tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 5, 2016 12:31pm-2:32pm EDT
process is not finished yet. the recommendation that they be located in a site in st. louis. obviously, we knew from the get go that one delegation or the other was beginning to be unhappy about this decision making process. so since it's not over yet, i'm not going to prejudice that. i'll say i have no basis for the decision. >> we're going to go to mark thompson of "time" magazine. >> given your extensive background from a marine rifle man to a general in the air force to the head of dia and now it's the director of national intelligence, i know you don't wade into political matters, but given your extensive military and intelligence background, i'm wondering if you can tell us how
important it is that there be a steady hand on the ship of state. >> for the intelligence? i think it's important. >> you have probably been to a lot of parties in the last several months. if those people are anything like i have been with, they want to know about the candidates and what's going to happen to the united states. they are nervous, they are concerned. how does that affect your job? how relevant is it? >> it doesn't make -- personally it doesn't make a lot of difference because i'm out on the 20th of january 2017. you certainly worry about rhetoric on the campaign trail u. i think the history has been that once a president is inaugurated and is in office and realizes the burden and the responsibilities of the
position, i think that has a tempering effect on anyone. i think it will here regardless of who is elected. i am struck with how simple things are on the campaign trail and how those same issues are very hard in the confines of a situation room. >> can you give us any example? >> just about ie example you want to name there are far more complexities, policy implications, to things than would appear on the campaign trail. i'm not going to cite any specific example at risk of finger pointing at one candidate or another. >> let me give you a sense of where we're going next.
>> this is a subtly. >> this is just my test of how as an old man i can remember names. >> you have two old guys up here. be careful. >> thank you. >> they think they are okay with a one time privacy concern that would arise u from such an estimate. do you plan -- is it possible for you to give an estimate to them? and do you plan to do so publicly before the law is up in 2017? >> first, i have to say how important section 702 of the
foreign intelligence act is. this tool is a prolific producer of critical intelligence for this country and our friends and allies. so that's point one. point two is if we could have made such an estimate and if such an estimate were easy to do and explainable without compromise, we would have done it a long time ago. so we will -- we are looking at several options right now. none of which are optimum. they all have drawbacks. the irony is to render an accurate number, we actually have to be more invasive and identify more u.s. persons in order to come up with an accurate number. many people find that unsatisfactory, but that's the fact. so we are look at this.
we were before i got the letter or read about it in the media. and we're going to do our best. but any methodology we come up with will not be completely satisfactory to all parties. >> thank you very much. and thank you, mr. director, for doing this. is there any evidence that isis or al qaeda are planning any actions in the coming months that would influence the u.s. elections? and do they have -- are they encouraged any way by trump as a candidate? >> i cannot point to any u evidence that would indicate a preference on the part of isis to who is elected in our
presidential election. and whether or not they might do something that could have a baring on it, they could. particularly if they do something in this country would probably have some impact. it's kind of an imponderable but that could influence how people vote in the election. >> earlier this month the president discussed the privacy demands of americans online versus security expectations. my question was when it comes to that philosophy, what expectations should americans have for online privacy to receive proper security. >> i think they should have great assurance despite the hyperbole in the media because of the many safeguards oversight
by all three branches of the government. aggressive government by all three branches of the government. that we are going to be as precise as we possibly can be in exploiting the internet for foreign intelligence purposes. i often long for the days of the cold war where had two mutually exclusive telecommunications systems so if we collected against the one dominated by the soviet union, it was almost assurance that we were not going to collect information on u.s. persons. with the internet, everything is interconnected. so all those billions of innocent transactions by millions and millions of innocent people are all mixed up with nefarious activities by nefarious people. and so the challenge for us is
pick i picking out the needles from thousands of hay stacks without in any way jeopardize iing the privacy of americans. we go to and have gone to those rights. all of us are american citizens and i certainly care about, as do everyone else in the intelligence community, of our own privacy and civil liberties as well. >> the monitor. you have spoken about the dangers of cyber attacks, but yet on the law enforcement side, there's a response to unbreakable encryption. you said you're not an i.t. person. but u how do you square that? what sorts of questions do you ask yourself when it comes to how do you make the decisions
about unbreakable encryption? >> well, i would hope -- i place great faith and confidence in the tremendous technological creativity that we have in this country. and this is one case there needs to be a partnership between commercial sector and the government. i don't know what the answer is. i would hope that the companies would devote some serious effort in terms of research, development, some other alternative methods by which we can continue to safeguard the security of people as well as ensuring the public security of this country. >> are there circumstances under which we need unbreakable encryption?
>> it's impossible to break and ensuring that the terrorists get a pass. is that what you're asking? >> you probably know more about the definitions than i do about unbreakable encryption. >> in the history of mankind since we have been doing signal intelligence, ultimately there's no such thing given proper time, proper application, and the application technology. so again, i think your question gets back to -- and i'll just answer it and repeat what the president said about people assuming absolutist positions, which is not helpful. >> we're going to go next to patrick tucker from defense one. >> earlier north korea staged an underground nuclear bomb test
and claimed it was for a hydrogen bomb. the seismic activity suggest ises it was probably not a hydrogen bomb. some suggest ed it might have been a boosted bomb. a bomb that has characteristics similar to a hydrogen bomb. that would suggest an improvement in the capabilities of north korea to create a hydrogen bomb. can you tell us today, do you feel north korea is on the way to creating a hydrogen bomb in the next five years? >> i can't say that. i will say aspirationally, the one guy in north korea is very determined to portray to the world that north korea is, in fact, a nuclear power and he wants recognition of that. so despite some of the failures that they have recently incurred, they will, in my view, continue to press on to develop
nuclear capababilitiecapabiliti aspirationally would include hydrogen capability. but i certainly can't describe a timeline to that. >> eric smith from the "new york times." >> it's been a month now since the attacks in brussels. what is the intelligence community learned since then or have a better understanding about how they operate? do you believe they have clan decent cells like in brussels like in germany and italy? >> yes, they do. and that is a concern of obviously ours and our european allies. and i assure you we're doing all we can to share with them. i was recently in europe and as parts of the u.s. delegation that met with a number of
nations there to try to promote more sharing between and among the nations in europe. that right now is our greatest -- is a major emphasis of ours is to promote more sharing because we continue to see evidence of plotting in the countries you name u. we have learned that they are fanat fanatic. operation security conscious, they are very mindful of that. they have taken advantage to some extent of the migrant crisis in europe. something which the nations, i think, are grow iing awareness .
>> cnn. >> thank you for doing this. going back to the north korea issue, i know you talked a little bit about their hydrogen bomb and wanting to get that nuclear power status. >> i wouldn't state that as a fact. >> right. but in terms of developing these capabilities, but in terms of their ballistic missile development. what is your threat assessment of ballistic missiles? there was a report of a missile test recently. what's your assessment of the threat that poses to the united states both in the region and wider? >> well, we might disagree with the north korean claims of a success. we're still ringing that out with technical assessments, with the extent to which they are being worked or not. we have to assume the worst. that's traditionally what we do
in the intelligence community. so we ascribe the capability for them to have field ed our missile. now that's -- we have low confidence in that because they have never successfully tested one. so that has a bearing on the assessment. . but overall, we have to assume the worst. and when you think about it, the north koreans in a sense have achieved an objective there because they have created the psychology of deterrence, which is what they are very interest ed in. my -- when i engage with them some, they are clearly in siege mentality mode.
they think we are bent on regime change and on sorting the dprk. so they want the recognition as a nuclear power and they want the nuclear capabilities. it's their ticket to survival. >> julian from the hill? >> the question about there's a lawsuit allowed to proceed in washington brought in support of regards of their work in the program. . the cia conducted under president bush. wondering if you have any concern about the implications of allowing a lawsuit like that to go forward? if you're worried that hinders outside contractor's ability to work with the ic in the future?
