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

88–016PDF 2014

RESOURCING THE PIVOT TO ASIA: EAST ASIA

AND PACIFIC FY 2015 BUDGET PRIORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 20, 2014

Serial No. 113–154

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

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 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

(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 ................................................... 6

Ms. Denise Rollins, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, U.S. 

Agency for International Development .............................................................. 15

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Daniel R. Russel: Prepared statement ......................................... 8

Ms. Denise Rollins: Prepared statement ............................................................... 17

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 40

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 41

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 42

Written responses from the Honorable Daniel R. Russel to questions submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ............................................................................................ 44

The Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere ...... 45

The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 47

(1)

RESOURCING THE PIVOT TO ASIA: EAST ASIA 

AND PACIFIC FY 2015 BUDGET PRIORITIES 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order. This is the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am Steve Chabot, the chairman. I want 

to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for serving as 

today’s ranking member and I also thank our distinguished witnesses, Assistant Secretary Daniel Russel and Acting Assistant Administrator Denise Rollins, for being here this afternoon. 

This hearing was called to assess the Fiscal Year 2015 State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development budget 

request for the East Asia and Pacific region. This region is receiving the single largest proposed spending increase—at 9.4 percent—

compared to any other regional or functional bureau. Consequently, 

it is critical that we examine the administration’s priorities in the 

Asia-Pacific and hear how this foreign aid budget will achieve the 

administration’s key regional goals. Of particular interest are those 

nations receiving a significant increase in foreign assistance—notably Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines—and those countries 

where human rights abuses are thriving and political turmoil is 

surging—Cambodia, Thailand and, again, Burma, to name a few. 

The United States has always recognized the Asia-Pacific region’s political, economic, and security significance. Our long-term 

presence there is built on promoting stability, fostering respect for 

international law, advancing respect for human rights, and maintaining freedom of navigation and unhindered lawful commerce in 

the maritime regions. These objectives are fundamentally hinged 

on the United States’ alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, 

Thailand, and the Philippines; our resilient relationships with Taiwan and Singapore; and our evolving relationships with Vietnam 

and Indonesia. 

At the advent of the administration’s foreign policy rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region was the recognition that this part of 

the world is the future centerpiece of global commerce and security 

strategy. Many here in Congress supported this effort, and our alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\052014\88016 SHIRL
2

lies and partners in the region championed it. However, as we have 

seen over the past year, in particular, America’s presence in the region is being challenged and growing tensions are threatening to 

undermine the administration’s ability to achieve its strategic 

goals. 

Other than the more enduring challenges in Asia such as nuclear 

proliferation, human trafficking, terrorism, widespread corruption, 

extreme poverty, and natural disasters, we are now faced with progressively more complex security threats rattling the region’s stability. North Korea’s crimes against humanity and nuclear ambitions continue unabated. A political crisis has pushed our ally, 

Thailand, to the brink of disaster. Reports indicate Burma shows 

signs of genocide against the Rohingya Muslim population. And a 

promulgation of clashes between China and its neighbors over sovereignty claims in the East and South China Seas have turned the 

maritime thoroughfares into dangerous hot zones of conflict. 

Mr. Russel, the last time we saw you we were discussing this 

last issue, and I can tell you from conversations since then that 

many folks in the region welcomed the more steadfast assurance 

that America will stay engaged. However, I do not think these maritime disputes will go away, nor do I feel China will stop challenging America’s role there. So maintaining a high level of engagement and directing American resources toward the region to manage these tensions will not get any easier, in my opinion, especially 

with other crises around the world rearing their ugly heads. The 

foreign assistance budget we discuss today needs to support a coherent and cohesive strategic plan for the region. At the same time, 

our strategy itself needs to be judicious and discerning—we should 

not be funding projects just because we can. 

In Fiscal Year 2015, the administration is seeking an additional $69.6 million for the Asia-Pacific region. The total requested budget 

of $810.7 million will be directed toward pursuing five objectives, 

which I hope you will elaborate on this afternoon. 

More specifically, the administration is proposing providing 

Burma with an additional $26.6 million. The total, $88.5 million, 

is a 90-percent increase in aid compared to Fiscal Year 2012 assistance levels for Burma. This committee has long taken an active interest in Burma and, as I have noted previously, we welcome the 

tremendous progress seen in that country over the past 3 years—

U.S. involvement has been key. But today that progress has 

plateaued and is deteriorating in some areas. 

I am concerned about the $250,000 in IMET assistance the administration plans to utilize to engage with the Burmese military. 

This military has not yet severed its ties with North Korea, has not 

halted its fighting in the ethnic areas, is complicit in abuses 

against the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities, and is preventing needed constitutional reforms. And despite these concerns, 

the administration has still not detailed a strategy for future engagement with the Burmese military, which is unacceptable. Allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to run in the 2015 election used to be a key 

benchmark, but now the fact that Burma can’t manage chairing 

ASEAN and continue making reforms is enough for the administration to let this benchmark slide and be pushed down the road a few 

more years. Overall, I am disappointed by the administration’s enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\052014\88016 SHIRL
3

gagement approach with Burma, and I hope that our witnesses will 

touch on those areas of concern today. 

I am also troubled by the political impasse in Cambodia and the 

fact we are seeing very little return for the amount of aid provided 

there. The administration has been largely silent since last summer’s election in Cambodia, and should be more vocal about pushing for an independent, internationally assisted investigation into 

the conduct of those elections. I also continue to be concerned about 

Hun Sen’s brutal crackdown on protests and rampant land grabbing. In fact, over 2,000 families have been affected by ‘‘a renewed 

wave of violent land grabbing’’ since the beginning of this year. It 

is evident that our democracy programming in that country has not 

made sufficient progress, so I would like to know how those programs are being reassessed. 

I also hope today’s witnesses will touch on how the administration plans to deepen relations between our allies in East Asia and 

the signing of a new 10-year defense cooperation agreement with 

the Philippines. While I have other areas of concern, I will touch 

on those issues in my questions so we have time to recognize other 

members. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses this 

afternoon and I now yield to Mr. Bera, the acting ranking member 

of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, and thank you for calling this hearing. Obviously, this is timely on the heels of the President’s recent trip to Asia and outlining what our priorities are as 

well as the administration’s priorities going into 2015. 

