U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

55–272PDF 2010

REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF EAST ASIA AND

THE PACIFIC

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 3, 2010

Serial No. 111–115

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 7

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 4

The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell: Prepared statement ...................................... 10

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois: Prepared statement ................................................................. 27

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

(1)

REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF EAST ASIA AND 

THE PACIFIC 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Subcommittee will come to order. This is a 

hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Asia, 

the Pacific and the Global Environment, and today we have as our 

special guest the assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs, the Honorable Kurt Campbell. As is the practice, the chairman and the ranking member usually give opening statements, 

and in the process, we should be getting more members coming in 

from their respective offices. The ranking member, my good friend, 

Congressman Manzullo, is tied up in a markup at the Financial 

Services Committee, but I am sure that he will be here shortly. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate your 

efforts and those of Secretary Clinton and President Obama in upgrading our relations with the Asia Pacific region. Your collective 

efforts have delivered demonstrable positive results. Indeed, with 

few exceptions I believe this administration has done an excellent 

job in its first year managing relations with this most dynamic and 

important region. For example, despite the challenges posed by 

China, this administration has defied the practice of many of its 

predecessors by getting off to a positive start with Beijing. 

Beijing’s relatively mild response to weapons sales to Taiwan and 

the visit by the Dalai Lama, I believe, reflect a maturation of our 

ties, particularly as a result of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue and other high-level interactions, as well as relative calm in 

the Taiwan straights with President Ma’s election. However, there 

is also cause for concern regarding issues ranging from Copenhagen to Google. Yet I believe the maturation of the United StatesChina relationship also suggests China’s own interest in peace and 

security as the country attempts to maintain internal social stability by meeting the economic, and increasingly, the social and political demands of its 1.3 billion citizens. 

There is no doubt that China’s artificially weak currency and the 

country’s position on Iran will pose difficult problems this year. 

Yet, if both sides hew to the positive, cooperative and comprehenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

sive United States-China relationship as agreed last year, I believe 

we should be able to work things out. 

Meanwhile, as the Congressional Research Service has noted, 

‘‘Relations between the United States and South Korea arguably 

have been at their best state in nearly a decade.’’ Last year’s joint 

vision statement provided an important marker in the evolution of 

the bilateral relationship toward a truly global orientation. 

On North Korea, our two countries are working as closely as 

ever, which is critically important in transferring any wartime 

operational control from the United States to Korea in the near future. With Seoul chairing the G–20 this year, the Republic of Korea 

has a vital role to play in supporting international growth and development. That said, I am concerned that if the Korea-U.S. Free 

Trade Agreement remains in limbo, the effect could become increasingly corrosive. That is why I fully support the timely passage 

of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. United States-Japan ties, 

a subject this subcommittee will address specifically in a hearing 

in 2 weeks, remain on a solid footing despite a degree of media 

hyperventilation over basing issues, host nation support and potential changes in Japan’s foreign policy. 

With the Democratic Party of Japan in power for the first time 

in 50 years, we need to demonstrate patience, a word you have 

wisely reiterated in recent weeks. So long as we are guided by our 

shared interests and our broad, deep and enduring ties, I believe 

we will find mutually satisfactory answers to basing and other 

issues, especially the problem with Okinawa. In Southeast Asia, 

your team has made important strides in reversing the previous 

administration’s neglect of the region. Last year’s initiation of a 

long-needed policy change permitting United States engagement 

with Myanmar, which you personally led, and Secretary Clinton’s 

signing of the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation set the 

stage for enhanced relations with the region. 

President Obama’s participation in a first-ever U.S.-ASEAN 

Summit and his personal links to Indonesia, including his trip 

there to launch the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership 

later this month, will further bolster our ties. However, I urge you, 

Mr. Secretary, to make continuing human rights abuses in West 

Papua a priority as we develop the partnership. Meanwhile, our alliances in Thailand and the Philippines remain robust, as do our 

diplomatic, economic and security relations with Singapore and 

Malaysia. United States interactions with Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have become increasingly cooperative, and the fact that Vietnam is chairing ASEAN this year offers an effective means of 

strengthening ties. 

Our relations with Cambodia have deepened, particularly after 

last year’s lifting of the ban on direct assistance to the Cambodian 

Government and on Export-Import Bank financing for United 

States companies seeking to do business in Phnom Penh as well as 

in Laos. As we discussed last week, I strongly advocate forgiving 

Cambodia’s debt in order to improve that country’s economy and to 

address the legacy of war. Toward that end, I also believe we 

should take a more proactive stance in funding demining operations in Laos and in addressing the tragic effects of Agent Orange 

in Vietnam. In addition, I hope we can compliment our diplomatic, 

3

political and strategic overtures in Southeast Asia with real 

progress on trade, including on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on 

other initiatives with individual Southeast Asian countries and 

ASEAN as a whole, and ultimately a free trade area for this region. 

In the Pacific, the administration has been on the right track 

with Secretary Clinton’s meeting with Pacific Island leaders during 

the U.N. General Assembly. As you noted, Mr. Secretary, her commitment to holding such meetings annually is a great improvement. Your having moved forward on returning USAID to the Pacific Islands through the $13 million requested for Fiscal Year 

2011, an initiative I have pursued for more than a decade, I believe, will have an important, positive effect. As you know, Mr. Secretary, I have been screaming for the last 20 years about the fact 

that we have not had a USAID presence in the Pacific. 

I look forward to Secretary Clinton’s rescheduled trip to Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and, as you mentioned in our discussion, her plans to stop in American Samoa as 

part of the trip, which, as you indicated, she was slated to do originally. Following up on our discussions, I have also invited her to 

stop over as I believe such a visit would support your efforts to 

strengthen United States-Pacific Island relations and American Samoa’s position as a regional leader. It would also give her the 

chance to thank the thousands of Samoan men and women serving 

in the Armed Forces during a year that will be marked both by rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and 

tsunami, and by the 110th anniversary of the United States flag 

being raised in American Samoa. Our people in the military services put their lives on the line every day in the most dangerous 

parts of the world. In fact, in Iraq we have a higher per capita combat mortality rate than any other U.S. State or territory. 

I applaud Secretary Clinton in meeting her objectives to deepen 

our historical ties, build new partnerships and work with existing 

multilateral organizations. As she has aptly stated, ‘‘America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia Pacific region, and the future of this region depends on America.’’ I am very, very happy 

that we are joined this afternoon by one of our distinguished colleagues and senior members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and 

our former ambassador to the FSM, my dear friend, Congresswoman Watson from California, for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

4


55272b-1.eps
5


55272b-2.eps
6

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I feel this is 

a very timely hearing so we can look to the state of affairs in East 

Asia and the Pacific. Samoa is such an important part of that region, and I look forward to returning again. In these last few 

months we have seen a considerable change in the region. Japan 

saw a shift in leadership for the first time in 50 years from the liberal Democratic Party to the Democratic Party of Japan. North 

Korea left negotiations and carried out a nuclear test. Though the 

administration has made some strides with respect to building a 

more positive relationship with China, there is a long way to go, 

increasingly complicated by the friction of the Sino-United States 

economic relations. 

With this changing environment in the region it is important to 

reevaluate our strategy in order to maintain some stability. Therefore, I thank you, Secretary Campbell, for coming to answer our 

questions and to address some of these changing issues. I also, 

again, thank the chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate 

your testimony. Again, our subcommittee is very honored to have 

with us assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Secretary Campbell. Secretary Campbell was appointed and nominated by President Obama and he became assistant secretary in 

June of last year. A very, very distinguished record. A history in 

the Asia Pacific region, a former associate professor of public policy 

and international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Dr. Campbell served in several capacities, also as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Asia 

Pacific. Also was a director on the National Security Council staff 

as a White House fellow, an officer in the Navy. What hasn’t he 

done? 


55272b-3.eps
7

Received his bachelor’s degree from the University of California 

in San Diego and his doctorate in international relations from Oxford University’s Brasenose College, and was a distinguished Marshall Scholar. Mr. Secretary, I again thank you for coming, and I 

am going to give you the floor. Please share with us your wisdom. 

