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

52–852PDF 2009

THE FUTURE OF APEC

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

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 14, 2009

Serial No. 111–51

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 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

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 

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 

LISA WILLIAMS, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DANIEL BOB, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NIEN SU, Republican Professional Staff Member 

VILI LEI, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Kurt Tong, Acting U.S. Senior Official to APEC, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 21

Ms. Wendy Cutler, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Japan, 

Korea and APEC Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative . 28

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 Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois: Prepared statement ................................................................. 7

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 13

Mr. Kurt Tong: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 24

Ms. Wendy Cutler: Prepared statement ................................................................ 31

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 52

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 53

(1)

THE FUTURE OF APEC 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2009

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 2:13 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. At this time, I would like to call the subcommittee hearing to order. 

And I would like to have this opportunity for my opening statement, and then will turn to my good friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking member of our subcommittee, Mr. Manzullo, 

for his opening statement. 

In consultation with my good friend, the ranking member of the 

subcommittee, we decided to hold this subcommittee hearing concerning APEC and reference to the future of APEC and in anticipation of the upcoming APEC meeting in the course of the next 

month. 

The Asia-Pacific Cooperation Forum will hold its annual leaders’ 

meeting next month in Singapore. The event will mark the 20th 

anniversary of the advent of the organization, which was created 

to reflect and enhance the economic dynamism and growing ties 

among the countries of the Pacific Rim. 

APEC’s 21-member economies currently encompass 40 percent of 

the world’s population, 45 percent of its trade, 55 percent of its 

gross domestic product, and 60 percent of the market for U.S. exports. A large proportion of those exports, moreover, are in high 

value-added products and services that produce good jobs and good 

wages for American workers. 

APEC is also the only significant regional economic organization 

that includes the United States. Indeed, since its inception, APEC 

has been central to U.S. efforts to liberalize trade and enhance economic growth. And with the United States hosting APEC in 2011, 

we will soon take the lead in forging the organization’s agenda. 

U.S. leadership cannot come at a more important time. I say that 

because APEC has not yet fully lived up to its potential, at least 

as envisioned by those who launched the organization. 

At the 1994 leaders’ meeting in Indonesia, APEC released its 

Declaration of Common Resolve, better known as the Bogor Declaration. In that seminal document, the organization committed 

2

itself to complete the achievement of free and open trade and investment in the Asia Pacific no later than the year 2020. 

The pace of implementation would take into account differing 

levels of economic development among APEC economies, with the 

industrialized economies achieving the goal of free and open trade 

and investment no later than the year 2010 and developing economies no later than the year 2020. 

At every leaders’ meeting since 1994, APEC has reaffirmed its 

commitment to the ambitious goals of the Bogor Declaration. Despite those annual gestures, however, it appears almost certain 

that APEC will not—will not—meet its 2010 target. The impending 

failure reflects, at least in part, APEC’s operating principle of consensus. While consensus can be a real strength in tackling some of 

the most difficult issues, it can also cause delay. 

I hope that in Singapore APEC once again commits itself to the 

Bogor goals and that, in following years, under the leadership of 

Japan in 2010 and the United States in 2011, it charts a clear and 

speedy pathway toward achievement. 

As the Congressional Research Service has noted, and I quote:

‘‘The underlying notion of APEC’s approach to trade and investment liberalization is that voluntary commitments are 

easier to achieve and more likely to be implemented than obligatory commitments derived from agreements negotiated by 

more traditional and potentially confrontational methods. By 

establishing a common vision or goal for the organization, the 

belief is that future APEC discussions can make more rapid 

progress toward the organization’s goals by seeking consensus 

views with which members are willing to comply.’’

Realizing the Bogor Declaration is especially important for the 

United States because of a proliferation of regional organizations 

that do not include the United States since the creation of APEC. 

For example, the East Asian Summit, ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6, and 

the Shanghai Cooperation Organization were all initiated without 

United States membership. The new government in Japan, moreover, has proposed the creation of an East Asian Community that 

will similarly exclude the United States. 

The member economies of APEC have also established more than 

150 bilateral and plurilateral free-trade agreements among themselves. Yet, only five of these FTAs include the United States. And 

labor and environment and other critical provisions in most of 

them are far less effective than they should be. We would all be 

better off if we used APEC more aggressively to transform this 

‘‘noodle bowl’’ of agreements into an APEC-wide Free-Trade Area 

of the Asian Pacific. 

Beyond the trade and investment issues at its core, APEC also 

provides its members a chance to engage on other matters of importance, from climate change and human security to disaster management. This year, for example, APEC will seek to further the G–

20 response to the global financial crisis. 

And on the way to and from APEC, America’s first Pacific President will have the chance to visit Japan, China, and Korea for 

summit meetings. As I have said before, we now have the first 

President who knows where the Pacific Ocean is located. 

3

In my view, APEC remains vital to America’s interests in the Pacific Rim. Today’s witnesses are the U.S. Government’s two leading 

figures in the formulation of American participation in APEC. I 

look forward to working with them and hearing their comments in 

this afternoon’s hearing. 

I now would like to turn the time to my good friend, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for his comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

4


52852a-1.eps
5


52852a-2.eps
6

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to express our deepest condolences to you and 

the good people of American Samoa for the immense pain and suffering caused by the recent Pacific tsunami. Obviously, our 

thoughts and prayers are with the fine people there. And we sincerely hope the road to recovery can begin as soon as possible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing. We have a 

situation where APEC members account for almost half of all international trade. They have a population of 2.7 billion people. This 

is obviously an extraordinarily large market for American good and 

services. 

The 16th Congressional District, which I have the opportunity to 

represent, has in excess of 2,000 manufacturers, making everything 

from paper boxes to iron foundries and metal stamping to custom 

gears. One out of four people in the largest city of Rockford, Illinois, are directly involved in manufacturing. So strengthening 

APEC is an important part of enhancing U.S. exports. In fact, last 

year, Illinois companies exported more than $33.5 billion worth of 

goods. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. And I would ask 

that the rest of my opening statement be made part of the record. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]

7


52852b-1.eps
8


52852b-2.eps
9

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I also would like to give an opportunity to 

our other distinguished colleagues who are with us, if they have an 

opening statement. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. First, I want to join the gentleman from Illinois 

in expressing my concern and solidarity with the people of American Samoa at this time. Just last week, I had the opportunity to 

attend a meeting called by the subcommittee on the condition in 

American Samoa, even knowing that the chairman had critical 

things to do in American Samoa and could not attend. 

The second point I would like to make is that the United States 

will be hosting the APEC conference in 2011, and I hope that we 

will host it in Los Angeles. Not only do the ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach handle over 40 percent of all cargo containers entering the United States, but they handle close to 80 percent of the 

cargo containers entering or leaving the United States going to the 

Pacific and going to the APEC region. I don’t think any other place 

in the United States comes close. 

