regime that tries to get its hands on nuclear weapons and tries to launch a rocket reinforces the importance of fighting in missile defense system because that's perhaps one of the only things that gives us leverage is the we can defend ourselves. also i have been privy as a member of this committee to the debates over the nine years on food aid to north korea. when did the united states assume the responsibility for the nutrition of the north korean people. this is a loony policy on our side. should we just say that any dictatorship around the world decides they want to spend their money on how weapons production that they are going to automatically qualify for nutritional aid for their people from the united states and we are going to have expressions so concerned that the food aid that was giving goes directly to their people. but dictatorships are we calling out of that equation. they want to spend more money on weapons. it's happened now and it hasn't done any good. given all this money has provided them the resources they need to spend 850 to $50 million on a rocket launched. i think it's something that we need again to have reality checks when we go in to the debates on such policies i'd like to ask about the chinese. do any of you have evidence that of the rocket that was going up had important chinese components on the rocket, and in the nuclear system that they've been building, the weapons system are there not chinese components to that that are vital to the success of those projects? whoever knows anything about it. specs several of us have had clearances' over the years and there's only so much we can say. i think it is a matter of public record of the north koreans have put together their missile program, the iranian enrichment program and the reprocessing by chemical precursors, highly refined uranium materials all over the world, and particularly using the network a lot of that comes through china, so that is why beijing following the letter of the sanctions is hardly enough. >> when we see this impoverished regime in north korea they can't even feed its own people there regime that counts its power on the basis of the people marching down the streets during the goose step but this is the regime that is responsible for building these nuclear reactors and this technology. are we not dealing with beijing -- is beijing not using north korea as a proxy? please, stay calm. forget what i am doing, stockholm, go and blame the other guy over there. >> i tend to think that china hasn't defined the nuclear program. i think china likes having north korea as a buffer between it and south korea, but for, what i've seen china has never been terribly happy about north korea's's pursuit of nuclear weapons. but i -- >> i have 15 seconds left on my time and i'm just going to suggest that china is the big player and just like we don't want to face the reality that we shouldn't be giving food aid to dictatorship like this or that we need a missile defense system we just don't want to face the reality of the downside of china coming and for whatever reason this has been going on for 20 years to america's detriment and nowhere is that more clear than the policy with korea. >> thank you very much. mr. smith is recognized, sorry, judge poe on the oversight and investigation. just the way it is. >> it seems to me that kim jong il is just like his daddy and follows in the footsteps of his daddy. he's trying to make a name for himself and thanks a bunch of promises to the west and like his dad and granddad he lies and breaks his word. shock. where i come from if a man breaks his word you probably shouldn't trust him the next time he gives his word not to something more to do something. it seems to me here we are come over here in the united states. okay, we will try again in a few years, a few months. we will promise the same thing if you hold off on this case on your nuclear capability. it seems to me that just doesn't work for north korea. it doesn't work for iran, and we are pushing a decision to do something just to push it off to the next administration. i know we've heard from the other side this is bush's falls, clinton's fault. we are in a situation where north korea is going to be a threat. and my first question is what is the policy of the united states over all dealing with the nuclear capability of north korea. are we going to keep making promises and give them food, help the people, what is our policy towards north korea? >> welcome a part of the problem dealing with both north korea and iran is we are recognizing the right to nuclear technology. i was at the state department when president bush reaffirmed iran's right to nuclear technology and many of us argued if you pursue nuclear weapons secretly or the technology in violation to the iea e. a. you are entitled to the technology in both administrations endorse that. that may be something congress can look into. >> what do you recommend? >> states that cheat have no right to the peaceful nuclear technology, period. the treaty says differently. we change the treaty and i think there was one of the biggest mistakes of the bush administration. we see that in the negotiation with iran. we have to make it clear they are not entitled to the technology because it will use it to make nuclear weapons. the framework was going to give more after we get the additional reactors. they were proliferation resistant but they could be used on the right conditions to make nuclear weapons fuel spewed the was a foolish agreement, and i think that -- i guess if i was to find the biggest problem in the policy, that's it and that's something we should work on. >> dr. green, briefly. >> i don't think any administration would want a reactor. that is off the table so defacto the policy is the policy towards north korea. iran is another story and i agree completely on that front and i think there's an assumption if we can cut a deal and basically rent the program and pay them off, and we can manage it until -- the problem as i mentioned earlier they are not going to sit still. they are going to use the time not to increase the nuclear weapons capability and continue raising the asking price. so we need a strategy that focuses on roebuck. missile defense, allianz cooperation, interdiction, enforcement of sanctions. if we can't do it with china than we did without. i would maintain a diplomatic element. we need a channel for communication from a variety of reasons that we've had it backwards for many years which as we made the negotiations to the center stage and all the other pieces the sort of secondary