I am sure that my colleagues and I will have some questions and 

comments on the state of affairs in this important region of the 

world, the Asia Pacific. Mr. Secretary? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT M. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms. 

Watson. Thank you both for your leadership on these issues and 

your commitment. I cannot imagine a more timely hearing than to 

discuss American strategy and our commitments in the Asian Pacific region. Before I get started, I would like to ask that my full 

testimony be submitted for the record. It is rather lengthy and detailed and I don’t want to read it. I would rather us have a conversation. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection. Any other ancillary materials you would like to submit for the record, Mr. Secretary, you 

are more than welcome. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. I will do so. Mr. Chairman, I think 

the truth of the matter is the United States faces both challenges, 

real challenges, but also opportunities in the Asian Pacific region, 

and now we have the opportunity to look back over the last year 

to what we have accomplished and some of the things that we 

would like to work on in the time ahead. First of all, let me say 

that one of the most significant issues that we deal with is that 

when we look back on this period in 20 or 30 years, I think there 

will be no doubt that although we are importantly engaged in Iraq 

and Afghanistan and in issues in South Asia, the truth is, I think, 

really the fulcrum of history, the most dynamic region of the world, 

the most important issues for our prosperity and our role in global 

politics, those issues are playing out in the Asian Pacific region. 

It is absolutely essential that the United States convey to the key 

players in the Asian Pacific region that we are here to stay and 

that we are going to play a dynamic and continuing role in all aspects of foreign policy, national security, the promotion of human 

rights and our values, trade, economics in the region going forward. 

It is absolutely essential. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, there really 

wasn’t a word in your statement, or yours, Ms. Watson, that I 

would disagree with. I think I would associate myself very strongly 

with everything that you have said. You will have noted that from 

the outset of the administration our senior team, the President, the 

Secretary and other senior officials, Secretary Gates and others, 

have tried to make clear not only with their words, but their actions, about their strong commitment to the region. 

Secretary Clinton’s first visit as Secretary of State was to the 

Asian Pacific region. During the first year in her capacity as Secretary of State she visited the region four times and she will have 

a similar record in the period ahead. She has taken enormous steps 

not just in Northeast Asia, but also in Southeast Asia as well. I 

8

must also say that she has a vision of drawing India, a critical 

country for the United States, one of the arriving nations in global 

politics, to bring India more closely into our discussions and our 

dialogue associated with critical issues in the Asian Pacific region. 

President Obama visited, important visit to Southeast Asia for 

APEC. 

Also the first ever, as the chairman indicated, U.S.-ASEAN Summit in Singapore, and also important discussions with our friends 

in Japan and South Korea, and I think an important visit to China 

as well. In the coming weeks he will be making another visit to 

Asia where he will stop in Guam, an American protectorate. The 

chairman has given us excellent advice about how to think about 

that trip. Also, stops in Indonesia where he spent time as a young 

person, and Australia as well. We are looking forward to that, and 

I think it is another opportunity to reaffirm our strong commitment 

to the region as a whole. We face not only traditional challenges 

of the kind that we faced for decades, questions about an uncertain 

set of circumstances on the Korean peninsula, we still face challenges there, we have the responsibility of the maintenance of 

peace and stability across the Taiwan Straight, and we also face 

the challenge of terrorism in Southeast Asia in various forms. 

In addition, we face new challenges, such as the challenge of climate change. Some of our partners and friends in the region believe that this is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st Century. 

I would concur with that assessment, and I know that will be one 

of the issues that the President and the Prime Minister in Australia will be discussing in a couple of weeks’ time. In some specifics, Mr. Chairman, I would say that, as you indicate, we have a 

new government in Japan, really the first fundamental transition 

in government power in Japan, in over half a century. We are 

working very closely with our partners in the new government. I 

must underscore that they have taken several steps that the 

United States deeply appreciates. 

Today, they are the largest supporter of assistance to Afghanistan. They have stepped up in a big way. In many respects, more 

significant and substantial investments than some of our traditional partners in Afghanistan. They have been very supportive in 

the wake of the Copenhagen meetings in terms of following 

through with critical, credible steps in terms of trying to deal with 

the potential consequences of climate change. We are also working 

closely on issues associated with our security relationship. I must 

tell you, Mr. Chairman, like you, I am confident that we will find 

a way forward to work through our issues on Okinawa. We share 

many of the same goals. We want to reduce the burden on the people of Okinawa, but at the same time, we believe the maintenance 

of American forces in Japan is a cornerstone of our commitment to 

the Asian Pacific region. 

The only thing I would disagree with, you said our relations with 

Korea are the best they have been in 10 years. I would say how 

about ever. This is the best I have ever seen relations between 

Washington and Seoul. The summit that I witnessed between our 

two leaders was the best I have ever experienced. I must say we 

are deeply grateful for the very substantial commitment that we 

get on a range of issues from our South Korean friends. Their reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
9

cent commitment to Afghanistan, their increase in support for a variety of investment and humanitarian assistance in the Asian Pacific region and elsewhere is much appreciated. 

I think you and others have rightly underscored the challenge of 

the relationship with China. We will have much more to discuss 

about that in the question and answer. I would just simply say that 

we recognize that this is probably the most complicated and complex relationship that the United States deals with on a daily 

basis. There are going to be issues that we work closely on, there 

are going to be issues that we need to cooperate, but there are also 

going to be issues on which the United States and China disagree. 

We are working closely with our friends in Beijing on a range of 

issues currently. At the top of the list are critical issues to the 

United States. I would argue, and we would argue, to the global 

community they include Iran, North Korea, climate change and 

also continuing efforts to ensure that we are seeking a true recovery economically. 

There are a range of issues that our two sides deal with. As you 

have underscored, Mr. Chairman, we have had a recent period of 

some disagreements, but we are confident that we are going to be 

able to maintain positive momentum going forward. There is a substantial ballast in our ship in United States-China relations and we 

recognize the importance of this relationship. We are also committed to maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan 

Straight. You will have noted the steps that we have taken in this 

regard in recent weeks, and we stand by those. You have also seen 

a substantial increase in our commitments in Southeast Asia. We 

have a comprehensive partnership with Indonesia that the President will launch in a few weeks. 

Secretary Clinton underscored her commitment to the region 

through a MeKong Delta initiative. We have signed the Treaty of 

Amity and Cooperation. We are in deep discussion with our friends 

in Southeast Asia about the next steps associated with architecture. We talked about that, Mr. Chairman, when I met with you 

last week. Clearly, the United States wants to play a role in the 

multilateral institutional discussions in the region, and we will 

have more to talk about in the near future. We are also engaged 

in a careful dialogue in Burma. We recognize the challenges there. 

We have not lifted our sanctions. 

We have very clear guidelines about how we would like to proceed, and we call on the government there to continue to take steps 

to hopefully lead to a dialogue inside the country and also to release political prisoners and to stop some of the violence against indigenous groups, including ethnic minorities, and of course the 

longstanding call on the part of the United States to release Aung 

San Suu Kyi. 

Our relationship with Australia is outstanding, and we have 

taken recent steps to make sure that we are working more actively 

with the new government and new friends in New Zealand. Then 

again, as I underscored at the outset, Asia as a region is growing 

in many respects and India’s role in this respect is critical. So, in 

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just say we have our work cut 

out for us and enormous challenges. The region still looks to the 

United States for leadership and for commitment, and we will conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

tinue to try to provide that as we move forward. Thank you for this 

opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]


55272a-1.eps
11


55272a-2.eps
12


55272a-3.eps
13


55272a-4.eps
14


55272a-5.eps
15


55272a-6.eps
16


55272a-7.eps
17


55272a-8.eps
18


55272a-9.eps
19


55272a-10.eps
20


55272a-11.eps
21


55272a-12.eps
22


55272a-13.eps
23


55272a-14.eps
24


55272a-15.eps
25

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are joined 

now by the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee, the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. I would like to offer him 

time if he has an opening statement that he wishes to share with 

the committee. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing, and welcome, Mr. Secretary, to this hearing today. I 

recall with fondness the special relationship that we had with Ambassador Chris Hill, former assistant secretary of Asia, when he 

held the same position. We know that we are going to have the 

same close working relationship with you. In fact, in April of this 

year the ambassador from Thailand is coming to my district to talk 

about Southeast Asia issues, and we are very much looking forward 

to that and sharing his insight with the students, and faculty and 

the community at Rockford College. Asia Pacific region is one of the 

most important areas of the world for the United States. 