One area that I remain very deeply concerned about is China’s 

unilateral and nationalistic-fueled decrees. Particularly, we are 

watching what is happening in the South China Sea where China 

had expanded into territorially disputed waters with Vietnam and 

within the last month we have watched these maritime tensions increase, particularly with China’s establishment of a state-owned oil 

rig in waters claimed, again, by both China and Vietnam. 

The oil rig site also is being protected right now by a Chinese flotilla so I will be curious as to the administration’s thoughts there, 

and there have been reports recently of Chinese vessels ramming 

into Vietnamese ships and water-shooting exchanges. 

In addition, China has to be held to norms—international norms 

where they are coming and territorial disputes are being negotiated 

through international means, not through aggressive unilateral actions as the ones we are seeing in the South China Sea. 

These actions are sparking anti-China protests in Vietnam where 

factories thought to be associated with China were burned, causing 

injuries and even death. And again, this is a time for us as the 

United States to stand with our allies, and as China enters the 

modern world it has to negotiate in more acceptable ways. 

And, again, I am very interested in hearing the witnesses’ 

thoughts on how we might work with our allies to do that. In addition, you know, we are watching this expansion into the Yellow 

Sea—into the East China Sea with unilateral expansions of the 

ADIZs. 

Particularly of concern with some of our close allies—Japan, Taiwan, and Korea—with these unilateral expansions again, you 

4

know, I am curious about the administration’s priorities with regards to partnering with our allies there and sending a strong message that these unilateral expansions are not the way to go about 

territorial disputes but rather through more negotiated forms. 

As the chairman mentioned, I am also very pleased with the 10-

year defense agreement that was signed this past April with our 

close ally and friend, the Philippines. Enhancing security cooperation is a clear sign to our allies that the United States remains 

committed to our friends in the face of these external threats. 

I also want to congratulate USAID on its invaluable role, closely 

coordinating with the Philippines Government in response to typhoon Haiyan. This was a great success story that demonstrates 

that investing in aid programs has dramatic and lifesaving results 

in post-disaster environments. 

And as mentioned previously, I look forward to the testimony of 

the witnesses. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman 

Chabot as we solidify and strengthen our role with our allies in 

this pivot to Asia. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much for your opening statement. 

We will now yield 1 minute to other members who would like to 

make an opening statement. I will yield to Dana Rohrabacher of 

California, who is the chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and 

Emerging Threats Subcommittee. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Needless to say, this is a vital subject. If we are going to live at peace 

and prosperity in the United States we cannot lose focus of what 

is going on in China and in the Pacific. 

The Chinese ocean and territorial claims just being claims should 

have been a tip-off that there was problems ahead. Well, now we 

see China beginning to reinforce those claims and which is leading 

to confrontations with Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, even Vietnam, and let us note that China also has land claims—huge land 

claims against India. 

This does not spell very good tidings—does not work out a very 

good tiding for the United States and the rest of the world who 

would like to live in peace and prosperity and stability not only in 

that part of the world but the entire planet. 

China and radical Islam now represent the major threat to 

peace, stability and prosperity for the entire world and, unfortunately, in this effort we have seen China arming the mullahs in 

Iran. We have sent them give—provide nuclear weapons technology 

to North Korea and Pakistan. 

These things suggest that the pivot to the Pacific should have 

happened a long time ago and the worst news of all is we may 

have, with a very not well thought out policy toward Ukraine, driven Russia into the arms of a dictatorial still-Communist China, 

which would be a catastrophe for the rest of the world in trying to 

obtain the peace and stability that we seek. 

Thank you very much. I am looking forward to hearing the witnesses. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, and the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard, is now recognized for the purpose of making an 

opening statement. 

5

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to 

both of you here today. 

I had the chance just a few weeks ago to go on a congressional 

delegation led by the majority leader, Eric Cantor, to Japan, South 

Korea and China and it just so happened that we went on the eve 

of President Obama’s visit and just want to highlight some of—I 

think one important takeaway that I got from that trip but from 

what I have seen, representing Hawaii and understanding a little 

bit about the Asia-Pacific region as a whole, is the importance of 

relationships and how nuanced our relationship is with each of 

these countries, both our allies and those who are emerging in 

many ways and how we have been able to avoid conflict for quite 

some time because of the investment in relationships and really 

proactive constructive engagement. 

So I look forward to hearing from you as you talk about how 

some of the foreign aid dollars that we are investing in the region 

and the people in the region can seek to strengthen both the security ties that we have but also how this best sets us up for stability, peace and really exploring the potential of economic opportunity in the region. 

And in order to do that, we have to understand the basics of 

these nuanced relationships that require a lot of sensitivity. So 

thanks so much for being here today. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I will now introduce the panel we have this afternoon. Not a 

stranger to this committee, Daniel Russel is the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and is a career 

member of the Senior Foreign Service. Prior to his appointment as 

Assistant Secretary, Mr. Russel served at the White House as Special Assistant to the President and National Security Staff. During 

his tenure there, he helped formulate President Obama’s strategic 

rebalance to Asia. Before joining the National Security Staff, he 

served as Director of the Office of Japanese Affairs and had other 

various assignments in Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and 

Cyprus. He has also served as Chief of Staff to Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and Assistant to the Ambassador to Japan, former 

Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Mr. Russel was awarded 

the State Department’s Una Chapman Cox Fellowship sabbatical 

and authored the book, ‘‘America’s Place in the World.’’ Before joining the Foreign Service, he was manager for an international firm 

in New York City. Mr. Russel was educated at Sarah Lawrence 

College and University College, University of London, U.K. We welcome you here this afternoon. 

We also have Denise Rollins, who has been a member of the U.S. 

Senior Foreign Service and has more than 25 years of international 

experience. She has served as USAID’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Asia since September 2013. Prior to that, 

Ms. Rollins was Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, where she 

was responsible for overseeing USAID’s Asia portfolio. Prior to her 

appointment to the Asia Bureau, she was USAID’s Mission Director in Bangladesh. She has additionally served as USAID’s Deputy 

Mission Director in South Africa, where she oversaw development 

programs addressing health, education, local government, and private sector development. Before joining USAID, Ms. Rollins served 

6

as the Senior Program Officer at the African-American Institute 

and a legislative assistant for two Members of Congress. She is a 

native of Detroit, Michigan and we welcome you here, as well. 

I won’t explain the 5-minute rules. I am sure you are familiar 

with our lighting system. You all get 5 minutes and we get 5 minutes up here. So without further ado, Mr. Russel, you have the 

floor for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to 

the members of the subcommittee and thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the President’s 2005 budget request 

for East Asia and the Pacific. 