>> the lawsuit in washington? >> the question is if there's any concern that the lawsuit is allowed to go forward and continues to go forward, will discourage cooperation from contractors with the ic in the future? >> well, i don't know. i mean i'm reluctant to comment on an ongoing matter of litigation. so i really shouldn't say anything about it. the likelihood that we're going to engage in hire contractors to do extraordinary interrogation techniques is about slim and none. so from that standpoint, maybe not. but i can't really speak to what the total and final legal
implications of that case are. >> we're going to doyle from the l.a. times. >> question about syria. as you know, the president announce d today that he has approved the deployment of special operations troops on the ground in syria. this comes after several years in which the assessment of most of the intelligence community for opposition forces really have very little capability in terms of organization, military impact, staying power, anything you wanted. has that assessment changed? and is it possible yet to set out any plausible timelines if their capability increases if pressure on isis continues for the fall of raqqah. >> the answer to the last question is no. i certainly can't project
realistically a timeline. i do think that the deployment of the announced the special forces fortroops, is a manife manifestation of the need to and the effectiveness of advising, assisting, and being on the ground with not just the arabs but the others who are there, principally, various factions of the kurds. and so the complexity of the situation in syria is unbelievable. and to the extent that we can promote proxies who have, you know, interest in their own villages, their own towns, their own communities, and as well from my standpoint, to gain more
on the ground insight is a good thing. but i cannot project what's going to be the incremental impact of these additional 250 and how long it will take before there is some sort of resolution of the situation. i can't say that. >> we're going to go next to robert schlessinger. we're not going to go to robert. sometimes i'm looking too hard. we're going to go to tim johnson from mcclatchy. >> i would like to refer to the panama papers that came out earlier this month. rather immediate reaction from established democracy iceicelan britain, in terms of shaking up the political status quo. not so in russia, pakistan, china. do you think this could blow over? is there some longer term impact from knowledge of offshore wealth head by leaders?
>> well, i can't -- it's hard to make a generalized response to that. i think it will depend very much on individual cases. one of the reasons it hasn't invoked a lot of reaction in russia is kind of obvious. a little tighter control on the counterparts there. so the likelihood that that's going to come close to or touch president putin i think is pretty remote. other places, the depeit depend frankly the politics and how individual countries, how individual legal systems respond to it. it's hard to make a generalized answer to your question. >> u.s. news. >> yes, mr. director, follow up on the question about the new deployment of troops to syria. you sort of mentioned this, but just to get it clearly, can you say definitively what 250 or 300
soldiers can do that 50 soldiers cannot? >> no, i can't. it's not an intelligence issue. as i like to remind my friends on the hill, people on the bridge, they set a goal and arrange the furniture on the deck. i really can't say. >> part of their task is to gather intelligence. they're going to be able to diffuse to different groups. if this is a good thing, ramping up more americans, can we assume there will be more deployments in coming months? >> no, i can't. i wouldn't go there either. on the ground insight, intelligence gathering is but one of, it's an ancillary task if they do. obviously, i'm happy anytime you get ears and eyes on the ground, that's a good thing. but that doesn't necessarily mean that arithmetically we put
more people, that would improve. i can't say what impact it will have or does that indicate more. i can't go there. >> we're going to go next to shane harris from the daily beast. >> in the past, nominees from each party for president have received security briefer eings the runp to the general election. is that still the plan with whoever the republican and democratic nominees are, and what steps will you take to make sure they're not mishandling the information? >> that's exactly the process that has gone on for many years and we have already established a plan for briefing both candidates when they're named. and then certainly after november, when the president elect is known. then it gets more intensive. we have already got a team set up to do that. and a designated lead who is not a political appointee, and all of us that are currently involved will not be -- will not
be involved in that other than to oversee it to insure that everybody gets the same information. and that we do comply with the needs to protect sources, methods, and comply with security rules. >> will they -- how will they get that? >> we normally arrange those depending on the candidates' schedules and where they are, and we normally will accommodate their needs through a local secure facility. >> we're going to go next to real clear politics. >> director, i want to follow up on what you learned since the europe attack. you were talking about your conviction there are other cells in europe. can you expand on that and describe two things. one is, how much have we learned
about the threat of additional attacks? also, if you're making such an effort to promote information sharing, can you expand on what the impediments are and how much time it may take for the information sharing to reach a level that you think would be optimal? >> the challenge we have, you know, with plots, is that in many cases, we are only seeing a snapshot or an anecdotal street. we don't have the total picture all the time. if we did, then the plot would easily be thwarted. because of the particular isil's mindfulness of the effort mounted to monitor them, they are very, very secure conscious, more and more going to the use
of encrypted applications. and so it makes it all the tougher. the obstacles in europe have, i think, somewhat to do with some of the sort of fundamental conflict between on the one hand, european union incentives and drives to promote openness and free movement of people and goods. privacy, which isn't in some ways, in conflict with the responsibilities that each country has as a nation state to protect the security of its borders and its people. so those are sort of countervailing processes. each of these countries have their own laws, their own particularly with respect to privacy, and sharing information
between their intelligence and law enforcement entities. something that we've worked pretty hard in this country since 9/11. >> is it realistic to expect that sharing to happen? >> i think it is. i think it was very significant when the european parliament after some four and a half years of deliberation did pass a law that at least authorizes member nations to take two years to figure out how to better coordinate selected airline passenger data, but that's fairly limited. so how long this will take, i don't know. i will tell you, i was in paris convince dendally, two days after the attack on november 13th, and then of course, after that followed by the brussels attack. i think there is growing public
awareness when these attacks happen that something needs to be done. certainly with our counterport organizations, there is a greatly heightened awareness of the need to share. >> we're going to go to howard from the monitor. >> thank you, sir. back to syria. for a long time, another reason that we haven't gotten involved in syria was concerns about how the intertwining of extremists, islamic groups in particular, al qaeda, opposition groups, and i'm wondering if this larger number of advisers and special ops forces suggest that, a, we're getting a better hold on how to separate them out or if it just means we're going to work more with the kurds?
