tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 5, 2016 3:35pm-5:36pm EDT
myths you here, person comes in, spouse, seven or eight kids. those numbers don't hold a. you don't get 1.61.2 million people working if that's the case. the numbers just don't over. these are people who are responding to a labor market and responding to a shortage of the situations that occur in arizona were wages went up but a situation occurred where they had a pure worker shortage. they could that get people to build the things that needed to be built. it's the balance. it's a balancing thing. if we have immigration reform will that will raise wages? probably so. is there anything wrong with that? probably not. but you have to keep in mind that balance is very much a function of disappointment and, not so much a construction got it was a big project mind paying a 5% in wages. they simply cannot get the people to do the jobs. it's very much an essentially
been workforce right now. >> i will jump in here on that. am i on? great. i will hold it up. i think it's a great first question. i'm excited about and i will tell you why. there's problems with the immigration system. there are bad actors in our immigration system. whether they are people who are taking advantage the people with immigration fraud, or whether they're paying, forcing people to work for $5 an hour. i get up every single day and what we hear from our opponent is they find a problem with immigration system and they say, you guys just want more immigrants. hold on a second. we are trying to fix the broken immigration system so let me explain what i mean. they are are people who in the construction industry and paying $4 an hour with no benefits. the people they're paying for dollars an hour to are often put into position of do i call the police or do i worked for $4 an hour?
i work in this space, you know, i'm a jew who grew up in st. louis, missouri. the idea that if something happened wrong that i couldn't pick up the phone, the idea of that if i saw like a woman being, just to be really clear, sexually assaulted, that i would have to say i'm not going to pick up the phone because i don't want somebody to be deported was never part of my experiences growing up. but by denying people legal status, people are outside the law, they don't have the protections of these things, whether that's bringing, whether that is not being paid a minimum wage, whether, it's so many things in life. so i think the important thing to keep in mind is what i'm advocating for, what we were advocating for it but everybody
on a level playing field. so you don't see that. if you look at that arizona study, what you see is when you remove huge number of people from economic disaster but if you look at the mass deportation proposals out there right now, there's two studies have come out. one says and he exemplified many people would cost $620 billion in government spending. to put that into context, you hear a lot to we can to ask integral mechanical back. it will cost $100 billion it took about 10 years. it would cost us six-nine times to the published faq $20 economic impact according to the studies on what this is. the bad actors in immigration system. we need reform to put everybody on the level plain stupid if we fix illegal immigration system that people can come here legally. then i will stop at the last thing about this "wall street journal" story when you read it, this is what smart and immigration debate. if there are two sectors, the
federation for american immigration reform, if, they like to say they are anti-undocumented immigrant or the against people being here legally but they are pro immigrant or then go and read the tagline. they are for full removal of the -- just a ten-year pause. that's come if you go back, they refunded by groups and 1970s with ties to the white supremacy eugenics movement but they get printed in "the wall street journal," e.g. care about border control. to give you an idea about how the fights that we seek of these are the people we fight with every single day. >> just one thing. part of what we need to recognize is that as we treat undocumented immigrants or others in ways that diminish their incomes, diminished their levels of application,
et cetera, what we're doing is really diminishing our own resources. human resources as a competitive nation. so you see, for example, if you look at poverty rates for just taking hispanics because we don't have as good as the data for all undocumented immigrants but just hispanics because they have or larger portion of people who are undocumented in places like texas are hispanic. what you find is their incomes are 20-30-40% less on average depend on every look at the your findings poverty rates three times as high. you are finding high school graduation rates for high school levels of education that are 20 and 30 or more percentage when you look at the whole. so as they get into jobs and sometimes we can say as we put them in jobs of that nature, we
actually great a situation that has the potential to make our society on an ongoing basis more less competitive. so we are really not only doing a terrible thing to them, we are, in fact, doing a terrible thing to ourselves and to society and to our economy as we go forward. >> i have one more question asked and i'm hoping to get some questions coming up here to the front. and really has to do with the white paper which paints the picture that the absolute numbers of immigrants increasing but the percentage has been increasing over time. so there's one issue which is how do we treat the undocumented who are here now to assure they are treated humanely and fairly and coming out of the shadows? then there's future oriented question of having done that, once the policy for the future?
the favorite laura's question is what's the limiting principle? if 41.3 million immigrants is good, maybe three times that amount would be great. is there a limiting principle at least in terms of what we should be advocating for in terms of numbers of immigrants that should be coming into this country? >> i don't think i've a good answer for that. i don't know what that number would be. certainly as our population ages and our workforce is aging, we are going to increased demand for additional labor. and it's most likely that that labor, certainly it cannot come from people who look like me because we are just not going to be here. i'm sorry to say but we are literally dying out, okay? and a broad statistical sense. so it seems to me that what we have at stake in our immigrant population is really an extensive nature and greg
conduct by this but i can't, but we really have at stake within our own future at our future economically and otherwise as well. >> does anybody else want to respond to that? we have questions? thank you. so the first one is basically says great point on statistic. i agree with it. it says politicians are starting hatred, line and misinformation. what can we do to get the real facts to the public? icy water but everybody once again come we are a nonpartisan organization and we are neither -- [laughter] or any particular party. but in terms of principles, what can be done to more effectively get information from against defamation we are hearing tonight out in the public speak
with the first have to do is let november happen. realistically, between now and then this could be a lot of is because this is been identified as a core issue that can't inflame emotions and get people involved in july to a. right now i'm telling people as a go at giving speeches, i could always questions what happens if x, y or z policy proposal is simply for the comic books i tell them, i will not mention any names but no matter who the person is, bottom line is that these proposals make sense. but the second thing is to take comfort in that. not that these proposals are going to happen a prospect and you know the candidate and i can explain that to you, i promise you. from either party doesn't make any difference. unfortunately, it has become an acclaimed issue. i think it's tapped into and there's been a lot said about, the anger in the country. people are looking for someone to blame for whatever their lot in life is. this is a good target right here.
let's blame these folks. maybe they did it, who knows? i think there's a lot of that going on at a think we had to get to the election for a love to display. i do think things like this forum, getting these things out there, getting o the congress. over time, information does, in fact, think that it affects things in a significant we get a good bit, a lobbyist tells me it is a substitute your if you sit long enough and loud enough and with enough passion i think that people can hear you and can help bring about some good and solid reforms in that regard. we have a person in this audience who is a good friend who's done some things like that in texas to bring somebody could legislation to the forefront and get some good things done. but it does take a combination of information at a billy to get out an there and that's where yr organization and others like it are so important.
because the issues come the information, the knowledge has to get there. organizations like yours are so important. >> back to what ray was sake of one of the things that's very helpful is simply take the real figures and some other not so real figures that are out of their and discuss them with the group and start going through and sign well now, you realize this is the case this means one of your neighbors is undocumented, et cetera, et cetera. if you want to work on how much they want to work on all kinds of rhetoric. i find those very useful in a kind of almost living room kind of situation where you talk about this and people realize that some of what they've heard in this election cycle right now just cannot be true. and i think conversations with
people is a very important way to get people to understand the realities. >> so i will add, i can't stress enough, if you are into this a thinking this will get done before the election, then we have a disagreement. i get up everyday and my job is to get this done as soon as possible. but i'm incredibly optimistic after the election. the politics of this issue will ship. it you look at an iowa caucus, one way people live in the state of iowa, you win the iowa caucus, record turnout was 51,000 votes, 58-60% of an iowa caucus electorate is a self-identified very conservative, and 14% of the american public.
this is a disproportionate electric new hampshire you will see some people we won't name doing better tonight and shifting to a general election, the demographics and the politics takeover. a general election is getting 2.5% more nonwhite every four years. if you look at the states where this is being fought out now, it's not just florida and nevada and colorado. look in virginia, ohio, new hampshire, look where the growth is coming from. some point in texas, too. and so we are currently optimistic about that. i was saying we take the approach forward what i'm trying to ask a member of contested is a become take the same approach i would ask with my wife ever tried to get her to do something maybe she didn't want to do. you make it really comes going to be the one it's right thing to do, try to make it easier for them and tell them it's important what do i mean by that?
