U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–850PDF 2016

FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR EAST ASIA:

ENGAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND DEMOCRACY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 19, 2016

Serial No. 114–166

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 5

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................... 16

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Daniel R. Russel: Prepared statement ......................................... 7

The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement ........................................ 19

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 38

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 39

Written responses from the Honorable Daniel R. Russel and the Honorable 

Jonathan Stivers to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable 

Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, 

and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific ...................................... 40

(1)

FY 2017 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR EAST ASIA: 

ENGAGEMENT, INTEGRATION, AND 

DEMOCRACY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Members will be permitted to submit written statements to be 

included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject 

to the length limitation in the rules. 

Good afternoon. And today, the subcommittee examines the administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget request for the East Asia 

and Pacific region. 

As we continue into what some are calling the Asian Century, 

U.S. annual expenditures for East Asia and Pacific are more and 

more important. Having lived in and traveled extensively throughout Asia, I firmly believe this region is driving the world’s future. 

Our trade with Asia last year was more than $1.4 trillion, and 40 

percent of the world’s trade passes through the South China Sea 

alone. 

The Obama administration has pushed efforts of its Asia rebalance to facilitate U.S. engagement in the region in both security 

and economic advancement, yet even after all the administration’s 

rhetoric, this bureau remains the second-smallest of the State’s six 

regional bureaus. While an increase in high-level regional attention 

is important, the day-to-day resources on the ground have got to 

match the commitment. I look forward to the witnesses’ justification of this discrepancy today. 

Most Members of Congress agree with the administration’s call 

for greater engagement with the Asia-Pacific region to stimulate 

closer integration among our allies and partners to promote democracy and rule of law. Congress must play an important role in this 

conversation, and it is imperative, especially in light of our continuing fiscal challenges, that U.S. investment in the region be 

both effective and efficient. 

2

Clearly, the Asia-Pacific region faces enormous challenges. In a 

speech given earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter 

outlined the five main challenges that the United States faces 

today. Two of them are situated in the Asia-Pacific. The continued 

provocations of North Korea’s rogue regime and the threat that the 

South China Sea, one of the world’s busiest waterways, could be 

militarized. Secretary Carter went on to describe the region as the 

single-most consequential region of the world for America’s future. 

On North Korea I commend Chairman Royce’s leadership in increasing sanctions on this rogue regime. I would be proud to join 

him in that effort, and now I am eager to see the implementation 

of this important new law. 

China’s actions in the South China Sea continue to raise the risk 

of conflict while simultaneously jeopardizing the international 

rights, freedoms, and order. As China continues its alarming trend 

of militarizing the South China Sea, the United States must be 

firm in its resolve to support international norms. 

While I support the freedom of navigation exercises recently conducted by the U.S. Navy, I would like to see even more strategic 

clarity from the administration on the issue of the South China Sea 

to ensure international norms and the rule of law are followed. 

Resourcing diplomatic and development responses to such challenges can be especially difficult in the region because strategic priorities do not always map directly to budget priorities. We must 

work closely with our regional partners, who continue calls for our 

assistance on issues like the South China Sea through programs 

such as the 5-year Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative, 

which seeks to foster regional stability by improving the maritime 

capabilities of our partners. I hope to hear from our panel more 

about this initiative and others specific to the South China Sea 

conflict. 

The region faces a plethora of additional challenges from the 

growing threat of radical Islamist terrorist organizations and the 

influence of ISIS to the difficulty of establishing a region-wide system of trade rules that are free, fair, and uphold high standards. 

Our trade agreements help strengthen institutions and the rule of 

law while deepening our ties with our trading partners and regional allies. 

I continue to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership and believe 

it will ultimately assist in regional economic trade activity, heightened regional trade standards, and promote increased economic 

growth for both the U.S. and our trade partners. 

I was recently at a symposium put on by the McLean Institute 

in Sedona, Arizona, and James Clapper was there. And I remember 

him saying that TPP is probably worth three aircraft carrier or is 

the equivalent of three aircraft carrier. I am interested in hearing 

the panel’s thoughts on utilizing development assistance funding to 

bring non-TPP members closer to TPP standards. 

We were also in Indonesia, and they are interested in a second 

round. Their President, in meeting with President Obama in January, identified that they would like to be part of a second round. 

Philippines is very, very interested, Taiwan. You know, it is going 

to be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I think all of them 

are looking with great anticipation for this to finally be ratified and 

3

move on and see other opportunities arise in the days and years 

to come. 

And today, we are going to discuss the many challenges and opportunities we face in the region and the administration’s commitment to the rebalance in the context of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget 

request for East Asia and Pacific region. Given the heightened 

challenges in the region, the United States must fully commit to 

increasing integration amongst our allies and partners and continuing to promote peace and democracy. Making sure we understand these missions from a place of organization, efficiency, and 

effectiveness is equally important, so I am really grateful for our 

witnesses’ willingness to join us today. 

And I would like to recognize Mr. Sherman for any comments he 

might have. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

We can all agree on the importance of the East Asia-Pacific region. It is a diverse and dynamic region. We have seen significant 

progress there politically. We have seen democracy in Burma or 

Myanmar move forward. But keep in mind, democracy is not touted 

as a system that necessarily protects minority rights. And the 

Rohingya continue to suffer, whether it is from the military or even 

from some of the democratic leaders in Myanmar/Burma. 

The economic progress has been more than significant. World 

Bank says extreme poverty in the region has dropped from 29 percent in 2002 to 4 percent in 2014. 

While we all agree that the region is important, I think we are 

going down the wrong path because we are being war hawks about 

some islets that remain uninhabited to this day. That is how useless they are. And we are incredibly doves when it comes to jobs 

for the American people. You would think that the American Government might have lost touch with the citizens it claims to represent, which I think is obvious to anyone looking at our current 

political system. 