Maintaining good relations in Asia are important not only for 

geopolitical reasons, but for its vital economic trade and jobs-related purposes as well. According to the East West Center, Asia accounts for 27 percent of total export related jobs in America. Given 

the fact that America’s export sector accounts for almost 40 percent 

of total gross domestic product, it is vital that we get our relationship with Asia correct. The congressional district I have the honor 

to represent depends heavily on exports and foreign direct investment to maintain the jobs that we desperately need. I want to 

thank the administration for doing a good job at managing broader 

United States-Asia relations. The administration’s focus on Southeast Asia, in particular, is a step in the right direction. 

However, with regard to Burma, China and Japan, the record is 

a little mixed. The administration needs to be tougher on Burma 

and scrap its misplaced efforts to engage the military junta. Burma’s conviction of Nyi Nyi Aung, an American citizen, on trumped 

up political charges is the largest example for why we need to end 

this pointless engagement exercise. Burma will not change regardless of how much we want it to. We have all followed the travails 

of Aung San Suu Kyi and the continuous harassment that she has 

had. I think the administration needs to be a lot tougher on 

Burma. The administration needs to act more assertively with Beijing to ensure that America’s interests are not negatively impacted. 

China continues with this business as usual attitude when it 

comes to important issues, such as currency manipulation, intellectual property rights violations and lack of religious freedom. Despite the administration’s efforts to reset relations with China, it 

is clear the leaders of China care more about protecting their country’s own interest than to forge a new relationship. The cyber attack on Google is the perfect example of this relationship imbalance. Though, to be sure, we have worked with China and seen just 

a little bit of good light with regard to intellectual property challenges and know that they are engaged in that, but we really need 

more help from the U.S. Government to encourage China to continue to protect intellectual property rights. 

Concerning Japan, the administration must act quickly to correlate and lay out a long-term ramification of protracted uncertainty on basing at Okinawa. I strongly encourage the administraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
26

tion to make it crystal clear to the Japanese Government that Congress expects it to honor the preexisting agreement. I would also 

state that accompanying the ambassador from Thailand will be the 

ambassador from Japan, giving tremendous honor to Rockford College, appearing at a joint session dealing with economic and economic viability in Asia and Southeast Asia, so we are very much 

interested in the State Department working in that area, and, Mr. 

Secretary, very much interested in working with you on an even 

closer basis. I know I can speak for my chairman, but we would 

love to have coffee with you some morning with the members of our 

subcommittee and talk about a variety of issues. Is that correct, 

Chairman? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would welcome it. I have had the opportunity 

to do that with the chairman, and any time we are available. I do 

very much appreciate your support for this kind of endeavor. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

27


55272c-1.eps
28

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. I would like to turn the time 

now to our good friend, the gentlelady from California, for her 

questions. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. In the State of the Union the President 

spoke of strengthening our relationship with Korea. In her statement last week, Secretary Clinton also mentioned the importance 

of our Korea relationship. The budget request includes an economic 

support fund with $2.5 million for North Korea for democracy promotion and human rights programs. In your statement you noted 

that the administration is committed to building a more dynamic 

relationship with South Korea, and our ranking member also did. 

Can you expand on the plan? How will you measure the effectiveness of your strategy? What is the administration’s posture on China’s role in the Korean peninsula? Are there plans for the Korean 

FTA? 

Believe me, in my brief trip last August that was our number 

one topic when we got to South Korea, the FTA. I have met with 

visiting delegations that have come from Korea, and we had to go 

there, we do an exchange, and I told them we probably wouldn’t 

be able to take up the FTA last year, but we certainly are going, 

after we get past our other issues that we are dealing with now, 

we will look at an FTA. They are very, very interested. So can you 

just bring us up, these issues? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you so much. Let me try to talk collectively on all the issues that we confront and our opportunities on 

the Korean peninsula. Let me just say that the President mentioned the free trade agreement in the State of the Union, the Secretary has on several occasions, and when we met with President 

Myung-bak in Seoul in November he made a very passionate and 

very committed plea to the United States to take this opportunity 

to engage with South Korea, and that South Korea had enormous 

opportunities with China and elsewhere, but this was really the opportunity for the United States to take an important step. I found 

the argument extraordinarily persuasive. I am optimistic, as you 

indicate, that just as the President and the Secretary has said, that 

we will be taking this up in due course. 

Ms. WATSON. I have the largest South Korean community in the 

whole United States, about 160,000, and Korea town is right where 


55272c-2.eps
29

my office is located so I am in dialogue with them all of the time. 

One of their issues was the balance of trade. We have to wait on 

our turn when we deal with these policies as a caucus on the floor, 

but I certainly am going to be doing all I can to see that we get 

to a good discussion and a policy. I know that the chair is also very 

interested, and the ranking member, too, so we are going to be 

doing all that we can. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Great. I appreciate that very much, Congresswoman. I must say, when I met with the chairman and other members, they have also made clear why they think this agreement 

would be good for Korea, very good for the United States. Clearly, 

there are probably some issues that have to be discussed, but overall I think there is a deep appreciation about how important this 

is to American strategy, to American commitment in the region, 

and we take this very, very seriously. I must say, I personally appreciate your commitment and support of this overall endeavor. In 

terms of North Korea, obviously we face enormous challenges. We 

are trying to put forward as part of the Six-Party framework an approach that makes very clear to North Koreans that they must 

come back to negotiations, they must commit denuclearization and 

must abide by the commitments they have made in the joint statement in 2005, and that that is the essential next step. 

I think we have been very patient, honestly, and I think Secretary Clinton’s general concept of strategic patience has been applicable here. We are lock step with South Korea, Japan and other 

countries in our strategy and our desire to make sure that North 

Korea takes applicable steps to bring them in line with the commitments they have already made in 2005. At the same time, we remain very concerned about the human rights and the tragic circumstances that North Koreans continue to live under brutal circumstances. I have worked closely with your members, Senator 

Brownback and others on the other side of the, the other body, on 

strategies for how the United States can support people, refugees 

and others who have left North Korea. 

We have worked very closely with the South Korean Government 

on efforts at assisting refugees to be resettled inside South Korea, 

and we are also looking at opportunities for educational exchange 

for newly arrived North Koreans who make the successful transition to South Korea to have the opportunity to come to the United 

States for purposes of study. This is a very real and challenging set 

of problems and we accept them head on. The South Koreans are 

very generous in their support for resettlement, and we think our 

primary commitment in this regard is to support South Korea in 

this overall effort, but we take it seriously. We have had dialogues 

with China about steps that we would like to see them take in assisting. 

Many of the people who flee North Korea go through China and 

we think that is absolutely essential. We talk with Chinese friends 

about the Korean peninsula, about North Korea, particularly in the 

venue of the Six-Party framework, and I think our general goal, of 

course, is to bring North Korea back in line with its earlier commitments associated with the Six-Party Talks. Still, lots of work to be 

done and enormous challenges on the peninsula going forward. 

30

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I use a few more 

minutes? I had some questions about Japan. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Sure. 

Ms. WATSON. Okay. The change in government from the liberal 

Democratic Party to the Democratic Party Japan has altered the 

United States-Japanese relations in the last year. The planned relocation of the U.S. Marines Futenma Air Station to Okinawa has 

stalled. I was on the island of Okinawa many years ago for 2 years. 

The reason why there wasn’t a real big push to get us out of there 

is because we were about 95 percent of their economy. The Okinawans worked in our residence, they worked in our PX, they worked 

in our officers’ quarters and so on, so we had a pretty good feeling, 

but now I know things have changed. I do read that there are demonstrations from time to time for us to leave. 