considerations. >> is seems to me that north korea doesn't take us seriously. would you agree with that or not, dr. green? >> we take very seriously. after the collapse of the soviet union the strategy was to develop a relationship with the u.s. to marginalize us all -- >> i'm talking about sanctions or consequence. >> i suspect the north koreans had gotten used a pattern where we have a very hard time in space societies 99 pressure on them. we move on to other things. even our approach was designed to save our amol, diplomatic ammo to get china and russia to work for iran and syria. they know that. >> one last question because i now time. long term as the north korea intention, would you speculate? >> somebody needs to answer. islamic long-term the corrupt regime needs to stay in power. that is the purpose of the corrupt group of people behind kim jong il and his family. that is all we're interested in. >> thank you very much. >> the chairman of the subcommittee on africa global health and human rights. >> thank you. thank you for calling this very important and timely hearing. the hearing nature of the subcommittee that last september on the human rights and north korea the way dismayed bustling two important points, but these are the two that i would like to bring it today any attempt to the nuclear weapons issue will sidelining or ignoring or d prioritizing the human rights issue was doomed to fail and said it is imperative with current and accurate information so that they understand that there are alternatives to the repression under which they are suffering. as mcveigh chaired the hearing on the depreciation of the refugee with the commission on march 5th which pointed out by china's violation of its own obligations of the refugee convention. i'm sorry i missed your oral presentations. with many of the points raised at those hearings to indicate you need a human rights policy that is unflinching the condemnation of abuse and north korea and our effort to muster would prevent action such as those by china to return the refugees to north korea against their will. they deserve the prioritization on their own merits which shouldn't be linked to the up and down negotiation. mr. snyder, you indicate providing information to north korea may be one of the most, "effective options for influencing the number three in internal choices. and doctor come you recommend that you rests now creates to stand our efforts to, quote, dramatically expand the flow of information into north korea. to seven days a week seem to be having a very positive impact in the country. one doctor that does humanitarian work in north korea wrote to the service according to my friend in pyongyang you are not only the voice of america but also the voice of the victim's in the murphree and dictatorship. the program includes commentary as we all know by the north korean defectors to help the north koreans understand the border world and how north korea appears from the outside. could any or all of you comment on the role that you think human rights has played in this administration policy towards north korea and what it should play and further elaborate on the means of communication and the kind of information to off sectors of the society that you think we should be promoting. >> the appointment for the investor of human rights he comes from the committee as i understand it, and is doing a good job. i think we should be moving up to a higher level. in particular, i think we need a more robust multilateral strategy. for us, the budget ministry and was hard we have a progressive government that didn't want to play on this and then we had in europe and germany countries that prefer to point at the u.s.. we now have a very different lineup in europe and japan and we could with more effort create more of a multilateral front pressing china on the repatriation of refugees and we know that north korea isn't going to fundamentally change its policy in the short term, but there's evidence that there since it is particularly when there's a broad multilateral indictment of the regime so that is where i would encourage the ambassador and his colleagues to bring it up to the next level. >> i think the human rights have been lacking and that is a big problem. we focused on a handful of issues trying to strike agreements of the nuclear issues and we put other issues such as human rights and the abject citizens to decide because they were destruction i think that's the mistake and we have to hold our principles not just the issues they are interested in talking about. we have to talk about what we need to talk about >> the cell phones and number three today even though they will only call north koreans it means information can flow from one part of north korea where you cannot move around easily to another part from some more information we can pour in to north korea, it can see been and it's starting to and china is richer than it used a piece of it is no longer a bad example. it's the example but north korea is falling behind because it's trying to prop up the military calling more than a quarter of its weak gdp, 27 dalia large gross domestic product more than 5 million coming from china, the number one patron. we have to expose this and get the information flowing in. we need our ally and there's an election coming up this december and south korea. >> the fact the human rights act has been a major contribution from the u.s. congress, the strong support for funding for information flows targeted at north korea we still need to work hard on highlighting china's's really terrible policy repatriation of north korean refugees and i know you've been doing a lot of work. i like that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much pittard although we would normally come quit at this time, mr. connolly has an issue so pressing and urgent that i told him he could have a few minutes to ask it and bring it up so as not to cause extreme stress. acid reflux, coronary disease and any other medical complication that could ensue. so mr. connolly is recognized. >> why do i have a feeling this is going to cost me a lot of chocolate? [laughter] i want to get the opportunity to answer the question i put out there earlier. it seems to me an odd thing we would have a hearing on north korea and not talk about the change in leadership, and i think we would benefit from each of your observations on remembering we have to be succinct. who is this new leader and what is our understanding of consolidation of power and who really holds the power in the north and what it might mean moving forward for the