Looking first at these maritime disputes, we have to be careful 

about how we deploy our limited resources. Pivot to Asia should 

mean we send a trade delegation to Tokyo to say we have got to 

deal with this trade deficit rather than sending aircraft carriers to 

defend islets for Japan that they are unwilling to defend at their 

own cost. 

Let’s look at these islets. There is no oil. If there was any oil, it 

is not our oil. And the countries who say that it would be their oil 

are unwilling to increase their defense budgets but are banking on 

their ability to redirect our defense budget because, while our defense budget may not increase, our allocation of it to protect their 

islets, which have their oil but there is no oil is their best investment. 

And Japan, for example, continues to have a 1 percent GDP ceiling on what they spend for their own defense. 

The chairman brings up the trade agreement, as our witnesses 

do in their opening statement. This is a trade agreement so manifestly against American interests that everyone running for President swears they are against it even those who may think otherwise. The American people will see this agreement become law only 

4

through chicanery and trickery like ratification during a lame-duck 

session. 

I hope that we can put enough light on this so we not only ask 

candidates for President where do they stand on it, but we get a 

clear statement from every candidate for President will they withdraw from it if chicanery is used to ratify it during the month of 

December of this year. 

This agreement is so terrible for American working families that 

it is being sold as good national security policy. Suffer for your 

country; your country needs you. This is terrible national security 

policy. 

First, it is a Trojan horse for China to bring its imports into the 

United States, goods that are admitted to be 60 percent made in 

China. In reality, 80 or 90 percent made in China get fast-tracked 

into the United States with no supervision and no tariff, a one-way 

free trade agreement for China. 

Second, this deal puts the U.S. Government’s stamp of approval 

on the idea that trade agreements don’t control currency manipulation. So the idea that we should be so proud that we wrote the 

rules, no, these are Wall Street’s rules that have mutilated the 

American middle class. We shouldn’t be proud for passing them, 

and oh, by the way, the one rule China wanted we wrote for them 

even though they didn’t even have to show up for the negotiations. 

And the key thing, the most important part of this agreement is 

the part that is not in it, nothing on currency manipulation. 

As to North Korea, we clearly have a problem. What worries me 

most is that North Korea will sell fissile material or a nuclear 

weapon. In 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear facility, a nuclear 

bomb facility in Syria. What is less well-known is that it was all 

North Korean equipment and technology. 

North Korea was only willing to sell technology and equipment 

in 2007 because they didn’t have very mean weapons and they 

needed nuclear weapons in their own belief to defend themselves 

from us. They now have 12 nuclear weapons. They will be developing three a year or at least enough fissile material for three a 

year. I don’t know whether the next one goes on eBay, but I do 

know that the amount North Korea would demand would exceed 

the resources of ISIS or any other terrorist non-state actor, but 

Iran and other state actors would have enough money to really interest the North Koreans. 

Finally, as Washington warned us, we have to avoid the tendency of many countries to go looking for dragons to slay—funny 

that he used the term dragon—looking for enemies we don’t need. 

China has domestic political problems, so they fan nationalism 

over islets. We do the same thing perhaps for our own political reasons. We were told that these islets, for example, sit astride trade 

routes involving hundreds of billions of dollars of trade. Yes, it is 

all trade in and out of Chinese ports, and if China had military 

control of these islands, they could blockade their own ports. 

So we exaggerate the importance of these islets in order to meet 

domestic political needs. What the Pentagon needs politically most 

is a worthy adversary. They don’t like focusing their attention on 

non-uniformed, asymmetrical opponents. China offers the only hope 

of a worthy uniformed opponent. We don’t need another opponent. 

5

We need to calm down and realize these islets are islets that remain uninhabited even though they are off the coast of the most 

populated continent for a reason. 

And I realize that our hearing today is about the State Department and a USAID budget, but the Pentagon budget follows foreign policy or at least it should, and that is the big budget we have 

got to worry about. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. We are grateful to be joined today by Assistant Secretary Daniel Russel of the Department of the State’s Bureau of 

East Asia and Pacific Affairs and Assistant Administrator Jonathan Stivers of the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Asia. And we are thankful to these witnesses for sharing 

their time with us today. 

And I am going to start with you, Mr. Russel, and then Mr. Stivers when he has concluded. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL R. RUSSEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. RUSSEL. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, 

members of the subcommittee, thanks very much for your leadership in supporting strong U.S. relations with the East Asia and Pacific region. Thank you also for the opportunity to testify today 

about our progress in the rebalance and the relevance of the President’s 2017 budget request. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if I may in particular thank you for your 

tremendous leadership of this subcommittee and your strong support for our engagement in the Asia-Pacific. You will be sorely 

missed in Fiscal Year 2017 when this budget is realized. 

This is also the last budget for President Obama, and so I would 

like to start with just a quick recap of what we think we have accomplished with your support over the last 7 years and the foundation that we think that we can lay through this budget for the next 

administration. 

First, since security starts with friends, we modernized our longstanding treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and 

the Philippines, and we forged new security partnerships at the 

same time that we developed existing ones with partners like 

Singapore and New Zealand. This makes us much more effective 

in addressing both conventional security threats but also other 

threats such as countering violent extremism, blocking the flow of 

foreign terrorist fighters, preventing human trafficking, and other 

transnational crimes. 

Second, to create jobs at home and to secure our standing in the 

region, we stepped up economic engagement, concluding the U.S.-

Korea Free Trade Agreement, revitalizing APEC, pursuing a new 

bilateral investment treaty with China, and most important, negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a new kind of economic agreement that sets high standards for protecting workers 

and the environment while at the same time supporting job-creating small businesses and an open internet. 