>> the advisers are not going to be in the vast bulk of syria. obviously, there's sort of two zones, if you will, in syria. there's the western spine, sort of going from the south, south of damascus and north to aleppo. then you've got the extreme east. and the phenomenon we're dealing with is the term of art that is used that is mottling. you have these groups and there are hundreds of them. at one point, we estimated 1,500 or 1,600 of these various separate groups of varying stripes, of ideology and commitment. and on the battlefield, there have been tactical marriages of convenience, particularly with the very capable fighting force, so we're doing what we can to
influence the separation of these, but it's very difficult when many of these groups are focused on their own local area. their own village, their own town. their own community and large city. so inducing them to separate because it works better for us is a real challenge. >> we're going to go next to natal from politico. >> i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the spread of isis in south asia and how real that is. in particular, we're hearing reports about bangladesh has increasing issues with this. and also, i was wondering, in countries like india, bangladesh and pakistan in particular, how cooperative are the governments in recognizing whether or not this is a problem and cooperating with the united states on it? >> well, that's a very good question. and that is a concern because of the nascent provinces, to use
the isil term, that appear to be forming in some countries in southeast asia. and i'll just say without diming out any one of them or singling out any one, is that there are varying degrees of recognition of the problem. and you know, we'll do what we can to share, to enlighten, to educate at least from our standpoint what's happening in each of these countries. >> is there anybody who hasn't had one before we go to a second round? yes, sir, brian from the l.a. times. >> director, i wanted to ask about -- >> brian bennett from the l.a. times. go ahead. >> syria, have you seen any indications that portable
service to air missiles are currently in use in any of the sides in syria and what kind of threat would that pose? >> there certainly have been against the regime. >> where do those come from? >> i'm sorry? >> what are the origins of those? >> the place is awash in man pads. you know, the regime had them. the active procurement networks, black market, whatever. so there's all kinds of sources for the proliferation of man pads in syria. >> do those pose a threat to civilian aviation in the region? do they pose a threat to civilian aviation in the region? >> to civilian aviation? certainly. hopefully there's not too many civilian airlines, airliners transiting syria. if i were boarding an airplane, and flying over syria, i think i
would skip it. >> can you assess the possibilities of new technologies that would have disabling feature on man portable surface to air missiles and the possibility of that being provided. >> man pads or shoulder fired or, you know, either individual or crew surface to air missiles, this has been the historically a cat and mouse thing, an action/reaction, where you know, they develop -- you field one and develop countermeasures and they field another one that counters the countermeasures and it goes on. that's kind of the spiral we're in. as time has gone on, we have developed, well not just we, developed improvements in the capabilities of man pads and as well, ways and means of
thwarting the countermeasures so. that conundrum continues. i can't point to any and won't any specific technology that would be the ultimate silver bullet, so to speak, that would negate man pads. i will never -- i don't think, reach that point. >> something on the table? >> sorry? >> pushing more of those, that technology into the theater, is that on the table? >> certainly where we can. and in the west, you know, as we develop new capabilities and countercapabilities, sure. a double-edged sword, though, because what you always worry about is whatever capability developed having it fall into the wrong hands, and again, the pervasive access to these
systems is kind of an inhibitor towards the widespread distribution. >> from the intercept. >> thank you so much for being here. i want to return to something you said earlier about the revelation leading to a seven-year speed-up in the development of encryption. with technologies i have spoken with, they continue to say there's an arms race to create the strong encryption to defeat hackers with their system. could you expand on where the figure comes from and whether it's a good thing that we encourage this innovation. >> i don't understand the last question. >> whether or not it's a good thing that this innovation sped up as it did. >> not from our standpoint, no, it's not. i take that, that's an estimate that i -- which i think was quite valid by nsa. that, you know, the projected
growth, maturation, and instanchiation of commercially available encryption, what had forecast for seven years from, well, three years ago, was accelerated to now. because of the revelations, the leaks, and so from our standpoint, this is not a good thing. >> yes, sir. >> director, with fcw. it's been a few months since you set up c-tech, cybertech intelligence integrations center. i was wondering if you had any doubts personally about the ability of that organization to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and a general update on the status of operationally what it's been doing. >> first of all, just to be clear, the president directed me to do this. to establish the cyber threat
intelligence integration center. because of all the controversy surrounding its stand-up, we had a lot of time to think through what its capabilities would be, it's only 50 people, bear in mind, and we haven't built to that yet. what it could do and what it couldn't do. and so we spent a good bit of time engaging with stakeholders, both others that have related missions as well as users and consumers to sort out exactly what the ctic is doing. and the feedback that we're getting from that is pretty positive. just like, you know, the reason that my office was set up by the irtpa was to promote, i believe, promote integration.
so just as the national counterterrorism center, the national counterproliferation center, the national intelligence and security center promote integration across the ic and those realms, so is it with the ctic for cyber. >> is the intelligence going from ct iic used for intelligen operations overseas? >> i am not going to go there. >> we're going to try to get in two more questions. chuck. >> thank you for doing this, again. it's been reported that you agree with senator mccain in that any intelligence obtained from water boarding is not worth the propaganda's power it gives the opponents. what about, does that same apply to the in a presidential campaign context, when you have a presidential candidate out saying he would reinstitute waterboarding? >> well, actually, senator mccain asked me to comment at the armed service committee
hearing on the use of torture as a way of eliciting information. and first of all, the science tells you that it doesn't necessarily work. that whether you're interrogating for intelligence purposes or law enforcement purposes, the most important thing is to develop and build rapport with whoever it is that you're interrogating. and in a torture context, you know, people generally will get to the point where they'll tell you whatever it is you want to hear. so apart from that, the practicalities of the utility of information that is so derived is, i think we're much better served as a nation to conduct interrogation activities in a
manner that comports with our standards and our values. and i strongly endorse what john brennan said about the use of tortu torture. it won't be through me. >> does it hurt when a presidential candidate -- does it hurt intelligence, u.s. intelligence when a presidential candidate raises the possibility of waterboarding? >> i'm not going to comments on that. >> patrick tucker. >> the political stalemate in libya seen as a major obstacle to an expanded u.s. operation there. do you think that political stalemate is close to resolving? >> well, we're very hopeful about the latest version of the government in libya, the government nation accord. very, very fragile. it appears that there's room for some hope here. if and as it gains traction and gains credibility within the
very fractious political landscape in libya. and certainly, we're much better off if we can operate with a government and cooperate with one and certainly if we are going to do something militarily that we have some recognized governmental entity that can -- that we can engage with and hopefully consent to such operations. >> i have a quick follow-up. that nuclear bomb test from earlier this year, was that a test -- >> we don't really know. they claimed it was a hydrogen weapon. if it was, it fell way short of, you know, what we regard as a hydrogen weapon or any type of boost efficient. it's hard to say what they were trying to do, but it was much more modest than they claimed. >> we want to thank you.