each and everyone gets of 11 up to where you can share it online, meet a member of congress, could we can all, see a legislator. tell them what the policy is you have. these horrible policies reject those in favor of comprehensive reform. given the economics that so important. make it easier for them. if you get sick of this idea get more from a faith committee say i can make that connection. that's what we tried to do. surrounded with people who matter. these constituents that are important. but after you make, try to make it easier for them. make sure it's important and i cannot disagree so much, that people are impacted by this. i have yet to have a conversation with a single policymaker who, when they had to look at dream in the eye doesn't want to fight a way to make this right. then maybe the privately, not
publicly but the fundamental cost for the a document population is so terrible and so horrific that if you put all the pieces in place, putting some if an event is what forces people to come up with solutions that i can't stress that enough. >> thank you. southern exposure is directed specifically to jesus. the question is what is the attitude of texas lawmakers regarding the scammers that you were describing? is there any support that something has to be done about them speak with yes. i think the attitude is very, very positive. i didn't ho do this earlier but what do the things that we do at the project is we also organize 40 hour training seminars on basic immigration law for those organizations who want to be bia recognized and accredited. we work with a network of attorneys who come and mostly
pro bono. they come and teach. they are attitude is very, very positive. i think we all hate the notarios. i think also the frustration is shared that we are not doing enough in the state of texas. i know that we also follow that of a connection with florida. i know in florida the scammers actually get to go to jail. that's another really in texas get. there are stiff penalties and you pay hefty fines. the government confiscates all kinds of property, but i'm not sure that anybody goes to jail yet. spent not than picking on you but i've another question for you. you are a favorite here. and that is, an inquiry has been made of something called the libra initiative. is it having an impact first of
all, so i'm educated, what is it, if you know? and if it had an impact on the latino population? libra initiative? know? okay. next. also we're getting some more granular questions in which folks may or may not have a response to. one is we all understand that if there's going to be deportation of undocumented, many of them have children to our citizens. so be interested, one of our audience members is interested in the increased cost of safety net, the implications generally of what's going to happen if we start deporting undocumented immigrants who have children who are understandably they may not want to have to remove them from this country. what happens to them? how does this safety net do with those children? >> well, we've done a lot of work not specific on that issue
but on the issue child maltreatment, the foster care system that works. a lot of problems with the system in texas. if you were to suddenly have people literally, it's hard to imagine people have to leave the children or make that choice but if you burden that system is going to bring huge social cost. it's literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of a lifetime of every individual who comes in in terms of increased safety net requirements, lower earning capacity, all the things that come with it when you start disrupting and breaking up families. i can't imagine to be anything but horrible if it were to happen. that's why hope we could get some policy where it doesn't happen that way. >> in terms of numbers i can tell you, you are probably looking roughly at four, 4.5 million, that's an estimate, but not 18, probably under 21,
even 5 million kids to either themselves undocumented and over they are u.s. citizens, most board in the united states. the president's executive action were designed to prevent this from happening. the president announced 15 months is going to give temporary deportation for work authorization. he attended briefly to help dreamers who are undocumented immigrants, came to the country as kids. his expanding it to the parents of your citizens and green card holders, another 3.2 million people. how many kids hav they have come this overlap but roughly 4 million people, yeah. i mean, the astronomical gym cost up orphaning, putting in different countries and foster 4 million people is something we have painfully seen in this country. >> based on those numbers and
the texas numbers come as far as the children were citizens can we estimate in texas somewhere around 350,000 to 400,000, something like that. right now to do in texas there are 26,000 kids in foster care. >> do the math. >> you start to compare this what this would actually mean. you are talking about depending on which proposals whether or not there's one proposal that would revoke the citizenship of 4.5 million us-born your citizens. even without that 11.3 million. you were talking about parallels internment camps of world war ii and i think that's the closest, talking about a population 100 times the size of the internment camps. we use the term awful and absurd because it is important to stress the horrors of this as well as the complete impracticality of the fact we do not believe it is going to
happen for political reasons i won't go into. >> talking about the deportation practice and again this is sort of getting into granular. what are the understand or the legal relationship between the u.s. and mexico in terms of deporting illegal immigrants? just structure how does that work? is a different then return illegal immigrants who come here from undocumented immigrants who come here from central and south america? do so want to comment on just the mechanics of how this works? >> you can go. >> deportation from mexico speak with no. deportation from the united states to mexico or to central and south america. what is the nature of the relationship between the two
countries in making that happen? visit different for central and south america speak with i know there've been some positive changes because it used to be the practice i think for mexican and i can immigrants being deported to just being dropped just outside of our borders, which created all kinds of dangers as those migrants they went all the way back to their villages. some of them came from southern mexico and they would be easy prey, you know, for people who wanted to abuse them. so i think there have been changes to another government is being more humane and actually flying people closer to the interior of mexico. that's what i know. >> i think there's kind of two points in terms of distinction. the first is there's a difference between board removals and interior removal. because of the population, the
undocumented population has been on average for a really long time, they have strong family ties and because o the policy changes made by the obama administration we have seen more focus put on the border preventing the people from coming. that's where you seek about 75% of removal coming. the interior removal numbers% for stopping are part of that is because the obama administration has decided this is like low security threats. path and document published has been there for 15 years, strong family ties. interior versus exterior is what important distinction and whether deported and how that goes very much depends on that. what i think i think it's important to keep in mind is a difference between the undocumented population, on the average has been forever longtime and what you think of the border right now from central america. it's very important to
understand the difference between immigrant and refugee. there's a gray area but what you are seeing is you are seeing in the central, the three countries in central america, the northern triangle, as these countries have dissented into gangland chaos, drug were at all these things, you're saying a refugee crisis from a migrant crisis to whichever term you want to use. that is very different from white people came here in the '90s and in the first decade of the century as well. ..
deciding what we are going to do with the undocumented here and what possibly is going to be for the future . don't we also need to be thinking about how if at all us policy can have an impact on the circumstances driving people to want to come here in such numbers and i'd welcome any thoughts anyone has on that challenge.>> or not. [laughter] >> i think it's an awfully big challenge because i think there are a lot of people here in the us for example that i think our understanding and very i think accepting of wanting to take care of people that are
here. i think there's almost an isolationism in parts of the us right now. we see it in the political process though we don't want to get messed up in somebody else's politics and other affairs and i think that's unlikely to go away quickly. it really has some bad implications domestically as well. i was asked about some groups that are down there to bring some numbers down and talk about the troops on the border thing we have going on right now in texas and obviously, it has minimal effect on any of this but one effect it is having is, and some of these folks are good. citizens for four generations now. their passport around with
them. i mean, they've been citizens of this state and this country for four generations and they feel the necessity to walk around town and one of the tones along the border with their passport to prove their citizens that should be going on. >> okay. let me paraphrase another question that did come up which is really responding to the discussion of the positive role of undocumented immigrants in our economy so the question in effect is what's the message being sent by that? is that in effect encouraging people to come undocumented if the argument is being made that they have a positive economic impact and perhaps even more so for educated skilled folks looking for opportunity who can't get these factors so somewhat of a rhetorical question but the quest to me, from an economic standpoint we need to fix the system so they are not encouraged to come here in an undocumented manner but that we welcome in a documented matter in order to provide for the workforce needs we had. that's what the whole reform
discussion should be about . [applause] >> and if elected ... know. i'll never run foranything. >> it's obvious our immigration system is not working . >> it's terrible. and we need to be about doing something about revising and reforming it so yes, it provides the perfection we need against people who we don't want to come to this country for legal or other reasons but we certainly need to get a system that is not so difficult, not so, really doesn't serve our needs as a country. as well as serving the needs of people who have been like americans have always been, people who have come from other countries and come only really to make america better. i mean, all of us. we have been in that state
and my grandfather used to talk about his grandfather and about, he was one of those dumb irish and the kind of things they don't with. so many people in his grandfather's life said they didn't use the word irish. it was always dumb irish. and i think that we need to get the system cleaned up so that both the people who we are dealing with as immigrants and our system is one we can be proud of, not one that we think is failing us and the country and failing them as human beings. so i've been handed what i propose is the last question and actually is a question that was forming in my mind but we had one of our wonderful and insightful audience members has asked the question as well and namely, what does a reform
system look like that is the comprehensive immigration reform package that's been much talked about, the kind of thing they are looking at and also in terms of political prospects, you would be looking at small bore items instead of trying to do something comprehensive as a way ofmoving us forward , at least to show something can be done and work with those aside from the question of what was your reform system look like, what's achievable now or at least in the near future, perhaps right after the election as a first depth that we ought to be advocating for? >> well, that's the question? i thought that was the answer. no, i think there's three points i've outlined. whether it's on bill or a series of bills i think is less informed butthe way the interlock both in terms of the policies and how coalitions work well , a legalization process, and i
think it's a good way to talk about that because it makes people realize, it's really funny. when you ask people who are on the fence about immigration reform what that means, you break it down. well, how about we have a process where you make people pay back back taxes, pass a criminal background check, learn english and at the end of that they can get legal status. how else question mark what you think? >> so it sounds great. how long do you think it should be? >> we should make make them wait a long time, at least three or four years. so the senate bill we tried to pass in 2013 is 13 years. it gets demagogue all over the place. i think reform ultimately is going to be a combination of the documented that looks something like that with the temporary permanent status way down the line. border security, interior