What is the state of our security relationship with Japan in light 

of its geopolitical vulnerability to North Korea? How does the new 

regime in Japan affect United States-Japan relationships with respect to global warming, Six-Party Talks and the upcoming Japanese hosted APEC summit? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Again, 

critical questions about Japan. I would say that Japan is an essential partner of the United States in the Asian Pacific region. We 

just cannot accomplish nearly what we need to unless we have a 

strong partnership between Washington and Tokyo. We have tried 

to walk a careful path when it comes to Japan and our issues associated with Okinawa and other aspects of our security relationship. 

On the one hand, we have tried to be very firm and clear about 

what our expectations are and what we believe is essential for the 

maintenance of our mutual security and to best allow for the 

United States to play its role as the guarantor of peace and stability in the region. 

At the same time, we expect a new government, it is natural to 

ask questions, to explore new opportunities and new choices, and 

it is incumbent on us as a partner to work with them through that 

process, not to be dictatorial, but to act as a partner, to listen and 

to consult. That is what we are in the process of doing. Okinawa 

is very difficult politics. We appreciate that and we understand it. 

We have made very clear to the central government that we still 

believe that the current plan that was negotiated several years ago 

is the best way forward. At the same time, we remain open to other 

suggestions and ideas. I must say, many of these we have also 

looked at as well. We still think this is the best way forward. 

In addition to these issues, however, Japan is one of our closest 

allies on a range of issues, including steps to prevent and deal with 

global climate change, they are supportive of our endeavors in Afghanistan and they are close partners when it comes to thinking 

about how to successfully engage North Korea. So I must say that 

I think some of the rhetoric and discussions about United StatesJapan relationship is indeed, as the chairman said, a little bit overblown. This is one of our closest global partners. Frankly, we think 

that there is just a natural chemistry and a natural and strategic 

rationale for our two countries to work very closely together. So we 

are trying to be patient and firm at the same time, and also clear 

about how critical we believe this relationship is as we go forward. 

31

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady from California. I 

have about 200 questions I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, we better get started quick then. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Shortened down just to a couple, Mr. Secretary. Looking in terms of the numbers, I believe you have quite 

a responsibility with this region in the world. My guess tells me 

that you have responsibility for well over 2.7 billion people in terms 

of geographical responsibility. Am I correct on that, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not sure they would all feel that way, but, 

I mean, in terms of the region, the region that I am working on 

does indeed extend from Japan all the way down to Australia and 

New Zealand. It does encompass the largest population groups, the 

most dynamic economies and some of the greatest challenges that 

are confronting global politics today. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have a question for you concerning a country that is not even on the radar screen in terms of our national 

priorities. I believe that we really dropped the ball in not correcting 

some of the things we have done wrongfully against this country. 

In the first place, this country never attacked us and they never 

declared war against us. We are the ones who simply went over 

there and bombed the heck out of them. I am talking about the 

country of Laos, Mr. Secretary. We dropped 270 million bombs on 

this country, approximately 2 million tons. About 80 million of the 

bomblets from the cluster bombs failed to detonate. As a result of 

this bombing we did, some 50,000 Laotians died. 

It is my understanding that one of the problems that we have 

had is that when our pilots, whatever their bombing missions—

whether it be up north, Vietnam, or wherever—had to come and 

just drop them off. And it happens to be that poor Laos and Cambodia were caught. My point is that I wanted to share with you a 

very serious concern, Mr. Secretary. Total U.S. direct funding to 

help deal with unexploded ordnance, Mr. Secretary—and I am talking about 80 million bombs that failed to detonate—has amounted 

to only $176,000. This is absolutely outrageous, and it is not the 

America that I know. 

Total U.S. donations to the UNDP, supposedly through the damage trust fund for some 11-year period, is only $3.1 million. It 

would take approximately 100 years to complete this. If this is the 

rate that we are spending on helping the Laotian Government correct this, what I consider an injustice, really, on our part, and that 

we never seem to just—they just seem to fly away and never seem 

to bother with it. The fact that this country with a small population of only 4 million people and we are not giving the proper assistance that these people really need. Approximately 300 people, 

children and women especially, die as a result of getting hit with 

unexploded ordnance. I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, is the State 

Department going to review this dismal record? In my opinion, 

given the bombs that we dropped on this country, shouldn’t we 

make a little better donation to help clean up the place? Would you 

care to comment on that? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, and I thank 

you for your passion and commitment on this particular issue. I 

must also tell you that in my meetings with Senator Webb and others in the other House, they have also raised this issue with me. 

32

I will be in Laos next week and I expect these issues to come up 

directly. I would like nothing more to be able to work with you to 

assist with my department to try to get some more support. I, too, 

believe that this is not only a critical issue strategically, but it is 

also a critical moral issue, and so I think it makes sense. I want 

to tell a story on me that I don’t think is particularly favorable, but 

it will give you a sense of some of the challenges that we occasionally face at the State Departments. 

One of my first briefings still kind of learning the ropes, I had 

come from the Department of Defense and we have a different set 

of zeros, and so very able, incredibly committed staff started briefing me on some foreign assistance efforts. I am looking at something and I saw it, I said, well, this looks about right. I think, you 

know, $22 million for this particular effort is correct. There was 

kind of silence. So finally someone got up enough courage and said, 

well, actually, you know, Curt, it is $22,000. Right? So we have 

some very real challenges here and lots of competition for scarce 

resources. I must say, given, Mr. Faleomavaega, your commitments, Congressman, and Senator Webb’s and others, I think there 

is room for a greater dialogue between the executive branch and 

our friends on Capitol Hill on this issue. I must also say I think 

a small amount of money can go a long way here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I could not agree with you——

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think we are actually in violin agreement here. 

I would love to work with you to see what we can do going forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. I think that perhaps we spent al- most $1 billion in building that embassy that we have in Baghdad. 

Over $900 million in building an embassy there for 15 million people. 

I note with interest that the President is going to go to Indonesia 

this month. I don’t know if you were aware, but there was a national blog during the Presidential election that claimed I was a 

special agent for then-Senator Barack Obama. And when I visited 

Indonesia and the school that he attended when he was young—

which I did visit—my assignment was to make sure that there was 

no record whatsoever indicating that Barack Obama was born in 

Indonesia. Unbelievable. The birthers are really at it thinking that 

this is really God’s honest truth. 

Mr. Secretary, there has been one issue that I have been following for years, and that is the situation in West Papua. I don’t 

want to get into the history of how Jakarta and the dictator 

Suharto just went and took over West Papua by force. Then, they 

got 1,000 West Papuan chiefs to vote 100 percent to be with Indonesia, which was an absolute sham. There was no question. Even 

the United Nations observers who went there wrote a report saying 

that this was a sham. Lately, the West Papuans have been looking 

at a document that was supposedly meant to help them. It was 

called a special autonomy law that the Indonesian Government 

passed in 1991 under President Megawati. 

To this day, Mr. Secretary, I have no idea if the provisions of this 

special autonomy law for West Papua have been implemented. In 

fact, I have every reason to believe they have not done anything 

to implement the provisions of this important law. Then there is 

33

also the latest development. I think someone in the State Department or the Department of Defense fully supports giving military 

training to Kopassus. Now, there has been a lot of harm done in 

terms of the Kopassus presence not only in West Papua, but all 

over Indonesia. I would appreciate if you could follow up on this 

and see where we are with the needs of the people of West Papua. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am going to withhold my question. I want 

to yield to my good friend from California, Mr. Royce, if he has an 

opening statement or questions. 

Mr. ROYCE. I do. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I will just 

make a couple of points. Asia right now is half of the world’s economy and is rather aggressively pursuing regional economic integration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce tallies 168 agreements in 

force in Asia. We are a party to merely two of those, Australia and 

Singapore. So I am glad when I hear you say that the President 

is talking more about the importance of trade, but I think we need 

concrete action. I think, for example, the Korean-American Trade 

Agreement, KORUS, that would be one example. The Europeans 

are stepping in and doing that same agreement while we are locked 

out. That means that American workers and American consumers 

lose in the long run if we are not engaging in these trade agreements in Asia. 

