NORTHEAST ASIA PEACE AND SECURITY NETWORK ***** SPECIAL REPORT ***** US SENATORS COMMENT ON DPRK VISIT This report is distributed to e-mail participants of the NAPS Network. The following is the complete unofficial transcript of the April 11 Washington news conference by five US senators following their recent trip to the DPRK. The transcript was provided by the United States Information Agency (USIA). A summary of this news conference was included in the April 11 Daily Report. -------------------- News Conference With Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) Report on their Recent Trip to North Korea and Proposed Four- Party Talks Senate Radio and Television Gallery, the U.S. Capitol, 9:45AM EDT, Friday, April 11, 1997 SEN. STEVENS: The five of us -- Senator Inouye, Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici and Senator Roberts and I -- went to North Korea to try to understand the views of the government in Pyongyang on the preliminary talks for the four-party process. Our delegation was the first to go to North Korea from the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. Let me begin by reporting that we were received with great courtesy and had the opportunity to engage in genuine dialogue with our hosts. All topics were open for discussion, and we received thoughtful and serious responses to the issues raised by our delegation. We met with senior officials of their government, led by first -- Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Gu and Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan. We carried with us a simple message; we want to improve relationships with North Korea based upon the four-party talks. We stated to our North Korean hosts that there is complete unanimity between the United States and the Republic of Korea on our shared objectives. Before going to Pyongyang, our delegation first went to Seoul for consultations with their president, Kim Young-sam, and the foreign minister, Yu Chong-ha. We told Vice Minister Kang that our mutual priority is to promote confidence- building measures, to reduce tensions, and eliminate the possibility of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula. We stressed to the North Koreans that military tensions must be reduced to facilitate progress on food, energy and other concerns. We left no doubt that the four-party talks must proceed without preconditions, that any topic can be brought to the table, and progress can move forward on all fronts. We regret that we did not meet with officials of the Korean People's Army. We had hoped to learn of the military views on the four-party talks. By the way, they did use the sort of "good guy, bad guy" routine with us in saying that we had to work with them because the military was opposed to what they were doing with us. Failure by the North Korean military to support and participate in the negotiations sought by the United States and the Republic of Korea, in our judgment, could pose an insurmountable obstacle to progress in our relationships. Since our visit, there has been some movement. North Korea has agreed to set no preconditions on the talks, and South Korea announced it will resume food assistance to North Korea. We all urged North Korea to commence the four-party talks as soon as possible. That's the only means by which real progress can be achieved. In summary, our visit was brief, but it provided us with a firsthand view of the conditions in Pyongyang and the priorities for North Korea. We did not go to negotiate; we went to listen and to learn. And we think we brought back a great deal of knowledge concerning their problems. Now, I'll turn to my colleagues and see if they have any comments. SEN. : No. SEN. STEVENS: Senator -- no? (Cross talk.) SEN. : We'll answer questions. SEN. STEVENS: I'm going to get it now, I'm sure. (Laughter.) SEN. : In our delegation, the great leader speaks. SEN. STEVENS: Senator Inouye presented our -- our group with a T-shirt that says "We survived Codel Stevens," so that's the attitude of this crowd right now. If any of you have any questions, I note this morning that Secretary Cohen has been at the DMZ and has had reactions similar to ours. Yes, ma'am? Q: How much food aid should the United States give North Korea now? SEN. STEVENS: We should participate in the international movement to supply food to North Korea to meet their problems regarding starvation, particularly of children, but not as a precondition to North Korea's coming to the table and continuing the four- party talks. Q: But what should be the magnitude of the U.S. contribution? I mean, should it be another $10 million? Should it be half of the $95 million? SEN. STEVENS: That depends on the circumstance of the international situation with regard to the supply of food. As I said, South Korea has moved unilaterally now since our visit to provide some humanitarian assistance type food immediately. So I think that's a good result of our visit. But I do not think we have a figure. They mentioned a series of amounts. My two agricultural experts can tell you about that -- Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts. SEN. (): Well, the North Koreans indicated they were somewhere short about a million five or two million metric tons of grain and/or rice. And the situation is very serious. I would like to report, however, that they have entered into a commercial transaction with Cargill -- the grain company -- for 20,000 metric tons. we tried to make them understand that if Cargill had a license to export -- i.e., in regards to the sanctions, that it was a separate situation -- a commercial transaction. They had some difficulty understanding the