security, it's important to be honest and say it's going to be more difficult to meet undocumented immigrants after we fix the system and that's okay. the parts come back to, but first principle, none of this works if we don't fix our legal immigration system. you have the impossible choices ahead of people, do i move back to some country to start a company or do i hope that i might get a visa to have to be a nude after three months ? and a legal immigration system fix with border security and legal status, it works really together from a policy standpoint. it works together if we can think democrats and republicans together on the three point and that's important. this is one of the big issues that has bipartisan support in washington dc. it's truly and really does. i can't stress enough how much what you are seeing now is the outsized voices playing to a small percentage of the american electorate so
i think the form would look something like that. it's much better to be done after the elections. the reasons for that are because of the nature of what's going to come out of that election, not going into it. i think there's tons of points of disagreement within their, what that looks like but that those are the three principles that fit together well. >> one thing that i think is going to be important with immigration reform is that we have to be able to find a way to balance the economic needs of the country and also the fact that we have this other area of family-based, all of that response to increased historic needs. i don't believe that we can be, whatever comes out, whatever immigration reform and looking like it cannot be like canada which is a completely irrationaleconomic policy . here's a list of professions
and things that we need a you, if you fit into these then we will give you a residence and it's completely irrational that way. i don't think that we can ever live that way. why? because a good chunk of the southwest was once part of mexico and we have always valued like my family that never left. we have valuable connections between other people here and still the people from mexico so the immigration system has to account for that so we have to have, we have to be as economically rational as we can and also compassionate with the families and descendents of all those families that are still here as part of our country. so you know, i think i want to finish in a way where we began. we talk about this having a broken immigration system that has to be fixed, we spoke about the economic
benefits of immigrants here and in fact the catastrophe that would happen if suddenly they were not here but we've been reminded now that it's not just an economic issue. there's issues of whether our values, how are we going to treat the stranger among us and we've also been reminded is not having that week or next month what is not going to happen at all if we are not persistent and don't work together to make it happen. there's a song in hebrew, it goes something like life is a very narrow bridge but the important thing is not to be afraid so i think we all have, we have to walk on that narrow bridge together and to work toward a time when sometime in the not-too-distant future we are going to have a humane and proper immigration system that both shows our economy and also serves our other values and with that i want to thank our speakers for really a tremendous conversation. [applause] >> later today on c-span,
donald trump campaigning in west virginia which hold its presidential primary on tuesday. you can see his rally in charleston live on c-span at 7 pm eastern. then at 8 pm here on c-span to its book tv in prime time. tonight, interviews with four offers. bush ministration justice department official john q, former civil rights commission chair mary frances berry, former congressman jc watts and aol founder steve case. that starts at eight eastern on the stand too. deputy secretary of state tony blinken recently testified before the house foreign affairs me about the age of the pacific region. answer questions about chinese military action in the south china sea, sanctioned against north korea and human rights issues in vietnam and burma area. >> some of the world's most
dangerous flashpoints are in asia as are some of our closest allies and these are critical relationships to foster. deputy secretary of state blinken is just back from the region. we welcome him to the committee. america is a pacific power and we must act like one. this committee has played a leading role in shaping us policy toward asia. we took the lead in imposing tough sanctions on north korea, on highlighting human rights in southeast asia and in strengthening our alliances with democracies in the region. since north korea's january nuclear test, its fourth ,
transcends belligerence has only increased. this rogue regime poses a direct threat to the united states and last weekend, the regime launched a missile from a submarine. reports suggest another nuclear test could be on the horizon. the good news is that earlier this year, the president signed into law actions legislation this committee pushed to aggressively target north korea's cash. this strong bipartisan measure, sponsored by myself and mister ingle, help being ministration get a sweeping un security council sanctions resolution through. so the administration has the tools it needs to tackle the north korean threat and keep americans safe but will use them? a recent un report found several countries still
pushing cash through kim jong-un's regina through prohibited arms deals. they must be pressed to stop, forced to stop and frankly through this legislation, we can force them and the administration must estimate more companies, more banks and more individuals. north korea is a human rights house of horrors so how is it that not one north korean official has been sanctioned specifically for human rights abuses? looking south, the beijing government continues its aggressive push into the south china sea with land reclamation and militarization of contested islands. our allies are increasingly alarmed. and while these disputes must be resolved peacefully, that will be best done with the
policy of strength, resolve and clarity. rejecting beijing's apparent moves toward de facto control over international shipping lanes area in southeast asia, vietnam'spoor human rights record continues . bloggers and journalists are harassed and jailed . when my cell or other members of this committee, chris smith, when we have traveled to vietnam we have visited with political prisoners. we have visited with dissidents. when the president travels to vietnam next month, president obama should send a clear and unequivocal message to the commonest government and firmly stand by that country's brave dissidents unlike he did in cuba. and i would also urge the president to stress the importance of restoring the
benewah military cemetery, the resting place of many south vietnamese soldiers who fought to preserve their freedom. cause especially important to the vietnamese-american community. and while there is hope , the new government and in burma and we have been pushing for many years in this committee for democratization in burma is making progress but it must now perform for all burmese including the rohingya population. i hope to hear that we are making the protection of this persecuted minority one of our priorities. finally, no discussion of asia is complete without mentioning its dynamic economies. we must continue efforts to open new markets for our businesses. and build a capacity of tomorrow's trade partners. trade can play a key role in strengthening us alliances. united states has played a critical role in asia. our power and presence helped shape the economic miracles.
when we think about what happened in japan and in south korea and in taiwan, all vibrant democracies today but that proud legacy has to be protected through constant vigilance and engagement. mister ingle will be here momentarily. we will move to introduce mister blinken and have your testimony and then we will hear from the ranking member when he arrives. thank you tony. >> mister chairman thank you very much and members of the committee, thank you for having me here, it's good to be back. to discuss our balance to the pacific region. i just got back from my sixth visit to the region in a little over a year and with the i have to tell you i see evidence of this effort to rebalance our focus on the region and strengthen rule-based institutions based order that is advancing our interest and increasingly not only in the region but globally. >> secretary blinken, could you pull the microphone just
a little closer quest marked some of the members were having trouble. >> yes, thank you. >> thank you tony as you said mister jammin, nowhere in the world are economic and strategic opportunities clearer or more compelling than in the asian-pacific region, the former top 10 trading partners, five rr seven treaty ls, the largest and fastest growing economies including 40 percent of overall global growth, nearly 2/3 of the global middle class and some of the most wired and innovated people in the world. over the last seven years, this rebound asia eating our strategic ties to the region commensurate with its importance has helped shape a positive trajectory in the region. we've given substance to the balance bibles during our allies, deepening engagement with emerging powers, strengthening regional institutions, promoting trade and invent investment and advancing democratic reform and creating new networks of trilateral and multilateral relationships. there are multiple pillars
the balance, i want to briefly go through those first we invested in strengthening and modified our core alliances. in japan, north korea, the philippines, australia. we've updated guidelines for our defense cooperation with japan including agreements with both japan and korea, cited for sponsored human of australia and included a landmark cooperation agreement with the philippines. second, we deepen engagement with emerging countries in the region. we built a relationship with china defined by broader practical cooperation on global challenges while at the same time directly engaging our differences to try to resolve them while avoiding conflict and report to deepen the bonds between the people of the united states and taiwan.our partnerships with indonesia,
malaysia, singapore have grown to reflect our increased cooperation on challenges, everything from countering climate change to violentextremism and forged new relations with vietnam and burma as they start to turn the page on the past. i saw this again in vietnam last week. thanks in part to the bipartisan leadership of this committee, the us and vietnam are deepening and broadening our ties in areas we couldn't imagine a decade ago , even a few years ago for military cooperation to human rights to peacekeeping. third we sustained engagement with institutions like the east asia summit, aipac, including by sending our first dedicated ambassador to osceola hosting the first summit in the united states and hosting aipac in 2011. these are important forums for promoting collective action and facilitating the police for resolution of differences. the best the recent architecture in which the united states is a permanent player. fourth, we have vigorously promoted trade and investment opportunities to unlock growth for the united states as well as for our allies in the region. we implement a free-trade agreement with south korea, worked with burma to modernize and strengthen regimes, helping set the stage for major american companies to enter that market and of course the heart of our engagement in the region economically is the transpacific partnership which will bring 12 economies and 40 percent of global gdp
together. it will eliminate more than 14,000 taxes on american exports and help level the playing field for american workers while solidifying an economic arena in which every ownership regardless of its size agrees to fight corruption, abide by international labor standards including the enforcement of environmental safeguards. fifth, we've enhanced our military posture in the asian-pacific deploy nearly 60 percent of canadian region by the end of the decade and some of our most advanced capability. where increasing the american security capabilities of our partners and rotating american personnel into more places northern australia and new sites in the philippines. six, we are standing up for our values, for the basic rights and freedoms of individuals through the region and in the philippines working with our partners to tackle corruption and strengthen institutions and of course in support of burma's historic elections and peaceful transition of
power we helped establish the nation's first nonpartisan independent election observation organization. we trained over 11,000 political party members to communicate with voters. we continue to stress the importance of upholding the rule of walk and express our strong concern about discrimination . ethnic and religious minorities including the rohingya. in response to our demand from the bmis people vietnam has taken positive steps including releasing political prisoners, ratified the convention against torture and agreeing to allow independent trade unions for the first time in modern history. a significant reforms remain to bring laws into sake with human rights obligations entity with its own constitution. seventh and finally, we invested in a new geometry of trilateral and multilateral networks to encourage cooperation among and between countries in the region. at the core of these efforts is a robust trilateral partnership with korea and japan under which we convene the first ever trilateral meeting at the vice mister deputy level.