I think the second challenge here is to make human rights part 

of the strategic outlook, and that also concerns me because whether 

we are talking about China, or Vietnam, or North Korea, or 

Burma—and I think for a minute just about what I have seen in 

the last few months in Vietnam and the crackdowns there and the 

press reports that come across my desk. There are 17 activists that 

were recently convicted in 1-day show trials. In North Korea there 

are some 200,000 political prisoners who are rotting away in the 

gulags there. We all monitor China’s assaults on individual freedom and on free speech of their citizens, and what is happening in 

Burma concerns us all. I think that we often get caught up in the 

question of the here and now. 

Will China sign on to Iran’s sanctions? What is North Korea’s 

latest demand? What we are missing is the big picture. We are 

missing that often these abuses against their own people are more 

indicative of the direction in which these countries are headed, and 

frankly, the need for us to do more to hold them to account. That 

needs to be better ingrained in our policy. I will give you an example. As far as putting Vietnam back on the list of countries of particular concern, I would say at a time when the Commission on 

International Religious Freedom reports about what is happening 

to the Catholic Church, what is happening with detentions, and 

threats, and harassment and violence by what they call contract 

thugs against religious leaders; at a time when police officers beat 

and shock prisoners with electric batons, according to the Human 

Rights Watch; at a time when the Buddhist church is terrorized by 

undercover police and by local communist officials, and it is across 

the board, whether it is Protestant, or Buddhist, or Catholic, now 

is the time, in light of these abuses, to relist Vietnam on the CPC 

list. 

34

Now, legislation I have authored has gone over to the Senate to 

attempt to affect that. These are steps that you, frankly, could 

take, and should take. I will ask you about that. Then, I am also 

concerned about the Philippines. I am concerned about the elections there. I have been engaged in the past in these election observer efforts overseas and elections in May are approaching there. 

Past polls have been hampered, of course, by accusations of corruption. I have heard from the Filipino community in southern California that they are concerned about that upcoming election and 

that it may be similarly hampered if there aren’t election observers. So I would ask you, what is being done to lay the groundwork 

for this election, whether it is observers or other actions, to help 

ensure a fair process? Is NDI, IRI, are these institutions going to 

be there on the ground to help monitor? I would appreciate your 

response. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congressman Royce, and 

thank you for coming today. On the first point let me just say that 

when you travel around Asia and spend time in Asia the Asian 

friends look to us for many things. They are grateful and appreciative for our role as the provider of peace and stability. Our four 

deployed forces play a critical role in the prosperity that that region has enjoyed for the last two generations. They are also supportive of our deep commitments to democracy and human rights. 

I think if you look at one of the great achievements of American 

foreign policy, it is the trend of democratization and the greater respect for human rights. 

You see that in countries like South Korea, Indonesia and other 

countries in Southeast Asia, so I accept that very clearly. It is also 

the case that Asian trends really look to the United States to be 

a leader on economic issues and on trade. That is just undeniable. 

That is something that in every meeting I have with my Asian 

interlocutors, the issue of what the American commitment is in this 

respect. Now, I think the President has tried to say a couple of 

things, and I think the administration is trying to work on others. 

He has in almost all his senior meetings, Congressman, tried to 

underscore that there is going to have to be a rebalancing of sorts 

between Asia and the United States going forward, that over time 

that—first of all, it is not going to be possible to return to what 

we might call the status quo antebellum whereby very inexpensive 

Asian capital comes into the United States under good terms and 

that we buy relatively inexpensive Asian products leading to a 

massive trade imbalance—that as we go forward, the United States 

is going to have to save more and Asians are going to have to buy 

more American goods, that is absolutely clear, and that, in particular, we have got to see some of the big economies stepping up 

to assist in this respect. 

I think that what we are seeing, both with the free trade agreement and the TPV formula are prospects and possibilities of substantial improvements in American economic performance in the 

Asian Pacific region, so I am with you. I support that, and I think 

that is the right way forward. I must also say, and I think you will 

appreciate this, in the current environment, I mean, the President 

has made very clear it is hard sometimes to defend and explain 

trade when you are dealing with very substantial problems associVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

ated with unemployment, but nevertheless, I do believe that this 

is a strong area——

Mr. ROYCE. Let me interject there and say that there are some 

estimates that 345,000 jobs could be lost if Europe signs this trading agreement with Korea and the United States does not. So I understand the rhetorical position that it is hard to argue this point, 

but at the same time, if we are left out of trade agreements and 

Europe fills the breach, that means the loss of jobs. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Congressman, and I will tell you very clearly, 

many of our Asian friends have made the point that this is a closing window. They want the United States in the game. I must say, 

the challenge is not just from Europe, it is from China, it is from 

other countries, and it is a very real and deep challenge. I think 

one of the arguments that we have got to be clear about is the one 

issue that I would disagree with you on is I think you can’t look 

at this picture in terms of Asia in its totality. You have got to 

break it up. There are components of Asia and of our trade agreements that are very good for the United States, and there are some 

areas that are much more challenging. Obviously, China is in a 

very challenging position, but Australia, we have a very substantial 

surplus, and many studies of other trade agreements or prospective 

trade agreements suggest that they could be very good for the 

United States. 

Mr. ROYCE. Let us move on because I wanted to quickly get your 

thoughts on the Philippine election, if we could, on that? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. I mean, look, we have some history 

with Philippine elections. They are periods that require greater 

American and international vigilance in advance of those elections. 

We are taking those steps and we are doing a variety of things, let 

me just say. One, we are trying to keep our ears open. We hear 

lots of reports, and we think it is important to make sure that we 

have a good sense of what is going on on the ground. We are looking at, you know, the new voting machines, all of those things. We 

have very high-level dialogue with our excellent ambassador and 

others, with the Filipino Government, with the appropriate authorities about what are expectations are in terms of the upcoming 

election, and we also expect that there will be substantial external 

observers, including those from the United States. 

There is a discussion between not just the Republican National 

Institute and the Democratic National Institute, but other groups 

as well associated with the United Nations. So I think we have 

enough warning, enough knowledge, and also, the Philippines is so 

important to us it is critical that this election go through in a 

smooth way, in a way that Filipinos and Americans can be proud 

and work together going forward. 

Mr. ROYCE. And the CPC list, as it affects Vietnam, countries of 

particular concern, given the——

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am aware of your letter, Congressman, and 

what I would like to ask is the opportunity to get back to you in 

due course. This is an issue that will be taken up in the next several weeks in the United States Government. I must say, we face 

a very real challenge in the Asian Pacific region on some of these 

issues. One of the great concerns is that we have I would say a bit 

of a dichotomy with Vietnam, very real concerns about backsliding 

36

on issues of human rights and religious issues in recent years, but 

at the same time, this is a government that sees that it wants a 

closer relationship with the United States for strategic reasons. 

One of the things that we have tried to argue with them, it is 

going to be very hard to have that kind of relationship unless they 

take specific steps to improve their situation at home. So I understand that, and I guess what I would like is a little bit more time 

to be able to process. I am going to be in the region next week. I 

will have some specifics, and I would promise, if you will allow me, 

to get back directly in touch with you. 

Mr. ROYCE. I will, certainly, Assistant Secretary Campbell. I 

would just ask you to remember, unless we exert leverage, given 

what has happened there in terms of human rights abuses and the 

way they basically took advantage of a situation to then clamp 

down and beat senseless a lot of pro-democracy—and not even just 

pro-democracy activists, we are talking about everything from 

young people using the internet to Buddhist monks who simply 

want to practice their faith. I have been to Vietnam and talked to 

some of these political prisoners about what they faced and what 

has happened to their countrymen, including the loss of life on the 

part of some of the Buddhists in Vietnam as a result of these beatings. So let us exert a little leverage in this, and we can do it with 

a CPC list re-designation. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to move to the environment, and I am so 

pleased and proud to see that the Secretary also went down to 

Chile. You know, we witnessed this weekend probably an earthquake in Chile of biblical proportions. I mean, I think in many 

ways it was worse than the one in Haiti. That earthquake led to 

hundreds of deaths, like it did in Haiti, and also threatened Pacific 

islands and nations in direct danger of a massive tsunami. Hawaii 

and Japan both waited with baited breath as swollen waves passed 

by their respective shores. 