Finally, I would like to comment about our trade with the APEC 

region, which I hope you will not hold against my home city, but 

I am very concerned about the trade deficit we have with that region. I do not believe that that trade deficit stems from a fair application of free-trade principles, and nor do I think that we can 

achieve free trade by closing our eyes to the actions taken by others and refusing to take any aggressive action on ourselves and 

then turning to anyone who does want to be aggressive and say, 

‘‘Oh, you just don’t understand the benefits of free trade.’’ I do understand the benefits of free trade. We do not have trade with 

many of the members of APEC. 

I would hope that you, before your next interaction with the 

APEC representatives from China, will take a look at the hearing 

that Ranking Member Royce and I of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee did that focused on the outrageous 

and illegal actions taken by China that affect those Americans 

doing business in China. I hope that you would look at the field 

hearings done by the full committee, held in the San Fernando Valley, where we focused on the gross abuse of intellectual property 

in China. 

And so, not only do we have this enormous trade deficit with the 

region, and with China in particular, but it stems again and again 

and again, when you peel away the veneer, from unfair practices. 

The best illustration of this, though, is the fact that, because of 

the Chinese system, we can never know what happens. Because 

here in the United States, if the Federal Government is going to 

affect purchase decisions, it does so only through printed regulations and statutes and tariff statues, et cetera. Whereas, in China, 

the government can control the decision of businesses without ever 

publishing anything. And then people can come to us and say, ‘‘Oh, 

it is a level playing field.’’ It is a level playing field if you ignore 

every unpublished document and every unpublished oral statement. 

10

But if I call somebody in my district and say, ‘‘Hi, I am a Congressman; I think you should buy the American product, not the 

Chinese product,’’ they will either giggle at me or they will hold a 

press conference saying, ‘‘Congressman trying to intimidate local 

business.’’ Since I have no capacity to intimidate them, I think they 

would giggle. 

Imagine a Chinese company. They can be instructed by the government not to buy, because the government sits on their board. 

But if that isn’t sufficient, they can call an individual business person and say, ‘‘Sir, we know you won’t buy the American product because we look at your curriculum vitae and we see you are welleducated. We would hate to think you need re-education.’’

So any oral statement like this, we can see the results of. We can 

never bring any action because it is an oral statement over the 

phone and we never know what happened. What we do know is 

that the results are horrendous for the American people and are 

getting more horrendous every year. 

I know, during this recession, the degree to which we are being 

destroyed is not at the same high rate as 2 years ago, but every 

year we pile up an international debt that is enormous. And I hope 

that APEC is an opportunity for us to demand a system that gives 

us balanced trade. And the only way you are going to do that is 

to threaten or actually deny access to the U.S. market to those who 

use both detectable and nondetectable methodologies to give us unbalanced results. 

So I hope that you will take a look at those two hearings, and 

I believe I have one other that I will send to you. You have a lot 

of reading ahead. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

And, at this time, I would like to turn the time to the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Royce, for his opening statement. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to welcome Mr. Tong. I very much appreciated your 

availability to Members of Congress when the American journalists 

were held in North Korea for those many months. We appreciate 

that. Thankfully, that has been resolved. 

As we will hear from our witnesses today, APEC is certainly 

looming in terms of importance to the United States. It is the only 

economic group where we have a seat at the table in one of the 

world’s most important economic regions. Five of our top seven 

world trading partners are APEC members, so, certainly, this 

forum holds great importance for the United States. 

But if we are going to be taken seriously at APEC, it would be 

prudent not to ignore the second-largest trade agreement ever negotiated by the United States, and that is the Korea-U.S. Free 

Trade Agreement. Both governments, not to mention one of our 

witnesses, labored for months to get this deal done. And I think 

turning our backs on KORUS, as we are, is a huge slight to our 

ally, to South Korea, not to mention a missed economic opportunity. 

By all measures, the trade agreement negotiated by the past administration and the Roh government helps both countries. The 

United States gets better access to South Korean markets; South 

11

Korea gets assurances that its favorable U.S. market access will 

continue. 

By one estimate, the KORUS FTA would increase trade $20 bil- lion—that is from $80 billion to $100 billion—between our two 

countries. And still there are few amongst the majority that are 

calling for this agreement to be ratified; fewer still among the leadership. 

Despite these sentiments in Congress, Asia is changing. China, 

not the United States, is now South Korea’s largest export market. 

The European Union has completed a free-trade agreement of its 

own with South Korea. And India recently signed a trade agreement with South Korea. 

And, in these agreements, I think the upshot is the United 

States loses. And what could be a win-win for the United States 

in South Korea instead has become a situation where South Korea 

is beginning to negotiate outside the U.S. market in terms of trade 

liberalization. 

And I would hope that during your opening testimony or maybe 

later in your discussions you could comment on another thought. 

And that is, it is my understanding there have been over 500 public comments posted on the USTR Web site regarding the KORUS 

FTA. And I would just like to ask the witnesses what has been the 

general nature of these comments, have they largely been in support, and how does your office plan on responding to these comments? 

And lastly, on the subject of China, I would just close with the 

observation that I think that our own Commerce Department has 

done an awful lot to lure United States investors into China, where 

they have subsequently lost their shirts. I can’t tell you how many 

times those of us in southern California have heard about the lack 

of rule of law in Shanghai and Beijing and the consequences to 

U.S. investors. And I wish that these cheerleading sessions done by 

the Commerce Department weren’t undertaken, because the upshot 

is the loss for investors. And, certainly, we are not teaching the 

rule of law to China. 

I would suggest that an investor warning system, the likes of 

which myself and Congressman Brad Sherman, my colleague from 

California, have laid out the case for, would be championed by 

those who wish to see some change of conduct. Because the conduct 

that we are seeing out of China in no way reflects a nation that 

intends to embark upon adopting the rule of law. And the consequences are that they are undermining trade agreements around 

the world. Frankly, if they are allowed to get away with it, they 

are going to wreck the WTO. 

And this requires action on our part when China violates the 

basic norms of international commerce and international law. And 

I think it is imperative that the U.S. begin to call them on it. And 

it is equally important that we quit the subsidization or the 

cheerleading in order to entice more United States investment into 

China when the consequences are so injurious. 

I am familiar with different reports that have been done around 

the world, in terms of return on investment in China. Things look 

rosy until you try to get your money out. And I can’t tell you how 

many times we have heard cases of the basic contracts being 

12

changed. And if you attempt to defend yourself in Shanghai or in 

Beijing in any of these contracts and you are an American company 

or an American investor, it is a farce. 

So those would be my observations. And I thank the chairman 

again for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

And now the gentlelady from the State of California also, for her 

opening statement, Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back. And 

I do hope that the island nation that you come from is faring better 

than they were a few days ago. We certainly wish you well. And 

I think we sent down a lot of help and assistance, and you were 

there guiding that. So, thank you. 

In 1994, in Bogor, Indonesia, APEC members agreed to voluntarily move forward free and open trade and investment in the 

Asia Pacific region by 2010 for developed nations and 2020 for developing nations. This vital 21-member organization accounts for 

55 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, 45 percent of global trade, 40 percent of the world’s population, and among America’s 

top trade partners. 