I appreciate very much your leadership and your strong support. 

I appreciate also the chance to testify alongside of my colleague, 

Denise Rollins, the USAID Acting Assistant Administrator. 

Our strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region is built on a simple 

premise. As a resident Pacific power and a trading nation, the 

Asia-Pacific is hugely consequential to the United States, to our security and to our economy and that importance will only grow. 

The rebalance strategy begun by President Obama in 2009 focuses on strengthening our alliances, building up the regional architecture and engaging emerging powers. We have coordinated 

and strengthened our ability to take joint action with our treaty allies in the region—Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Philippines—all of which President Obama recently visited just last 

month, as well as with Australia and Thailand. 

Second, we are helping to build an architecture of regional institutions and agreements. We were the first nonmember to dedicate 

a permanent mission to ASEAN and President Obama participates 

annually in the East Asia Summit in U.S. ASEAN meetings and 

in AIPAC leaders meetings. 

We have upgraded our economic engagement, focusing on the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, which is an ambitious high-standard agreement that will create jobs and growth in the U.S. and in 

all member countries. 

Together, those elements form a regional architecture of shared 

rules of the road that foster mutual understanding and help countries to resolve all types of disputes peacefully. 

Third, we are engaging with emerging powers. We have regular 

high-level discussions with Indonesia, India and, of course, China 

on a wide range of bilateral and global issues. We have also deepened our engagement with existing and new partners like Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia and Vietnam and we work with our 

partners both to form closer bilateral relationships but also to bring 

them closer to one another. 

For instance, through the Lower Mekong Initiative, LMI, we are 

helping Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam jointly to 

manage a watershed that is crucial to the prosperity, health and 

food security of all their citizens. From the environmental goals of 

LMI to people-to-people engagement such as President Obama’s 

7

Young Southeast Asia Leaders Initiative, our diplomacy and development work advances America’s values. 

Allow me to highlight a few specific examples of how the President’s 2015 budget supports our broader policy priorities. The Fiscal Year 2015 request for the EAP bureau is $1.2 billion including 

foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement funds, all together 

up 5 percent from fiscal 2013. These additional resources will help 

us achieve our security goals, strengthen our economy at home and 

advance American values. 

For instance, we are requesting $12.5 million of an increase for 

international military education and training, a 47-percent increase 

over 2013 spread throughout the region. This program builds our 

influence with the next generation of military leaders. 

We are also requesting additional funds to build the maritime capacity of our allies and partners, for instance, by increasing foreign 

military financing to the Philippines by 57 percent to $40 million. 

And as you noted, the request provides over $88 million, Mr. 

Chairman, a 43-percent increase to support Burma’s democratic 

transition by strengthening institutions and addressing development challenges, and it supports disaster relief and recovery in the 

Philippines. To aid the ongoing rebuilding after super typhoon 

Haiyan, we are requesting an additional $20 million in mid to longterm development assistance. These are just a few of the ways our 

budget supports our interest in the region. 

Before I close, two quick points please. First, I would like to take 

a moment during Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage 

Month to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of those millions 

of Americans. 

Second, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, this hearing comes during 

a time of significant events in Asia. In the last few weeks, China’s 

unilateral placement of an oil rig in disputed waters and the subsequent violence in Vietnam have stoked tensions between these 

neighbors. 

Yesterday the Department of Justice indicted members of China’s—of the Chinese military for cyber-enabled economic espionage 

and theft, and overnight the Thai military declared martial law. 

So there is much to discuss. After my colleague has made her 

statement, I will be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]

8


88016a-1.eps
9


88016a-2.eps
10


88016a-3.eps
11


88016a-4.eps
12


88016a-5.eps
13


88016a-6.eps
14


88016a-7.eps
15

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. 

Ms. Rollins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DENISE ROLLINS, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. ROLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. It is great for me to be here today with 

my colleague, Assistant Secretary Russel. 

With your permission I would like to submit my written statement for the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. ROLLINS. Thank you. In recent decades, the East Asia-Pacific 

region has experienced an unprecedented period of prosperity that 

has lifted 845 million people out of extreme poverty and transformed the region into a key driver of global politics and economics. 

Home to some of our closest allies and strongest trade partners 

and one-third of the world’s population, the region still faces complex development challenges that threaten to derail committed 

progress—continued progress. Our robust Fiscal Year 2015 request of $810 million enables 

USAID to continue laying the foundations for lasting progress in 

a part of the world vastly interconnected with ours. 

Across the East Asia-Pacific, USAID has eight field missions that 

provide support to 22 countries. Through the promotion of inclusive 

economic, political and societal progress that creates pathways out 

of poverty with the world’s most vulnerable people, USAID’s assistance expands stable free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States and fosters good will abroad. 

Our approach is fou fold. 

First, we are advancing regional cooperation to address cross border challenges in the areas of trade and investment, agriculture 

and food security, environment and water and health. For example, 

we are supporting the ASEAN in achieving economic integration by 

2015, which will expand opportunities for American businesses 

with our fourth largest export market. 

Second, we are addressing regional development challenges 

through the three Presidential initiatives—global health, Feed the 

Future and climate change. An example is in Indonesia, which has 

one of the highest tuberculosis rates in the world. We have helped 

introduce a new technology that diagnoses drug-resistant strains in 

hours as opposed to weeks which is enabling more people to start 

treatment sooner, critical to preventing transmission and saving 

lives. 

Third, we are leveraging science, technology, innovation and 

partnerships to achieve greater cost effectiveness and impact. For 

example, in Timor-Leste through a partnership with Conoco Phillips, we have doubled the number of farmers utilizing new horticulture techniques that have boosted incomes by up to 400 percent. 

And fourth, in Burma we are supporting important upcoming 

milestones such as the scheduled 2015 national election that presents opportunities to catalyze the country’s transition to a peaceful democratic society and market-based economy. We are empowVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\052014\88016 SHIRL
16

ering civil society to engage with reform champions within the Government of Burma to deepen reforms and we are urging the Government of Burma to address violence and resolve humanitarian 

crisis in Rakhine State, which plays a key role in the country’s 

transition. 

In the Philippines, an important development, trade and security 

partner, we continue to collaborate through the Partnership for 

Growth to address the country’s most binding growth constraints. 

The Philippines has made great progress, advancing 35 places in 

Transparency International’s corruption perception index. We continue to support peace in six conflict-afflicted areas of Mindanao as 

well as the ongoing recovery in typhoon-affected areas. 