Third, we have helped build up the region’s institutions and support rule of law and peaceful dispute resolution. Our investments 

6

in ASEAN and the region-wide East Asia Summit have renewed 

confidence in American leadership and strengthened the region’s 

ability to deal with tensions like those in the South China Sea. 

Fourth, we have engaged intensely with China, investing the 

time to get to know its leaders, to advance cooperation, and to put 

a floor under the relationship so that it can withstand tensions. 

While serious concerns in areas like human rights and China’s behavior with regard to maritime disputes with its neighbors remain, 

we have worked toward cooperative engagement on areas like 

cybersecurity, on shared proliferation concerns with Iran and North 

Korea, global health, climate change, and others. 

Fifth, we have upgraded relations with emerging partners like 

Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam. We have importantly supported the 

democratic transition in Burma and promoted democracy, good governance, and universal values and human rights as an essential 

element of our policy. 

The support and the funding provided by Congress has of course 

been essential, and the $1.57 billion East Asia-Pacific request for 

2017 builds on these accomplishments, including by addressing 

maritime security concerns and promoting economic opportunities. 

The $873 million in foreign assistance request supports and expands on our objectives of regional security cooperation, advancing 

economic growth and trade, promoting democratic development, 

strengthening regional institutions, as well as addressing war legacies. The other $646 million provides essential increased funding 

for personnel, operations, and public diplomacy to meet growing demands driven by the rebalance. 

Now, contested maritime claims in Southeast Asia and destabilizing actions such as Chinese land reclamation, construction, 

and militarization of disputed areas make it harder for countries 

in the region to resolve disagreements peacefully. And the lack of 

maritime domain awareness also encourages trafficking, piracy, 

and illegal fishing. 

So the President’s 2017 budget request will support our work 

with regional partners to build their capacity to maintain free and 

open access to the maritime domain through enhanced maritime 

security capabilities and maritime domain awareness. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]

7


99850a-1.eps
8


99850a-2.eps
9


99850a-3.eps
10


99850a-4.eps
11


99850a-5.eps
12


99850a-6.eps
13


99850a-7.eps
14


99850a-8.eps
15


99850a-9.eps
16

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Russel. 

Mr. Stivers? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY 

FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on the role of USAID in advancing U.S. foreign 

policy priorities in East Asia and the Pacific. 

President Obama’s budget request for the East Asia-Pacific re- gion is $873 million. That is a 12 percent increase over Fiscal Year 

2015. This request is in recognition that America’s security and 

prosperity are inextricably tied to the region, and it enables us to 

consolidate our gains and strengthen the Asia-Pacific Rebalance 

policy. 

In the coming years, the countries of this region are expected to 

continue high growth rates and play an increasingly pivotal role in 

world affairs. But just how this region’s development and economic 

growth take shape is critical to our own future. 

Already home to a majority of humanity, by 2030 Asia is projected to add more people than any other region, putting unprecedented pressure to provide access for energy, clean water, food, 

quality education, and health care. 

But despite the impressive gains of the region, they continue to 

grapple with evermore complex development challenges, including 

severe economic disparities, food scarcity, urbanization, poor governance, and suffocating pollution and environmental degradation. 

Human trafficking continues to be an enormous problem, and an 

unacceptable proportion of women in the region continue to experience gender-based violence. 

At USAID, our mission is to end extreme poverty and promote 

resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and 

prosperity. At its core, the Asia-Pacific Rebalance is about 

strengthening our relationships not only with countries, but more 

specifically, with the people of the region in an effort to improve 

their lives. 

We employ three primary approaches. First, we are pioneering a 

new model of development that focuses on maximizing our impact 

and our funding through public-private partnerships, science, innovation, and regional solutions. 

Second, we are building pathways out of poverty through Global 

Health, Feed the Future, and Global Climate Change. 

And last, we are empowering reformers to improve democratic 

governance and human rights. And for this reason, this budget request includes significant increases in democratic governance and 

human rights in almost every country in the region. 

Next, a brief overview of the key countries: In Burma, the November elections resulted in the first civilian-led government in 

more than 50 years. USAID was proud to be the lead donor, providing $18 million in support of the election, including: Incorporating international standards in the election procedures, training poll workers, political parties, election observers; and voter education and supporting more than 300 civil society organizations. 

17

We helped digitize 33 million names from scratch into the voter list 

in a country with few computers and hundreds of dialects. 

We know that democracy is about more than just elections 

though, which is why our support for this next phase of the democratic transition is so important. The people of Burma have high 

expectations and low capacity to deal with the challenges on almost 

every front. The government has prioritized issues such as national 

reconciliation, reform of the political power structures, economic 

growth, agricultural development, and health care. USAID will continue our strong support for the people of Burma on each of these 

priorities through our budget request. 

We remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian and human 

rights situation in Rakhine State, and USAID continues to support 

vulnerable populations throughout the country, including the 

Rohingya. 

In Cambodia, our primary goal is supporting and transitioning to 

a democracy that respects human rights. Civil society, while not 

fully respected there, has grown in vibrancy and strength in recent 

years thanks in part to our assistance. On food security, our Feed 

the Future initiative has helped increased yields and drive down 

malnutritional stunting in children under 5 by 21 percent in the 

areas where we work. 

Indonesia’s continued progress and democratic system set an example for its neighbors, but the country faces major governance, 

economic, and security challenges that could undermine its young 

democracy. Our anti-corruption investments have resulted in increased prosecution and the country’s ranking on the Transparency 

International’s Corruption Index has improved by 30 spots. 

On health, we have helped Indonesia become polio-free. And last year’s devastating forest and peat fires cost the country over $16 

billion. We partnered with the U.S. Forest Service to send forest 

specialists, but we know that prevention is the key to solving this 

challenge. 