However, APEC faces challenges. There are currently 70 bilateral and multilateral trade agreements being negotiated, in addition to the 210 trade agreements that already exist. The United 

States has been largely excluded from bilateral and multilateral 

trade agreements in the Asia Pacific region. Several Asia-only organizations have been established. The ways in which the U.S. can 

participate meaningfully in the region has been reduced. 

As markets in Asia and the Pacific continue to grow, the demand 

for U.S. products will only grow, making APEC member markets 

and APEC a critical part of America’s economic recovery. So I, too, 

want to be sure that we get to the time to do some agreements 

with, particularly, South Korea. 

We were there a few months ago, and we hope to be able to get 

back together with them and come up with some kind of free-trade 

agreement. They are urging us to sit down and talk about it. As 

you know, we have not really had time, in terms of the priorities 

we have been dealing with, to think about our trade agreements. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I do 

hope this subject will come up again in your subcommittee, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady. 

There seems to be a predominance of California members participating. 

Ms. WATSON. I wonder why. I have all of Korea Town in my——

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]

13


52852e-1.eps
14


52852e-2.eps
15


52852e-3.eps
16


52852e-4.eps
17

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But I again would like to give the opportunity for another gentleman from California for his opening statement, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The ‘‘Pacific’’ part of the definition there in 

the title is very applicable, and that is why you see more Californians. 

Let me just note that, first and foremost, I would like to identify 

myself with remarks dealing with concern about the people of 

Samoa and the terrible tragedy that they have suffered with the 

tsunami wave. Let us remember that at least half of Samoa—there 

is an American Samoa and a non-American Samoa—but at least 

half there are Americans. But our hearts go out to them, whether 

they are American Samoans or non-American. They suffered a 

great tragedy. 

I remember visiting the islands with you, Mr. Chairman. Such 

wonderful people. And such a sad thing that they have had to go 

through such turmoil in their lives and loss of family and places 

to work, et cetera. We need to do everything we can to stick by 

them and to try to help them every bit as much as what we did 

to help the people of New Orleans, for example, when they suffered 

a natural disaster. 

So my heart goes out to them, and I want to put that on the 

record. 

About some of the points that have been made, I find myself in 

great consternation when I have to agree almost totally with everything my Democrat colleague, Brad Sherman, said in his opening 

statement. But I find his remarks and the remarks that were made 

by my friend, Mr. Royce, to be especially poignant and things that 

we should pay attention to. 

My district includes both the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach. And, as we know, such a huge percentage of our international trade comes through those ports. Unfortunately, what we 

are talking about is 10 percent of all the containers that go through 

the ports are going out of the ports, exporting something that is an 

American product. Ninety percent is what is coming in, especially 

coming in from the Asia Pacific region, especially from China. 

And so I would suggest that that intolerable situation cannot be 

permitted to go on. The fact that we have been unwilling to negotiate the type of trade arrangements that would be mutually beneficial, rather than a transfer of wealth and knowledge and technology and investment, especially to China, speaks very poorly of 


52852e-5.eps
18

our Government. Our Government has not been representing the 

interests of the American people. 

And what we have had, then, is a huge transfer of wealth and 

power, especially to China, at a time when China has not had one 

bit of liberalization of their political system. It is still the world’s 

worst human rights abuser. Yet we permit this type of unfair 

transfer of wealth and trade and power to China at the expense of 

the American people. Over a 10-year period, that amounts to about 

$1 trillion of wealth transfer. There is no excuse for that. 

Who is watching out for the American people? It is supposed to 

be us. And if we are not doing it and we are permitting that type 

of scenario to continue, yes, the American people will rise in a 

righteous anger and a justified anger that they are not being represented by their own government; that 90 percent of the containers coming through the ports are coming in, only 10 percent 

are going out. 

That is after we have permitted the trade policies of China to 

thwart American products, but encourage Americans to transfer 

capital and investment to that country so that they can manufacture those items there instead of having to import them from our 

country. And then they end up exporting those items to our country. It is a double insult. 

There are some real problems. We are going through some major 

changes. This great economic crisis that we are suffering will lead 

to dramatic changes in policy because the American people will demand it. And those on the other side of ‘‘Lake Pacific’’ have to understand government here is going to start changing its attitude toward the things we have been willing to accept in the past, because 

our people will not tolerate a major economic decline and suffering 

here while we permit policies to exist that are unfair to us and lead 

to this major transfer of wealth. 

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the testimony, hearing more details. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman from California for 

his comments. 

First of all, I just want to note for the record that I deeply appreciate the sentiments and the concerns of my colleagues on the tragic disaster that occurred in my district recently. 

We had an earthquake that took place approximately 120 miles 

south of Samoa. It was on the Tonga Trench. And the earthquake 

measured 8.3 on the Richter scale, producing a shockwave that 

traveled about 500 miles an hour. 

And what made this disaster so unique was the fact that, for a 

period of 3 or 4 minutes, the earthquake caused a lot of tremors 

and shaking on the islands in the surrounding area, but it was only 

a matter of minutes, 5 or 10 minutes, that 20-foot tidal waves 

showed up. 

I have seen tidal waves before in my life, and usually what happens is the water recedes, leaving the shorelines and the reefs totally dry. And sometimes you get a mistaken notion; you see fish 

flipping all over the place, thinking that it is okay to start picking 

up the fish, when, in fact, that is when the tidal wave is coming. 

And the most tragic sense is that there was just simply no way 

that anybody could properly prepare for it. It is not like preparing 

19

for a hurricane or a typhoon that you anticipate in a matter of 

hours. This took place in a matter of 15 minutes: The earthquake 

in 3 or 4 minutes, and then 7 or 8 minutes later the tidal wave 

shows up. 

This is what made it very, I say, unique: Because I think it was 

because of the distance. It was such a short distance between 

where the epicenter of where the earthquake occurred and where 

the Samoan Islands are. 

At any rate, I do want to deeply thank my colleagues for their 

expressions of concern. My people are in good spirits. I have so 

many different stories. I have had to attend several funerals in the 

process. 

But one story that I thought was very interesting: We had one 

of the 75 Peace Corps volunteers that came from the United States. 

One gentleman came up to me and said, ‘‘You know, what is really 

unusual about your people, we are here supposedly to help you, 

and instead your people ask me if I need food, if I need water, if 

I need anything, so that they could take care of us rather than the 

volunteers taking care of the people.’’

But that is the nature of the Samoan people and their culture, 

wanting to make sure that, regardless of what happens to them, 

they will always be concerned for their neighbor and people who 

have been so kind to come and to render assistance and offer help 

for this. 

And I do want to thank the President for his declaration on the 

area, and that the FEMA officials and various Federal agencies are 

there to give assistance. I do deeply appreciate the prayers and the 

faith of the American people. 

And, as I have said earlier in my statement on the floor—it is 

the Chinese proverb—there are many acquaintances but very few 

friends. And I do count my colleagues truly as friends when the 

chips are down. And I can certainly also appreciate when tragedies 

like this happen in other Members’ districts, and I can feel their 

pain and share their suffering and can understand that life goes 

on. And I deeply appreciate your comments and your expressions 

of concern. 