you have a two-minute question? go for it. >> rudy tackle, washington examiner. there was a report on 60 minutes last week with representative lew about a tell uconn network, and the claim was made that any intelligence agency that can access that network can surveil any phone number that they can identify. which in effect allows them to surveil members of congress, and representative lew is questioning whether the nsa knew about that and if so, why members of congress were never alerted to that flaw. >> well, i don't know the full history of this. i will tell you that, you know, we have very, very stringent rules on any, you know, inadvertent collection on the congress. that's the oenonly time it occu. in fact, we're now negotiating with the congress on improving, enhancing the manner in which we
republican presidential candidate donald trump continues on the campaign trail today. even though he's now the only republican running for the nomination. the new york businessman is going to be in west virginia, which holds its primary on tuesday. he'll address supporters at a rally in charleston. c-span will have live coverage at 7:00 eastern. and tonight on american history tv primetime, a look at the church committee set up after watergate to investigate possible illegal intelligence gathering by the cia, nsa, and the fbi that led to the creation of today's intelligence committees in the house and senate. it begins at 8:00 eastern with real america, and 1975 testimony by then cia director william colby. on american history tv on
c-span3 -- >> we're here to review the major findings of our full investigation of fbi domestic intelligence, including the co-intell program and other programs aimed alt domestic targets. fbi surveillance of law abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence, and several specific cases of unjustified intelligence operations. >> the 1975 church committee hearings convene to investigate the intelligence activities of the cia, fbi, irs, and nsa. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. the commission questioned former associate counsel and staff assistant to nixon, on a plan he prepted to nixon using burglary, electronic surveillance and opening of mail. >> had undertaken a black bag jobs for a number of years up until 1966, that had been
successful and valuable. again, particularly in matters involving espionage, and that they felt this again was something that given the revolutionary climate, they thought they needed to have the authority to do. >> and just before 7:00 p.m. eastern -- >> and one person came and she said, you were chosen. she was from czechoslovakia, she was there for four years already in the concentration camp. she spoke hungarian also. and they ask her, what is happening? where are our parents? and she said you see that smoke? there are your parents. >> holocaust survivor anna gross recalled her family's experiences in the ghettos in naultsy occupied hungary, at auschwitz concentration camp in poland and forced hard labor. this is part of the united states holocaust memorial
museum's first person series. then at 8:00. >> an anarchist named alexander berkman broke into frick's office in nearby pittsburgh. shot him twice and repeatedly stabbed him. berkman, however, is one of the great failures in assassination history. not only did he fail to kill frick. he also undermined the strikers for whom he was professing sympathy. because in many ways. public opinion saw this out burst of radical violence as a discredit to the union movement. >> the university of maryland's robert childs on the labor and social unrest at the turn of the 20th century, and sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1968 presidential campaign of former democrat, governor of alabama george wallace. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. recently, our campaign 2016
bus made a visit to pennsylvania during its primary. stopping at grove city college, slippery rock university, washington and jefferson college, and harrisburg area community colleges. where students, professors and local officials learned about our road to the white house coverage and our online interactive resources covering the campaign trail found at c-span.org. they were also able to share their thoughts about the upcoming election. wented in warrington, pennsylvania, where they visited a middle school to honor seven ninth graders. a special thanks to our partners for coordinating these community visi visits. members of the house foreign affairs committee questioned deputy secretary of state an tony blinken on the u.s. interests in the asia pacific
region. he answered questions about north korea, and human rights issues in burma, now called myanmar. >> meeting will come to order. some of the world's most dangerous flash points 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 u.s.
policy toward asia. we took the lead imposing tough sanctions on north korea, on highlighting human rights in southeast asia, and in strengthening our alliances with democracies in the region. since the north korea january nuclear test, its fourth, kim jong-un's 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 earlier this year, the president signed into law sanctions legislation this committee pushed to aggressively target north korea's cash. this strong bipartisan measure authored by myself and mr. engel helped the administration get a
sweeping u.n. 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 it use them? in it recent u.n. report found several countries still pushing cash to kim jong-un's regime 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 designate more companies and more banks and more individuals. north korea is a human rights house of horrors. so how is it that not one north korea 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 all of these disputes must be resolved peacefully, that is best done with a policy of strength, resolve, and clarity. rejecting beijing's apparent moves toward defacto control over international shipping lanes. in southeast asia, vietnam's poor human rights record continues. bloggers and journalists are harassed and jailed. when myself or other members of the committee, chris smith, when we've travelled to vietnam, we have visited with political prisoners, we have visited with dissidents. when the president travels to vietnam next month, president obama could send a clear and unequivocal message to the
communist 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 benoit military cemetery, the resting place of south vietnamese soldiers who fought to preserve their freedom, a cause important to the vietnamese community. and while there is hope for new government in burma and we've been pushing for democracy in burma, it 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 the capacity of tomorrow's trade partners. trade can play a key role in strengthening u.s. alliances. the 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 taiwan, all vibrant democracies today, but that proud legacy has to be protected through constant vigilance and engagement. mr. engel will be here momentarily and will move to introduce mr. blinken and have your testimony. and then we'll hear from the ranking member when he arrives. thank you, tony. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much and to members of the committee, thank you for having me here. it is very good to be back to discuss our rebalance to the asia pacific region. i just got back to my sixth visit in over a year and with each trip i've seen growing
dividends of the effort to rebalance our focus on the region and to strengthen a rules-based order that is advancing our interest and increasingly not only in the region but globally. >> secretary blinken, could you -- could you pull the microphone just a little closer. some of the members were having trouble -- >> sorry about that. is that better. >> yes. thank you, tony. >> as you said, mr. chairman, nowhere in the world are economic and strategic opportunities clearer or more compelling than in the region. home to four of the top ten trading partners, five of our seven treaty allies and the largest and fastest growing economies, including 40% of overall global growth, nearly two thirds of the global middle class, and of course, some of the most wired and innovative people in the world. over the last seven years, the rebalance to asia that is deepingen our diplomatic ties with the region, commensurate with its importance has helped shape a positive trajectory in the region.