Clearly, tsunamis pose potential collateral damage to many islands and ports, even when the epicenter of disaster is far off. It 

looks like we are really having trouble in our Pacific areas. So what 

plans are underway to improve forecasting, detection, preparation 

and evacuation? I did see the Secretary saying that she bought 

equipment for communications and so on. So if you could just expand on that for us? There have been reports of repression on ethnic minorities in Burma—well, let us have you deal with Chile, and 

then we will go on to Burma. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson. 

I think that when it comes to certain kinds of natural disasters, typhoons, earthquakes and the like, the United States has a multifaceted strategy for how to try to deal with these challenges. The 

truth is we have learned a lot since 2004 since the tragic tsunami 

hit Indonesia and other countries in Southeast Asia. First, there is 

now a much more comprehensive set of sensors on the floor of the 

Pacific and using other instruments that allow us to better predict 

how and when a seismic event might lead to tragic tsunami-like 

waves. 

37

Ms. WATSON. Let me just ask you to put a pen in that. We went 

to Aceh afterwards and there was a gentleman there who had predicted this level of tsunami and so on, and I think that he was 

criticized and really fired from his job. So after it hit, and there 

was so much destruction. In fact, we flew over by helicopter and 

we just saw ripples in the water where islands have been. They 

couldn’t even tell the number of people because the last time they 

took the census there had been more babies born. Just swept off 

of the globe. And so they found him to be right. So he was the one 

that was on the air. We heard his predictions and all. I see that 

our Secretary, as I mentioned, took communication equipment over. 

So I am just wondering if the people are more in tuned with the 

forecast. Go ahead. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think the problem in parts of Indonesia, and 

Malaysia and elsewhere is that there was insufficient warning, 

and, in fact, knowledge. This complex sensor system that has now 

been activated in the Pacific gives us a much greater clarity and 

more warning time. So, if you will recall, after the Chilean earthquake we had several hours in which to prepare in Hawaii and 

other American protectorates, and we got the word out to Japan 

and other countries. So I would say in many respects that the recent event indicates that our preparedness has improved substantially. If I can mention just one last thing, Congresswoman, but the 

truth is what we have to be prepared is to respond. We have had 

our horrible rains in the Philippines this year, terrible cyclones, 

other situations in Guam, in American Samoa and elsewhere. 

Ms. WATSON. In California, my State. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right, but in the Pacific, by far and away, 

despite all the discussion about rising powers, it has been the 

United States by more than any other country that has been able 

to provide humanitarian assistance, to get our forces there on the 

scene rapidly and to provide necessary steps toward recovery. We 

are very proud of that. I think that record over the last 6 to 8 

months in this respect is quite substantial. We intend to keep those 

efforts up as we move forward. 

Ms. WATSON. I know that on one of the Hawaiian Islands they 

did have a system, and at the time of the tsunami hitting within 

that region of Aceh the system had not been completed around to 

that side of the delta, so you are informing us now that they have 

completed it. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don’t know about every aspect of it, but almost 

all the critical components, these are sensors on the bottom of the 

Pacific that are able to detect shifts in pressure, that they are now 

in place. So they were able to track very clearly what was the tidal 

aftermath of the seismic event on the shore of Chile. Yes. 

Ms. WATSON. I hear that in the Hawaiian Islands they hardly 

had a wave. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yeah. Well, you know, the truth is that there 

were a lot of questions about whether in Hawaii the emergency authorities overreacted and that put people on higher ground and in 

various, you know, safe areas. You know, I think that kind of question is just wrong. Clearly, it is much better, you know, to take 

steps that potentially prepares for the worst. If it doesn’t occur, it 

is a few hours of inconvenience. So I was very proud of the steps 

38

that both the government of Hawaii and other parts of the Pacific 

as well and our commanders, our Pacific commanders took important steps to ensure that we were well-prepared. 

Ms. WATSON. Well, the tragedy there on Aceh was the fact that 

the waves come in and then they recede. Children and fishermen 

ran to pick up the fish that were there, and then here comes the 

water 500 miles an hour. I think many people saw the pictures of 

boats up against the hillside. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Horrific. Yeah. 

Ms. WATSON. Thirty to 40 feet high. Hotels, you know, just flooded that had five and six floors. So it is better to be over prepared 

and get to higher land than to allow——

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yeah. I agree. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. WATSON [continuing]. Nature to take over. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. We are also joined by another distinguished 

member of the committee, my good friend, the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Secretary, just a couple questions on a couple little areas here. I 

notice in your overview that you have stated that restrictions on 

the Export-Import Bank, I guess it is, U.S. Export-Import Bank financing of U.S. companies, the prohibition on them from doing 

business in Laos and Cambodia have been lifted. I know Cambodia. 

Cambodia does have now opposition parties. There has been some 

freedom of speech, even though it is still in the grip of a tough guy 

who is less than democratic. But Laos? Are there any opposition 

parties permitted in Laos? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me say that, as you know well, Congressman, 

we have very real challenges of governance in many parts of Southeast Asia. We believe that it is in American interest given the nature of some of the strategic challenges, economic challenges that 

we face in the Asian Pacific region that we need to step our engagement in Southeast Asia, and to do it carefully and not to in 

any way send a message that the United States does not care 

about the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, maybe you can tell us the progress that 

you have seen in Laos. You say you have taken the step now to 

eliminate the prohibition from the U.S. Export-Import Bank in financing business investments in Laos. What are the steps that you 

can point to? Do they have freedom of religion there? Do they have 

freedom of the press? Can you tell us now that they have ceased 

their persecution of the Hmong people? Are any of those things you 

can point to? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would try to answer that question this way, 

Congressman. I do believe that one of the missions of American engagement on the business side, that when the United States is involved responsibly in terms of our business activities in Southeast 

Asia, that our values go with it. So I do believe that there is a desire in Laos, a careful one, to have a better relationship with the 

United States. I also agree with you completely that they are at the 

very earliest stages of any kind of progress in some of the issues 

that you and I care about. 

The truth is it has only been a couple of years, only a few years 

ago that Laos had almost no interest in the outside world. To the 

39

extent that they had outside external engagement, it was primarily 

with China. So they have said, look, they want to develop a careful 

relationship with the United States. The truth is, Congressman, 

this is not like we are opening the flood gates——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, but you haven’t made——

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am sorry. Let me just get it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. This is just meant to be a very careful initial step 

to see if we can begin some progress. I share many of your concerns 

about the domestic situation inside the country, but at the same 

time, I feel very strongly that the United States needs to step up 

its game in Southeast Asia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, my suggestion to you is that 

if indeed we move forward and take a step, like ending this prohibition on Export-Import Bank financing, and we don’t expect something specific to see, you know, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, opposition parties, well then, we have sent exactly the 

wrong message to dictatorships. If the only thing they have to do 

is treat the American ambassador better and have little teas and 

things for us, that is not the right message. It is how they treat 

their people, not how they curtsy up and kiss American diplomats 

on the cheek. Let us go to China. We have had a one-way free 

trade relationship with China for a number of years. 

Most of us would think that that has been unacceptable and it has resulted in $1 trillion of wealth being transferred from our 

country to their country. Your administration is not responsible for 

this. You are responsible for what happens now. The Clinton and 

Bush administrations before you are responsible for maintaining 

that policy, especially the Clinton administration, which made most 

favored nation status with China a permanent situation. We also 

now see that they have stolen, they continue to steal our technology, there have been massive transfers of technology, making 

them more competitive, even with our businesses that have stayed 

here, and we now see a major build up of their military. Still, they 

have no free press, no opposition parties, people are still being arrested for their religious convictions, et cetera, in China. What does 

the administration, what specific things, are we demanding of the 

Chinese for us not to start trying to call into question this one-way 

free trade that we permitted? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first of all, let 

me just say that I think the President, our Secretary and others 

have been very clear that for the United States to have an effective 

relationship in the Asian Pacific region, particularly with China, 

there needs to be rebalancing, and that we cannot return to a situation where Asians provide relatively cheap credit to the United 

States and that we buy inexpensive goods from Asia, that we can’t 

return to that status quo antebellum, and that the United States 

must save more in this process, and we must be able to export 

more to China going forward. 