For our hearing, we have two distinguished officials from the administration. And I deeply appreciate your taking the time for coming to testify before our subcommittee. 

We have with us Mr. Kurt Tong, who is the acting U.S. senior 

official for APEC, managing all aspects of U.S. participation in that 

organization. Currently, he is the director of Korean affairs for the 

Department of State, where he is responsible for coordinating U.S. 

relations with both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 

Previously, he served as director of Asian economic affairs at the 

National Security Council from 2006 to 2008. Prior to that, he 

served as minister-counselor for economic affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul where he promoted U.S.-Korea relations in the area 

of economics and trade policy and was involved in the launch of the 

free-trade agreement negotiations between the United States and 

South Korea. 

Before arriving in Seoul, Mr. Tong was counselor for environmental, science, and health affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing 

20

from 2000 to 2003. He was a first secretary, covering macroeconomics and finance at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and also a 

visiting scholar at Tokyo University. His early service experience 

included work at the Office of Japanese Affairs at the State Department. 

Mr. Tong holds a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, from the 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at 

Princeton University. He also studied graduate-level economics at 

the U.S. Foreign Service Institute in Washington, DC. 

The gentleman is fluent in both Japanese and Mandarin, is a 

member of the Senior Foreign Service and a recipient of the 2005 

Herbert Salzman Award for Excellence in International Economic 

Performance awarded by the State Department for outstanding 

contributions in advancing U.S. international relations in the economic field. 

With us also is the gentlelady, Wendy Cutler, who currently 

serves as Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea, 

and APEC affairs. Ms. Cutler became Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea, and APEC affairs in the Office of 

U.S. Trade Representative in June 2004. 

In this capacity, she is responsible for developing and implementing U.S. trade policies toward Japan and Korea. In addition, 

she is responsible for developing and implementing the United 

States trade and investment agenda in the Asia Pacific Economic 

Cooperation forum. 

Since joining USTR in 1988, Ms. Cutler has held numerous positions, including assistant U.S. trade representative for North Asian 

affairs, as well as for services, investment, and intellectual property. She was the chief U.S. negotiator for the U.S.-Korea Free 

Trade Agreement, which was signed on June 30, 2007. 

She also negotiated bilateral agreements on a wide range of sectoral issues, including telecommunications, insurance, and semiconductors. She has extensive multilateral negotiating experience 

as a U.S. negotiator for the 1997 WTO Financial Services Agreement and the Uruguay Round Agreements on Rules of Origin and 

Import Licensing. 

Ms. Cutler received her master’s degree in foreign service from 

Georgetown University and her bachelor’s from George Washington 

University. 

So we are deeply appreciative to both of you for being here. 

I just want to note a basic observation about APEC. It is my understanding two basic things that come out of the organization: 

One, it was never a formalized organization to the extent that it 

is structured like you would a WTO or others. It was more of, really, consultations. Whatever principles that we agreed upon in the 

Bogor, Indonesia, declaration, the principles that were outlined 

there for 2010 and 2020, again, were just principles, but it really 

bore no enforcement mechanism that nations had to comply. 

But one positive aspect about APEC, according to my understanding, is that it was more of a forum which allowed member 

states or heads of state to conduct side meetings or agreements and 

whatever when they had the meetings. 

I noticed that when we had the APEC meeting in Australia, it 

was a disappointment to some of the Members when our President 

21

was there and then all of a sudden he left quickly without waiting 

there for the time that the meetings took place with the other 

countries. And there was a disappointment in other countries that 

our President had to leave so suddenly without being there for the 

extent of the meetings that took place in Australia. And I suspect 

that our President will be going to Singapore as a participant on 

this APEC meeting. 

With that, the committee would like to hear the testimonies of 

our two distinguished witnesses. 

Mr. Tong, would you like to begin? 

STATEMENT OF MR. KURT TONG, ACTING U.S. SENIOR OFFICIAL TO APEC, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. TONG. Thank you very much. I have submitted some written 

testimony. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection. And any other related 

materials both of you submit will be made part of the record. 

Mr. TONG. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Manzullo, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you today, 

along with my colleague and friend, Wendy Cutler of USTR, to talk 

about the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, or APEC. 

One month from now, President Obama will make his first trip 

to Asia since taking office and attend his first APEC leaders’ meeting in Singapore. The meeting will mark APEC’s 20th anniversary, 

as well as the beginning of an important 2-year period for U.S. economic relations with the Asia Pacific, one that starts with Japan 

hosting APEC next year and culminates with the United States 

hosting APEC in 2011. 

Hosting APEC will be a tremendous opportunity for the United 

States to promote U.S. business and investment opportunities 

which will benefit American workers, farmers, and businesses of all 

sizes. It will also be an important opportunity for the United States 

to define a new 21st-century economic policy agenda for the Asia 

Pacific region. 

I would like to discuss with you today why APEC is such a valuable asset to the United States and what we envision for APEC in 

the years ahead. 

APEC is strategically important to the United States because it 

is the premier venue for economic engagement with the Asia Pacific region. The 21 APEC members account for 55 percent of world 

gross domestic product, 45 percent of global trade, and 40 percent 

of the world’s population. Sixty percent of U.S. goods exports go to 

APEC economies. Five of America’s top seven trading partners are 

APEC members. 

APEC’s role is particularly important in the current economic environment. Although nations on both sides of the Pacific have 

taken individual steps to respond to the economic crisis, President 

Obama has emphasized that concerted action is needed to get the 

global economy back on track and to pursue the reforms needed to 

protect against future crises. 

APEC is unique because it has the tools to promote policies for 

long-term economic growth and ensure that all our citizens have 

22

the opportunity to thrive in the global economy. It promotes free 

and open trade and investment and tackles such important issues 

as energy security, small-business development, and preparing 

workforces to be globally competitive. 

APEC achieves this by emphasizing capacity-building and practical solutions that yield tangible benefits at low cost. These efforts 

are supported by U.S. foreign assistance contributions and our recent establishment of a technical assistance and training facility at 

the APEC secretariat. 

I note that there has been a proliferation of pan-Asian institutions, with more being proposed. The United States does not want 

or need to be a member of every organization, and we support 

Asia’s efforts at multilateral cooperation. But given the trans-Pacific nature of economic affairs, we believe that truly effective regional economic institutions must include members from both sides 

of the Pacific. 

We also believe that these institutions must not only be a forum 

for high-level dialogue, but must also be geared toward producing 

tangible progress in addressing the challenges facing the Asia Pacific region. On the economic front, we believe APEC provides the 

best, most established mechanism for practical cooperation and action. 

Mr. Chairman, with Japan and the United States hosting APEC 

back to back, we have a unique opportunity over the next 2 years 

to take APEC’s work to the next level. To this end, we are lining 

up major priorities and themes for 2010 and 2011. 

First, concerning APEC’s trade and investment agenda, I will 

defer to Wendy Cutler to address this issue in detail. But I would 

note America risks becoming disadvantaged economically if we do 

not participate in the process of economic integration that is already under way in the region. 