In Indonesia, the third largest democracy, USAID is moving beyond the traditional donor-recipient model to an equal partnership 

that leverages greater resources from Indonesia to address development challenges within and beyond its borders. 

In Vietnam, accelerating the country’s transformation to a market-based economy is a U.S. priority. USAID is helping the Vietnamese Government develop legal and regulatory frameworks that 

meet global standards and trade commitments. We continue to support people living with HIV and AIDS while shifting our program 

to encourage the Government of Vietnam to take on more responsibility. 

And finally, in Cambodia, USAID programs align with U.S. foreign policy to support respect for human rights and more responsive governance. For example, we helped launch an elections hotline that received over 600,000 calls, contributing to an unprecedented level of civic engagement during the run-up to the 2013 

elections. 

Mr. Chairman, stability and progress in East Asia and the Pacific matter far beyond the region. Continued USAID assistance is 

vital in order to sustain gains that contribute to increased security 

and prosperity in a region of the world closely tied to our own future. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to 

your counsel and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rollins follows:]

17


88016b-1.eps
18


88016b-2.eps
19


88016b-3.eps
20


88016b-4.eps
21


88016b-5.eps
22


88016b-6.eps
23


88016b-7.eps
24


88016b-8.eps
25


88016b-9.eps
26

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate both of you being here this afternoon and we will turn to 

our questioning now. I will start with myself. 

I will begin with Burma first. I am troubled by the fact that 

Burma seems to get rewarded by the administration whether or 

not it actually honors or meets its past promises and pledges. It 

now seems certain that Burma’s constitution will not be amended 

before the 2015 elections, which means provisions that allow the 

military leadership to dominate a civilian government—that will 

remain—including the military’s power to appoint 25 percent of the 

parliamentary seats, dismiss the Parliament at will, and in effect, 

choose the President. Moreover, a provision will remain that disqualifies Aung San Suu Kyi from running or serving as President. 

So my question is, how can the 2015 election possibly be a complete 

and accurate expression of the democratic will of the Burmese people? 

Also, the Secretary of State is traveling to Burma for ASEAN-related events this summer and President Obama is going there, I 

believe, in November. Will the administration express disappointment about this situation and how is the administration planning 

to ratchet up the pressure on the Burmese Government to follow 

through on their commitments to reform? 

What they have committed to is great. We think it is wonderful. 

But the follow through, I think, is lacking in many instances. Mr. 

Russel. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an incredibly important question and the United States is firmly and 

deeply committed to helping to ensure the success of the important 

political and economic reforms in Burma. 

As you point out, Secretary Kerry will be traveling there this 

summer. President Obama is expected to go there in November, 

and the need for Burma to follow through across the board on its 

reform commitments, including the issue of building up a credible 

democratic process and democratic institutions, among other 

things, through elections in 2015 that are considered to be fair and 

equitable, is at the top of the list of U.S. foreign policy objectives. 

These are issues that the Secretary and the President do and 

will raise. I myself was in Naypyidaw and had the opportunity to 

raise these and other issues, including the ones you mentioned in 

your opening statement, including the treatment of ethnic minorities, particularly the Muslim Rohingyas in the southwest directly 

with President Thein Sein. 

At the same time, I would note, Mr. Chairman, that Burma and 

the success of Burma’s reform efforts has great geostrategic importance for the United States, given Burma’s situation between two 

important countries, India and China. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Let me move on to my next question—

Cambodia. I think you share the same concerns as many of us on 

the committee do about Cambodia’s situation—the flawed 2013 

election, the crackdown on opposition and dissidents, widespread 

land grabbing and the basic fact that Hun Sen has been in power 

for almost 30 years now. 

Ambassador William Todd has spoken clearly about U.S. disappointments with the government and the political situation overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\052014\88016 SHIRL
27

all. What I want to ask you is, in the midst of all these concerns, 

why did the U.S. go ahead and carry out a joint military exercise 

and training session—Angkor Sentinel—with the Cambodian military including units like the military police, who have been engaged in the breakup of peaceful protests? And more worrying, why 

did the programing include training in what appears to be urban 

combat operations including storming buildings and stopping cars? 

It seems to me they have been effectively utilizing these methods 

to literally throw people out of their homes and off their land. 

The Pentagon is either evading the law or has found a loophole 

to allow military training outside of the restrictions imposed by the 

2014 omnibus spending bill passed by Congress and signed by the 

President in January 2014. So if you could respond. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we have, as you 

noted, consistently and forcefully expressed our concerns about the 

2013 election and both our Ambassador, myself and other officials 

meet with both parties including recently opposition party leaders 

in Washington to urge reconciliation. 

We were somewhat encouraged by the fact that regular dialogue 

takes place but not nearly satisfied. With respect to the exercise 

you are referring to, Angkor Sentinel, this is an annual exercise 

that is a key element in America’s efforts to help build Cambodia’s 

capacity to support international peacekeeping missions and to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 

We train, for example, the Cambodian military on the handling 

of IEDs, which are a persistent threat in peacekeeping. We also 

provide training that has allowed the Cambodian soldiers successfully to protect themselves and innocent civilians. 

We conduct this program fully in accordance with U.S. law and 

U.S. policy, including the Leahy amendment. We review carefully 

the practices of the units that may receive assistance and we do 

not provide assistance in cases where there is credible information 

that those units have committed violations of human rights. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time has expired. The gentleman 

from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, and thank the witnesses again for your opening testimonies. 

Secretary Russel, in your opening testimony you certainly 

touched on some of the increasing tensions in the South China Sea 

and, you know, these have been long-term territorial disputes 

that—you know, China has been provocative in the past but has 

never done something so bold as to actually move an oil rig and, 

you know, plop it down in these disputed territories. 

It really is escalating tensions and from everything that I have 

been briefed on and have read, China has made every indication 

that they do not plan on backing down here. My question to you, 

Secretary, is what do you think the best course of action is at this 

juncture for the United States and for our ASEAN partners to help 

de-escalate these tensions as opposed to the opposite, from the administration’s perspective? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, thank you very much for the question, Congressman. It is an important one. We believe strongly that the best 

course of action for the United States, for China’s neighbors and for 

China is a constructive diplomatic dialogue to manage disputes and 

28

where possible to resolve them in ways that are consistent with 

international law. 