USAID is supporting something called the Indonesia Palm Oil 

Pledge, which is an innovative commitment by the world’s leading 

palm oil producers to transition to sustainable production. 

In the Philippines, our Partnership for Growth initiative has 

helped address the main impediments to inclusive and sustainable 

growth. The results have been striking. Philippines has emerged as 

one of the fastest-growing economies and a more reliable trade and 

investment partner. And for the first time, the country received investment-grade sovereign debt ratings from three of the world’s 

leading credit agencies. Yet, lack of formal access to land is a key 

driver of poverty, a driver of conflict, and an obstacle to national 

development. 

In Vietnam, USAID supports the implementation of reforms critical to potential TPP participation, including launching a new labor 

program this year that will support the rights of workers and improve working conditions. In addition, USAID is focused on addressing war legacies, health and disabilities, and reducing susceptibility to climate change and natural disasters. 

Mr. Chairman, committee, in an interconnected world, development plays an indispensable role alongside defense and diplomacy 

in advancing our security and prosperity. While we must focus on 

18

immediate crises throughout the world, it is also essential that we 

address the root causes of poverty, conflict, and instability, to help 

shape a better future for humanity. That is the heart of our work 

in the East Asia-Pacific region. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your counsel and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

19


99850b-1.eps
20


99850b-2.eps
21


99850b-3.eps
22


99850b-4.eps
23


99850b-5.eps
24


99850b-6.eps
25


99850b-7.eps
26

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

Just to give you a heads-up, we could get be getting buzzed for 

a vote any time now, any time between 25 past until 20 till, so we 

are going to be up here on pins and needles. 

Mr. Russel, I completely support 100 percent the administration’s stated goal of a rebalanced Asia. In fact, when I look at the 

priorities that you have outlined in your speech, I didn’t really find 

anything that gave me pause. I support everything that you said 

100 percent. 

And, Mr. Stivers, the same goes for you. And as I have gone 

throughout the region and I have met with your personnel, both of 

you, I am so impressed and so amazed at how much they accomplish with the resources that they have. And I guess that leads to 

my question. 

I mentioned that in my opening statement that while we have 

identified Asia as one of the most important priorities on the globe 

for this administration and for us as a country, it still remains 

pretty low as far as the resources, out of the six regions, second 

from the bottom. What is it going to take for us to be able to get 

the resources completely necessary? I know some of the Embassies 

that I have gone to seem like they have just about everything they 

need, but some of those Embassies that I have been to, they need 

more than they have got. They don’t have all the resources that 

they need. 

And again, I want to state for the record that your folks are some 

of the most amazing people I have ever met in my life, incredible 

leaders. And the ranking member mentioned kind of a nexus if you 

will between DOD and what you do with State Department and 

USAID. I believe that what you all do is keeping us out of war. 

And it is probably for less than 1 percent of the total budget, the 

job that you do is incredibly worth what we commit to it. 

But are we giving the resources necessary for this region? And 

if not, how do we get there, Mr. Russel? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you very 

much for your heartfelt and kind words. And in particular, thank 

you for your personal travel to the East Asia and Pacific region. 

That really makes a big difference not only to your understanding 

and Congress’ understanding of the issues but to our folks. So we 

thank you for that. 

Thank you also for your comments about the men and women 

who staff our Embassies in the East Asia and Pacific region. We 

are in the people business, and as a bureau, we have made it a 

point of pride to seek out and attract and to develop the best people 

in the Foreign Service community. 

We have throughout the lifespan of this administration consistently sought to fund the rebalance. We have sought and prioritized 

funding. And our foreign assistance budget, as Mr. Stivers mentioned, is up about 12 percent. Our overall budget compared to Fiscal Year 2015 is up about 11 percent. 

We have also deepened our collaboration and coordination with 

partners, industrialized nations in the region, in particular such as 

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, and outside the region like 

the EU in order to try to leverage our collaborative efforts to promote our agenda. 

27

It is quite true that other regions may have more trouble, more 

crises, and more countries, and that accounts for some of the disparity between the regions. But like you, I argue that we have by 

far and away the best people. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Stivers? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. Thank you. 

This Fiscal Year 2017 request, if adopted, we think would better 

accomplish a lot of our goals. We think it is appropriate considering 

the crises all over the world and the budget environment that we 

are in. But we are doing our part to become more efficient, to leverage the private sector more, to work with our allies who have similar interests—Australia, Japan, the Asian Development Bank. 

And just a word on our people in the field, our AID missions, I 

mean, they are working in some of the poorest villages, helping 

sick families with our partners, hungry children, education. They 

are going into these villages with their ‘‘From the American People’’ USAID hat to really represent the best in American values 

and deeds. And that engagement with the people, despite, you 

know, disagreements we may have with governments, is really important in terms of strengthening what we believe in as Americans. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Sherman——

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SALMON [continuing]. I yield to you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I can’t possible match the chairman’s level of niceness. I will comment, however, that I have and will continue to 

vote for the higher levels of tax revenue that will be necessary if 

we are actually going to be spending the money that you have recommended to us and that you would recommend to us if the resources were available. 

I see that we are providing significant aid to Myanmar/Burma. 

How much of that is going to help the Rohingya and other ethnic 

minorities? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for that question and for 

your attention to the plight of the Rohingya in the region. 

It certainly is a human rights and humanitarian crisis there. 

Last year, we provided $85 million in food aid, lifesaving humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations within the country of 

Burma, of which Rakhine State and the Rohingya received a significant amount of that. 