Second, APEC can and should contribute to the promotion of 

global economic recovery. With half of the G–20 being APEC members, APEC has an important role in supporting and implementing 

G–20 efforts to spur economic recovery and growth. The G–20 and 

APEC can reinforce one another and lead to the best results possible in a critical region. 

APEC is already leading efforts to prevent future crises and improve the region’s business environment, including by improving 

corporate governance and promoting regulatory reform. APEC has 

also launched an initiative to make it faster, cheaper, and easier 

to do business in APEC economies, covering such areas as starting 

a business, obtaining credit, and efficient conduct of trade. 

Third, we are working with APEC members on robust efforts to 

promote balanced, sustainable, and inclusive growth. 

Regarding balanced growth, we see APEC reinforcing the G–20’s 

pledge to establish a pattern of global growth that is more balanced 

by region and less prone to destabilizing booms and busts. 

Regarding sustainable growth, we see an increased role in energy 

security and green development. APEC members are examining 

ways to promote greater energy trade and investment, liberalize 

trade and environmental goods and services, and foster development of new energy sources and advanced technologies. 

23

Finally, regarding inclusive growth, APEC seeks to ensure that 

all citizens have the opportunity to thrive in the global economy. 

This includes fostering more adaptable workforces and greater investment in education and worker training. 

Finally, the United States believes that APEC can make a vital 

contribution to human security, ensuring the resiliency of economies against a multitude of threats. This means, for example, enhancing food and product safety; bolstering regional food security; 

protecting the region’s financial and trade systems from terrorist 

attack and abuse; and enhancing disaster preparedness. 

With the recent natural disasters in Samoa and Southeast Asia, 

I want to especially highlight APEC’s work on disaster preparedness. APEC is fostering closer collaboration among regional emergency management agencies; examining the impact of climate 

change on disaster management; and helping schoolchildren prepare for disasters. Going forward, APEC will continue to strengthen public-private partnerships and capacity-building for emergency 

preparedness. 

I would like to conclude by underscoring the Obama administration’s commitment to the Asia Pacific region. The United States 

brings tremendous capability and creativity to bear on the enormous challenges that the region and the world face today. 

By hosting APEC in 2011, we have an opportunity to set the 

agenda for the Asia Pacific region. Of course, the administration 

cannot realize this vision without the strong support of Congress. 

I look forward to consulting closely with you on how APEC can further meet the needs of the American people and make APEC 2011 

a success for our country. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tong follows:]

24


52852c-1.eps
25


52852c-2.eps
26


52852c-3.eps
27


52852c-4.eps
28

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Tong. 

Unfortunately, we have a series of votes, as I am sure both of 

you are aware. I just wish there was a better way of organizing 

these votes, but we do have a series of them. And one of the pieces 

of legislation is in reference to the resolution concerning my own 

district. 

So, if it is all right with both of you, we need a little delay in 

our hearing for about 15 or 20 minutes, and then we will be back. 

I deeply apologize for this, but that is the reality that we are faced 

with here in the Congress. 

The committee hearing will be delayed for 20, 25 minutes. All 

right? Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. While my colleagues continue to vote, I 

would like to continue the subcommittee hearing at this time. 

We have just completed the testimony of Mr. Tong and we will 

now turn to Ms. Wendy Cutler for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. WENDY CUTLER, ASSISTANT UNITED 

STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE FOR JAPAN, KOREA AND 

APEC AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Ms. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing today. I think I was here about 2 years ago when you held your 

last hearing on APEC and I continue to applaud you and the subcommittee putting the spotlight on APEC. 

The Asia-Pacific region is a significant part of the global economy 

and has become a driver of world economic recovery and growth. 

In your opening remarks you underscored the importance of the 

Asia-Pacific economies for global GDP and global trade. And instead of going through these figures I just want to add that the significance of APEC economies as U.S. export markets—as U.S. exports to these economies have tripled over the past 15 years and 

now account for 60 percent of all U.S. sales abroad. 


52852c-5.eps
29

Along with the opportunities that this region presents for the 

United States, there are also challenges. As the developments in 

regional economic architecture in the Asia-Pacific is moving toward 

the creation of Asia-only groupings, the United States will increasingly be left out of key decisions. Further, the continued proliferation of free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific—there are already 

over 150 agreements in place with about another 70 being negotiated—have gone on without the United States. 

Just this past week, of recent note, there has been an announcement by China, Korea, and Japan to begin exploring a trilateral 

free trade pact, and tomorrow Korea and the European Union will 

be initialing a groundbreaking comprehensive FTA. APEC is the 

only regional grouping in which the United States is a member. 

Therefore, our strong and active participation in this organization 

provides us with a unique opportunity to play a leadership role in 

this region. 

APEC has a number of other unique characteristics that make 

it critical to the United States trade and economic agenda. First, 

the region has benefited greatly from trade and, as a result, APEC 

members are open to initiatives that lead to further open markets. 

Second, the nonbinding voluntary nature of APEC often allows 

economies to be more forward-leaning on issues that would be difficult to reach consensus in other fora such as the WTO. Third, 

APEC is a flexible institution which allows it to take on more 

pressing and new cutting-edge 21st issues as they emerge. APEC’s 

members include major economies such as China, Korea, Russia, 

and Japan, but also key developing economies as well as ASEAN. 

And, finally, APEC is the only such regional grouping to have 

members from both sides of the Pacific. 

The Obama administration views our hosting APEC in 2011 as 

a critically important opportunity to take advantage of these 

unique strengths of APEC to push forward a bolder vision to promote economic recovery and growth and further strengthen regional economic integration in the region. 

In preparation for our host year, we have been pursuing a forward-leaning agenda in 2009, including through initiatives that 

will serve as building blocks for more ambitious outcomes in 2010 

and 2011. As my colleague, Kurt Tong, highlighted, APEC has been 

instrumental in building support and endorsing G–20 outcomes. 

APEC continues to work to support the multilateral trading regime and the Doha development agenda specifically. In July APEC 

Trade Ministers called for an ambitious and balanced conclusion to 

the Doha Round and called on the establishment of senior officials 

process that is currently underway in Geneva. 

Accelerating efforts to strengthen regional economic integration 

remains at the core of APEC’s mission. And to this end, the United 

States has emphasized making substantive progress in key trade 

and investment issues as a way to address specific barriers to 

doing business in the region. For example, the United States, along 

with Australia, has launched an initiative to promote trade and 

services, is taking steps to facilitate trade in information and communications technology, and is examining ways to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade and investment in environmental goods and 

services. Making it cheaper and easier for companies and particuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:36 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\101409\52852 HFA PsN: SHIRL
30

larly for small- and medium-sized businesses to operate in the region is also one of the priority areas in APEC. 

APEC is working on simplifying and making trade documentation and procedures more consistent and transparent among APEC 

economies and is working to make information on tariff rates, rules 

of origin, and other customs-related information more accessible. 

As Singapore’s host year approaches its conclusion, we are working closely with Japan to build on this work in 2010 and 2011. As 

part of that contribution, we will be contributing to Japan’s effort 

to assess whether the Bogor Goals agreed to in 1994 of free and 

open trade in the Asia-Pacific region have been achieved. 