There are two recent developments of particular concern, one of 

which you mentioned, which was the troubling and unilateral decision by China to introduce an oil rig and accompanying vessels—

paramilitary coast guard vessels in waters disputed with Vietnam, 

and that strikes observers as part of a broader destabilizing 

escalatory pattern of behavior in which China is advancing its 

claims through nondiplomatic and extralegal means. 

The second is, you may recall, that the Philippines have raised 

concerns about evidence that China is conducting large-scale reclamation on reefs in the South China Sea which, in our view, as 

a significant upgrade or potentially the militarization of a disputed 

land feature also has the potential to raise tensions. 

We addressed these issues directly with the Chinese diplomatically. We have made no secret of our strong belief that China must 

use diplomacy, not brute force. We think the issue is not how 

strong is China. 

We think the issue is how strong is China’s legal claim in the 

territorial disputes, and we also take no exception to China’s right 

to make a claim or for that matter the potential validity of the 

claim. We do take exception to behavior that is coercive, intimidating and nondiplomatic. 

Mr. BERA. Well, and we would agree that what they are currently exhibiting is behavior that is coercive, nondiplomatic and so 

forth. So I think it is in our best interest as well as the interest 

of our friends both in the South China Sea, and with China exhibiting very similar moves in expanding the ADIZ in the East China 

Sea we may see this pattern occur once again around the Senkaku 

Islands and our friends in Japan as well as our friends in Korea 

and Taiwan. 

If we don’t respond and if we don’t get China to step back and 

act in a diplomatic fashion with international norms, I do fear that 

this pattern would repeat itself also with the disputed territorial 

waters with the Philippines as well. 

And, again, I think we have to send them a very strong message 

that this is not the way you operate in a modern world where you 

have international laws and international norms. What additional 

leverage do we have other than just our words? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Congressman, President Obama, through his 

recent visit to three U.S. treaty allies in north and southeast Asia 

and to an important partner, Malaysia, made very clear not only 

in word but in deed how committed the U.S. is to stability in the 

region and America’s determination to stand by the principles of 

international law and rules and norms. 

At the same time that he affirmed very clearly our commitments 

to our allies and our determination to maintain regional security, 

he also made clear how important the U.S.-China relationship is 

and how committed the administration is to promoting the peaceful 

rise of a stable China that is a net contributor to the well being 

and the prosperity of the region. 

In addition to our diplomatic channels, the—a program and the 

criticism that emerges from the international community in response to unilateral and assertive behavior has without a doubt an 

29

important effect on the calculations of the decision makers in Beijing, as well it should. 

It is not lost on the Chinese that the demand signal for U.S. 

presence—economic, political and military—has increased in proportion to the troubling behavior that has strained China’s neighbors with—China’s relationship with its neighbors. 

Mr. BERA. I think I could speak for all of us on this body and 

in this committee that we stand with our allies in sending a strong 

message that this type of behavior by China is unacceptable. 

Mr. CHABOT. I would second that point of view. The gentleman 

from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

just say that I, of course, was hoping that this so-called pivot to 

Asia was going to result in a much more aggressive and realistic 

policy toward what I see is the major threat to America’s security 

and the free world security and stability and well being. 

And what we have, from what I can see in terms of our response 

to these actually acts of violence and arrogant violence initiated by 

these—by trying to reinforce or enforce the claims over these island 

territories that we have seen in the last year, that our response basically has been to arrest five military computer hackers. 

That is a joke. Five military computer hackers. I am sure that 

the gang—the clique that runs China, the dictatorial and brutal 

and murderous clique that runs China, is very impressed with the 

courage that we have in arresting the five military computer hacks. 

China—the leadership of China, from what I have read, has been 

enriching itself dramatically, very much. How are they doing that? 

They are betraying their own people. They are accumulating—they 

are accumulating wealth. 

Let me just add as my—just ask my first question which is is 

there evidence that they—that members of the Chinese Communist 

leadership who have been enriching themselves—we know how 

wealthy they are—have been involved with the theft of American 

technology? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I am not aware of such activity but 

with your permission I will take your question back, consult with 

my colleagues and provide a written response. I would add, if I 

might, in reference to the arrest of—or excuse me, the indictment 

against members of the Chinese military for cyber theft, this reflects not a response to China’s foreign policy activities. 

This reflects the strong commitment by President Obama in focusing on cyber security and cyber crime to address the challenge 

posed by Chinese Government-sponsored cyber-enabled theft of the 

trade secrets and sensitive business information——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I would say that he is sending the 

wrong message because arresting or indicting five military computer hackers is so—such a weak response. It will have the opposite reaction from dictators and brutal—the people who run China 

have betrayed their own people. 

They are enriching themselves. They brutally stamp out any opposition. There are no opposition parties there. They still kill people for believing in God, like the Falun Gong, who they throw into 

prison and then have murdered in order to—in order to take their 

organs and sell them. 

30

This is not a group of leaders of a country who would be impressed by the fact that five of their lower echelon have been indicted. Again, thank you for agreeing to at least look into that 

issue to see if the leadership of China are themselves enriching 

themselves. 

But let us just note, I would hope that a pivot toward—back toward Asia means that we are pivoting back toward the people of 

Asia and not toward some sort of phony—a relationship that is 

phony but positive with people who rule the country like they do 

in Beijing. 

There are—let me see what else I wanted to bring up here to 

you—in terms of the Chinese, how much have the Chinese increased their military power in the last 10 years? What would you 

label it? Substantial or medium or what would you say? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Congressman, the U.S. still vastly outstrips 

China in terms of all indexes of military capability and, certainly, 

military spending. That said, China has embarked in—on active 

military modernization program that is troubling in the respect 

that it is opaque and we and our allies have called on China repeatedly to show more transparency in its military planning and 

programs. 

Now, as one step toward that transparency, when Secretary 

Hagel recently visited China he was taken to Qingdao and shown 

the new Chinese aircraft carrier. That is a small step in the right 

direction. 

Recently, Chairman Dempsey hosted a visit by the—his Chinese 

counterpart, General Fang, with whom I had an opportunity to discuss the issues both of cooperation with China such as North Korea 

and areas of deep concern with China, such as their behavior in the 

South China Sea. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last point and that is showing that aircraft carrier to our person is not a good sign. It is a sign of arrogance. It is a sign of take a look, we are becoming powerful. 