we bolster our alleys and strengthening regional opportunities and promoting trade and investment and enhancing military and advancing democratic reform and creating new networks of trilateral and multi-lateral relationships. there are multiple pillars. i want to briefly go through the pillars. first, we've invested in modernizing our core alliances with japan and the philippines and australia, and updated our guidelines for our defense cooperation with japan, including new host nation support agreements with japan and korea, signed a forced posture with australia and concluded a landmark enhanced cooperation agreement with the philippines. second we've deepened 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 while avoiding conflict, and worked to deepen the bonds between the people of the united states and taiwan. our partnership within asia and singapore has grown to reflect the increased corporation on
regional and global challenges, everything from countering climate change to violent extremism. and we forged new relations with vietnam and burma as they turn the page on the past. i saw this again for myself in vietnam last week. thanks in part to the bipartisan leadership of this committee, the u.s. and vietnam are deepening and broadening ties in areas we wouldn't even imagine a decade ago, even a few years ago, from military cooperation to human rights to peace keeping. third, we sustained increasing institution like a-pec and asia and sending our first dedicated ambassador and hosting the first summit here in the united states and hosting a-pec in 2011. these are important for promoting collective action and facilitating the peaceful resolution of differences. they advance a security architecture in which the united states is a vital and permanent player. fourth, we have vigorously promoted trade and investment opportunities designed to unlock growth for the united states as
well as for our allies and partners in the region. we've implemented a free trade agreement with south korea and worked with burma, helping set the stage for american companies to enter the market. and the heart of the engagement in the region is the transpacific partnership, which will bring 12 apec economies and 40% of global gdp together. tpp will eliminate more than 18,000 taxes on american exports and help level the playing field for american workers while solidifying an economic arena in which every participant, regardless of the size, agrees to fight bribery and corruption and abide by international labor standards, including the formation of independent trade unions and commits to enforcement of environmental safe guards. fifth, we've enhanced our military, deploying 60% of the navy in the region by the end of the decade and some of the most advanced capabilities. we're increasing the maritime security capacity of our partners and rotating american personnel into new and more places like northern australia and new sites in the philippines. sixth, we're standing up for the
values an the basic rights and freedoms of individuals throughout the region. >> in endnesia and the philippines, we're tackling corruption and strengthening institutions and in support of burma's elections and peaceful transition of pow, we hope to establish the nation's first nonpartisan independent election organization. we trained over 11,000 political party members to improve their ability to effectively communicate with voters. we continue to stress the importance of upholding the rule of law and express our strong concern about discrimination experienced by ethnic and religious minorities, including the rohingya. in response, vietnam has taken positives steps on human rights including releasing prisoners, and the rights of disabilities and agreeing to allow independent trade unions for the first time in modern history. significant reforms remain to bring laws into sync with international human rights obligations and indeed with its own constitution. finally, we have invested in a
new geometry of trilateral and multilateral networks to encourage networks among and between the region. at the core is a robust trilateral partnership with south korea and japan inwhich we have convened the first meeting of the vice minister deputy level, and the benefits are crystal clear in the face of the most acute challenge, the challenge from north korea and its provocative acts in the nuclear missile domain. we are stepping up sanctions implementation including under the u.n. security council resolution and working to increase the capabilities of other countries to implement that resolution. and our three countries will continue to shine an in tense light on north korea's deplorable human rights violations and pursue accountability for them. we're focused on maritime issues. especially chinese assertive provocative behavior in the south china sea that is challenging respect for the law, and peaceful resolution of disputes, and deepened our commitment to australia and
japan, hosted the inaugural ministerial dialogue. these bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral relationships are not aimed at any particular country. they are not exclusive. we welcome any collaboration with countries including greater cooperation and the growing unit of the assy an community and we are building relationships not just amongst countries but among the people. the wisilly community, now 67,000 people, strong connects dynamic people in the united states to each other. mr. chairman, the efforts represent a small but important slice of the work that we're currently undertaking. seven years after president obama rebalanced our sights on the asia pacific, we are leaders of a region increasingly bound by common ideals, shared prosperity, and a cleckive sense of global responsibility. i thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. blinken. i think without objection, the
witness's full prepared statement will be made part of the record and members will have five calendar days to submit statements and questions and any extraneous materials for the record. i think what we'll do is proceed with some of the questions from committee and then when the ranking member arrives, he'll make his statement and ask the deputy secretary of state the questions that he has as well. if we could start, mr. blinken, with the 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 that we passed and this bill did help get that united stat u.n. 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.
and i think it is high time that happened and there is a new u.n. report that points out that several countries are still purchasing north korean weapons. if you would speak to that issue. european luxury goods are still making their way to kim jong-un. and are we yet to hit any chinese banks facilitating transactions as we did in the past with bank of delta asia which was very effective at the time. if you recall, it cut off the hard currency, stopped the production of the missile program at the time because they didn't have the hard currency to proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to thank the committee for the very important work that it did. i think the combination of the u.n. security council resolution, which is the strongest tool we've had to deal with north korea, the legislation from congress and the executive order that have put those into effect, really puts us in a different position.
we now have the ability, if implemented, and that is the key, to maximize pressure on north korea to try to get it to change its conduct. for the first time through the u.n. security council resolution, we require that all cargo going in and out of the country be inspected. first for first time, we have sectoral sanctions that limit or ban the export of coal, iron, gold, rare earth materials that are what they use to financial 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're looking principally at china as well as other countries to follow through on implementation. china played an important role in getting the security council resolution. it is our expectation that it will now implement it. it is too soon to say whether that is the case. we've seen some encouraging developments including
regulations, statements that it's made, but we're now watching intensely. but at the same time, it is not enough. and what we're 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're working in various ways to cut off all of the revenues going to the regime. for example, they have, as you know, overseas workers who's remittances are not going back to families but going back to the regime. we're working to cut that off. we have diplomats engaged in illicit activities, procurement, and even illicit businesses. the restaurant workers who defected from china. we're seeing this in different countries from around the world. 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 activities sent home. making sure that people don't go to north korea including for the
workers party congress or invite them to international events. working to get countries to make sure they are doing what you alluded to, making sure that the ships that go to north korea don't dock in their countries and that the planes don't land. so right now, we're working on enforcing all of that. >> and i've been part of the dialogue, our committee has on each of the 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, for those dozen banks that were affected back during the sanctions regime put in place when north korea was caught counterfeiting our $100 bills. just how concerned they are about reputational risk, even when -- even when those sanctions were reportedly listed by state and the time, bank
still wanted to know, yes, but has the u.s. treasury department really signed off on this? because otherwise, we're 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 is essential that decision be made and we'll continue to dialogue on that and that is a decision you need to make and i'm sure you raised that in beijing. >> i appreciate that. >> and again i raise that issue about the rohingya people. we need to work with that new government frankly in burma to shape attitudes toward the rohingya and you'll have to continue to lean in on that. on the vietnam human rights issue, i've got to share with you, we've got the case of a human rights lawyer new van dye who was arrested in december for his advocacy of human rights and democracy. according to his wife, he was
severely beaten by the police and been in solitary confinement since his arrest and he was denied access to his lawyers and to his family. will the president push for his release? i think this is very, very necessary. >> mr. chairman, i very much appreciate those 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 a couple of months ago, i raised this repeatedly. we're looking to the government to give them genuine freedom of movement so they could work so they could go to school and get health care and the discrimination. we're working on that. with vietnam, absolutely. i think the president will certainly engage with that community. when i was there last week i met with civil society activists and lawyers and others, indeed, to express the concern we have. vietnam has made real progress. they have released a lot of political prisoners and working to conform their laws to the constitution but work remains to be done.
>> thank you, deputy secretary. i appreciate it. i'll go to our ranking member eliot engel from new york who has an opening statement and then he'll have questions. mr. engel. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for calling the hearing and mr. deputy secretary, i've known you for a long time. welcome to the foreign affairs committee. it has been a pleasure working with you over the years in the various roles in which you've served and we're very fortunate to -- i was to say this publicly, we're fortunate to have a dedicated and capableperson as the number two in the state person. thank you for all you do. i was encouraged that the president and secretary kerry charged you with focusing on asia during your time as deputy secretary and that is a focus we badly need and i think you are the right person for the job. half of the world's population calls asia home and the nations of asia account for more than a third of global gdp. from india to japan to indonesia to mick cronesia, it has a
greater impact on global affairs than ever before. as a pacific power, the united states faces no shortage of foreign policy challenges in asia, from the north korea reckless behavior to the impacts of climate change to the recruitment of fighters and into violent extremist groups. the way we manage the rise of china in the years ahead may well be the most consequential foreign policy issue of the 21st century. the decisions we make today will determine whether the values and norms we champion in asia after world war ii will continue to thrive. that is why this has been called -- this america's specific century and that is why there is no better time to focus on this dynamic part of the world. the so-called asia rebalance is hashed a number of important diplomatic achievements. we've strengthen our core alliance with australia, japan and philippines and south korea. with our allies of japan, we've established trilateral forums with australia, south korea and india. we've ramped up our agreement
with asia and dedicated a clear commitment to the east asia summit and have normalized relations with burma as they have emerged from decades of isolation and begun hard work toward a more open, democratic society. despite the efforts i regularly hear concerns from our allies in the region that the rebalance is more of a shift in military strategy than about diplomatic engagement. so this morning i hope we could drill down and look at other ways the state department is making asia a priority and areas where the department's approach could be more robust. i'll start with the 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 do 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 world's third largest economy, india has the potential to become a major economic player in east asia and is already playing a constructive role in maritime issues.