In addition, we support civil society and voices of tolerance in 

terms of trying to get at some of the root causes of the disagreements and the conflict between the different groups. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I note that our aid to Vietnam will include almost 

$22 million to help them participate in the TPP. What will that 

money be spent on? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you for that. Certainly, you know, the rule 

of law, human rights, and labor are all issues that hold us back 

from a more robust partnership there. And whatever your position 

is on the——

Mr. SHERMAN. But if they don’t get the money, are they going to 

be in compliance? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, whatever your position is on the TPP——

Mr. SHERMAN. Right. 

28

Mr. STIVERS [continuing]. We believe that getting Vietnam or 

any country to achieve high standards on trade to better promote 

U.S. exports, on the environment, labor, state-owned enterprises, 

IPR, anything we do to increase the standards——

Mr. SHERMAN. Will this money——

Mr. STIVERS [continuing]. Would be better. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Be spent to help their exporters comply with standards to export to the United States or will it be spent 

to help our exporters import to Vietnam? How would you spend——

Mr. STIVERS. This is——

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. $21.75 million to help us export to 

Vietnam? 

Mr. STIVERS. This is technical assistance, rule of law assistance 

that we provide to help show them how to better comply with these 

agreements. And certainly, you know, there are many aspects of 

TPP, of which market access and export promotion is one of them. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will just point out to go to my district and say 

you are going to have to compete on a level playing field with 60-

cent-an-hour labor, with places where if people organize unions, the 

party just plants drugs on them and arrests them, claims they are 

drug dealers, and that we have to spend $22 million in order to 

help them sell us stuff for 60 cents? 

Mr. STIVERS. We hope to improve the conditions there. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It will help—yes. And we will be dealing with the 

budget before we deal with TPP, so if we are not members of TPP, 

would this money still be spent or would you reprogram it? 

Mr. STIVERS. This assistance is important regardless of TPP. 

Again, it is high trade standards that we want the country to adhere to. So regardless if TPP moves forward or not, I think it is 

important that Vietnam has as high of standards as possible, and 

that is what we are helping them do. 

Mr. SHERMAN. State and DRL have declined to pursue distributing physical media such as hard drives and CDs to North Korea 

because of the risk to our partners. What can we do to get information and make it accessible to the people of North Korean, Mr. 

Russel? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Congressman, we are working to try to improve access to international information to the North Korean people. It is quite true that possession of CDs or thumb drives is a 

punishable offense in the DPRK, and we are concerned about not 

putting either third parties or the North Korean people themselves 

in immediate physical risk. 

Nevertheless, the North Korean people are benefiting from a 

range of programs, including Radio Free Asia and the work that we 

are doing together with the Republic of Korea. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I point out that all over the world we help people 

who want to risk their lives to make their countries better. Congress has said, for example, that we are going to provide weapons 

to the right Syrian forces, and so we don’t fail to provide those 

weapons on the theory that whoever uses them will expose themselves to danger. 

It seems like you are saying we won’t provide the thumb drives 

in northern China to patriotic North Koreans who are willing to 

29

risk their lives and bring them into North Korea. Is there a reason 

why we are unwilling to help these patriotic North Koreans? 

Mr. RUSSEL. We work to provide access to information for the 

North Korean people directly and with our partners in the ROK. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope we do thumb drives as well. Thanks. 

Mr. SALMON. Short question from Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. I hope it will be short. 

I am looking at what committee staff has given me, and tell me 

if I have got it correct, that this hearing does not include anything 

in the Near East but rather it is limited to East Asia and the Pacific? 

Mr. STIVERS. That is right. 

Mr. RUSSEL. That is correct. 

Mr. BROOKS. That is correct. And according to committee staff 

notes, the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request increases funding for 

East Asia and the Pacific 11.9 percent. Is that accurate? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Foreign assistance budget, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. And you are familiar with the financial condition of 

Puerto Rico right now and how that is a major issue on Capitol 

Hill? 

Mr. RUSSEL. I am aware of it through——

Mr. BROOKS. Of the existence of it. And you need to turn on your 

microphone. I am not sure if it is hitting the record very well. 

Well, Puerto Rico, by way of example, has a debt that is unpaid, at risk of default that averages out to $20,000 per Puerto Rico resident, $20,000 apiece. In contract, America’s per-capita debt approximates $60,000, again, $60,000 per person for the United 

States. We are looking at what is happening in Puerto Rico when 

it is $20,000. 

And my question is with this kind of increase that you want to 

spend in faraway lands where America seems to be on a path to 

insolvency and bankruptcy without the will in Congress or in the 

White House to be financially responsible and properly manage our 

resources, what can you tell the constituents of my district, Alabama’s 5th Congressional District, that would help convince them 

that this is a worthwhile expenditure given the rather precarious 

financial condition that their country is in and the increasing risk 

that America is going to suffer from a debilitating insolvency and 

bankruptcy? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, my answer would be that the East 

Asia and Pacific region is a larger export market for U.S. exports 

than Europe is, than Canada or Mexico is. And the——

Mr. BROOKS. Are you suggesting we have to pay them money to 

get them to buy our products? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Our strategy is to invest in U.S. national interests. 

And the U.S. has a national interest in tethering itself to the most 

dynamic economic growth region on planet Earth, East Asia and 

the Pacific. We derive phenomenal benefits not only in economic 

and commercial terms but also in security and other aspects from 

our sustained investment in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Mr. BROOKS. So, as I understand it, your whole argument is 

based on potential trade arrangements——

Mr. RUSSEL. No, I——

Mr. BROOKS [continuing]. With these nations? 

30

Mr. RUSSEL. No, Congressman. I think that there is a compelling 

case for why the U.S. national interests, both economic and security, rests in intensified engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. 