Now, there are a whole host of discussions that are ongoing on 

issues associated with trade and currency which are really not part 

of my purview, but I will say there is a deep understanding that 

the current situation is in imbalance and that there will need to 

be, as the President indicated, some rebalancing going forward. We 

40

have stated clearly that we believe that, you know, the relationship 

with China is important. We are trying to work with China on a 

range of issues, including on climate change, on Iran, on North 

Korea and the like, but at the same time, we are trying to send 

a very clear message that we will stand by our issues that are in 

American strategic interest and our core values. 

So you will have noted a few weeks ago that we made one of the 

largest sales, as demanded by the Taiwan Relations Act, to Taiwan, 

we have also had an important meeting, a spiritual meeting, with 

the Dalai Lama, and we will continue to take steps, as Secretary 

Clinton did, to speak out on issues, like internet freedom. I think 

we recognize that this is a relationship that is going to have elements where we probably are going to be able to work together, 

hopefully effectively, but there is going to be areas that we are 

going to continue to have substantial disagreement as we go forward. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is our country still accepting the designation 

of the Uighurs as being terrorists? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think there was a specific organization during 

the Bush administration—I believe it was in 2002 or 2003—that 

was deemed on a particular list, Congressman. I do not know the 

status of that now, and I will get back to you on that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE KURT M. CAMPBELL TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

The United States designates certain organizations and individuals for inclusion 

on terrorism lists based on credible information, but the United States does not designate entire ethnic groups as terrorists. Uighurs are an ethnic minority group who 

principally live in western China and Central Asia. 

A small minority of Uighurs have been associated with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM, a.k.a. Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party, ETIP), which the 

United States, after careful review of information, designated for placement on the 

Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL) in 2002. A TEL designation bolsters homeland security efforts by facilitating the U.S. Government’s ability to exclude aliens associated 

with entities on the TEL from entering the United States. In addition to the TEL 

designation, in 2002, the United States designated ETIM under Executive Order 

13224. The consequences of that E.O. designation are that all ETIM-related property and transactions under U.S. jurisdiction are frozen and all U.S. persons engaging with or for the benefit of ETIM are subject to civil and/or criminal liability. Also 

in 2002, ETIM was added to the UN Security Council Al-Qa’ida and Taliban Sanctions Committee’s Consolidated List of individuals and entities associated with alQa’ida or the Taliban. In April 2009, the Sanctions Committee added ETIP leader 

Abdul Haq to the Consolidated List, and in August, the United States designated 

Haq under E.O. 13224 for support to al Qa’ida.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last question, Mr. Chairman, and that is 

the Falun Gong are clearly the object of repression in China. We 

have documented many stories of people being picked up, and 

whatever it is, that the communist Chinese Government there, or 

just say the Chinese dictatorship, however you want to label it, has 

focused in on the Falun Gong. Christians don’t have freedom of religion, Muslims don’t, the Tibetans don’t, the Uighurs don’t, but the 

Falun Gong, they definitely don’t have rights there and they are 

being picked up. What have we done? For example, have we investigated the charge that the Falun Gong has made that some of 

their people have been arrested and that there have been human 

body parts sold from the prisons in which their people were incarcerated? 

41

Mr. CAMPBELL. Congressman, I actually don’t know about that 

issue. I would put that also to the list, and I promise I will get back 

to you directly. I know we have raised issues of human rights with 

Chinese authorities, and on this particular issue I am just not 

aware of the information. I will get back to you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE KURT M. CAMPBELL TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

In the 2009 China Country Report on Human Rights Practices we reported that 

the Chinese police continue to detain current and former Falun Gong practitioners. 

Falun Gong members identified by the government as ‘‘core leaders’’ have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment, and there are reported cases of killings, 

disappearances, and arbitrary arrests of Falun Gong practitioners and their lawyers. Further, Falun Gong members continue to face tight restrictions on their freedom to assemble, practice religion, and travel. 

With regard to organ harvesting, as the China Country Report also details, in 

2007 a Chinese official acknowledged that the Chinese government harvested organs from executed prisoners. Since then, new regulations came into effect in China 

that include a ban on the trade of human organs and on live organ transplants from 

persons under the age of 18. The regulations also stipulate that the donation of 

human organs for transplant should be free and voluntary. The new regulations, 

however, make no specific reference to the extraction of organs from death penalty 

prisoners and we have no data about how effectively they are enforced. Although 

we are aware of Falun Gong allegations regarding organ harvesting atrocities, we 

are presently not aware of credible evidence that Falun Gong prisoners are targeted 

for organ harvesting. 

Promoting greater respect for human rights, including religious freedom, is among 

our key foreign policy objectives in China. We continue to urge the Chinese government to be more accountable to its citizens and treat its people in accordance with 

its constitution and international obligations, as well as universal human rights 

standards.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You have been here first year, you know, we 

have got the first year under your belt. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. 7 months for me. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 7 months for you. We are looking forward to 

working with you. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that this administration takes 

advantage of the opportunities we have to come to grips with some 

of the challenges in these relationships that I have outlined in my 

questions. So thank you very much. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank the gentleman from California. I do 

have a couple of questions, Mr. Secretary. Please be patient. I believe it was last year that our Government conducted the Pacific 

Partnership Program, which I think consisted of a mercy hospital 

vessel that went all over the Pacific with scores of doctors and 

trainers visiting about six or seven different island countries and 

giving vaccinations and medical treatment. 

I would like to suggest that the administration continue the program. My concern—which I have mentioned to some of our friends 

in the administration—is whether we will have to wait another 40 

years for something like this to happen. It is a positive program, 

it has never been done before, and I would strongly, strongly urge 

the administration to continue the program. I think it goes a long 

way to help the island nations. 

42

Following what Congressman Royce stated earlier about the free 

trade agreement with South Korea, we have all known that one of 

the problems mentioned as an issue was auto parts. That was 

mainly raised by our friends from the Michigan delegation. The 

thing that I see as a positive feature of the free trade agreement 

with South Korea is that you are talking about potential exports 

from our country of between $11 billion and $20 billion, which 

means more jobs, exports going to this country. We don’t have to 

worry about labor issues and we don’t have to worry about health 

hazards. I was just wondering, what is the administration’s position? Are we serious about continuing the dialogue or negotiation 

with the South Korean Government to pass the free trade agreement between South Korea and the United States? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think you 

know that the Pacific Partnership Program was extraordinarily 

successful. It is one of several initiatives that we have tried in the 

Pacific in recent years that, frankly, have exceeded really our most 

optimistic expectations in terms of success. Let me give you another one. We have an ocean rider program whereby, you know, 

many of the Pacific Island nations have vast territorial seas in 

which there are sometimes illegal fishing and other acts that are 

done in these areas that are antithetical to their interests but they 

can’t patrol, they can’t protect their natural resources. 

When a national from their military or coast guard or other rides 

on an American ship, we are then able, with their authority, to actually stop and to sometimes take action against those that are violating fishing rights and the like. With the fines and others that 

have come from this program it has been terrifically successful for 

a number of states in the South Pacific, and your staff has been 

instrumental in helping this program. We look to continue it going 

forward. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might also mention, Mr. Secretary, that 

there is the latest development now among certain Pacific Island 

nations, about five or six including the Solomons, FSM, the Marshalls, Papua New Guinea, wanting to establish some kind of a cartel similar to OPEC, but controlling the sale and the catch of tuna. 

You are talking about a $4-billion industry that doesn’t go to the 

benefit of these island nations. There is now organized what is 

called a Nauru Agreement. A summit was held about 2 weeks ago 

in Palau by these island nations to establish an OPEC-like organization so they can get more of the benefits. 