difference, but it's my understanding, in meeting with Cargill as of just this morning, that that transaction has taken place. It is a third country barter kind of situation. The more they enter into normal trade relations, I think the better off they're going to be. In regards to their agriculture situation, it is rather primitive as compared to the high-yield agriculture that we now have in developed countries. They're going to need a lot of assistance to become self- sufficient. But the more they enter the trade route, I am sure the international community, with the U.S.'s strong participation, will help on a humanitarian basis. But my goodness, they need ag chemicals. They need fertilizer. They need modern farm machinery. They need computers. They need a whole several-decade reawakening in regards to their agriculture plan. Once again I think we're seeing agriculture used as a tool for peace -- I'm very pleased about that -- as opposed to a foreign policy weapon. And I think there is some progress being made. And I want to commend Chairman Stevens and the delegation for being very calm. And we've persevered and we've tried to explain the difference between humanitarian aid and a commercial transaction, which they must live up to. So think we made some progress. SEN. STEVENS (?): Thad, any comments? SEN. COCHRAN: Well, let me just add one aspect to that. The World Food Program director, Catherine Bertini (sp), had just been to North Korea shortly before we arrived. And she had tried to explain the situation in terms of a humanitarian emergency and was calling upon the world community to donate food and supply them with funds to buy food so that they could keep children from starving. We were only in the Pyongyang area. We didn't get to go up into some of the areas of the country where the situation is supposed to be a lot more severe. There have been others who visited there, but we did not do that. But even in Pyongyang you could see the gloomy and sad state of affairs. We went to one small communal farm right on the outskirts of town, and there was just no activity there, even though this was supposed to be a prize-winning farm and even though -- and it's a little early to be getting the rice paddies ready for planting when we were there. But still, it seemed like nobody was home. I mean, there was nothing going on out there. There weren't any people moving around the fields. There was no livestock, no ducks or geese or chickens or pigs or anything like that in sight. And so I came away with the impression that they do have a very, very serious food shortage problem. And the international community is going to be called upon to try to deal with that in a humanitarian way. And I'm sure we will participate with others, but not as a condition to reducing tensions, to living up to commitments that North Korea has already made to engage in talks that involve China, South Korea, and the United States, to deal with a wide range of problems. But we're hopeful that what we were able to do was to show that we're very concerned about the state of affairs on the Korean peninsula and we would like to see changes made and a more peaceful relationship developed between North Korea and the rest of the world community. And I think our trip served that purpose. I think we sensed a change in attitude while we were there, as a matter of fact. The first discussion of food assistance we heard was a demand, in effect, for 2.5 million metric tons of food as a condition to proceeding with the talks which had already been agreed upon. Then a little while later that came down to 1.5. And then later we heard that, well, the real emergency could probably be dealt with with a 500,000 metric ton donation. But these are indications to me that our visit was productive and that we tried to get the facts and let them know that we're going to be engaged and involved in trying to be an influence for peace and stability in that region. SEN. STEVENS: Any other questions? Go ahead. Q: Do you have any thoughts on KEDO -- (inaudible) -- any change in funding -- (off mike)? SEN. STEVENS: No, we didn't get into that. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, has been dealing with that. I did not -- we didn't -- did any of you get into that? No. We were dealing primarily with the problem of the four-party talks and the confidence-building measures. Yes? Q: This is Chung-Soo Lee of Korean Broadcasting System. Do you believe or do you assess that North Korea would be -- (inaudible) -- without the foreign -- (negotiation talks ?)? And do you predict any military provocation by the North Koreans? SEN. STEVENS: Do you want to take that, Dan? SEN. INOUYE: As my colleagues have indicated, we were not able to visit all of North Korea. And frankly, we did not see anyone with distended bellies or starving. But intelligence reports indicate and the general atmosphere suggested that North Korea was in a crisis. If the world community does not respond to this present crisis, I think we may be in for trouble. When one considers that North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world and over 1,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, we cannot take this lightly. I was impressed by the fact that this proud country would openly suggest to us that they're in a crisis and that they were seeking our help to resolve this matter. Usually, proud countries don't want to admit that their system has failed in meeting this -- and addressing this problem. So I suppose that the starvation is real and that the pressures are real. And taking that into consideration, and the fact that the military has under its control massive amounts of