This is not something where oh, we are just showing how open 

we are. When you start trying to get into the mind set of a dictator 

you have to think more like—think of what that dictator is thinking, not what he would think if he was a democratically-elected 

government. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair would note for the record that even though the United 

States certainly has a much more powerful military than the People’s Republic of China right now, the administration has recommended a pretty significant decrease in our military forces to 

levels that are pre-World War II and has been pushing for reducing 

our number of carriers from 11 to 10. 

That has apparently been put on the back burner for the time 

being. I think it would be a terrible move because U.S. power is 

projected around the world through our aircraft carriers and China 

has, by double digits, increased their military spending over the 

last 25 years. I think it is a particular concern. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Connolly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would note 

respectfully, appropo the chairman’s remarks, and China does not 

31

have an element in its government that seems to know the cost of 

everything and value of almost nothing, wanting to shrink the size 

of government philosophically, wanting to slash investments and 

obsessed with the debt such that investments get starved. 

That is unique to our Government. Chinese aren’t plagued with 

that. So no wonder they can proceed apace with a military budget 

that has few constraints. And I might also say when I was listening to my friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, I thought he 

was describing the Russian Government. 

But he is not here to respond to that so I will let it go. But let 

me ask you, Mr. Russel, I was heartened that the administration 

issued indictments on cyber theft—cyber security because, frankly, 

on a bipartisan basis for quite some time we have kind of winked 

and blinked at gross and fairly comprehensive and systematic Chinese intellectual property theft across the board, not just cyber 

issues but software, candy manufacturers, Starbucks coffee. 

You know, I have met with so many American companies and 

manufacturers who have intellectual property theft problems that 

are just blatant. They don’t even hide it. 

So it is very heartening to have an administration to finally 

crack down and show some seriousness of intent. I assume from 

your remarks and from that indictment that is the beginning of a 

process, not the end of the process. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, the fact of the matter is that it is not 

the beginning of a process. It is a step in a very well-developed ongoing process that is led personally by President Obama. 

As a former staff member at the National Security Council, I had 

the experience of participating in many of his meetings with the 

Chinese. I accompanied the former national security advisor to 

China. I have been now several times in this capacity with Secretary Kerry. 

Our concerns about China’s transfer of technology, China’s economic theft and disrespect for intellectual property rights but particularly, although there has been progress in many of these areas, 

the area of concern that we consistently flag has been governmentsponsored cyber-enabled theft of U.S. corporate information that is 

then transferred to Chinese companies or state-owned enterprises 

and used for commercial gain. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Mr. RUSSEL. This is not hacking. This is not cyber warfare. This 

is cyber economic theft and we have laid down firm markers in our 

diplomatic channels and now the Department of Justice has taken 

action based on a a long-standing investigation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good. My time is rapidly—but I applaud the administration for doing it and I hope we do more of it. I want a robust vibrant relationship between China and the United States. 

I think it is vital for the world, as we move forward. We have 

to have a modus vivendi that works for both of us but that also 

means that we have to have rules of engagement and setting down 

some markers with respect to those rules is long overdue and I applaud President Obama and the administration for doing it. 

I have one other question, given the time. What—you know, we 

look at what seems to everybody in the region including us to be 

deliberately provocative action against Vietnam, against the PhilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:37 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\052014\88016 SHIRL
32

ippines with respect to certain islands in the Pacific, in the South 

China Sea. 

What is your sense of does Beijing ever stop and think about the 

risk of miscalculation, that with the best of intentions or not the 

best of intentions provocation leads to escalation, which leads to 

unanticipated consequences that weren’t intended but can happen 

because things get out of hand? I worry about that and I know the 

United States Government worries about it but does Beijing worry 

about it? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, it is daunting to be asked to speak for the Chinese and the Chinese leadership. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I was told you could. 

Mr. RUSSEL. What I—what I can do, Congressman, is to attest 

to the fact that in my many conversations with Chinese officials 

and in the Secretary’s conversations with Chinese officials this is 

precisely the point that we have raised. 

Specifically, we have urged China to cooperate with its neighbors 

and with its ASEAN claimant friends to front load the slow-moving 

code of conduct negotiations by coming to an early agreement on 

mechanisms to prevent conflict or to manage incidents when they 

occur on the seas and we have offered our good offices and our experience from the Cold War, frankly, in avoiding undesired incidents at sea and the like. 

At the same time, we have urged China not only to exercise the 

restraint that behooves a large, powerful and great country but 

also to make more rapid progress in its diplomatic negotiations. 

The United States, as you said, Congressman, very much wants 

a positive and constructive relationship with China. We also want 

China to have good relations with all its neighbors. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Chair. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, who is the chairman of the 

Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank, Mr. Chairman. Negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, agreement remains the centerpiece of the 

administration’s economic strategy in the region. What are the administration’s priorities with TPP at this point and when does the 

administration hope to conclude talks on TPP negotiations? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I cannot give you a time line and I 

will defer to my friend and colleague, Ambassador Mike Froman, 

for greater specifics. 

But I had the honor of accompanying both President Obama and 

Ambassador Froman in the recent trip to Asia, to Japan as well as 

to Malaysia where the—where significant progress was made in 

the bilateral discussions of TPP, particularly with regard to market 

access. 

In Japan, we announced a pathway forward on these bilateral 

issues and similarly in Malaysia the leaders affirmed their commitment to a high standard agreement as soon as possible. 

I know that Ambassador Froman has just wrapped up a major 

ministerial TPP meeting in Vietnam where I believe they made 

considerable progress on market access. There is much more to be 

done including with Vietnam. In my recent trip to Vietnam, I reinforced the tremendous importance that the United States places on 

33

Vietnam making progress with regard to issues regarding labor 

unions and freedom of association. 

Mr. SALMON. Along those same lines, I know in the President’s 

State of the Union Address this year he identified TPA as one of 

his top priorities and I believe that that is something that could be 

very easily accomplished in a vote here in the House but it is kind 

of dubious in the Senate right now. 

Does the administration intend to flex a little bit of muscle to get 

that done or are they just going to let it go? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, I know from Secretary Kerry and I 

know from Ambassador Froman and from the President himself 

that TPA is a top priority for the administration because it is a key 

part of the overall economic and strategic agenda. 

Now, I also—I also recognize that TPA is not a requirement for 

USTR to negotiate and that is exactly what USTR is doing right 

now. 

Mr. SALMON. Finally, Mongolia’s Prime Minister unveiled a stimulus bill dubbed the 100-day action plan that will seek to revive 

the mineral-rich nation’s flagging economy. 