This is a part of the world that is demographically growing at an 

extraordinary rate, that is a major consumer of American products, 

that is receptive and attracted to the American brand that is moving steadily in the direction of universal values that America has 

championed——

Mr. BROOKS. Right, Mr. Russel, I appreciate your insight. I 

apologize for having to cut you off. But I can sense some antsy Congressmen because we have had votes called and we are nearing the 

point where we will miss the points and we have got to go over to 

the United States Capitol and the House Floor in order to cast 

those votes. If you want to add anything when we resume, that will 

be great. Unfortunately, I won’t be here because I have other hearings. I have got Strat Forces Subcommittee and other things that 

are coming up that I will have to attend to after votes. But thank 

you for your insight. 

Mr. SALMON. And we will reconvene after the vote on the Floor. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I promise I am just going to take 

a minute——

Mr. SALMON. Fire away. 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. Because I can’t come back. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

I just want to say to my friend from Alabama with whom I recently traveled to China, I can tell you that my constituents would 

answer his question. We need to be engaged. This is a very important part of the world where we cannot afford to retreat and withdraw. And it is always a false choice to say to us we can either afford domestic investment or foreign aid but not both. I mean, it 

sounds good, but we are talking about less than 1 percent of the 

United States budget, and it is a tool that helps us avoid military 

engagement and that can have long-term return on it. So it is an 

investment worth making if the United States is going to live up 

to its responsibilities as an engaged world power. 

I thank the chair. 

Mr. BROOKS. Amen. 

Mr. SALMON. And you do have bipartisan agreement here on 

that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. We will reconvene after the vote. Thank 

you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SALMON. We will reconvene this hearing. 

Mr. Russel and Mr. Stivers, I wanted to give you a chance to 

maybe respond to the last question, resources for the State Department in general, why is it important? And you got a little bit of 

a chance to answer that. 

The other thing I really wanted to focus on, the ranking member 

spoke about these rocks and uninhabited islands that are totally 

unimportant and maybe you could tell us why they are important. 

I will give you a chance on both of those. 

31

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 

U.S. is a Pacific nation, and our future is inextricably intertwined 

with the growth of the Pacific region. The good news is that, both 

for demographic and for economic reasons, the trend lines are by 

and large good in Asia. Poverty has diminished dramatically, GDP, 

economic growth, internet penetration, education, women’s rights, 

human rights, civil rights. There are some very, very positive 

trends and developments, much of which can be attributed, I believe, to the leadership exercised by the United States in championing universal rights but also in providing a security climate 

that allows for that economic growth. 

And the stability and the security of the Pacific region is a vital 

U.S. national interest. It is not a luxury item. And we would, as 

you pointed out, ignore it at our peril because this is the ounce of 

prevention that spares us the many pounds of cure that would be 

required to try to influence events if we weren’t present in a credible and influential way. 

The economic and the security pieces go hand in hand with what 

our companies do. I have discovered from traveling in the region 

again and again that the American brand is very much a function 

of the way that our companies operate with respect to rules and 

investment and growing people and in fairness. We are giving people in the Asia-Pacific region hope, we are giving them opportunity, 

and they are repaying us with good governance and open markets. 

It is a bargain. 

Mr. SALMON. Just to interject, and I get to see that firsthand. 

You know, what is interesting is we wring our hands every year 

over this discretionary budget. I just might point out that we could 

zero out all discretionary spending, all your funding for State Department, USAID, national parks, transportation, military. We 

could zero it all out and we would still have a heck of a deficit 

going, and that is because this place never really talks about the 

one place where if we made some changes actually would probably 

get us closer to a balanced budget, and that is dealing with our 

nondiscretionary accounts or our mandatory spending. And those 

areas eclipse everything. 

And in a few years if Congress—I am leaving, but if Congress 

continues to put its head in the sand on dealing with entitlement 

spending and not doing anything about it, there won’t be any 

money for discretionary spending. So this is money well, well, well 

spent, and I am anything but a big spender. And anybody who 

knows me knows that. But this is money that is incredibly well 

spent, and that is why I hounded you a little bit about even, you 

know, focusing more resources on the region because it is so critical 

to our livelihood, to our domestic policy as far as jobs and to our 

national and international security. 

Mr. Stivers? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you for the chance to answer that question. 

Well, we live in an interconnected world right now, and it is getting smaller and smaller. And East Asia is not a faraway land. It 

is right here in terms of our security and stability. We know infectious disease knows no borders. If we don’t try to work on these 

issues—that is where the avian flu came from in terms of Southeast Asia—it is essential that we are engaged on these issues. 

32

We know some of the drivers of violent extremism, denial of civil 

liberties, harsh authoritarian rule, corruption, impunity, if we don’t 

help these countries and these reformers in these countries try to 

address those issues, those are really the root causes of some of the 

problems that we are seeing globally and also that affect us here 

in the United States. 

And certainly our values of democracy and human rights are absolutely essential to our work in our foreign assistance. We don’t 

believe that less than 1 percent of our U.S. budget going to development and working with our allies is too much to provide. 

Mr. SALMON. Let me just ask a follow-up question. Nothing, you 

know, is static. Nothing stays the same forever. And, you know, if 

our leadership from the region evaporates, what could potentially 

happen? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Mr. Chairman, there is a tremendous hunger in the 

Asia-Pacific region for sustained and continued U.S. presence and 

U.S. leadership because the stability and the predictability that we 

have provided over the last 6 plus decades has enabled citizens in 

the region to build the kind of life that citizens everywhere seek. 

I think that with respect to the question that the ranking member asked about the South China Sea, the answer lies in one word: 

Rules. It is not about the rocks; it is about the rules. And we profit 

when we live in a rules-based world. We suffer and I would add 

we will spend a hundredfold in seeking to claw back the space in 

which we can exercise our rights if we let it slip through our fingers, if we don’t continue that investment. 