destructive power, I would say that we should join the international community and make certain that things are stabilized. SEN. STEVENS: Questions? Yes, miss? Q: On the -- could you discuss what the status is of U.S. troops in the region there, and if you see any need for either equipment or extended troop involvement over there? SEN. STEVENS: Well, we did visit our military, and -- and saw some firing exercises, some tank movements. And we've been on the DMZ before. I do think I -- our feeling was -- mine was -- that we have more than sufficient forces there to meet the emergency, should it develop. The South Koreans are very well prepared. I believe that if -- And I told them that -- the North Koreans -- that if they attacked the South, they would be committing national suicide. I think we are prepared to meet any, any possible contingency there. The problem is, is the loss of life in connection with such an action would be overwhelming. And I see no reason for it to take place, frankly. The world is changing and North Korea has not changed. And we were there to try to urge them to start the process of change, and offer our help in the legislative process, to try and assure that that would take place. Let me just, for instance, mention: they objected to our listing them under the Trading With The Enemy Act. And I said, "you know, we've just seen down -- seen the situation at the DMZ. We know what it is. You are an enemy. And until you recognize that you cannot come in under the special laws of the United States and ask for our assistance while you are classified as an enemy, then you're just not going to get any assistance. You must reduce the tensions that exist in the military sector in order for us to be able to take some action to try and help them." Senator Domenici, do you want to comment on that? SEN. DOMENICI: Yes. I would want to comment on that and make a couple of other observations. First of all, what our chairman said with reference to what we told the North Koreans as to what would happen if they were foolish enough to attack South Korea. I want to make sure that everybody understands that the leaders of the United States military say that same thing openly and publicly. We had a hearing at the end of this trip with the leaders of the United States military forces in the Pacific. And Admiral Prueher, who is one of the most distinguished men in the military and one in whom I'm very, very impressed, answered a question and just said, "If they attack, there is no question; North Korea will be destroyed." The problem is that with the proximity of all their weaponry, if they are so foolish, there will be huge damage inflicted on South Korea. And obviously, our men and women are right up on the front lines with all of our equipment. And so it is probably the world's most serious point in terms of the possibility of war. I don't think you should take from our discussions here today that any of us believe the condition of North Korea is very good. As a matter of fact, they are not only short of grain, they are desperately short of energy. Their buildings are only half lit. We can't -- we couldn't find where they were occupied; we didn't know where the people were. But we can tell you, when you view their town at night, a town with very large buildings, you just sort of wonder, "When are the lights coming on?" Except they're on. There are no street lights. There are no automobiles to speak of on the roads. The people, in my opinion, are more like members of a gigantic cult than they are people governed by some kind of ordinary government that all of us would look to and say, "Can we negotiate?" My last point is: If you wonder -- the state of mind of their leaders, then just put in perspective that in the midst of all of this crisis, human crisis, while we were there -- and I'm sure it's a coincidence -- but nonetheless, while we were there, they were in a state of total mobilization. They told us about it. It meant that they were preparing totally for a state of military emergency. If you can imagine, in their capital city that meant that every moving vehicle had to have camouflage on it. They're full tilt in terms of their military exercises. In fact, we were told the day before they had their own airplanes come over at low levels so as to give their people the right feel for what war and what attack is all about. Now all of that, to me, coupled with the civilian leadership constantly reminding us that they weren't sure they had the support of the military to negotiate under the four-party agreement unless certain things happened, leads me to believe that they're having some very serious internal problems, and how they preserve the regime -- that is, this communist regime that is beyond most of the communist countries that have had this regime in the past -- how they preserve it is a very, very -- creates a very dangerous situation for everybody. Q: Senator? SEN. STEVENS: Sir? Q: Yes. Please expand on the -- what you just said about no support from the military unless certain things happen. What things -- SEN. DOMENICI: Well, in our discussions, the first thing was they started with the condition that we had to get them food aid. And the way they described it -- "If you don't do this for us, we are not sure the military will let us go to the four-party agreement sessions." SEN. STEVENS: That's the "good guy, bad guy" routine I was saying. Yes? Q: Senator, did you -- when you were there, did you get any feeling that there was fear of civil, national unrest? Did you get -- SEN. STEVENS: It's a very controlled country, an economy. We got the -- we got a feeling of sadness, really. They have a 