china regards asia as a strategic hole with the one belt and one road policy and aiming to expand chinese influence beyond east asia through central asia to the caspian. yet the state department structure with three different bureaus responsible for south and central asia and east asia and the pacific, i believe, creates an artificial barrier to cooperation across the entire region. so i would like to hear what state department is doing to overcome obstacles that deals it with as a priority that includes south and central asia. staying for a moment with structural issues in the state department, i would like to discuss if we're doing all we can from a resource standpoint to insure our asia policy will succeed. the east asia bureau is the smallest regional pubureau in terms of personnel. 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 but i wonder if anything could be done in foggy bottom so the rebalance is adequately resourced. we've heard this is a priority and that should be reflected in the investments we make. lastly i would like to turn so the south china sea. we expect the law of the sea tribunal to issue a decision in the next month or so involving the claims of china and the philippines. that could ratchet up tensions. while the united states doesn't take a position, a specific claim made by various parties we want to see china play by the same rules as everyone 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 u.s. and 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 but it is not clear why the defense department is leading the way instead of the state department. dod's new authorities for this program are entirely duplicative of existing state department authorities. i worry that putting such a program under dod's control could erode state security cooperation responsibilities. our diplomats are responsible for overseeing security assistance and it should stay that way and whatever level of cooperation between state and dod on this matter, i'm concerned that this is another example of what some called the militarization of foreign policy. this feeds into those concerns that the asia rebalance is a military policy even in areas that have traditionally been diplomatic responsibilities. so mr. deputy secretary, i'm interested in hearing your views on these issues and as well as other areas i'll be turning on as well.
i thank you again for your service and commitment and i look forward to your testimony. i want to raise two questions and in conjunction with my statement, and it is, the first one is about india. it has been characterized by u.s. officials as an indispensable partner of the united states. the third largest economy in the world. by purchasing power parody and the largest democracy in the asia region. the u.s. india relationship is important and growing. in particular on the defense side. and prime minister mody will be coming to washington in a couple of months to meet with president obama. from a strategic perspective, india is a potential counterweight toitia's growing influence and become vocal on issues like freedom of navigation in the south china sea and the indian ocean region. additionally central asia occupied critical geography. the china recognize this potential of central asia for
what has been a cross roads on the doorstep of the great powers and a transit point for trade and culture between the east and the west and the chinese are aggressively seeking to expand their influence there. yet in your written testimony there is only one mention of india in the context of a u.s./japan/india trilateral ministerial and no mention of south and central asia at all. so my question is do they not fit with the administration's larger rebalance asia strategy and how can we be rebalancing to asia without a strategic framework that considers asia as a strategic hole. thank you. >> thank you very much. 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 vital regional actor. india has its own regional policy that dove tails very nicely with the work we're doing on the rebalance. so we're working increasingly to
integrate india into the efforts, and you mentioned the one thing i did point to in the statement. i think there may be more in the written statement. the u.s./japan/india trilateral effort at a ministerial level, we included japan in the malabar exercise, which was significant development which we hope to continue to carry out. but we're building our own relationship with india as evidenced by the extraordinary level of high level engagement including the return visit here and the president being received for the first time as the honored guest at republic day but also in very concrete collaboration across the board. everything from climate and smart cities to improving the business climate to defense cooperation to production cooperation even in the defense area. but intelligence sharing, information sharing, tournt terrorism, countering violent extremism, across the board, the elevation has been
eliminated but port of what you're pointing to is integrating india into the reej nn frameworks so we're working together jointly. and the example with japan is a very good one. but this is exactly the direction that we want to go in. >> thank you. i'm wondering you if you could comment on the south china sea. i just want to ask you -- the philippines has brought an arbitration case against china's claims in the south china sea into the convention under the law of the sea. if the ruling goes in the philippines favor as expected and if china refused to abide by it, what are the implications for the philippines and the claimants of the south china sea and how would this change the u.s. approach in the south china sea? >> thank you. first, i would say something that's incredibly important to us and our partners in two ways. first of all, 25% of all traded
and likely they will vote yes which its rulings are binding on the parties. we have worked very hard to establish skroosz the region and understand that this is an appropriate mechanism. we said to the chinese, if you are given satisfaction on any aspect, we will be the first 1 to stand up and defend it. if the philippines is, you have to respect that. china has a decision to make. they will either decide to abide by the ruling and that gives a great opportunity to narrow the scope of areas that are in dispute in the south china sea. that would be good.
to get countries to work cooperatively together, for example, on the joint resources and work to resolve the disputes that remain peacefully. the other path is it ignores the decision and it risks doing terrible damage to its reputation. further alienating them and pushing them closer to the united states. china will have to decide. we are watching that very, very closely. >> thank you so much and thank you to the ranking member. for over a month i have been trying to get ahold of you to discuss the problem between morocco. you have not had the courtesy to return my call, but at a hearing, ann padderson promised
to work with me regarding the draft resolution that renews the mandate. it was obvious that 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 and our important military and intelligence cooperation. there has to be a way to find a compromise and do it without including the provisions including the to allow them another opportunity it insult morocco and do damage. i urge you to work with the moroccans and to fix it. what can you tell us about the draft resolution.
>> let me apologize to you if i didn't get back to you. i would be happy to follow-up immediately this afternoon if that's convenient. >> thank you, sir. >> second, with regard to the situation, we have been deeply engaged since this problem first emerged. that was the secretary general's visit to the region. we work closely with morocco to see if we could get them working together. i saw the foreign minster and i was on the phone with him. he came to visit me and secretary kerry saw him. here's where we are. morocco was concerned with the things that 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 moroccan friends that as we were looking at renewing the mandate, we wanted to renew it without changes. one of the things we did in response is they decided to reduce and ask for the removal of members of the mission. that creates a problem for us. as a member of the council, we have an important stake in making sure that the peace keeping mission is upheld. if you allow a precedent by which a country can decide whether to accept or shut down or change the composition, that will be a problem in other areas of countries that unlike morocco are not close friends. >> when the secretary general makes such a provocative statement and accusation, you
pin them against the wall. >> that's why we worked with the secretary general's office to get a clarification of what he meant. our hope is that we can get the resolution to a place where morocco's concerns are answer and they can function as it was before. that's what we are trying to achieve. we share your commitment with the relationship to morocco. >> we need more moroccos. thank you, sir. moving on to the subcommittee, they testified that they are not in compliance with the iran, north korea and syria nonproliferation act, a law that i authored several years ago. it is an important tool and they told us that they undermined the
credibility of our sanctions. the state took almost years to prepare and implement sanctions and your predecessor sat on the report for more than a year as it awaited approval. given that precedent, do you have a report you are sitting on and have you signed off and what's the status of that report? >> i believe the next are the is being worked on and processed. as soon as it does come to me, i will move it out of my inbox as quickly as possible. >> thank you so much. >> we go to brad sherman of california. >> congratulations on the new position. good to hear you will have a policy of returning phone calls and i hope that doesn't just apply to the lady from florida.
