- going after the revenue streams or mapping out their efforts to evade sanctions, understanding how they use front companies, financial facilitators around the world and we are tactically deploying those authorities and tools and using our intelligence in a way that will provide
maximum strategic impact. that was what i was going to continue to say. thank you. >> thank you. so this is one of many hearings we have had and thank you very much to the chair and ranking member. during those hearings some have argued that i'm posing secondary sanctions on entities doing business with north korea could cause the north korean regime to collapse. do you have concerns that i'm posing secondary sanctions could cause that collapse? >> what we want to do is change their strategic calculus. we are not seeking a collapse, we are changing strategic -- a change in their strategic calculus so that they stop -- they stop escalating in the way that they've been escalating and that we ultimately achieve a dee nuclearized peninsula. >> you've talked about the president's executive order which gives treasury the authority to impose secondary sanctions. have you imposed any secondary
sanctions pursuant to that executive order? >> the executive order of course was just signed last week, it's a going forward. that particular section is a going forward authority and we are going to continue to monitor what the banks are doing -- >> so you haven't to date and do you intend to in the near future? >> what i will tell you is all options are on the table, i'm not going to prognosticate what future actions we might take. >> okay. and then just recently as we know and we had talked about it here chinese government issued a directive to chinese banks on september 21st directing them to stop certain financial transactions with north korean businesses. do you have a copy of that directi directive? do you know what's in that directive? >> i do not have a copy of the directive. >> do you intend to get a copy of the directive? >> if the chinese would share it of course i'd like to get a copy but i don't have a copy of the directive. >> okay. thank you very much.
i appreciate you being here. >> thank you. senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, it's good to see you again. it's been a while. >> good to see you. >> i think you hear a lot of frustration and obviously i am -- i want to official comment, but what senator corker said where there may be a contradiction between the conclusions of the intelligence community and what the secretary of state is trying to do. it's a really thorny issue and, mr. chairman, we may want at some point to hit a classified brief for members of the committee, sitting on the intel committee, some of the conclusions are fairly chilling. you said you have not seen the chinese order, but in terms of
your view of it is there any gaps, any visible gaps or holes that -- in the chinese new restrictions towards the north koreans. >> again, senator, i have not seen the order. they did issue an announcement today that all -- that they are shutting down all north korean firms and joint ventures with china. i think that is a welcome step. we are working very closely with the chinese and to the extent that there are gaps and of course as i've also mentioned we think the unskirt is a floor not the ceiling and it's incredibly important that they take marks muscle efforts to enforce their obligations. >> we've seen testimony in this committee and elsewhere that the north koreans are pretty good about using front companies. >> yes. >> and in terms of our cooperation with the chinese at this point, how good are our
efforts at ferreting out those front companies so that we can really get at north korean sources. >> so we are constantly working with the intelligence community and with our financial institutions to map out, detect and cut off those front companies. it's something that we are very, very focused on. we have been able to identify certain front companies. this week, in fact, we designated 26 financial facilitator facilitators, north korean financial facilitators that are around the globe to send -- and these are financial facilitators who have become experts in how to set up those kinds of front companies so we are sending a message that nobody should be doing business with them. we are also sharing various type olgs with our banks to make sure that they understand what they should be looking out for to ensure that front companies aren't abusing the international financial system. so our efforts are increasing,
we're working very closely with the intelligence community as i mentioned with our banks. we have -- but we have to continue to escalate. >> i hope you will keep the committee abreast of that. >> i would be happy to do so. >> we will collaborate with the intel committee. i guess the final point -- and let me echo some of the comments made on this side of the aisle, that i've been concerned with the tenor of some of the president's comments, the back and forth insult attacks do not make our nation safer and frankly i think decreases the amount of international support that the sanctions regime would have. but i would also acknowledge that this is not a problem that suddenly emerged upon the stage just at the beginning of the trump administration. i think there are many administrations going back
democrat and republican alike where this issue has not had a high enough focus and now we are reaping that -- those results. and i guess what i wonder is, you know, even presuming that we now have a fresh approach from the chinese, we're ratcheting back -- i look forward to joining bipartisan legislation to even increase congressional sanctions, kim jong-un has got a history of not exactly succumbing to international pressure or sanctions, he has not got a long period of -- he is willing to put his people through enormous challenge and -- challenges to maintain his control. i mean, could we have any sense at all that we're going to have the time for these sanctions to actually have real effect versus the pretty remarkable progress he has made on the nuclear front? >> senator, i think what you are