105-story building. I'm sure you've heard of it before. It's built like a mountain. It's poured concrete. And at the top of it is a giant crane about one story high. It's been there for three and a half years. When it was being built, there was just not proper consideration how to get the crane down when they were finished, and when they were finished, they found that the elevator shaft was crooked and they couldn't build an elevator that was big enough to bring the crane down. Beyond that, they just ran out of energy. So when you see conditions like that and realize that the feeling, a sense of futility that must exist from anybody who tries to do something to improve it, it's, on the other hand -- you know, it's just sad. On the other hand, we saw 25,000 young people getting ready to celebrate their great leader's birthday this month. And they were out at their big sports stadium. They were all sort of gaily dressed and doing everything from hoops to poles to jumping rope, and they were getting ready to be -- put on an exercise -- I'm sure you'll see some releases on it -- of celebrating his birthday. And we were told that he would assume the full leadership of the country on the third anniversary of his father's death and meanwhile would not see any foreigners. Q: Senator Stevens, when you told them that if they made war on the South, they'd be committing suicide, did they react? Did they -- were there blank stares? What did they say? SEN. STEVENS: Well, I think that was one of the uncomfortable portions of the dialogue. I'm not sure they liked it too well. We were very direct, though, said we weren't negotiating; we were just reporting to them the circumstances that existed in our country with regard to taking any measures to assist them at this time of their crisis unless they changed their attitude. Q: But what -- how did they receive this? SEN. STEVENS: Oh, we were dealing with civilians, not with the military. They heard it and listened and we went back to talking an hour later and started off on another subject, and it did not get any reaction. Do you remember any reaction? SEN. ROBERTS (?): Well, we had several discussions. And I think when you're dealing with North Koreans, you have to understand you have to go through the 30-minute obligatory bluster and the "good cop and the bad cop" situation, then finally you get settled down around a table and you get to the meat of the situation. And in my case, I was very interested in the possibility of a commercial transaction with Cargill. I think that that is a first step, a modest step, and that is certainly progress. Having said that, we discussed it at length on what, you know, I thought had to take place. Senator Cochran did as well. They listed more farm programs than I was even aware of, and I'm the former chairman of the House Ag Committee. They knew every farm program. But because of the sanctions, we cannot participate. And so we said, well, if you want to participate, you have to behave yourself. I didn't quite say it that way. I mean, after all, if Thad and I only saw one tractor at this showplace collective farm, the tractor can't run but it's got camouflage net on it. We told them they can't eat their camouflage nets, with all due respect, and that we stand ready to provide the humanitarian assistance with the international community but they need to behave themselves, sit down at the four-party peace talks and we would explore that. We did explore that. And through the leadership of Chairman Stevens and our efforts, I think that the -- in part, at least, I think the transaction has taken place. Now, it's for 20,000 metric tons of grain, that's a good first step, but you have to go through that -- what, the preliminary show of force or the ideology. This nation is a theocracy. We've heard a lot of press in this country about a cult. This is a national cult. I don't see any way that there is going to be any civil uprising with the control that they have. Youngsters marching out in the country about 12, 13, 14 years old, waving banners and working in the fields and planting trees on their off time. They don't have any off time. Little tiny kids or tykes in a kindergarten, and the only thing we saw was a concrete, you know, bunker kind of thing with two pictures of the dear leader and the great leader. That's all you know. But after you get past this, I think their conditions with energy and food are such that we have an opening, we have a window of opportunity. We seized that opportunity with Senator Stevens' Codel. I think it's paid off. SEN. STEVENS: Let me tell you, they did give us a dinner. It was a grand dinner and it was sort of like -- they presented us sort of a Las Vegas review. We didn't eat much, as a matter of fact. You can't hardly sit down and eat a big 11-course dinner after people have been telling you about how the children are starving. And when we finished, our host said it was too bad we didn't have time to talk. So I said, well, let's go back to where you're letting us stay, at the guest house, and let's talk. And we went back and resumed our talks another four hours. As a matter of fact, we were there about 25 hours; I think we talked to 19 of them. But it's one of those serious things, I think, in our lives, to understand that this crisis has come to this state. Someone else had a question. Yes, sir? Q: Yes. Can you tell us, technically, what has to happen if the U.S. is going to provide food aid? Can the Clinton administration do this? Do they have to seek approval from Congress? What's the -- where do we stand on that? SEN. STEVENS: Well, humanitarian aid, we go through the U.N. That would be through a contribution