Prime Minister Norovyn’s 50-point agenda promises to boost infrastructure, mining manufacturing and the development of small 

and medium-sized businesses. The bill still needs approval by Parliament and is part of a renewed drive to improve the economy 

after 2 years of slowing growth. 

At a recent briefing, the Prime Minister said within these 100 

days we believe we should reduce bureaucracy, increase mining, 

approve the reissue of exploration licenses and resolving a dispute 

over 106 cancelled mining licenses. 

Assistant Secretary Russel, what are your thoughts on this proposed 100-day action plan? Is it a viable plan and is the State Department engaging with the Mongolian administration on this 

plan? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Congressman, we are closely engaged with the 

Mongolian Government and with important U.S. energy companies 

and other stakeholders in discussing the development of—the responsible development of Mongolia’s natural resources in the Talon 

Tolgoi mines and elsewhere. 

We believe that U.S. companies provide tremendous benefit not 

only in technical terms but also with regard to corporate social responsibility. With your permission, allow me to take back the specific question about the—about President Elbegdorj’s new economic 

minerals initiative and provide a written answer for the record. 

Mr. SALMON. That would be very helpful. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

Let me follow up on the gentleman’s point on TPP and TPA. During the President’s recent trip to the region, enhancing trade and 

investment was on top of the agenda and negotiations for TPP were 

a key priority in the visits to Japan and Malaysia, in particular. 

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as though much progress was 

made. The U.S.-Japan joint statement noted that a path forward 

on important bilateral issues was identified but that a lot of work 

is needed to conclude the TPP agreement. 

Mr. Abe wasn’t willing to give way on sensitive areas for Japan 

and Malaysia, doesn’t want to give up preferential treatment for 

34

the ethnic Malays and, you know, expanding trade and investment 

is one of the administration’s top goals to support the rebalance 

strategy. 

So as Mr. Salmon mentioned, I think the President is going to 

have to really put forward considerable effort, maybe extraordinary 

effort when one considers that, you know, a significant member of 

my Democratic colleagues and a not significant minority of my Republican colleagues are opposed to it and I know the unions are 

quite opposed to it. 

So it is going to take some real effort, and I think the effort is 

worth it but I would just encourage the administration to do everything possible. I know it is an election year and it makes it all that 

much tougher. But I think it is important for our economy and certainly important for the economies of these other countries. 

We are both going to have to give a little, maybe give a lot in 

some instances, to accomplish this. So I would just urge you to take 

that message back to the administration and there are a lot of us 

willing to work with the administration on this one. 

You know, we argue and fight and bicker about some things but 

this is one—he has a lot of allies on the Hill on this. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that 

encouragement and that advice. This is a priority for the President 

personally and for the administration. We are all hard at work at 

it and the reason that it—the reason that it looks difficult is because we are committed to a genuinely high standard trade agreement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Good. Thank you very much. 

Let me turn to North Korea. Last month we held a hearing on 

the human rights situation in North Korea following the release of 

the U.N. Commission of Inquiry Report and I am sure you are well 

aware of the details of that report so I am not going to go into 

great detail about the crimes against humanity that are being committed against the people of North Korea by their own government. 

However, I do want to discuss the administration’s strategic patience policy toward North Korea, which has not impaired 

Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions nor decreased the extent of human 

rights violations committed by the regime. Evidently, our sanctions 

regime is being thwarted and consequently is quite ineffective. 

During President Obama’s recent visit to South Korea, he suggested it might be an opportune time to have tougher sanctions. 

This committee’s chairman, Mr. Royce, has introduced legislation 

to do just that, which many of us here support on both sides of the 

aisle. 

I was wondering if you could clarify President Obama’s comments regarding sanctions against North Korea and whether the 

administration will stand behind our efforts to hold the North Korean regime accountable by imposing the needed sanctions to cut 

off Pyongyang’s currency supply, for example, and halt its nuclear 

ambitions. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no question but the administration is committed to hold North Korea responsible for its threatening and troubling behavior. 

The U.S., you know, both under Democratic and Republican administrations, has combined the imposition of sanctions and I 

35

would add that the sanctions imposed in the last 5 years under the 

Obama administration are by far the most rigorous in history, but 

combine that also with an open hand to an offer to Pyongyang to 

improve its relationship with the United States, predicated on behavior. 

And we have simply not see from North Korea behavior that offers a pathway to a negotiated settlement and for that reason and 

because we are not falling for old tricks or accepting North Korean 

IOUs we have maintained a increasingly firm line in close cooperation with our key allies, Korea and Japan, but importantly made 

cooperation with China on North Korea a key component of our bilateral relationship with Beijing. 

Cooperation by China will be essential to any effort to strengthen 

the existing sanctions regime. The DPRK is one of the most heavily 

sanctioned countries on planet Earth and we have imposed two 

very significant U.N. Security Council resolutions in the last 5 

years as well as using a number of domestic authorities. 

So I can’t speak to the draft legislation itself but we, on an ongoing basis in the U.S. interagency, consult and consider on a wide 

range of additional measures that the administration can take as 

well as working hard with partners to get enhanced implementation of the existing sanctions. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you. I would also like to mention we 

appreciate you and your folks’ cooperation and assistance as we 

travelled to the PRC and to Mongolia last week. Your people over 

there are top flight and we certainly appreciate what a good job 

they are doing for our country. So thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, I appreciate those words. I will pass them on 

and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time and trouble to 

visit. It, clearly, was very useful in terms of foreign policy and in 

the case of the Mongolian Government I can attest to their appreciation of your visit. 

Mr. CHABOT. Good. Just for the record, so maybe people know we 

are not trying to make messes that you are going to have to clean 

up after we leave. We generally will talk to the Embassy personnel 

and your folks for the best questions and topics for us to bring up 

with the governments there because we want them to know that 

your policies are reflective of not just the executive branch, but the 

legislative branch as well. We want to help in your efforts over 

there, so thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSSEL. We appreciate and welcome your efforts. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERA. Great. I thought we might shift to Thailand. Obviously, we are watching a rapidly evolving situation in Thailand and 

from your perspective, Assistant Secretary Russel, is there anything that you can enlighten us on in terms of what do you think 

the next steps are? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, thank you, Congressman. The challenges in 

Thailand occupy my time and attention and that of Secretary Kerry 

and other senior officials both because Thailand is our oldest and 

one of our most important partners and allies in Southeast Asia. 