Building a rules-based system in the Asia-Pacific region benefits 

the United States in a very direct way, and whether it is with respect to security and the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes, 

ensuring that the rules apply equally to big countries and to small, 

or whether it is with respect to trade, TPP, of course we believe, 

should be ratified by the U.S. Congress not only because of the 

issue of U.S. credibility but because it is such an important strategic opportunity. Forty percent of global GDP is represented by 

the 12 partner countries. We are looking at the majority of the 

world’s middle-class consumers living and working in the Asia-Pacific region in just a matter of a few years. 

Whether or not we operate in a transparent, high standard, 

rules-based environment in the Asia-Pacific is going to be a determinant of whether the American people benefit and whether the 

American economy flourishes or not. 

Mr. SALMON. I just want to have one last question. 

I know I mentioned that a couple weeks ago I attended an international summit held by the McLean Institute, and many of the 

speakers expressed grave concerns about the fact that on these islands that have really no value, as was mentioned or at least by 

the ranking member, if they have no value, then why is China 

building runways on them? Why is China putting radar on them? 

Why is China putting weapons on them? It is a reason. It is causing our allies in the region great, great, great concern. 

I think it is about rule of law, but I think it is also about boundaries that have to be clear for any civilization. And I guess it does 

get back to rules, rules that have been in place for a long, long, 

long time. And if we as the one free beacon of liberty and hope 

33

can’t stand to protect and secure rule of law, then I don’t know 

what we are here for. 

Last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited an American 

aircraft carrier while it was sailing in the South China Sea, the 

second time he has made such a visit. And it highlighted once 

again this tension. And there are U.S. national security concerns. 

How does this year’s budget request complement and 

operationalize the response to these tensions within State and/or 

USAID, and how does State and USAID’s efforts complement 

DOD’s response in our FON ops? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have an FMF request on the order of $86.6 million that provides funding for a variety of 

maritime security intitiatives and improvements among our partners and our allies. Much of this is oriented at capacity-building 

and maritime domain awareness. 

The coastal countries in the South China Sea want and need to 

have the ability to monitor what is transpiring in their environs 

and their territorial waters and in their EEZs. And frankly, seeing 

what is going on is helpful in avoiding crises and avoiding incidents 

and accidents. 

We are supporting their efforts also with an eye toward their 

ability to respond to disasters and humanitarian assistance, given 

the number of climatic incidents and typhoons and so on. 

The goal, as you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, is not to create an 

advantage of one claimant over another. We have no interest in 

that, and that is not what we are about. What we are seeking to 

do is to ensure that the countries adhere peacefully to the rule of 

law and, importantly, take no actions to abridge universal rights 

and international legal principles like freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, unimpeded lawful commerce. That is a U.S. interest. It is a universal interest and a universal right that mustn’t 

be abridged. That was the rationale behind the visits by Secretary 

Carter. 

The FMF programs that we are putting forward in our request 

directly complement the Department of Defense’s Maritime Security Initiative. We consult and cooperate closely and anticipate that 

we will be able to ensure that the two programs dovetail as we 

move forward. 

Mr. SALMON. For whatever it is worth and then I will close my 

questioning and yield to the ranking member, but for whatever it 

is worth, I think that there needs to really be, I think, a steppedup effort on behalf of all of us to reach out to the ASEAN folks to 

be more of a voice of clarity on these issues in the region. And I 

think that the more we speak in unison with some of the international bodies associated with this issue, I think the more that we 

will find success because I truly do think China is kind of testing 

its boundaries. And I really believe that. The more clarity we provide, the more we are able to avoid any kind of a conflict. Do you 

want to comment on that? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, the U.S. engages directly with the 10 members 

of ASEAN. Of course, we also engage with China and other neighbors in the region through a series of platforms, the preeminent 

one being the East Asia Forum. President Obama has made it a 

point throughout his Presidency to attend on an annual basis, and 

34

he importantly hosted the 10 leaders of ASEAN in February in an 

informal summit in California, which allowed for a day-and-a-half 

of in-depth conversation on a range of economic and security issues. 

One thing that came through loud and clear is the shared conviction among all the leaders that the economic imperative to promote 

and sustain stability in the Asia-Pacific region is a common responsibility. We discussed things that each country, both claimant countries and non-claimant countries can do. We also discussed the importance of direct engagement and dialogue with China. 

President Obama met with President Xi Jinping on March 31 

here in Washington on the margins of the Nuclear Security Summit, and had a very, very direct discussion of our concerns and our 

interests with respect to the South China Sea. 

We still have a long way to go. The pattern of behavior by Chinese forces and actors remains troubling. But I believe that we 

have a real dialogue with the Chinese, and that they have heard 

us loud and clear. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Stivers, I see we are reducing our aid to Mongolia. Any particular reason? 

Mr. STIVERS. Well, thank you for that. Mongolia is a middle-in- come country, and they also had an MCC compact, which was $285 

million over 5 years to address constraints of growth that I believe 

it is coming to a conclusion. We have a small democracy and governance youth program there. We believe that is an appropriate 

footprint considering our other challenges in the region. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The chairman of our full committee had field 

hearings in Los Angeles, as you remember, to focus on the rule of 

law in the Philippines and particularly the seizures of land by politically connected individuals. Mr. Russel, have you followed up on 

that and can you report to us that the abuses we learned about in 

that hearing have been at least partially addressed by the Philippine Government? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, we continue to engage on an ongoing basis 

with the national and the local authorities in the Philippines on a 

range of good governance programs. And I am sure Mr. Stivers can 

build them out. We think that the Philippines has made progress 

under the leadership of President Aquino in strengthening the rule 

of law throughout the Philippines, but we still see a considerable 

amount of work yet to be done. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope you deal with the chairman’s staff on that 

and see if we can be specific because there were specific items 

brought to our attention of that filtering. 