base there. Any direct aid -- I'll again turn to my expert here -- I don't know of any that we've been requested from, so far. So I can't answer the question. If it was an emergency foreign-assistance operation, they'd either have to reprogram some funds from existing appropriations or ask for a special one. And we have not received such a special request, to my knowledge. Q: But the Clinton administration would have to ask you for this. They can't -- the State Department or AID can't just decide to do it without (word inaudible) approval? SEN. STEVENS: They do have some emergency funds that they could use -- yes, they could -- but not to the extent of a million tons, I am sure -- certain. Yes, sir? Q: Is there any prospect of follow-up on this in terms of the Congress -- SEN. STEVENS: Well, I am hopeful that we may be asked to go back, as a matter of fact. I think we developed a rapport with them. And I would like to meet with the military leaders. Senator Inouye and I and Senator Cochran have been on the Defense subcommittee for many years. We wanted to talk to them and try to open a dialogue as to why they insist upon maintaining the tempo of activity that they do on the DMZ on their side. But we would hope to go back, yes. Q: Senator? SEN. STEVENS: Yes, ma'am? Q: I think you mentioned international -- joining the international community (and support ?). In Japan, I think there is a feeling of reluctance because there are some (prospective ?) cases of kidnapping done towards Japanese citizens before, and there's wide interest in that. What are your thoughts? SEN. STEVENS: Well, let me tell you. We heard about that. But there's a lot of other irritants. The idea that they're selling Nodong missiles to Iran and the fact that they're proceeding now with the Nodong-2, which has the range of reaching Senator Inouye's home in Hawaii and mine in Alaska, are not easy obstacles to overcome. We're not saying we're going to just automatically recommend a relaxation of any sanctions against this regime until it makes some changes. But as far as this -- the problem of dealing with mass starvation, I don't think we should countenance, and I don't think the world should countenance, the complete collapse of a system to the extent that there is mass starvation, particularly among children. Although we heard stories about how some of the people would -- would keep their rations back in order to feed their children, which would be a natural for parents to do. It's really a sad thing. The kindergarten we saw, children go there after they're nine months and stay there, we understand, until they're six years old. And families can see them once out of seven days. So it's -- this -- the family situation there is very strained. But I can't tell you all the -- I don't have a checklist of what would happen before we would resumed normal relations. But clearly, taking action to find a way to deal with the starvation, as far as the average citizen and the children there is I think the number one priority, as far as we're concerned. Yes? Q: Have you found out any indications that if the Kim Jong Il regime fails to control the mass starvation, will the military forces stage a coup? SEN. STEVENS: No. We set no conditions on our continuing talks, either. Now this -- we're trying to open up a dialogue and tell them not to set conditions upon their participation in the four- party talks. We did not set down any conditions, as far as our continuing to talk, or upon any -- you know -- anything in terms of our relationship. We have little, if any, relationship now. You know, we had lunch with this Swiss charge there -- Swedish charge -- SEN. COCHRAN (?): Swedish. SEN. STEVENS: -- who represents our interests there, and his wife. They were very hospitable. She goes to Beijing every two weeks to buy food, because there is none for her to buy for her and her staff there. I mean, when you think of -- And the Germans -- their embassy had been closed. He shares a bedroom with the Swedish people. It is obvious that -- you know - - circumstances are just folding in on this country. And someone's got to really keep up an initiative to maintain a dialogue and maintain some attempt to meet their worst problem, which is starvation, or -- or I'm convinced there will be just an overwhelming reaction militarily as the last gasp of this regime. Anyone else have any questions? Is that enough from us? Yes, sir? Q: Do you think that any future commercial deals between North Korea and the United States would be dependent on provisional humanitarian aid? SEN. STEVENS: From their side? Q: And from our side. SEN. STEVENS: Well, from our side, it depends on how you view the Trading With The Enemy Act. From their side, it's obviously -- obvious they would like to open up some commercial relationships and have tried. And as Senator Roberts says, they've started one now, and it's been completed, with Cargill. We did discuss that while we were there. And it would be my inclination that as long as it's making available food through commercial channels to that country and their people, that we ought to do our best to see that that takes place and provide the exceptions from our laws that might impede such traffic into their country. I think that we should encourage commercial provision of food into their area if they can pay for it. And as Senator Roberts says, this is a barter arrangement that can be worked out, as we understand it. Yes, sir? Q: Did the Cargill contract require congressional action for it to go forward? SEN. ROBERTS (?): No. The license came from the State Department, and then it was a commercial transaction completely separate from the government. However, I