>> asia is important and it's important that we don't into into confrontations in asia. anyone who questions the adventures planned is patted on the head and told you don't understand how important asia is. when it comes to trade, we are given straw men and told if you don't like tpp, we can have no trade or continue the unbalanced system we have now. without every decision about a radical departure from the trade system designed to achieve trade. and when told maybe we should not be seeking a new cold war,
25% of the world's trade goes through and the vast majority goes in and out of chinese ports. if china had military control of these, they would be able to blockate their ports. there is a tendency when making policy to yield to the interests of the most powerful entity in the country that cares about the tell us and that is why wall street is in the driver's seat. it's not a jobs creation policy. china enshrines the standard that currency manipulation goes hand in hand with trade deals. they are the big winner, but
they are a bigger winner in the rules of origin and admitted to be 60% made in china and 95% made in china can get a polish in japan or a few parts added and be fast tracked into the united states. we do have -- when it comes to the geopolitics and the pentagon that is powerful in crafting american national policy, what neats their needs now is a worthy uniformed adversary. every time the military has gone up against an unfun formed adversa adversary, it has been an unpleasant experience. every time we have gone up against a uniformed foe, it has been a glorious experience
perhaps winning the cold war without a confrontation. it's not surprising that if there was any oil, it would belong to the people unwilling to have these islands. i'm not saying we don't care about navigation, but to spent the lion's share on confronting china and you can't -- it's a tough cost to determine what the defense budget is being spend on geographically. i want to go to a question. north korea. they need about 12 nuclear weapons and they have about 12 nuclear weapons and they have 50 or $100 billion burning a roll
in their pocket. syrian, iranian nuclear weapons program that the israelis bond in 2007. is the administration working towards an understanding with china? that an iranian plane will not be allowed to fly without stopping in china for fuel. please don't tell me we intercept ships and north korean planes may not be allowed to do this. i'm talking about an iranian plane going nonstop and coming back with a bomb. >> thank you. first let me just say before addressing the question, with regard to south china sea, we are looking to prevent conflict. what's at stake is not just the transit of energy oil goods, there larger principals at stake and they go to the entire
foundation of the international order. if we don't defent the principals everywhere, the entire order that we have invested so much in building over 70 years is at risk. >> i will agree with you and at the same time if an argentine plane was getting too close, we wouldn't be talking about it here. >> the freedom of navigations. >> this one is getting more attention here. >> leaving that aside with regard to iran and north korea, this is something we are watching carefully and you are right to raise the subject. they had a history of political engagement and some reports of military missile nuclear engagement have been harder tow verify. you denying the reports that the nuclear was north korean technology? >> what we are looking at is the concrete evidence of relationships across the board. we are focussed on is what you
pointed to. what we are trying to do with regard to north korea is to make sure that not only can the ships not dock, but the planes cannot land. >> my question was about an iranian plane. are we working to get china to say that they won't allow the plane to go across china without stopping for fuel where it could be inspected? that's the only question. you are free to address others. >> all of the members are bound by the security council resolutions that say that there is no cooperation with the dprk. >> so they would be violating the resolution and if it flew nonstop? >> we are looking to every country involved to make good on it. >> i would urge you to talk
about making that plane land. if your sole defense is the iranians wouldn't want to violate a un resolution and feel bad about violating international law, that is insufficient. if the iranian plane does not stop in china, then it may not have a trade delegation on it. it may have cash going one way and nuclear weapons going the other way. that is a very specific issue. i yield back. >> to the point that mr. sherman is raising, i will put in the record a un document that is drawn from the treasury that show two suspected primary arms dealers from noerthd korea. that information because it goes
to the point to the item from california. we may have follow-up questions on this specific issue. we now go to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you for your presence here today. the pyre service writers did an extremely disturbing series of investigative reports that found that the obama administration gave undeserved passing grades to 14 countries with deplorable and in many cases worsening traffic records including china, malaysia and asia. they are making up 14 countries. i had hearings on this that was get it right this time that is poised to come out shortly being concerned that when the administration does what it did and that is give undeserved passing greats to countries with
deplorable records, it sells out the victims in those countries and those who are hurt by the countri countries's governments and also is a deplorable abandonment that we as a nation have in a bipartisan way. will china and cuba and the others be white washed this year and secondly, i met in hanoi in 2007. he is one of the greatest peaceful human rights lawyers that i met. will the president raise his case and demand his release. he has done nothing wrong as you know and as we all know in the united states and he needs to be released nld to wounds heal at the hands he has suffered. in japan, they have engaged in
patterns of noncompliance and both countries had non-hearings and parents, men and women, moms and dads tell stories with regards to japan as well as india and they have not been levelled, especially japan having a pattern of noncompliance. i hope that reality is contained in the report. the president is on a crushing civil society and religious freedom and even the churches nj the patriotic church and those that worked in cooperation are finding their buildings are being demolished and their pastors are being incarcerated. the g20 will meet in september. our hope is that the with the is
right where the crosses are being taken off churches. the president will raise these as a sign of religion and announced last year and most recently that it's about having no contakd and secondly that everybody of faith has to serve the communist party that will destroy religion. if you can answer those. >> thank you. >> first, let me a press my own appreciation for your leadership and the focus you brought to them. i heard that you have been there first and it does make a huge difference. i want to assure you we will do our very best to produce a gold
standard report. we heard concerns expressed and we looked to make sure the process internally is as strong and effective to produce the best possible report. people are working hard on it and we hope that's the conclusion you will come to. with regard to vietnam, i was there and met with a number of activists and we raised individual cases and systemic problems that remain at the highest levels on a regular basis. i can't talk to the president's schedule, but i am confident he will be raising the issues. i met with the same people who are brave in what they are doing every day. with regard to parental child abduction, i was just in japan and raised this with the foreign minster and the vice foreign minster and other senior officials and we have concerns
about japan's implementation under the convention. that is something that you have been focused on. >> those that were left behind from the date of the ratification and they were heart breaking and multiyeared. >> they were focused on those as well as the ratification. we share the concern that you expressed. we see across the bort a crack down on human rights and civil liberties, i met with a number of lawyers and i met with lshs leaders and heard what's happening there. the laws you have been referring to. the national security law and counter terrorism law and we have concerns about the substance of the laws and the
ngo law movered enforcement to the ministry that sends a perible sml that are acting to the benefit of china. we share the concerns and i want to assure you that we will put the focus on them and continue to make progress. one aspect is not just us, butus bringing together other countries. there is strength in numbers. we got a dozen countries to express. these things overtime have an effect and we went through decades of cold war and we thought and members played lead
roles and it seemed like there was no change and that can make a difference. he will need to change his position. the overhaul in the broadcasting board of governors. the radio liberty used to have it and we need to get back to broadcasting that information into these countries where totalitarian system prevents people from having free access on the internet or radio or television. we go to gregory neeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. secretary. china's economy is entering a new phase. it has to contend with slower growth and we should expect china to manage with domestic and international action and even provocative. i'm convinced that our reaction
should be a deepening of our ties regionally and multilate l multilaterally. as we do, it is critical that we remember that some of our strongest partners in the western hemisphere are also strong partners in the pacific realm. we should work in asia. no question that economic and diplomatic engagement is the strongest means of influence globally and that certainly is the case in asia. i don't think when i consider any rise in tensions as some do, i think about economic engagement and gloeblt rules and ultural exchange. they say china, i think tpp and the last i looked china is not a part of tpp.