Since 1994 APEC’s commitment to free and open trade and investment has resulted in tremendous economic growth, reduction of 

trade barriers, and lifting millions out of poverty. And as a result, 

we are looking forward next year to telling a positive story on the 

role APEC has played toward reaching the Bogor Goals. 

Another priority for us going into 2010 and 2011 will be focusing 

on how APEC’s overall trade and investment agenda benefits 

small- and medium-sized enterprises. This will be part of USTR’s 

recently announced larger effort to bolster trade opportunities for 

SMEs in recognition of how highly important these companies are 

to our economy. We will be looking to further help SMEs by seeking to simplify complex and divergent trade rules and reduce transaction costs. We will work to ensure that the benefits of economic 

recovery and growth in the region are extended to businesses of all 

size, and we will also focus on making it easier to start a business 

in the region. 

Finally, in 2010 and 2011, we will continue to work closely with 

all stakeholders, including Congress and this subcommittee, to ensure that the APEC agenda contains a well-rounded, relevant, ambitious and inclusive set of priorities. Within the United States, we 

have a longstanding and close working relationship with the National Center for APEC, which will be even more important as we 

prepare for hosting in 2011. Congressional input and support will 

be critical, and we are encouraged by the interest of this subcommittee as well as the work of the House Caucus for APEC 

under the leadership of Representatives Brady, Larson, Crowley, 

and Herger. 

In conclusion, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and 

remind everyone that in 1993 when the United States last hosted 

APEC, it was a relatively new forum with only 14 members; yet, 

in recognition of the potential value of the organization, the United 

States instituted a meeting at the heads-of-state level where, for 

the first time an Asia Pacific vision of stability, security, and prosperity for our peoples was outlined. We hope that in 2011 when we 

host again, we will use this opportunity to once again break new 

ground and put APEC in the forefront of Asia-Pacific economic integration and cooperation. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cutler follows:]

31


52852d-1.eps
32


52852d-2.eps
33


52852d-3.eps
34


52852d-4.eps
35


52852d-5.eps
36


52852d-6.eps
37


52852d-7.eps
38

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do have some questions and wanted to 

start our dialogue. If my own personal experience is symptomatic 

of how Washington has operated, I recall when I first became a 

member of this committee over 20 years ago, nobody wanted to be 

on the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee. The Asia-Pacific Subcommittee 

and African Subcommittee were neglected. The whole mentality, 

not only in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but Washington itself, 

was focused on Europe and the Middle East. As some observers 

have noted, we were still fighting World War II in Europe. 

That seems to be the mindset of how Washington was, and I may 

be wrong, but that was my first impression when I became a member of this committee. I would say it has only been in the course 

of the last 3 or 4 years that this has changed dramatically. I can 

probably say that maybe before then, but I will say in my own personal experience, this has been the situation. 

And I note with interest, Mr. Tong, you mentioned, and I want 

to emphasize again, the 21 APEC members account for 55 percent 

of the world’s GDP, 45 percent of the global trade and 40 percent 

of the world population. Sixty percent of U.S. goods exports go to 

APEC economies. Five of America’s top seven trade partners are 

APEC members. I think that in itself should give some striking understanding and appreciation of our relationship with the Asia-Pacific region or, for that matter, as a member of this organization. 

I also note with interest, Mr. Tong, you mentioned that APEC is 

probably the only organization where we have the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan as full members. As you know, in public 

forums regionally as well as even in the United Nations, there is 

every effort made by the People’s Republic of China never, never 

to allow Taiwan to be an active participant. Yet in APEC’s membership, this is taken very well in terms of how that situation is 

taken. 

But I wanted to ask both of you—from both of your testimonies, 

I hear a lot of positives. But I would like to hear from you what 

are some of the downsides; or, you might say, are there problems 

with APEC in its current situation not just in terms of its operations but just in terms of are there serious problems? Even though 

you have given such a magnificent picture of how great APEC is, 

I would like to think that there are problems within APEC, and I 

would like to ask you if there are problems, I would like to hear 

from you. Or should I say ‘‘challenges,’’ if that’s a better way of saying it? 

Mr. TONG. If I could go first, I was actually going to suggest we 

call them challenges because we certainly look forward to trying to 

address these problems or challenges in APEC. 

I think I would like to mention two. One is the question of the 

level of ambition, and I think several members spoke to this, and 

the question of whether APEC is really living up to its full potential as an organization. Given the considerable importance of its 

membership, are we in fact doing all that we can do within APEC? 

And I think it is really—it is a question of whether the economies 

are looking for opportunities for results. And the United States I 

think is recognized within APEC as a leader in pushing for resultsoriented approaches, agreements and commitments, which, if not 

binding by law, are binding at least in the sense of being commitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:36 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\101409\52852 HFA PsN: SHIRL
39

ments that are being made in all seriousness and with the intention to fulfill them. That’s an important question. I think that a 

critical question for 2010 and 2011 is: Can we, Japan and the 

United States, lead the economies of the region in trying to be as 

ambitious as possible within APEC? 

To be honest, one difficulty that we face is the fact that the global economy is not doing well right now. It is a tougher environment 

for many of the economies to take on new challenges, but it is an 

important one to face. 

Now, you suggested not going beyond APEC operations. There is 

also a challenge in terms of just how the nitty-gritty of the organization runs; that even in an organization as young as APEC, which 

has only existed for about 20 years, there is a tendency for things 

to become bureaucratic and stodgy in terms of how things are done. 

And I think that we are committed to try and make sure that the 

focus is on the results rather than the process and that APEC in 

its operations is efficient and speedy. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. Cutler. 

Ms. CUTLER. Well, I wholeheartedly agree with all the challenges 

that Kurt put forward, and I would just like to add two more. One, 

I think APEC could do a better job at setting its priorities and 

streamlining its work. I have worked on APEC now for about 6 

years, and I still find there are different working groups I have 

never even heard of. A lot of times these groups are easy to establish, but they are hard to shut down. And also I think if you look 

at some of the statements that are put out after these meetings, 

there are pages and pages of different work programs. So I think 

setting priorities could help. 

Second, I think we could do a better job with what I call followthrough or implementation on initiatives we have agreed on and 

arrangements we have endorsed. And this is an area that we are 

trying very hard to work on to make sure that if in 1 year an initiative is announced and APEC economies agree to the initiative, 

that next year we can have a discussion on follow-through and actually ask economies to present how they have lived up to these 

commitments—nonbinding commitments. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I notice that both of you have made comments of the fact that next year Japan is going to host the APEC 

conference and the following year the United States is going to host 

the conference. Does that sound like some kind of a conspiracy 

going on here with the two most powerful economies? It sounds like 

they want to dominate the APEC organization by having this little 

conspiracy going here. 

I note with interest that you said that this is a golden opportunity for the United States and Japan to make APEC a more effective organization in terms of its trade and investment policies. 

Do you consider this as a grand scheme on the part of the United 

States and Japan to dominate APEC? 