and the benefits of this relationship are crystal-clear in the face of the region's most acute challenges, a challenge from north korea and its provocative acts in the nuclear missile domain. we're stepping up watchers sanctions under the un security resolution and working to increase the capabilities of other countries to implement that resolution. will continue to shine a light on north korea's deplorable human rights violations and pursue accountability for them. we also focused on maritime issues, especially china's assertive and provocative behavior in the south china sea that is challenging respect for international law, freedom of navigation and the peaceful resolution of disputes. we have been conducted to japan got the trilateral dialogue hosted the international trilateral ministerial dialogue. these trilateral multilateral relationships are not aimed at any particular country,
not exclusive. we welcome any kind of geometry of collaboration among countries that share important goals including taps toward greater china japan cooperation and unity of the aussie on community and we are building entry connected relationships not among countries but among people. the what truly community, now 67,000 strong and dynamic young people through the region to the united states and each other. mister chairman, these efforts represent a small but important slice of the work we are currently undertaking. seven years after president obama rebalanced our sites on the asian-pacific, where leaders of the region increasingly bound by common ideals, shared prosperity and a collective sense of global responsibility. thank you very much. >> that he mister blinken. i think without objection the witnesses full prepared statement will be made part of the record and members are going to have five calendar days to submit statements and questions and extraneous materials for the record. i think what we will do is proceed with some of the questions from the committee and he will make his
statement as the secretary deputy of state the questions he has as well. if we can start, mister blinken with north korea sanctions and the administration of those sanctions, an issue i brought up in the opening statement. this is a strong north korean sanctions bill we passed and this bill did help get that un resolution in place but you're just back from the region. what has been the reaction to this new law? how has the pressure been turned up? i raise that fact that no one has been sanctioned yet on human rights abuses. i know there's a new un report that points out that several countries are still purchasing north korean weapons. if you can that issue. european luxury goods are still making their way and
are we yet to hit any chinese banks facilitating transactions as we did in the past with bank of delta asia which was frankly very effective at the time if you recall. it cut off a hard currency, stop the production of the missile program at the time because they didn't have a hard currency to proceed. >> thank you mister chairman. first, i want to thank the committee for the very important work that it did. i think the combination of the un security council resolution which is the strongest tool to deal with north korea, the legislation from congress and executive order that has put those into effect really put this in a different position. we nowhave the ability , if implemented , and that's the key, to maximize pressure on north korea to try to get it to change its conduct. for the first time through the un security council resolution, we require all
cargo going in and out of the country be inspected. the first time we have sanctions that limit or in some cases banned the export of critical materials.coal, iron, gold. rare materials that are what you used to finance their activities and we have financial sanctions that go at banks and assets and we also have a ban on all nuclear and missile related goods. the critical component now is implementation and we are looking principally at china as well as other countries to follow through on implementation. china played an important role in getting the resolution. it is our expectation that it will implement them. it's too soon whether to see whether that's the case. we regulation promulgated, statements it's made but we are now watching intensely but at the same time it's not enough. and what we are focused on besides the implementation of the security council resolution is relentlessly building pressure on north
korea, working principally with our key allies japan and korea. we are working in various ways to cut off all the revenues going to the regime. for example they have as you know overseas workers whose remittances are not going back to their families but going to the regime. we're working to cut those off. we have so-called diplomats engaged in illicit activities, procurement but also illicit businesses . there were restaurant workers defected from china, they set up businesses and the money goes back to the regime. we're working to find those places and get countries to cut them off. we're working to further isolate north korea by getting their diplomats who are again not engaged in diplomatic activity sent home. we are making sure people don't go to north korea including for the workers party of congress to invite them to international events and working as well to get countries to make sure they are doing exactly what you alluded to, making sure the ships that go to north korea don't document countries and the planes don't land so right now, we are working on enforcing all of that if i
can be part of the dialogue our committee has on each of these fronts and all have been helpful but there is one final step that needs to be taken. banks are concerned about the reputational risk of what will happen if they have to make a choice between doing business with north korea or doing business with the united states and we've seen in the past where those dozen banks that were affected back during the sanctions regime put in place when north korea was caught counterfeiting are hundred dollar bills, just how concerned they are about reputational risk, even when those sanctions were reportedly listed by state. at the time, bank of delta asia still wanted to know yes, but has the us treasury department really signed off on this? because otherwise we are not going to move the hard
currency into north korea. without that hard currency, they find it very difficult to move forward with their nuclear program and their missile programs so it's essential that decision be made and we are going to continue to dialogue on that but that's a decision you need to make and i'm sure you raised that at beijing. the last two, again i'd raise the issue about the people. we need to work with that new government frankly in burma to shape attitudes toward the rohingya. and you're going to have to continue to lean in on that. on the vietnam human rights issue, i just got to share with you, we've got the case of the human rights lawyer new indictment who was arrested in december for his advocacy of human rights, his advocacy of democracy. according to his wife he was severely beaten by the police. he's been in solitary confinement since his arrest. he was denied access to his lawyers and family . will the president push for his release? i think this is very necessary.>> mister
chairman, i appreciate the comments. first on the rohingya, we have been very focused on working to get the government in burma to protect their rights. when i was there most recently a couple months ago, i raise this repeatedly including with on some tuesday. we are looking for the government to give them freedom of movement so they can work and go to school and get healthcare and end discrimination, we're working on it. with vietnam, absolutely. i think the president will engage with that community. when i was there last week i met with civil society activists and lawyers and others to express the concern we have. vietnam has made progress, released a lot of political prisoners, are working to conform the loss to the constitution but work remains to be done thank you deputy secretary and i appreciate it. i will now go to our ranking member mister elliott angle from the new york who has an opening statement and then he will have questions. mister engle.