tpp is a counter to china and will get them to adhere to global standards and rules. that's more reason why we should do it because they have strong rules in place. the question here is back and forth as we debate the issue. even an agreement that has high standards is only as good as the implementation and enforcement. i have concerns about governments that are not living up to the limits to limit the competitiveness my question first is how can the @min
station adheres to the rules should we get it done. that's always a question that some have. how would we do that? secondly, i think we do have to make the 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 ask those first. >> thank you very much, congressman. first, i think you are exactly right about the pull on countries that are outside of it including china. it so happened that i was in the region when it was concluded. the japanese were extremely excited because of their own leadership that helped bring us to that point. the next day i was in south korea. i heard when can we join? the day after i was in beijing.
they had done if not a 180 degree turn, a 90 degree turn including in state party media saying this could benefit us because they don't want to be left behind. to get in, they have to raise their game and go to the high standards and not a race to the bottom. so this has the potential to pull countries up and not create a race to the bottom, including with china. you asked about enforcement and the congressman brought up an important point. that's a very well taken point. unlike previous agreements, tpp has a clear rule that we want to make sure that parties that are no part of it can't go to another country and have the product benefit from tpp's
rules. china finishing something in vietnam and that's why we insisted it's part of the effort. it has to be implemented. that's why we asked in the budget for a portion of resources to go to implementation. we want to make sure it's done seriously. i also agree that we can debate and no trade agreement is perfect 55% of consumers live outside of the united states and how are we going to do that and under what rules and who writes the rules? we are better off if we are thes doing it. that's more likely to benefit and make sure the standards are high and not low. it hends a very important message and said to partners we are there to stay.
it's not just a security issue that may come up and a challenge that may arise and we lose our focus. we are tied to you economically as well as security considerations. this is on countries who want to join it to lift their standards. it sets standards for the values we would like to see. >> we go to dana from california. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman and i appreciate your leadership mr. chairman and the fact that you have spent a considerable time and effort focusing on these specific issues. mr. secretary, i am a bit concerned about not about specifics, but as much as your
admirable optimism and may be something that is admirable and also of concern to those of us who think things maybe are more serious than your optimism suggests. spr spratly islands i hope can be taken care of in a way as with you and chairman royce and others have tried to president forward as a game plan that would put them into a position or pressure the chinese into a position that would not permit what i consider to be aggression. aggression on the world order. you had no sovereignty over the islands and now you have a claim by a dictatorial government in beijing over a hunk of territory in the middle of the most important trading patterns in
the world. japan and korea are ultimate allies of the area and seem to be getting second shift on this. i will have to say that this should be of greater concern to us than i believe that the plan that is set would suggest. it's a pattern. instead this is part of an alarming pattern. the chinese make major land and claims against india, for example. that's as big as texas. this should be -- you couple with that and couple it with the fact that the chinese are making
deals with dictators and for an strel society. cutting us off. for those of us who are and of course you still have the chinese brutally suppressing and engaged in the murder of prisoners in the sale of organs. we are talking about a pattern here and the spratly islands should be the icing on the cake of how alarming this should be.
i would hope that during this whole time that i'm talking about these patterns going on, we have been permitting them to make a massive profit in their relationship with us economically. you made your case on the trade agreement that might give them thought, but we are not withdrawing any of their ability to make the profit they are making. one last thought and that is i think that we ought to be more concerned about japan and south korea. we are trying to remain in a stable relationship with china. do we or do we not support the efforts to introduce a new factor into the pacific that
might deter the spratly islands meaning a rearming of japan. do we support that? quite frankly i think japan has been our best friend through this entire cold war. never faltering. we should make sure we make it a more equal relationship with japan and take him up on his answer. >> thank you very much. if i could say with regard to optimism, it may be an occupational hazard. i appreciate the comment. two things. let me quickly say that the various aspects of china's policies object to them. it was an improvement to go from one child to two child, but we object to limpations and we call for the release of more than 2,000 prisoners as well as other
people oppressed for religious and political views. they said they stopped the harvesting policy of prisoners and we have to see if that is being implemented. we couldn't agree more that they are at the heart of everything we are doing. from my experience, not on only over the last year where i made four trips to japan and korea. the state of our alliances has never been stronger. we worked hard in both to strengthen what we are doing. they are allowing japan along with the changes to play a more significant role militarily throughout the region. this is something we worked hard to achieve.
this will allow us to get the cooperation and intelligence and reconnaissance and missile defense and logistic support and humanitarian assistance and all of that as a result of this agreement. we have a new agreement where japan is contributing to the support of our forces. throughout the region, we are working more closely than ever. with the koreans, we have an agreement based on the transition of operational control and we have another host nation support for them to support the presence of our forces there. we have an information sharing agreement between us and japan and korea and i worked hard to build a cooperative relationship with us, the japanese and the koreans. we share the view that these two countries are at the heart of
what we are doing. we are managing to work together. . >> i'm from new jersey and we are a big pharmaceutical state. i am very concerned about what goes on and the intellectual properties in this part of the world. it's not just stealing the properties, but it's also some of the biggest research companies we have in the state complaining that we don't seem to do enough about stemming the stealing of intellectual properties. we have a couple of treaties coming up. i want to reassure so when i go back and speak to the companies that we are doing everything in
our power to prevent this. can you ease my pain here. >> i hope so. this is an area of intense focus. it has been and will continue to be for the duration of this administration. we have different agencies that are intensely focused on this and made it a mission to elevate standards through trade agreements like this with the high scannedards as well as enforcing the protections. one of the things we have spend a lot of time on is the keep concern with the use of the cyber realm to use cyber for commercial gain.
this is an issue that the president engaged on and we have an agreement that they will not do that. that has to be engoresed and implemented, but throughout the region and around the world, we are trying to stand up for enforcing the property rights of our companies. this is very much at the top of the administration's agenda and i think when i hear my colleagues from treasury and commerce, they are intently focused on this. i want to give you that assurance that we are doing everything we can. >> thank you. and i know north korea keeps innovating our computers and our systems here. are we reacting back or trying to put up walls? there has to be a price to be
paid. >> not only are we strengthening, but we reserve the right to respond at a time and place of our choosing in a manner of our choosing. we are looking at a variety of ways. >> for sounds like donald trump. thank you. i don't have any more questions. >> i thank my friend. >> i wanted to follow-up on mr. sherman's statement against tpp and give you an opportunity. we give up your right and it's flawed and decide there is no way to give us our approval ever. what happens to a region where china has hungry eyes on trade
happies and economic ties as well? a comb things happen. the trade barrier that are high will remain where they are and even get higher. we run the risk that other countries will try to take the mannedle in writing the rules. if we are not the ones in the lead, those rules will not be advantageous and they won't be to the standards when it comes to protecting labor and the environment and property and good governance. i think we are in jeopardy if we don't go forward in seeing an environment turn against