seeing now on the international stage, and i'm seeing it in my conversations with my partners around the globe and frankly the president has also had very -- has been having constructive dialogue with our allies as a unity of purpose. we have never had the unskirs that were passed in success in august and then in september. it's going to be critical to be successful to have wide scale implementation of those sanctions and we also think countries need to be over and above what the obligations that are in fact in those sanctions. i think that economic pressure and diplomatic pressure, those are the tools that we want to deploy to achieve the change in strategic calculus that we're trying to achieve and we're putting our maximum efforts and resources to do so. >> i think we have made progress i just worry, mr. chairman, that this would have been great if we
would have done this pick your number two years, five years, ten years ago. thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you, senator warner. and that concludes our questioning. we actually just had the vote called, so it turns out that the timing worked out pretty well for the hearing as well. i want to thank you again for coming before us, for coming before us again and as many of the senators indicated thank you for the great work that you are doing and in her absence i want to thank susan thornton as well for the work that's going on at the state. so state and treasury, we do deeply appreciate your work here. we'd like to inform senators that their questions -- and there will be further questions i'm sure that we would ask you to respond to in writing, that they submit those questions within one week and we would ask because we are working on a time frame here for the legislation we are reviewing that you respond within one week as well. >> and if i could add, the
ranking members of the appropriate committees that worked on the iran issue and the jtpoa have sent a letter to secretary of the treasury, secretary of defense and secretary of state asking if there is, in fact, evidence of noncompliance with the iranians with the agreement that you let us know what it is specifically and i renew that request for you to share with treasury secretary and with the other two, and the deadline -- we ask for that answer by early october, so i would like to -- like you to follow up with that with us, please. >> thank you. i would be happy to do so. and thank you for the hearing and our continued partnership. >> thank you. if there's nothing further, then this hearing is adjourned.
and a live look on this thursdayafter noon of the u.s. capitol here in washington, d.c. where it's been a busy day in the u.s. senate. lawmakers are continuing their work on the 2018 republican budget resolution. a measure that could clear the way for tax reform efforts. a number of amendments are being considered and votes are taking place throughout the day. a final passage vote on the resolution expected by the end of the vehicle. you can watch the senate action live on our companion network c-span 2. be with it later today for remarks on former president barack obama. he is on the campaign trail, he will be stumping for virginia's lieutenant governor raffle nor
thumb. available on line at cspan.org and listen with the free radio app. >> coming up later tonight it's house speaker paul ryan delivering remarks at the al smith dinner in new york city. live coverage starts at 8:40 eastern. when i first went in it's a long story, but i was barely able to get back to the surface, but then a bunch of them jumped in and there was a picture which i'm sure you will show of them pulling me out of the -- out of the lake. you can see my arm is broken and -- up high and then of course once they pulled me out they weren't very happy to see me. >> why not? >> because i just finished bombing the place.
so it got pretty rough, broke my shoulder and hurt my knee again, but, look, i don't blame them. i don't blame them. we are in a war. i didn't like it, but at the same time when you are in a war and you are captured by the enemy you can't expect, you know, to have tea. >> 50 years after his capture arizona senator john mccain talks about the impact of the vietnam war on his life and the country, sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, a look at controversial union and confederate generals during a live discussion with authors and historians from the historical
park in petersville, virginia, starting saturday at 9:00 a.m. and sunday at 9:15 eastern. saturday at 10:00 p.m. on real america, the january 1968 weekly series abc scope examines resistance to the vietnam war and the draft. >> we are living in the middle of a beast, lyndon johnson is a common murderer and he should be arrested for murder. there are no limits to dissent. i asked -- i think the peace movement should have the anger of the vietnamese women whose child was burned by nay palm dropped by ooms american planes way up in the sky. the peace movement has to go into the streets and it has to use the tactic of disruption because the american people are drunk with apathy. >> and on sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories, we continue our series on pho photojournalists with diana walker. >> i felt that i should accept
their offers to be behind the scenes every time they offered it because anytime you see the president of the united states behind the scenes, you learn something about the president and you see something and it is important -- i can be there for you, you can't be there. and everything i see is important. >> american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, only on c-span 3. two combat veterans join national security experts on a discussion on u.s. military strategy in afghanistan creately at the cato institute in washington, d.c. panelists discuss the current situation in afghanistan and whether a negotiated settlement or removing u.s. troops was an appropriate option moving forward. this program is 90 minutes.