>> thank you very much mister chairman. thank you for calling the hearing and mister deputy secretary, i've known you for a long time. welcome to the foreign affairs committee. it's been a pleasure working with you over the years in the various roles in which you served. we've been very fortunate to have such a dedicated and capable person as the number two in the state department so thank you for all you do. i was encouraged that the president and secretary carry charged you with focusing on asian during her time as deputy secretary and that's a focus we badly need. i think you are the right person for the job. after world population calls asia home and the nations of asia now account for more than a third of global gdp. from india to japan, from india and asia micronesia, asia has a greater impact on global affairs than ever before. as pacific power, the united face paced faces no shortage of foreign-policy challenges in asia north korea's reckless behavior to the impacts of climate change to the recruitment of violent extremist groups. the way we manage the rise of china in the years ahead will
be the most consequential foreign policy issue of the 21st century. the decisions we make today will determine whether the value and norms we champion in asia after world war ii will continue to try. that's why this is called this america specific century and that's why there is no better time to focus on this dynamic partof the world . so-called asia rebalance it has asked a number of diplomatic achievements. our core regional alliances with australia, japan, philippines and south korea . with japan, we've established new trilateral forums with australia, south korea and india. ramped up our engagement with asia and demonstrated a clear commitment to the east asia summit and we have normalize relations with burma as the country has emerged from decades of isolation and become the hard work of moving toward a more open democratic society. yet despite all these efforts i regularly hear concerns from our allies and partners in the region that the rebalance it is more shifting
military strategy that does diplomatic engagement. this morning i hope we can drill down and look at other ways the state department is making asia a priority in areas where the apartments approach could be more robust. i'll start with a question that sounds more like it should be on a geography quiz . as far as the state department is concerned with respect to the asia rebalance, what we consider to be asia? i ask this because in my view the world's largest democracy, india, should be an integral part of our asia policy as the third largest economy, india has the potential to become a major economic player in east asia and is already play a constructive role in maritime issues. china regards asia as a strategic whole with us on, on world policy. we need to extend china's influence on east asia to central asia. if the state department structure in three different
bureaus responsible for south and central asia and east asia and the pacific, i believe create an artificial barrier to cooperation across the entire region. i would like to hear about what the state department is going to overcome obstacles and deal with asia as a whole, single, strategic priority that includes south and central asia. staying for a moment with structural issues at the state department, i'd like to discuss if we are doing all we can from a resource standpoint to ensure our asia policy will succeed. the east asia bureau is the smallest regional bureau in terms of personnel. the reason account for the second lowest level of foreign assistance. obviously any questions about state department resources has to start here on capitol hill. i strongly support investing more in diplomacy and development across the board. our international affairs budget gives us tremendous bang for the buck and i also wonder whether anything can be done in foggy bottom so that the rebalance is
adequately resourced. we've heard again and again this is a priority and that should be reflectedin the investments we are willing to make. lastly, i like to turn to the south china sea. we expect the law of the sea tribunal to issue a decision next month or so involving the claims of china and the philippines . china's response to the ruling could rack up tensions. while the united states doesn't take a position of a specific claim made by various pollock parties, we do want to see china play by the same rules as everybody else so i support the ideas behind the pentagon's southeast asia maritime security initiative which aims to help our southeast asian partners know what china is doing off their coastlines and to share that information with each other. if the us on our partners are on the same page, we can work together to keep china in check and make sure china doesn't threaten our strategic and economic interests in the region. it's not clear to me why the defense department is leading the way on this instead of the state department. dod's new authority for this
program are entirely duplicative of existing state department authorities. i worry that putting such a program under dod's control road date securitycooperation responsibilities . our diplomats are responsible for overseeing security assistance and it should stay that way at whatever level of cooperation exists between state and dod on this matter, i'm concerned that this is another example of what some call the militarization of foreign-policy. we spoke to those concerned that the asia rebalance is a military policy even in areas that have traditionally diplomatic responsibilities. so mister deputy secretary, i'm interested in hearing your views on these issues as well as other areas i will be touching on as well and thank you again for your service and commitment. i look forward to your testimony. i want to raise two questions in conjunction with my statements and the first one
is about india.it's been characterized by us officials as an indispensable partner to the united states. as i mentioned before is the third largest economy in the world.purchasing power, it is largest democracy in the asian region. the us india relationship is growing, particularly on the defense side and prime minister mookie will be coming in a couple of months to meet with president obama. from a strategic perspective, india is a counterweight to china's growing influence in asia. they become increasingly vocal on issues like freedom of navigation in the south china sea and indian ocean region. additionally, central asia occupies critical geography in asia, sandwiched between russia, china and iran. the chinese recognize the potential of central asia or with his then a strategic doorway to the powers and a transit point for trade and culture between east and west and the chinese are aggressively eating to expand their influence there yet in your written testimony there's only one mention of
india in the context of a us-japan india trilateral ministerial and there are no other mentions of south and central asia at all. so my question is, do south and central asia not fit with the administrations larger rebalance to asia strategy and how can we be balancing asia without a strategic framework since it is asia at a strategic goal. thank you. >> we strongly share your view on the importance of india, both in and of itself but also as part of the region and as an increasingly via vital. india has its own regional policy that dovetails very nicely with the work we are doing on the rebalance so we are working increasingly to integrateindia into these efforts and you mentioned the one thing that he did point to in the statement, i think there may be more in the written statement . this us-japan india trilateral effort, at a ministerial level , it was included also.
we included japan in the malabar exercise which was a significant development which we hope to continue to carry forward but we are doing two things. building our own relationship with india as evidenced by the extraordinary level of high-level engagement including prime minister. [overlapping conversation] returned here, the president being received for the first time as the honored guest but also in very concrete collaboration across the board. everything from climate and smart city to build climate to defense cooperation to production cooperation even in the defense area but intelligence sharing, information sharing, countering violent administration, the board has been elevated but critical to this is exactly what you are pointing to which it integrating india into these regional frameworks so we are working together jointly and again, the example with japan is a good one. it's exactly the direction we want to go in. >> thank you. i'm wondering if you could comment on the south china
sea. >> and i just want to ask you , the philippines has brought an arbitration case against china's claims in the south china sea under the united nations convention on the law of the sea. the ruling goes in the philippines favor as expected and if the chairman refuses to abide by it, what are the implications for the philippines and other claimants to the south china sea and how would this change the us approach in the south china sea? >> thank you. first i'd say this is, self china is incredibly important in two ways. first of all, 20 percent of all traded goods, 25 percent of all oil that travels by c goes through the south china sea. and indeed, one third overall of liquefied natural gas. we have no position as you know on the sovereignty claims. were not claimant ourselves but we have a strong interest in the way these trains are
routed by any claimant and a very strong interest in maintaining freedom of navigation and making sure disputes are resolved peacefully and countries abide by international law. and these are the very interests that china has been challenging with some of its actions including the massive reclamation's and militarization of these land features as well as various assertions that are not justified under international law. the case referred to as an important moment. this is an arbitration case brought by the teams with china and we expect a decision by the tribunal in the coming months. china knowingly agreed to the provisions inthe law, the sea treaty when it signed up . five independent arbitrators said unanimously rejected china's claim that it wasn't bound by the arbitration mechanism, that the jurisdiction was lacking. and the convention provides that its rulings are binding
on the parties to the convention so we have worked very hard to establish across the region and understanding that this is an appropriate mechanism, arbitration to resolve these and the ruling of the tribunal to be binding on the two parties. he said the chinese, if you are getting satisfaction on any aspect of the decision, we will be the first to stand up and defend it but of course if the philippines is, you have to respect that. china has a decision to make anyone how the ruling comes out. it will either decide to abide by the ruling and that gives us a great opportunity, i think, to narrow the scope of arrows areas that are in dispute in the south china sea, that would be good. to get countries to work cooperatively together. for example, joint ventures on the exploitation of resources and work to resolve their disputes that remain peacefully. that's one path. the other path is it ignores the decision and then, i think it risks its reputation, further
alienating countries in the region and pushing them even closer to the united states. china will have to decide depending on what the results of the arbitration are, we are watching that very closely. >> thank you. we go to eliana ross layton of florida, our chairman emeritus. >> thank you so much mister chairman, thinking to the ranking member. secretary blinken, for over a month i have been trying to get a hold of you by phone to discuss the problem between morocco and ban ki-moon. you've not had the courtesy to return my call but at a hearing 10 days ago, secretary and patterson promised to work with me and the members of our middle east subcommittee regarding the draft un resolution that would renew the mandate of monroe so. min or so. it was obvious this was going to be a problem for weeks and
i would have appreciated a call back. as you know, the draft in its current form could very well jeopardize our relationship with morocco and are important military and intelligence cooperation. there's got to be a way that we can find a compromise here and we can do it without including the controversial provisions including the one that will allow ban-ki moon again another opportunity to insult morocco and do further damage. i encourage you to work with the moroccans today and to fix it. what can you tell us about the draft resolution and what progress have we made? >> thank you. first let me apologize you if i didn't get back to you. i'm sorry about that. i'd be happy to follow up immediately this afternoon. if that's convenient to you. >> thank you sir. >> second, with regard to the situation, we've been deeply engaged in this is this problem first emerged and that was the secretary
general visit to the region. we worked closely with morocco and the un to see if we could de-escalate the problem and get them working together. i immediately thought of karen miller minister from morocco. i was on the phone with him. he came to visit me in my office, secretary kerry saw him. we had called to the king. here's where we are. morocco was very concerned with some of the things the secretary-general said during his visit to the region. we worked to ask the secretary-general to clarify what he meant and he did that. we said to our moroccan friends that we hoped that as we were looking at renewing the men or so mandate we wanted to renew it for one year without any changes. unfortunately, one of the things that morocco did in response to the secretary general visit is they unilaterally decided to reduce and ask for the
removal of members of the medusa mission. that creates a problem for us because as a member of the city council we also have an important stake in making sure the un receiving missions, their integrity is upheld and if we allow the president by which a country can unilaterally decide whether to accept or shutdown omission or change of composition, that's going to be a real problem, potentially in other areas with countries that unlike morocco are not). >> when the secretary-general of the un makes such a provocative statement and an accusation against morocco it really pinned them against the wall.>> and i think that's exactly why we worked with the secretary general's office to get clarification of what he meant and didn't mean. our hope is we can now get this resolution to a place where morocco's concerns are answered but also the integrity of the peacekeeping missions are upheld and that
it can go back to fully functioning as it was before. that's what we are trying to achieve but i want to assure you we share your commitment to the relationship with morocco. this is one of our closest partners in the region and indeed the world we need more of morocco and moving on, thank you sir. at a hearing on the middle east and north africa subcommittee, gao testified the state department is not in compliance the iran north korea and syria nonproliferation act or inks not, a law authored several years ago. it is an important nonproliferation tool, gao told us the states noncompliance has probably undermined the credibility of our sanctions. we learn that state took almost 3 years to prepare one report and then implement sanctions and that your predecessor sat on the report for more than a year and awaited removal. giving that precedent, do you have a report you are sitting
on and have you sign off on it and what's the status of that report sir? >> i believe the next report is being actively worked on and processed. it has not come to me yet. i assure you that as soon as it does i will move it out of my inbox as quickly as possible.>> thank you so much, vacuum is german. >> we go now to mister brad sherman of california. >> mister blinken: congratulations on the new position. it's good to hear you will have a policy of returning members phone calls and i hope that doesn't justify to the lady from florida. ages important. that's why it's important that we not interact into bad trade deals or unnecessary military confrontations in asia. now, anyone who questions the adventures that are planned is patted on the head and
told, you don't understand how important asia is. no, asia is so important that we better think carefully about our policy. when it comes to trade, we are given strawman. we are told if youdon't like epp we could have no trade . or we could continue the unbalanced trading system we have now. without every discussion about a radical departure from our current trade system designed to achieve balanced trade. and when we are told that maybe we shouldn't be seeking a new cold war over some islands, we are told that 25 percent of the world trade goes through the site south china sea, the vast majority of that goes in or out of chinese ports. meaningthat if china has military control of these islands it may actually belong to them anyway. they would be up to blockade their own ports . i don't think that's something we have to spend a lot of money preventing.