Mr. TONG. Well, I certainly hope that our partners, the other 19 

economies in APEC, don’t view this as a negative that Japan and 

the United States are hosting back to back. I think APEC has done 

very well in the years where the most capable economies or the 

wealthiest economies have led. It has also done very well in years 

40

when developing economies have led APEC as the host, because 

they throw themselves into it with full enthusiasm and great vigor. 

I think actually that the other economies look to the next 2 years 

with Japan—and also the current year with Singapore—but the 

next 2 years with Japan and the United States in the chair with 

anticipation; that they actually are looking forward to us helping 

set the direction and lead efforts and follow through. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. Cutler, I hate to impose on you. Go 

ahead, please. 

Ms. CUTLER. I would just add that the United States, we hosted 

in 1993; Japan hosted in 1995. It is kind of our turn again. Indonesia hosted in 1994 and they are going to be hosting again in 

2013. So there is some logic to these hosting years. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I note with interest also that I am just curious; how do the economies of the Asia-Pacific region compare to the 

European Union and our trade relations with these two regions of 

the world? I don’t have the figures in my hand, but I am just curious; is our trade with the Asia-Pacific region greater than the Europeans and Europe at this point in time? You can submit it as 

part of the record. 

Mr. TONG. I will have to get back to you with the exact numbers 

but my impression is it is larger. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It is larger. 

Mr. TONG. I think we said 60 percent of the exports go to AsiaPacific economies so my hunch is that is the case, but I will check 

and make sure. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Don’t we currently have about $600 billion 

in trade with the European countries? 

Mr. TONG. They are also extremely important. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

U.S. trade with the Asia-Pacific is greater than with Europe. 

In 2008, total U.S. trade with Europe in goods was $642 billion. If both goods and 

services are included, U.S.-Europe trade was roughly $953 billion. 

In comparison, U.S. goods trade with APEC member economies, including Canada 

and Mexico, was $2.1 trillion in 2008. U.S.-APEC trade in both goods and services 

was $2.2 trillion in 2007, the latest year that we have data available for both categories.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I have some more questions, but I am very 

glad that I have my good friend and colleague here with us, the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for his questions. I 

will wait for the second round. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Here we are in the middle of an economic crisis. The American 

people are justifiably asking some questions about economic policies that perhaps they weren’t asking about before. So let me just 

go over some questions for you. 

Have the rules of the trade game been unfairly tilted against the 

American people, especially concerning China, over these last 20 

years? 

Ms. CUTLER. With respect to China, it is really the rules of the 

WTO that govern our trade relationship with them, in addition to 

additional bilateral agreements that we have reached with them. 

41

In our view, the rules—let us just say we are putting great emphasis on enforcing these rules and making sure that China like other 

WTO members lives up to its obligations. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So your answer is no, the rules are fair and 

we are trying to enforce them, and to the degree that we haven’t 

enforced them, it wouldn’t be fair to the American people. But the 

basic rules of trade between China and the United States have 

been fair to the people of the United States. 

What about you? 

Mr. TONG. We are certainly trying to make sure that the interests of the American people are protected and promoted as much 

as humanly possible in the trade relationship with China. I think 

several of the members pointed out that there are rules which are 

agreed upon between nations, including in the WTO, and then 

there are rules which sometimes operate in practice beyond those 

which are formally agreed. And certainly our intention is to make 

sure that all of the rules that we negotiate are favorable to the 

American worker. 

There is a problem with rules being made in either an ex officio 

way or informally. I think Representative Sherman was referring 

to informal guidance which was given by the Chinese Government—its different entities, maybe different levels of government—

to businesses which can make it more difficult for U.S. businesses 

to compete in the Chinese environment, and certainly that is an 

issue of concern to the United States. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So there is an informal factor rather than actual rules of the game that is working against the American people, 

but the rules you think are fundamentally fair? 

Mr. TONG. Well, I think the intention is to try to make sure that 

to the extent possible in our discussions government to government, that there is not a situation where the playing field was tilted against the American businesses. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is the Chinese currency undervalued? And if 

the answer is yes, which everybody in the world seems to be saying, how long has it been undervalued? 

Mr. TONG. I think the Treasury Department would make sure 

that I get fired if I comment on that topic. So I am sorry. I would 

have to ask you for your next opportunity to ask someone from the 

Treasury Department. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you have any opinion on that, or should 

we have another set of government officials? Okay. 

Let us just note that every information that I have received indicates that it is undervalued, has been undervalued for a long time, 

and the American people have suffered because of our willingness 

to permit that basic element of trade to continue. And why haven’t 

we acted upon it? Maybe it is because we have some very corporate 

elite, rich Americans who are benefiting from the China trade at 

the expense of the American people, and they have a great deal of 

influence as to what policies we push; like, for example, pushing 

on the Chinese and laying down the law that we are not going to 

permit this unfair valuation of their currency at the expense of the 

American people. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly. 

42

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would just like to add to the gentleman’s 

concerns and questions here, I would like to ask you if you could 

submit the names and the number of U.S. companies that are 

doing business right now in China. And as part of the Chinese exports that I recall 2 years ago, $340 billion of exported goods to the 

United States, how much of that percentage was produced by 

American companies who do business in China? I think that is 

pretty much in terms of the concerns of the gentleman. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

The United States government does not keep statistics on the number of U.S. 

companies doing business currently in China. I would recommend inquiring with 

private sector organizations such as the U.S.-China Business Council and the U.S. 

Chamber Commerce as to whether they have such data. The United States government also does not have the raw data available that would be needed to calculate 

statistics on the amount of Chinese exports that are actually produced by American 

companies who do business in China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we end up with 90 percent of the containers that go through the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

which I represent, are coming in and only 10 percent are going out, 

and there is a reason for that. That didn’t just happen. That is 

based on policies that have been established for these last 20 years. 

And I focus on 20 years, because it was 20 years ago when the 

Communist Party of China, who controlled the Beijing government 

at that time, slaughtered the democratic movement in Tiananmen 

Square. 

How much investment have U.S. capitalists put into China over 

these last 20 years? 

Mr. TONG. I would need to get back to you for the exact figure 

on that. I believe it is a considerable investment. I would point out 

that the investment that American companies put into China, 

much of it supports, as you have noted, imports back to the United 

States; much of it also supports exports from the United States. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And it also suggests what? Very limited exports for the first couple of years and setting up a factory, 

and then a long-term drain on the financial resources which are 

being taken from the pockets of American workers who have been 

put out of work and now are in the pockets of, yes, a few capitalists 

who can now make a bigger profit, American capitalists, and Chinese elites as well, as perhaps the Chinese people. But who is 

watching out for the American people? 

So it is considerable. Is $1 trillion, do you think that it would be 

$1 trillion worth of investment or is that just way too high? 