The problem here is that most of the fishing is done by foreign 

countries or foreign companies. The island nations get a pittance 

as a result. Of course, my own little territory is impacted by the 

fact that we at one time processed tuna there for the largest processor in the world. No longer. Thailand is now doing this. Definitely I want to work with your office concerning the Oceans Program, see how we can help the island nations to develop this. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I agree with that, Chairman. I would just say 

that I think our goals in this respect our twofold. Not only do we 

want to see more of the profits go to the Islanders, but at the same 

time, I think we have to recognize this is one of the last stocks of 

healthy tuna in the world and that we have a really critical responsibility to make sure that this fishing resource is treated in a way 

43

that allows for the best ability to sustain this critical natural resource going forward. If I can, just on the, I do believe, as I indicated, the meetings between President Myung-bak and President 

Obama left me quite optimistic. I think the President stated very 

clearly of his desire to have necessary discussions going forward. 

They didn’t put a particular timetable at that juncture, but I believe that the United States Government and the Korean Government will take the appropriate steps in the near future. I am still 

quite confident that we will get this agreement done. I know how 

important it is to Korea, but I also think increasingly it is very important to the United States. I accept very clearly some of the 

statements that you and others have made about the potential benefits that will come to the United States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. On the Korean issue, and especially on the 

situation with North Korea, I make an observation. I know that 

our policy is to try to tell North Korea to cut its nuclear program. 

But how do you denuclearize a country that already has nuclear 

bombs? Are we consistent in terms of our policy in putting pressure 

on North Korea? Did we do it against Pakistan? Did we do it 

against India? I don’t think so. What I wanted to find out from you 

is if we think that North Korea is so unstable that we have to 

denuclearize the country when they already have about eight or 

nine nuclear bombs? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, there are examples 

in global politics of countries that have willingly given up nuclear 

weapons because they believe that they find themselves in a better 

circumstance strategically after that. I would put in that category, 

although Libya never made it to the final step, but Libya abandoned its nuclear programs, South Africa did, the Ukraine did, 

other countries, as former parts of the Soviet Union that had major 

sort of components associated with the Soviet nuclear arsenal, and 

so I first of all think that it is entirely appropriate for the international community and the United States to call for 

denuclearization in North Korea, not simply because we have concerns about North Korea, and those are very real. 

We have seen them proliferate a vast amount of equipment and 

capabilities that are antithetical to global maintenance of peace 

and stability. We have concerns about many of the actions that 

they have taken, and we have concerns about the very nature of 

their government. Also, I think an acknowledged nuclear state in 

Northeast Asia would pose very significant challenges to the maintenance of the kind of relationships we want with both Japan and 

South Korea. So, no, I am completely comfortable and I think that 

the approach that we have taken is the appropriate one. We have 

made very clear that if North Korea wants to join the family of nations, if they want to work with us on economic growth, on greater 

integration in the booming economies of Northeast Asia, then they 

must take several steps. One of them is denuclearization. We also 

want to see progress on specific economic, and also human rights 

issues. We think that is the appropriate approach. I must tell you, 

Congressman, on this issue we have rock solid support from the 

South Koreans, Japanese and others as we go forward. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am a little puzzled to the extent that probably I am one of the few members who has ever been to the MarVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:37 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\APGE\030310\55272 HFA PsN: SHIRL
44

shall Islands where we bombed that island archipelago to bits and 

pieces. We detonated 67 nuclear bombs on the Marshall Islands including the first hydrogen bomb. To this day, we still have not provided justice to these people. I really would like to work with you 

in making sure that we give better treatment to the people in the 

Marshall Islands. We still have not done them justice. I also visited 

the island of Mururoa where the French Government detonated almost 200 nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, on the surface and 

below it. Just really, really one of those episodes. 

I think it was 2 years ago when I was invited by the President 

of Kazakhstan to visit Semipalatinsk where the Soviet Union exploded its first atom bomb in 1949. And guess what? That place is 

still radioactive since the Soviets detonated 450 nuclear devices 

there, including the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever exploded. 

That was not in Kazakhstan, but some 1.5 million Kazaks ended 

up exposed to the horrors of nuclear radiation, similar to what happened to the Japanese when we dropped the bombs in Nagasaki 

and Hiroshima. So I have this sense of contradiction that I wanted 

to share with you. On the one hand we are telling these countries 

not to develop nuclear weapons, but the five permanent members 

of the Security Council continue to have their own nuclear weapons. 

My question: Is it right for these five permanent members of the 

Security Council to tell the rest of the world not to have nuclear 

bombs, but it is okay for the five to have them? That is where I 

am a little puzzled myself. I can understand deterrence; I can understand making sure that we are always prepared and dealing 

from a position of strength. But with Iran, why are they motivated 

to develop an atomic bomb? Because Israel has one, even though 

Israel will never admit or deny it. Then the Arabs want to have 

a bomb, too. So it goes on and on. Where will it stop, or when will 

it stop? Of course, then al-Qaeda and the terrorists will stop at 

nothing and will try to get a bomb that can be taken in a suitcase 

or a dirty bomb that is just as bad, if not worse. So I just want 

you to walk me through how it is possible for some countries to 

continue to have nuclear weapons but the rest of the world cannot. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me try, if I can, Congressman, just to make 

three points. We have gone a little further afield in terms of our 

specific patch here, but let me try to——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, North Korea. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, no. Let me try to specifically suggest. I think 

one of the things that President Obama has underscored, and he 

has been very much influenced by some elder statesmen, many of 

whom served during the Cold War and others, and he believes, as 

do many others, that it is absolutely critical on the part of the 

United States, and indeed other leading nations, to reduce the significance of nuclear weapons in our global strategy. I think you will 

see at the upcoming nuclear summit and through a variety of other 

programs and policies of the United States that we are attempting 

to do that. We are trying to diminish the role of nuclear weapons 

in our global strategy. 

At the same time, we recognize that these weapons have been invented, they exist. The most important deal, if you will, the arrangement that is underscored in the Nonproliferation Treaty, is 

45

that at the same time that the established nuclear weapons must 

reduce their arsenals in order to ensure that other states do not try 

to build them. We have seen one part of the arrangement essentially fulfilled, but, as you underscore, the arsenals over the Cold 

War of the United States and the Soviet Union went up. You are 

going to see some specific steps, hopefully, after an agreement with 

Moscow that the United States and Russia will reduce its nuclear 

arsenals, so I actually think that that is a very important step as 

part of fulfilling this essential bargain. We think strengthening of 

the Nonproliferation Treaty is an essential component to global security. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Especially with 90 percent of the nuclear 

weapons now in existence in the possession of the Russians and us. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I accept that. I think we have to reduce those. 

We also recognize the very real worries about a nuclear weapon 

that would end up in the hands of a terrorist. Now, on the specific 

issues of the legacy issues in the Pacific, I must say I agree with 

you. I think the United States has some unique responsibilities associated with dealing with some of the horrific challenges, but also, 

the enduring commitments to the Pacific region. When we have 

met before I underscored to you I think when people say Asia Pacific they focus more on the former than on the latter, and I think, 

you know, see how we do, but I will say, you know, I have been 

in here 7 months, we have got a new, you know, AID office in the 

Asia Pacific, we are going to try to work on the compacts, we are 

going to try to make sure we have high-level visits, we need to 

work with these countries and these places on climate change and 

on continuing issues of health and HIV. Those are continuing challenges of the United States, and we cannot shirk these responsibilities. I would add to them the challenges of the Marshall, and Bikini and the like. So I hope that I will be a good partner for you 

in this endeavor, Congressman, and I share your sense of concern 

about these historical matters. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Secretary, I know you have been very 

patient, and I deeply appreciate your patience and all the questions 

that have been raised. I deeply appreciate your presence, and I 

wish you all the best on your upcoming trip. Please, let us do this 

again. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will come back and let you know how things go. 

Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

48


55272n.eps
49

Æ


55272m.eps