there is a tendency when making policy to yield to the interest of the most powerful entity in this country that cares about that policy. and that is why when it comes to trade policy, wall street is in the drivers seat but the deal is so bad that it has to be sold as a china containment policy because it's certainly not a job creation policy but china enshrines the standard that currency manipulation, it goes hand-in-hand with trade deals so they are the big winner but there even a bigger winner in the rules of origin. there admitted to be 60 percent made in china. [audio lost] >>.
[audio lost] we do have geopolitics, thepentagon is very powerful in crafting american national security policy . what needs their needs now is a worthy uniformed adversary. every time our military has gone up against a ragtag, on uniformed adversary, it has been an unpleasant experience since the philippine insurrection and every time we have gone up against a uniform flow, it has been a rat. [audio lost] your weapons
understanding the fact that an iranian plane will not be allowed to fly to north korea without stopping in china for fuel. increasingly we interact in separate ships, don't tell me that north korean planes may not be a allowed to do that. renee planes going nonstop to pyongyang and coming back with a bomb. thank you. >> let me just say we sometimes see, we are not looking for conflict, we are looking to prevent conflict. what's at stake here is not just the transit of energy, oil and goods as important as that is. there are larger problems and these places don't need international order. if we don't defend those principles, everyone there is being challenged,the entire order that we invested so much over seven years . >> mister blinken, i agree with you but at the same time if an argentine rain was getting to the falkland islands we wouldn't be
talking about here. >> we engaged in freedom of navigation operations around the world. leaving that aside, with regard to iran and north korea, this is something we are watching very carefully and the right to i think raise acceptance. they had history of political engagement. some reports of nuclear engagement have been much harder to verify. >> are you denying the reports that the nuclear facility was north korean technology? >> what we are looking at is concrete evidence of relationships across the board, beyond the political. what we are focused on is exactly what you pointed to, you make the important point about what we are trying to do in regard to north korea is make sure not only can ships not. but their planes cannot land. >> my question was about an iranian plane.
are we working to get china to say they won't allow the planes to go across china without stopping for fuel or inspections? that is the only point. you are free to address others but all these members of the united nations are bound by the security resolution that say there will be no military ballistic missile cooperation with the dp arcade. as a result they have ... >> so the plane would be violating un resolutions but if it flew nonstop for china no one would know about it. you are relying on brands dedication to the un resolution? >> we're looking to every country involved to do well on its own. >> i would urge you to talk to beijing about making that plane land. the sole defense of what i laid out is that the arabians wouldn't want to violate the un resolution or violate un international law, that insufficient defense.
if it's an iranian plane going to north korea does not stop in china, it may not have a trade delegation honest, it may have cash going one way and nuclear weapons going the other way and that is a very specific problem. >> more to the point mister sherman is raining raising without objection i put in the record that un documents have gone to similar currency to suspected primary steelers from north korea to visit with you some islamic republic of iran and it's to the point being made the gentleman of california. thank you mister blinken. we may have follow-up questions. we now go to mister smith and pearson. >> thanks very much mister chairman. your thanks for your presence here today. in one service writers is an extremely disturbing exposc,
series of investigating reports that found the obama administration gave undeserved passing grades the 14 countries with deplorable and in many cases worsening sex and labor trafficking records including china, malaysia and asia, cuba , oman and others are waking up in the 1400s. i've also had hearing a few years ago that was get it right this time , a new report that is going to come out shortly being very concerned about when he in ministration does what it did and that is give undeserved passing grades to countries that have or electrics, it sells out the trafficking victims in those countries and those who are hurt by those countries governments and it also is a deplorable i think abandonment of human trafficking concerns that we as a nation have in a bipartisan way. will china's and cuba for
example and the other records be whitewashed once again this year? secondly, i met with van dyck in 2007. he is one of the greatest peaceful human rights lawyers i have met and i have met many in dictatorships like vietnam. will the president raises case and the man his release? he has done nothing wrong as you know, as we all know here in the united states and he needs to be released immediately to let his wounds heal from the beatings he has suffered at the hands of the vietnamese government. thirdly, india and japan have engaged in clearly patterns of noncompliance with the golden act, on child abduction, both countries i had nine hearings on child adduction. we had men and women, moms and dads tearfully tell me stories in regard to japan as well as india and yet they have not been leveled,
especially japan having a tenor of noncompliance. the april 30 deadline is fast approaching for that report. i hope that reality is contained in the report. finally, president g is on a tear, crushing civil society with his new draft law and crushing religious freedom and even the parent to church and others that had worked in cooperation with the government are finding their buildings are being demolished , their pastors are being incarcerated. the g 20 will meet in june in september, our hope is that the president, andthat's right where the crosses are being taken off churches , bulldozers in the churches is occurring.the president will raise the ratification of religion gdp enough last year and most recently in a speech he made is all about
all religious bodies having no contact outside the country's borders and secondly, and ominously, that everybody of faith as to serve the communist party. that will destroy theregime or at least an attempt to do it . >> thank you. first, let me express my own appreciation, the department appreciation
with regard to vietnam. i was just there and indeed met with a number of activists and lawyers. we raise both individual cases and systemic problems that remain in vietnam at the highest levels on a regular basis. i can't talk to the present schedule at this point but i'm confident he will be raising these issues and i met with some of the same people you have seen who are extraordinarily brave and what they are doing every single day. with regard to our child affection i was also just in japan and raised this with the foreign minister, with the vice foreign minister with other senior officials and we have concerns about japan's implementation of their commitments under the hague convention and that's something that i know you are focused on. >> also those that were left behind from the ratification, joe's cases are heartbreaking.