would point out that it took a lot of convincing on the part of Senator Cochran and myself and the rest of the delegation to convince the North Koreans that we did not have the ability to simply say, "Here is a show of good faith, we will provide you the grain." It doesn't work that way in this country, and I don't think they have a full understanding of the commercial transaction process. That's one of the problems. But once they consummate the situation -- it's still pending, it's dependent on the barter situation -- if they come through, at least that's a first step. Then they understand it. So from that standpoint, I think it is very helpful. On the agriculture situation, a real paradox of enormous irony. They are now allowing farm markets, but farm markets are illegal. They have a collective farm system. The person from the German -- I guess, embassy -- they don't have an embassy there, but their attache had only been there several weeks. He took a picture of a farm market in operation, and he was confined and went through a very, very bad experience only to find out that he can't take a picture of an illegal activity which is now taking place. That's the irony that we are facing there. But the fact that they have allowed their agriculture to get into some kind of a commercial private ownership situation here with farm markets I think is a good step. Q: Any idea what Cargill was able to barter? SEN. : You'll have to ask Cargill about that. Q: Senator Domenici, before you go, after these other questions, would you take a question on the court's ruling of yesterday on the line-item veto? Q: He's gone. SEN. STEVENS (?): Domenici's gone, but I anticipated you might have that. I do have a summary of that. You may not know I was the chairman of the Senate side of the conference committee on the line- item veto. The court has ruled that the presentment clause of the Constitution, which requires the presenting of a bill passed by both houses to the president, forbids the president's being able to change that bill after he has signed it. And that was one of the basic provisions of the line-item veto bill as we passed it. You remember that we did pass this bill as a temporary extension of the line-item veto to the president to try to assist in the process of trying to achieve a balanced budget. That was the thing that convinced many of us, who had previously voted against the line-item veto, to support the effort. But the court has said we cannot do that. Q: My question is what do you think this is going to do to the process of trying to achieve a balanced budget? Will it make it more difficult or less difficult, or what? SEN. STEVENS: I think it will make it more difficult. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee this last week, I have used the possibility that we'd have the threat of a line-item veto several times to deter people thinking about pressing issues that I think that would further unbalance the budget. It's going to be the loss of a tool for both the presidency and the Congress to try and comply with -- or take the measures we have to take to prevent a further increase in our deficit. Yes, I think it's a sad loss. And I don't know whether it will be appealed or not. But clearly, it indicates that - I am sure the president could not attempt to use this (delegation along ?) -- it will be during the period -- until it will be -- this decision will be reversed by the Supreme Court. There is an ability -- under this bill, if any portion of the bill was declared unconstitutional, there is a right of the administration to appeal that decision directly to the Supreme Court. But that is not something we mandate; it's something we authorize. It's up to the administration to make that decision. Q: And given the Supreme Court practice, it's not likely, is it, that any such action would come in time to -- the appeal couldn't be handled in time to affect this year's budget? SEN. STEVENS: Oh, no. This is a very clean-cut decision, based on the law, not upon any factual circumstance. This is the kind of case that could be argued before the Supreme Court in a very short period (and so ?) the court decided to do it if the administration decides to appeal it. I really do not anticipate that decision is going to be made quickly, however; it's going to take some time to review that. Yes, ma'am? Q: Any progress on the Defense supplemental -- on the Appropriations Committee or where that's going or -- SEN. STEVENS: We anticipate that the House will take up the supplemental on the 29th, and we will do our best to finish it over here before the end of the month, if it's at all possible. Q: If we could return to North Korea for a moment -- SEN. STEVENS: Yes, sir? Q: Senator Stevens, you said you thought that the United States should do more to encourage development of commercial food trade with North Korea. Do the other members of the delegation agree with that? You all nod your heads. SEN. STEVENS: Sure. (Laughter.) It's only limited to food, you understand. If there's going to be a massive effort of the world to meet a million tons of deficit - - and they said it could go as high as 2 (million) -- if they had the ability to start some commercial relationships with the world to meet a part of that deficit, I think we should take action to assure that it's possible. SEN. ROBERTS: Sell them anything they can't shoot back either here or over the DMZ. SEN. STEVENS: But don't forget -- as I said, we saw no farm animals, not even a water buffalo. Now, you know, even with a military exercise, they don't hide water buffaloes. Our conclusion was that they have all been eaten. And you just have to think that