discussions we've had this morning? >> so far i think what we have seen on the surface is continuity. but as it could be seen from the video, there is something hard to accept in the west about a 30-year-old kid running a country surrounded by 60-years-old generals. so we don't know what is happening under the surface. and we are watching it to through a tv screen. the chinese have better direct access. what we really need is to see how the leader is interacting with those around him directly in order to make a clear determination. spasso for he is following a clear game plan making him out to look like his grandfather the great leader. he is appearing more for the on the spot government. normally there's a 100 day mourning period after the death of a father but basically following the game plan, i think that the missile and nuclear program is largely in place in terms of that plan and kim jong il called it audibles. he made a judgment calls how to respond to the western of pressuring and so forth. the troubling thing about this successor is how will he handle the automobile when things start getting rough after a future nuclear test of the publications howell will he handle that in the margins coming and that is the sort of unpredictable factor and where we may see tangency emerging between him and the military leadership figures. >> i think that he's probably secure because kim jong il's ill health was known for some time. i think they did have a transition in place before she died. whether kim jong il is running the country or whether kim jong il's cao wooful brother-in-law or his wife are part of a triumph we don't know yet but we will be watching this just like we used to watch the soviet generals on may day and see who's behind whom and what is going on in the country, but i just tend to think that this is not, the military isn't going to challenge him. they are all part of a regime that want to stay in power. is like the fact that she went ahead with of the deal that had been negotiated last october and outlined in geneva suggested he didn't need one continuity or he couldn't overcome the military first structure that he was inheriting. we don't know is the key point, and i've done many television interviews and the thing that they don't put on the television is the point that the u.s. government, the south korean government do not really know because we don't have direct access to the dynamics of the leadership and how they make decisions. we need to get much closer to this problem to have a better understanding no matter which policy beagle and then we need a long-term strategy we need to stick to over time because this is a long game. >> thank you. mr. berman and donley thank the witnesses. thank you for your excellent testimony. sorry about messing up the order and totally descanting dr. krone and at the end. my apologies. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen for joining us, and the committee is adjourned. the soldiers started telling me that the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on totally mismanage the development and logistics contracts. >> i was in a meeting where the brigade commander incredibly -- colonel mike howard this isn't long after president obama took office, and the state department was out there saying okay we are going to give you a bunch of development money. counterinsurgency. we are going to do this. and he said don't send any more money. send contract officers to oversee this stuff. i need people, i don't need more money. this year's student kim competition asked students across the country but part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's second prize winners selected article 5. >> i am here in front of the national archives in washington, d.c., home of the original copy of the constitution, the framework of our government, the holy grail of our american history. it's reform and change. article 5 of the document is a little-known provision that makes america the growing and changing society is today. >> to better understand what most people's values were in regards to the constitution of began by asking random people what provisions of the constitution they felt they benefited most from. >> freedom of speech. >> freedom of speech. as demand freedom of religion. >> freedom of speech. >> the right to bear arms. estimate the general consensus was that the most important parts of the constitution were the amendment which gave rights to citizens. >> a lot of the things people think about when you think about the constitution are not in the constitution, editor in the amendments to the constitution. very few people when they think about the constitution think to themselves, you know, conagra's having the power to regulate along the state's and having the power to raise the or me. those are not things people think about when they think about the constitution. the thing about the constitution gives freedom of speech. well, the first amendment gives freedom of speech. article 5 obviously was pretty vital in that when you take most people and ask them tell me three things about the constitution, chances are most of those things are in amendments. >> but what is article 5. i asked people if they knew what article 5 was. >> delude article 5 of the constitution is? >> no. >> no. is to mix of what is article 5? >> article fight is the congress when two-thirds of both houses this is a racial propose amendments to the constitution, and then it showed the joint resolution passed for two-thirds of the vote in both houses, then it goes to those states where it 38 states, three-quarters of the states would have to ratify the amendment before it would become the fundamental law of the land. there is another provision article 5, which allows the states in the face of inaction by congress to ask for the constitutional convention to be established for that purpose. >> what makes article 57 important? let's take a look at the preamble of the constitution. in the preamble, the framers wrote we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union. what do they mean by a more perfect union? >> i think it's an acknowledgment of the constitution represented sort of another try a few will to bring the states together where it was in place prior to the constitution i think and had a lot of shortcomings. people realized it had a lot of shortcomings. i think it represented the idea that the states did want to have some sort of vital central government, but at the same time retain their individual sovereignty over the local issues. as against what not sure the different public figures had