>> absolutely. we are focused on those as well in the cases that had arisen after the eradication and with regard to china we very much share the concern that you express. we see across-the-board a crackdown on human rights and civil liberties. we have seen a crackdown against lawyers. i met with a number of lawyers the last time i was visiting in january. i've heard directly from them and what that community is experiencing. i've met with religious leaders as well and i've heard what's happening there. the laws that what you refer do we have been very much engaged in whether it's the ngo law the cybersecurity love the national security law and the counterterrorism law and we have concerns about the substance of the laws. the ngo law as you know, they move to the enforcement of that law to the ministry of public security which sends a terrible signal about how they see ngos which are actually acting to the benefit of china in its own people so we share those concerns.
i want to assure you we will continue to focus on them until we can to make progress. one aspect of this is not just us but us bringing together other countries to express concern because there is some strength in numbers at the human rights council and geneva we got a dozen countries to sign a statement expressing their concerns about the evolution of human rights and civil liberties in china. these things over time have been effectively went through decades of cold war with the soviet union. members of congress played meaningful roles in that spotlight on the soviet union and its human rights abuses and for decades it didn't seem like anything was happening.
the totalitarian system prevents people from having free access either on the internet or radio or television to the truth. we go now to mr. gregory meeks of new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary. china's economy is entering a new phase. it has to contend with slower growth for the first time in decades and we should expect domestic and international actions that are nationalistic and even provocative. i'm convinced that our reaction should need a deepening of our ties recently and multilaterally as we do it is critical that we remember some of our strongest partners in the western hemisphere are also strong partners in the pacific realm and we should build upon those relationships to work together in asia and there is no question
in my mind that economic and diplomatic engage meant is our strongest means of influence globally and that certainly is the case in asia. i don't think militarily when i consider any rising tensions in the region i think about economic engagement instead, global rules on investment and cultural exchange. in fact oftentimes people looking at it say china, i think ppt and the last i looked china's act things not apart of ptt so when we talk about ppp in china as a threat to tp hopefully we'll get china to then adhere to global standards and rules which they may not switch is a reason why we should do t. pp because it's leveling the playing field for businesses, for strong rules in place where they were weak or nonexistent.
but my question is for some of my colleagues, back and forth as we debate this issue even an agreement like tpp that has higher standards and issue talked about is only as good as its implementation and enforcement and that's what i keep getting back. for example i have some concerns about the government to develop state-owned enterprises to avoid standing up to their tpp commitments and localization mark warner miss that limit the competitiveness of u.s. companies all over data security so my question would be first how can the ministries and ensured that are tpp partners adhere to the rules of tpp should we get it done because that's always a the question that some have. how would we do that and secondly i think we do have a debate and there is a geopolitical argument to be made. geopolitically what happens in
the region that we are so concerned about if we don't do tpp? let me just asked us to questions first. >> thank you very much mr. congressman. first, think you're exactly right about the potential magnetic poll of tpp on countries that are outside of it including china. it so happened that i was in the region when tpp when the agreements concluded and i was in japan today it was concluded. the japanese are extremely excited because their own leadership had helped bring us to that point by mr. abe. the next day was in south korea and the first question i got was when can we join and after that i was in beijing. they have done at least a 90-degree turn including state party media saying oh this is something that can benefit us because they don't want to be left behind let to get and they have to raise, they have to go to the highest standards. an barman and worker protections and intellectual property so
this has the potential to pull countries up, not create a race to the bottom including with china. second you asked a very appropriately about enforcement and congressman sherman brought up a very important point a moment ago, some concerns we have had with past credit agreements. i think that's a well taken point. unlike previous agreements tpp actually includes a rule, clear rule and we want to make sure that parties that are not part of tpp can't go to another country have a few things done and then have the product benefits of tpp rules. for example that's exactly why we insisted this rule be part of the effort but it has to be implemented and everything else has to be implemented. that's exactly why we have a budget for a significant portion of resources to go to implementation. we want to make sure it's done seriously. finally i also agree very much
with you that we can debate the economic merits of tpp and no trade agreement is going to be perfect but i think a larger challenge we face is 95% of consumers live outside the united states would have to reach them in the question is how we going to do that and they're what rules and who writes those rules? i think we are better off if we are the ones doing doing it as opposed to letting someone else do it. it's more likely to benefit our companies and workers and make sure the standards are high and not low but we can debate economic matters. strategically though it sends an important message. it says to our partners in the region we are there to stay. it's not just a security issue that may come up and a challenge that may arise that gets our attention and then we lose our focus. we are tied economically as well as through security declarations. it has this potentially magnetic pole. my countries outside of the agreement they want to join it to lift their standards in its
sets the standards for the values would like to see throughout the region. on up agreement would jeopardize all of those. thank you. >> we go to mr. dana rohrabacher from california. >> thank you. >> thank you very much and mr. chairman i appreciate your leadership and mr. chairman the fact that you have spent considerable time and effort focusing on the specific issues, and mr. secretary i am a bit concerned about maybe not about specifics as much as your admirable optimism may be something that's admirable but it's also a concern to those of us who think things are maybe more serious than your optimism suggests. i hope it can be taken care of in a consistent way is what you
and chairman royce and others have tried to put forward as a game plan that would put them into a position of pressure that the chinese into a position that would not prevent at this time what i consider to be aggression , aggression on a world war or because you have no sovereignty over the islands and now you have a claim by a dictatorial government, beijing over a hunk of territory in the middle of the most important trading patterns in the world. japan and korea are ultimate allies in that area seemed to beginning second shift on this and i would have to say that this should be of great concern, a greater concern to us then i believe the plan that would
suggest because it's a pattern. it's not just taking up its own i would agree with the less aggressive approach than the chinese but instead this is part of a very old arming pattern. the chinese still make major land claims against india for example. india is as big as texas. they should couple it with the fact that the chinese are all over the world making deals with corrupt dictators in order to fence and the resources necessary for an industrial society, cutting us off. we still have basically for those of us who are, i think the two child policy still maintains a mass slaughter of innocent
children in the womb and if not bad if you don't accept that about abortion at least accept the fact that the violation and attack on women's rights and of course you still have the chinese brutally suppressing -- and engaged in the murder of prisoners in the sale of organs so we are talking about a monstrous pattern here and the islands should only be the icing on the cake of how alarming this should be. so i would hope that, and by the way during this whole time that i'm talking about these patterns that have been going on and we have been making a massive problem -- profit with our relationship with them economically. you can make the case that the specific trade agreement might give them some funds but we are
not withdrawing any of their ability to come here and make the profit that they are to making. and one last thought and that is , i think that we have to be more concerned about japan and south korea but especially japan then we are about trying to remain in a stable relationship with china. my question for you while i still have a couple of seconds left and that is, do we or do we not support president abe's efforts to introduce to him a new factor into the pacific which might deter the sprightly island operation meaning a rearming of japan quakes do we support that and quite frankly i think japan has been her best friend through this entire cold war, never faltering. maybe we should make sure we make it a more equal relationship with japan and take
up a up on his answer. >> thank you very much. with regard to optimism i think it's an occupational hazard but i appreciate the comment. two things, first let me quickly say that the various aspects of china's policy that you refer to we share your view. it was an improvement to go from one-child policy to it two child policy that we object to any limitations that the government would impose and call for the release of 2000 prisoners in chinese jails as well as other people who are oppressed or religious views as well as political views. the chinese have said that they have stopped the organ harvesting policy of prisoners as of last year. we haven't seen that actually be implemented that but they have apparently made the change. with regards to korea we couldn't agree more, these two
countries are at the heart of everything we are doing in the region and i have to say from my experience at least not only over the last seven years but particularly over the last year that i've made four trips to japan and korea in my judgment at least a state of our alliances have never been stronger. we have worked very hard in both countries to strengthen what we are doing with them. with japan we have a major achievement with the addition of the defense guidelines that are allowing japan along with the changes made to play a much more significant role militarily throughout the region. this is something we have worked very hard to achieve. it's going to allow us to expand our corporation on everything from cyber and also intelligent recognizance missile defense maritime security peacekeeping operations, humanitarian systems, all of that as a result of this agreement. we have a new host nation support agreement where japan has contributed significant way to the florida fire enforcement
there and throughout the region where mark working more closely than ever with them. with the koreans we have now in agreement that condition based on the transition during wartime of operation controls. we have got another host nation support agreement from them for five years to support our forces there. we have a trilateral information sharing agreement between us japan and korea and i worked very hard personally to build a trilateral cooperative relationship with us the japanese in the koreans because the three of us working together on these issues are very significant and powerful force so we share the view that these two countries are the heart of everything we do in those two alliances are our most important increasingly we are managing to work together. >> thank you mr. rohrabacher. >> mr. sires from new jersey. >> thank you. i'm from new jersey and i am very concerned about what goes
out and intellectual property in this part of the world. it's not just technological technical properties but it's also some of the biggest research companies we have in our state. i'm constantly complaining that we don't seem to do enough about spending the stealing of intellectual properties and now we have a couple of treaties coming up. i just want to reassure when i go back and speak to the pharmaceutical companies that we are doing everything in our power to prevent this. i mean so can you ease my pain here? >> i do want to assure you this is an area of intense focus. it has been, it will continue to be for the duration of this administration. we have different agencies in the government that are
intensely focused on this. we have made it a mission to both elevate intellectual property rights standards across-the-board including trade agreements like the transpacific partnership which would have the highest standards on intellectual property as well as making sure we enforce these protections. with china as well. one of the things that we have spent a lot of time on is the deep concern we have with the use of the cyber rome to steel trade secrets and to use cyber for commercial gain and this is an issue that the president engaged directly with president sian and we got an agreement with the chinese that they will do that. others say that has to be enforced and implemented. at the same time throughout the region and around the world we are trying to stand up every day for enforcing the property rights of our companies and
every industry including the pharmaceutical industry so this is very much at the top of the administrations agenda and i think when i hear my colleagues from treasury, from commerce from ustr they are intently focused on it so i do want to give you the assurance we are doing everything we can. >> thank you, and north korea keeps invading our computers and our systems here. i was just wondering, are we reacting back or are we just trying to put up a wall so they can't do it collects that's got to be a price to be paid for what they are doing. >> we have made clear that not only are we strengthening every possible defense but that we reserve the right to respond at a time and place of her choosing in the manner of our choosing so we are looking at of right of ways of responding to any cyber provocation. >> kind of like donald trump.