over again, in terms of their basic stock to continue breeding farm animals. We saw no farm animals -- none. Yes, sir? Q: Well, what -- what could they use, as far as commercial transactions? I mean, the reports were that the Cargill deal was for some type of mineral. Is -- are there mineral supplies -- SEN. STEVENS: Oh, they -- Q: -- oil supplies, some type of -- SEN. STEVENS: -- they have a diamond mine. They've got several of the world's short -- minerals that are in short supply. And they have the ability to get them out very quickly. I don't think they have to file an environmental impact statement to open up a new mine. (Scattering of laughter.) They could enter into barter with us very quickly, and they have some very valuable resources. And it would be good to have them start learning. You remember, this government has not had any true commercial relationships with the world, on a truly -- you know -- private sector concept basis, private enterprise basis. And we would encourage initiation of that. Sir? Q: Senator Roberts, the two of you all this morning mentioned the word "cult." Now this is -- you know -- quite a word, given what just happens. And it goes to the question of the likelihood of a military adventure. Would you mind -- I mean, you know, we're talking cult, we're talking mass suicide here. SEN. ROBERTS: Well, I think, as Senator Stevens has pointed out, if they lash out under the banner of regime preservation, which they could do, it would be national suicide for them, in terms of their military. I don't see any -- any evidence, however, of a civil uprising or for that matter an expression that you have mentioned. But this is a theocracy. Everywhere you go, you see pictures of the great leader and the dear leader. When we went to the collective farm, Senator Cochran and I were anxious to get out in the field and we had to stand there and listen to about a ten- minute or fifteen- minute lecture on what the great leader who had visited that farm 16 times -- I think they have a shrine every place he stepped -- and then you have to listen to that for, you know, 15 minutes before you can proceed to actually learn something. And so, consequently, you have to figure out that if you're in a theocracy, it doesn't operate according to the rationale that perhaps maybe you and I would think. Basically, you have a badger in a hole, and he's hungry. And if you want to put your hand in there with food, fine. But if you put your hand in there otherwise, he could lash out. I don't know what's going to happen. They're very difficult to try to anticipate. So we tried to, as I've indicated, use agriculture as a tool for peace. I think we made progress. I think we made great progress. I would hope that nationally -- I know the vice president was over there and indicated that North Korea will fall. I'm not too sure statements like that really help, as opposed to being patient and persevering. Let's see what the Cargill situation brings. It is a third-party agreement. In the next 30 days we'll learn if in fact it actually transpires. I think that's very educational on their part. With the thousand experts that would come over from South Korea in the light-water reactor KEDO arrangement, that's going to be helpful. This regime cannot survive -- the more we get into trade and normal commercial transactions and assistance, more especially with South Korea, it can't survive in this kind of an atmosphere with modern communications. But the problem is, there hasn't been any. We had a map; I wish we'd have had that picture, Mr. Chairman. But there's a satellite photo -- (here ?), everybody see the map? (Laughter.) It was taken in 1986. Q: We can see it on the radio beautifully. SEN. ROBERTS: Right. And lower -- or below the 38th Parallel, you have a lot of lights. And then you go to 1996 and South Korea is ablaze with private enterprise. And then you look up at North Korea, and the country's entirely dark, except for one tiny little spot, the one light bulb. It's the top of that hotel in the national capital. I made the comment that in America we have an expression, you know: The last one to leave will turn out the lights. Well, they've turned out the lights, but they haven't left yet. So I think, without question, we've made some progress. And I think we've started a dialogue. Q: Sir -- SEN. COCHRAN: Let me add one other thing. He mentioned the light- water reactor and the energy situation. One thing that we did impress upon the North Koreans in our discussions was that they have to continue to make those facilities accessible to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, to verify that they're not using plutonium or generating weapons-grade material that they could use to make nuclear weapons. This is a very serious problem, and we had to emphasize that on a couple of occasions. There is an agreed framework under which they're developing alternative energy resources. And we are involved with others to try to help achieve that. So that's another area of cooperation, but it's also an area where we're seeing change take place and an opening up of their nuclear energy system. SEN. STEVENS (?): We went there with the understanding and cooperation of the State Department. We visited with Ambassador Richardson, our ambassador to the U.N., before we went. And we took Mr. Eric John, who has the North Korea desk at the State Department, with us. We hope to find some way -- it's not a pleasant trip, I got to tell you -- but we hope to find some way to continue this dialogue between the Senate and those in charge of North Korea, to see if we can find some way to help reduce these tensions. Thank you very much.