Mr. Stivers? 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. Thank you for the chance to—certainly, 

Chairman Royce has just been a champion on this issue, but land 

rights is one of the top priorities if not the top priority of people 

in the Philippines, Cambodia, Burma, Indonesia. It rises to the top 

of any poll in terms of concerns, and so we are addressing that 

issue in most of these countries. 

In terms of the Philippines, in August we launched something we 

called the SURGE program, which does exactly some of the things 

35

you talked about. It works with the local governments in terms of 

helping them better organize the way they handle land titles from 

a programmatic view. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Even if you have got land title, if armed 

thugs with political support can deprive you of the use of your 

land, force you to sell, there is a problem. But I am going to move 

on to another issue. 

Mr. Russel, our trade deficit with Japan is enormous. It is often 

not talked about because it is smaller than the trade deficit we 

have with China. Part of the reason for that deficit is explicit, direct, open currency manipulation by the Japanese. Are we doing 

anything, and do you predict that next year the trade deficit will 

be lower than this year? So are we doing anything, and is it going 

to be successful in reducing the deficit? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, with all due respect, Congressman Sherman, 

I will leave the issue of currency to the Department of the Treasury 

and I will stay out of the predictive business. But——

Mr. SHERMAN. But you are willing to advocate for the role of the 

U.S. trade representative but you won’t go on the—okay. Please 

proceed. 

Mr. RUSSEL. The Japanese Government has——

Mr. SHERMAN. But wait a minute. I do want—how can you possibly advocate for a trade deal on the one hand and have no opinion on currency manipulation on the other? I mean, I could see you 

saying you are not going to talk about trade and you are not going 

to talk about currency, but you are talking about currency and you 

are not talking about currency. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, what I will talk about is America’s national 

interest, and we have a national——

Mr. SHERMAN. But your——

Mr. RUSSEL [continuing]. Interest——

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Testimony has been that this is a 

good trade deal for working American families, and yet you have 

no opinion on—I want to go on to just one last thing as my time 

expires, and that is we will sanctimoniously and with great hubris 

tell everybody in Asia that we are going to teach them about democracy, and yet you know and I know that the plan of the administration is to sneak this trade deal through the United States Congress during a lame-duck session. And I would hope that you would 

respond just for the record as to how it is going to undercut our 

ability to be an example of democracy if we use chicanery to pass 

the one thing through our democracy that Asian countries are looking at. They will watch us as we sneak it through in the dead of 

night and then next year, the State Department will be lecturing 

them about democracy. So I would hope you would respond for the 

record on that because I see my time is expired. 

Mr. RUSSEL. I categorically reject the assumptions that underlie 

your question, Congressman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, if the assumptions are wrong, can you promise me that the administration will not use the lame-duck session 

to try to pass a trade deal that they can’t pass through a democratic body in any other way? 

36

Mr. RUSSEL. What we have done and the effort that I have been 

a part of is to create a transparent and high-standard agreement 

that opens the door for U.S. businesses to——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Russell, if I can interrupt——

Mr. RUSSEL [continuing]. Trade——

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And reclaim my time——

Mr. RUSSEL [continuing]. With lower tariffs——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Russel, you love this agreement so much that 

you are part of an administration that will use chicanery to pass 

it, and then you tell us that is okay because it is a really loveable 

agreement. That is no way to show democracy to the world. It is 

not——

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I have a very——

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Like you can use underhanded chicanery to thwart democracy but only for a really, really good purpose. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I have a very robust toolkit of diplomatic resources, but underhanded chicanery does not——

Mr. SHERMAN. If we use——

Mr. RUSSEL [continuing]. Number among them. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Underhanded chicanery to pass this 

trade deal, which is the one most visible thing America will do in 

affecting the Pacific region, they will watch what we do, they will 

watch how we do it. And if we use chicanery to pass it and then 

tell them that democracy should be skirted around if you have a 

really good reason, then I do not think we will be effective advocates for democracy in Asia. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I am proud of America’s record as an 

advocate for democracy, and I am proud of the TPP agreement that 

this administration has negotiated. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope we can be proud of the process through 

which it is submitted to Congress. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Well, I don’t think that the administration is going 

to be given charge of the congressional schedule. I don’t think 

Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan will give that up. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, under the Trade Promotion Authority Act, it is the President who determines the entire schedule. 

He submits it, and then we have to vote on it within 90 days. I 

believe it is 90; it could be 60. So we have, through legislation, 

which I opposed, given the executive branch control of our schedule 

when it comes to voting on this agreement, and I fear—and I have 

given the administration a chance to douse those fears—that chicanery will be used in the timing of the voting on this deal. 

Mr. SALMON. All right. Well, thank you very much for coming to 

this hearing. We really appreciate it, appreciate all your hard work 

and the good things that you are doing in the region. Thank you 

very much. 

And this committee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

38

f


99850n.eps
39

f


99850m.eps
40


99850c-1.eps
41


99850c-2.eps
42


99850c-3.eps
43


99850c-4.eps
44


99850c-5.eps
45


99850c-6.eps
46


99850c-7.eps
47


99850c-8.eps
48


99850c-9.eps
49


99850c-10.eps
50


99850c-11.eps
51


99850c-12.eps
52


99850c-13.eps
53


99850c-14.eps
54


99850c-15.eps
55


99850c-16.eps
56


99850c-17.eps
57


99850c-18.eps
58


99850c-19.eps
59


99850c-20.eps
60


99850c-21.eps
61


99850c-22.eps
62


99850c-23.eps
63


99850c-24.eps
64


99850c-25.eps
65


99850c-26.eps
66


99850c-27.eps
67

Æ


99850c-28.eps