thank you, i have no more questions. >> would you yield? i think i've printed welcome mr. blinken. i wanted to just follow up on my friend mr. sherman's statement against tpp and give you an opportunity. so let's say we pull the plug on tpp and they have administrations says we give up, you are right it's flawed or we in congress decide there's no way we are going to give this our approval ever. what happens in the region to which we are pivoting and where china has its hungry eyes on trade relationships and economic ties as well? >> thank you congressman. i think a couple of things happen. one is that the immediate we will use -- lose market share in the trade values that are high for her work is in our products will remain where they are and maybe they will even get higher. second, we run the risk that
other countries will take, try to take the mantle in writing the rules for how trade goes forward and i cannot most guarantee you that we are not the ones that lead in that effort those rules will not be advantageous to our workers and to our companies and they certainly will not be advantageous to the standards that we want at the highest possible standards when it comes to protecting labor protecting intellectual property and governance so i think we are in real jeopardy if we don't go forward in seeing an environment turn against our interests win to the contrary this is an extraordinary opportunity. again we have in the region as people pointed out close to two-thirds of the middle class by 2030. that has extraordinary potential beyond what we see today. >> just one follow-up point. we hear lots of people rail against china and its trading
practices and currency manipulation. for the record do we have a free trade agreements with china? >> we are working on --. >> we do not have a free trade agreement with china. >> we are working on a bilateral bilateral -- you can't blame free trade since we don't have her free trade agreement come cometh correct? >> as you know is a very complicated picture. if you look at the displacement in manufacturing for example over the last four or five decades and something that we are deeply concerned about because of the impact that it has on our fellow citizens much of this predates any of the free trade agreements started in the 1970s technology, robotics is probably more responsible. that said, it's vitally important that in the agreements
we reach the standards particularly for protecting workers at the highest possible and the united states is not in the lead those standards are not to be -- going to be the highest. >> thank you and i will move to mr. chabot of ohio. >> thank you madam chairman me begin with taiwan. taiwan is going to be swearing in a new president in may. the dpp will copy coming back into power. taiwan i believe is a very important u.s. ally and i would expect the prc in all likelihood to try to throw his weight around. they are classic holy and they will want to show their displeasure in this election. they still have 1600 missiles pointed at taiwan as mr. rohrabacher mentioned. they are in the process of building islands to the great
dismay of all their neighbors and to militarizing those islands now. and this is all occurring at a time when this administration unfortunately is reducing or trying to reduce the size of our military including our navy which i think is just a terrible idea. we should i thank clearly first of all make sure that taiwan has sufficient military and modernized that they are able to , to keep china from acting out. i think the only way china -- they think taiwan is weakened the united states lacks the resolve to defend taiwan. what would you say on behalf of the administration to reassure taiwan and the united states will have its back? p thank you very much mr. mr. ombudsman. tie one is given the world a very vivid demonstration of what
a democratic election is and what a democratic transition is. that was a very powerful message. i met with the president, the new president who came to washington this past summer. we had a very good meeting with her at the state department. and we have strongly encourage the chinese to engage with her and with taiwan in a manner of mutual respect and flexibility to try to build on the positive outcomes across regulations over the last decade or so great we hope the chinese will do that. second we very much agree with you that what has given taiwan the confidence to engage with mainland china is the support from the united states including arms sales. we wanted to make sure as previous administrations that taiwan could not be coerced into doing things against the will of
its people. i think we have notified something like $14 billion in arms sales since 2010. we continue to look very actively at that. with regard to our own posture in the region as they said earlier we now have approaching 60% of our navy in the region. we take very seriously that taiwan must feel confident if it's to engage from the position of strength with the mainland. the other thing i think is important and i know you have in a strong advocate for this we want to make sure that taiwan and the people are able to be employed around the world against global challenges the so part of that is making sure taiwan will be represented in and of national organizations and were working hard on that to make sure organizations where recognition is required they be able to be allowed in as members and they be able to participate irrespective of whether their status recognize.
so across-the-board we have been working to strengthen our ties with the people of taiwan and support its efforts. >> let me turn to another topic. i don't know we have picked discussed bangladesh at any link this morning for they clearly deserve more attention than they often have received either by this administration or just a whole range of things but first of all as we all know, an election was held that while back at and shake casino was reelected, boycotted the election so the political situation is i think a bit iffy there but let me ask you this. angola -- has long been considered a moderate muslim country and in resisting islamic radicalism.
this gives us concern about the potential for isil, for daish, to take root in bangladesh which, as you rightly pointed out, has been an important country in terms of having a moderate, muslim-majority country with a moderate orientation that can be a player in dealing with the problem of violent extremism. so as a result of that, we have both been engaging with the government on this problem, but also, for example, with india, given the relationship between india and bangladesh, to raise the concern and to try to work together with them on countering violent extremism before it takes root in bangladesh. that's the last thing we want. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chabot. and now we'll turn to mr. deutsche of florida. >> thank you, madam chairman. deputy secretary blinken, thanks for being here today. thanks for your service to this country and always being accessible to this committee. we appreciate it very much. i'd like to get back to talking about china. there's been a lot of discussion
this morning about trade. i'd actually like to shift to foreign direct investment. and in particular, two areas, the area of security and the area of reciprocity. through one -- [inaudible] one road and investment bank, china's shown a willingness to invest abroad. but the domestic ownership requirements in china and some security review that takes place referred to, i think, as an opaque security review in china continues to frustrate american investors there. so i'd just like to know as they pursue more outlets for foreign investment, what are our options for encouraging reciprocity? why don't you answer that first, and then i'll get to the security issue. >> thank you. two things on that, congressman. first, with regard to their investments abroad just on the first part of that equation, as a matter of principle
investments, particularly in infrastructure in various parts of the world, africa, latin america, central asia, you name it, are welcome and needed. but what has concerned us with regard to china is those investments be made to high standards, not low standards. and, again, worker rights environment, intellectual property, good governance. so they've established the asia infrastructure investment bank. we're not a part of that, although if the bank now operates to those high standards, we'd welcome finding ways to work with it and other existing institutions. but the key is those standards. and what i think we found with china investing abroad is that sometimes the bloom comes off the rose after a while. what tends to happen is this is usually commodities-driven, they're trying to get commodities out of the countries they're investing in. they put a lot of money in. they have a lot more state money than we have to invest. but, typically, they import hundreds of chinese workers to actually build the projects, as you know -- >> right. >> and that doesn't sit well necessarily with the host governments. the quality of what's built may
not be up to standards, and that tends to turn things a little bit. they have to look at that carefully. when it comes to our own investment and ability to invest in china, we are working across the board to get much greater access, to get rid of some of the restrictions that inhibit our ability to do this. this is very much part of our agenda with them. and part of the bilateral investment treaty that we're seeking to negotiate is focused on exactly that. >> great. then on the -- in particular on the issue of chinese direct investment in the united states, the committee on foreign investment in the u.s. has turned down a number of high profile chinese acquisitions on national security grounds. other deals fell apart, and they were abandoned in anticipation of difficulties. but they only review a small number of transactions every year, and two questions. one, how might cfius alter their
approach if there is a bilateral investment treaty with china? i guess the bigger question is with the really significant amounts of capital that chinese are looking to invest in the united states, does the process, the cfius process still work? should -- is it sufficient given, given what might be coming to safeguard our national economic/security interests, the cyber interests, all of the sorts of things we've been discussing already here today? does it -- is this creation that's been around since the mid '70s still work, or should we be looking at this in a new light? >> it's, i think it's an excellent question and one that deserves a lot of thought. i think the first point that you made is important. the cfius only winds up applying to a very, very small percentage of the investments that are made s