36

But also because we are deeply concerned and troubled at the political crisis in an important democracy in Asia. Yesterday, as I am 

sure you are aware, the Royal Thai Army declared martial law. 

The army has indicated that this is not a coup, that this is temporary imposition of martial law to prevent the growing threat of 

bloodshed and violence, that it will be in place for a finite period 

of time, and we have called on Thai’s military in a strong statement issued at Secretary Kerry’s request yesterday to exercise full 

regard both for the democratic process and democratic institutions 

but also for important freedoms including freedom of speech, freedom of the press. 

We want to see the early restitution of full democracy in Thailand and our respect for Thailand’s democratic institutions and we 

think that requires free and fair elections that enable the Thai people freely to express their political will. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. And it is incredibly important to 

us, as you already mentioned. Thailand is one of our oldest geopolitical allies in the region. Talking about democratic elections 

and so forth, in that region in South Asia and India we just saw 

a remarkable showing of democracy in action with the recent elections, you know, with I think over 500 million folks casting ballots 

and, you know, I think there—you know, first off, I would like to 

take a chance to congratulate the new Prime Minister, Narendra 

Modi, and welcome, I think, this body’s and the administration’s 

call to renew this partnership in India as well, as we suggested a 

few weeks ago, in helping stabilize not just being a foundation for 

South Asia but certainly being a foundation with its partners in 

Burma and the surrounding countries. 

And, you know, we look forward to working with India to address 

and resolve some of the territorial issues in the South China Sea 

and India’s continuing emerging role as a major player in the 

world. 

So we look forward to working with Prime Minister Modi as we 

address these issues in a regional manner and, as you have already 

mentioned, using international norms and international laws to address these and India certainly has a role. I might ask your perspective. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Thank you, Congressman. In the Department of 

State, given our taxonomy, I am not directly responsible for India 

and South Asia west of Burma. However, I co-chair a regular U.S.-

India dialogue on the Asia-Pacific region and just last month held 

those meetings. 

I also participate with my Indian counterpart in the preparatory 

meetings for the larger ASEAN Plus meetings including the East 

Asian Summit and I respect and hope for increase in active Indian 

engagement in East Asia precisely for the reasons that you have 

mentioned. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, and I will yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, who is the ranking member 

of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Which subcommittee is meeting now, hence an excuse not to be here for the entire hearing, and I can testify to the 

37

chairman’s effectiveness on his travels to Asia, having been with 

him on the trip before his trip that included Mongolia. 

China has been manipulating its currency for many years. Our 

response is to whine and complain, and then when some ask that 

we do more I am told that well, they used to be taking 2 million 

jobs away from us through wrongful behavior. 

Now it is down to 1.8 million so we have a great policy success. 

Now we discover that—we discover—we document that they have 

been hacking us for years. We found a new way to whine and complain. 

We indict people who will never be here and who will never be 

extradited and thus our response to their hacking is to deprive a 

few military officers of an opportunity to visit Disneyland. 

The powers that be in Washington don’t want us to do any more 

but obviously if we designated China a currency manipulator that 

would get their attention. Depriving a few military officers of a 

chance to visit Disneyland will not change Chinese behavior. 

The discussion of pivoting toward Asia is not just trade missions 

to Japan and teaching Mandarin in our schools. It is a refocus 

chiefly of our military and it is not surprising because we tried to 

meet the institutional needs of our large Washington institutions 

rather than the practical needs of the American people. 

Since the 1890s, every time our military has confronted a nonuniformed enemy it has been a frustrating and terrible experience, 

and since the 1890s every time we have faced a uniformed military 

it has been a tremendous success, the most tremendous success of 

all being winning the Cold War without having to fight a major 

war. 

So needless to say, we meet the institutional needs of our foreign 

policy establishment by abandoning the war against Islamist extremism, which is frustrating and long, and refocusing against a uniformed enemy, the Chinese, and we can confront them over a few 

specks by glorifying them and calling them islands and as true 

throughout human history dividing ourselves up into groups, finding something to fight about and then declaring that these few 

uninhabited islands—islands so useless that off the coast of a teeming continent no one has ever chose to live there—should be the 

focus of our military deployments. 

So we are going to pivot toward Asia because we are done with 

the Middle East and North Africa. I think that is absurd. We aren’t 

done. We have got a lot to do. 

The protection of the United States from 9/11 attacks is probably 

more important than who controls islands which, up until this 

point in human history, have had absolutely no use whatsoever, 

and calling them islands is a wild exaggeration. We are talking 

rocks that barely protrude out of the ocean. 

Now, as to this Trans-Pacific Partnership, if we negotiate with 

the same format that we used for the South Korean agreement, 

then goods that are 65, 75 percent made in China, then finished 

in Vietnam or Japan, will be able to enter the United States. 

And that is if they admit that they are 75 percent made in 

China—if the importer admits that they are 75 percent made in 

China—they may well be 90 percent made in China—who would 

prove the difference. 

38

What are we going to do, Mr. Russel, to make sure that this is 

not a boon to Chinese imports in the United States, knowing that 

nothing in TPP will get a single paper clip from the United States 

into China? 

Mr. RUSSEL. You covered a lot of ground there. Let me mention 

two things before I address your TPP question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have limited—why don’t you address the question first? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Well, the TPP negotiations are among 12 countries 

not including China that are seeking to institute very high standards to get——

Mr. SHERMAN. The question was specifically about rules of origin, 

goods that are 65, 75, 80, 90 percent made in China, then finished 

in one or more countries and brought into the United States. 

What is in there that stops that other than vague rhetoric about 

how it is wonderful to have high standards? 

Mr. RUSSEL. Congressman, in the interest of preserving the limited time, let me take that question and get back to you. But first 

say——

Mr. SHERMAN. Sir, you have got—you got to understand I have 

the limited time. I have yielded to you to answer the question that 

I have posed rather than to comment on something else you want 

to comment on. 

Mr. RUSSEL. Fine. I will provide you, Congressman, with a wellconsidered written reply. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. All time has expired and we 

want to thank the panel for their testimony here this afternoon. 

We thank those for attending. 

Members will have 5 days to supplement their statements or ask 

questions. If there is no further business to come before the committee we are adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

40

f


88016n.eps
41

f


88016m.eps
42


88016c-1.eps
43

f


88016c-2.eps
44

f


88016d-1.eps
45


88016d-2.eps
46

f


88016d-3.eps
47

Æ


88016d-4.eps