Mr. TONG. I think it would be most responsible for us to get back 

to you with an exact figure, because there is a question of stock investment and flow investment and how much of it is double-counted. So we will certainly give you that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

According to the U.S. Bureau Economic Analysis, the total stock of U.S. foreign 

direct investment (FDI)—that is, the total accumulated amount of U.S foreign inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:36 Dec 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\APGE\101409\52852 HFA PsN: SHIRL
43

vestment in China—in 2008 was $45.7 billion. In 1989, U.S. FDI stock in China was 

$436 million.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That would be very helpful. How about the 

value of tech transfer that we have had, where American taxpayers 

over these last four decades have spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing new technologies that just end up being sent to increase the manufacturing capabilities of China? What is the value 

of the tech transfer? Have there been any estimates on that? 

Mr. TONG. Again, for an exact figure we can get back to you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would certainly appreciate that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

The State Department does not keep statistics on the amount of technology transfers between U.S. and Chinese companies. I note that the Obama Administration 

is committed to fostering development of new technologies, including green technologies, here in the United States that create jobs for Americans. The administration is also committed to ensuring that American workers and businesses stay competitive in the global economy, including through technological innovation.

Mr. TONG. Turning back to APEC,I would point out, and perhaps 

Wendy can elaborate on this, there is an intense effort within 

APEC to try to tighten intellectual property rights protection. It is 

one of the major agenda items for the economies within APEC. We 

have had some progress. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is intellectual property theft. But I was 

just talking about in terms of actual tech transfer where it might 

not be theft. It might just be our corporations that have benefited 

by government research contracts over the years, taking the results 

of that research and putting it to use for the benefit of people who 

are our competitors. 

But speaking about property theft, what is the estimate on the 

value of the intellectual property theft in China every year? None? 

What about——

Mr. TONG. Well, I believe industry have done calculations on that 

and certainly we can provide that information. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

The private-sector International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) estimates 

that the amount of U.S. trade losses due to copyright piracy in China of business 

software and music totaled $3.5 billion in 2008. They also estimate that 79 percent 

of business software and 90 percent of records and music are pirated in China.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Is China the country that—we have 

spies, we have economic spies that we have here, as well as military and other national security spies, but is not China the number 

one country—that when we find these economic spies, is not China 

the number one country that is engaged in economic espionage? 

Mr. TONG. That again is something I would need to get back to 

you on, and probably in a classified forum, for an accurate estimate. 

[The information referred to follows:]

44

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. KURT TONG TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

The State Department is not in a position to give a response to this type of intelligence-related question. I would recommend that you seek information from the 

FBI or the intelligence community.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Over these last 20 years when we have 

had a massive flow of capital and know-how and value and wealth 

transferred to China, have there been any government policies on 

the part of the United States that encouraged this flow? For example, have there been any programs of the United States Government that provided loan guarantees or any other type of, let us say, 

support for large capitalists to go into China and invest? 

Mr. TONG. My understanding is that the Export-Import Bank of 

the United States is active in China, but the Overseas Private Investment Corporation is not active. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the Export-Import Bank. How about IMF 

and the World Bank, which of course most of their money comes 

from us anyway? Do they support projects of American capitalists 

investing there in China? 

Mr. TONG. IMF I don’t know. World Bank and certainly also the 

Asian Development Bank are very active in China in investing in 

infrastructure development, environmental protection, and other 

areas. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, let me just note that the American people are suffering from a nonnatural disaster. Your people in Samoa just went 

through a catastrophe; it was a tidal wave based on an earthquake. 

They are suffering tremendously, as we have recognized at the beginning of this. 

The American people are going into a time of suffering and hardship not because of a natural catastrophe, but because the policies 

that have been put in place have led to this. The Chinese Government now owns—what is the Chinese debt that they own half of 

ours? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Almost $1 trillion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Almost $1 trillion of debt. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not debt, but investments in the United 

States. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, that is what it is going to turn out to 

be, that they own a lot of——

Mr. TONG. U.S. Government Treasuries. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They will own a lot now. Where did that $1 

trillion come from? Yes, they bought bonds. But I would suggest 

that we have given at least $1 trillion worth of financial support 

in building up an economic power to a country that is headed by 

people who are the worst human rights abusers in the world and 

have not had one bit of liberalization in their political process. This 

hoping for the best by making China prosperous and powerful has 

not worked, and I would hope that the questions that I offered 

today—and I look forward to your research and reply because I 

really could use those figures. I hope that alerts us to the fact that 

our Government has not been—Republican and Democrat administrations have not been watching out for the interests of the American people and now we are paying a horrible price for that. 

45

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his comments 

and questions and I hope that our good friends, the witnesses this 

afternoon, will provide us with the data that he has requested. 

Ms. Cutler, I notice with interest that you had mentioned about 

the proliferation of trade agreements that seems to be going 

around, 70 trade agreements, free trade agreements currently 

being negotiated, and that is on top of 150 other free trade agreements. And it is interesting that I think we only have 5 free trade 

agreements in place, which brings to bear my next question. 

I noticed that you were actively engaged in the free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea, and I know this became one 

of the big political issues in last year’s Presidential campaign. As 

a strong supporter of the free trade agreement with South Korea, 

I noticed also there was some concern about auto parts and the 

automobile trade we have with South Korea. Can you comment on 

where we are now with our free trade agreement with Korea? 

Ms. CUTLER. We are currently undertaking a review of the Korea 

FTA. As part of this review we have had numerous meetings with 

various stakeholders including the auto companies and the UAW. 

We also issued a Federal Register notice in August and received 

over 300 comments, and we are now looking through these comments. There has been overwhelming support for the agreement 

based on the comments, but I would also note that there are areas 

of concern noted by some of the submissions, particularly by two 

of the automotive companies and the UAW and other workers 

groups. 

We are now looking at the various suggestions that have been 

put forward of ways to address concerns. We are thinking of our 

own ways to address concerns, and we will be consulting intensively with our stakeholders and Congress, and we hope to reengage with Korea in the near future with a package of recommendations to build on the existing agreement. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Given our experience with NAFTA, two 

basic issues always seem to come up whenever we talk about trade 

agreements—labor standards and environmental standards. And it 

seems that South Korea is pretty much transparent when it comes 

to those fundamental issues. 

I have also noticed allegations—and I don’t know if there is any 

truth in this and would like your comment—that some 600,000 Korean cars are purchased here in America versus some 7,000 American cars purchased in Korea. Is there any truth to that allegation? 

Ms. CUTLER. First, with respect to the environment and labor, 

Korea does have some very strong protections in both areas. And 

Korea also, as part of the FTA, agreed to the May 10th bipartisan 

package of 2007, so that is part of the agreement. 

With respect to automotive trade, yes, there is a huge imbalance. 

Hundreds of thousands of cars are sold by Korean companies here 

in the United States and our success in penetrating the Korean 

market has met with impediments. The current agreement does 

provide provisions to get rid of Korea’s tariffs immediately on 

autos. It also provides a series of provisions on nontariff measures. 

However, based on comments, concerns, and discussions since we 

concluded this deal 2 years ago, it is apparent that more can be 

46

done and should be done in the automotive sector to help level the 

playing field for U.S. companies and workers in this important sector. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is there a possibility to separate the automotive issue? It seems to be the basic obstacle in agreeing to many 

other provisions of the proposed free trade agreement which are 

very positive to the extent that we are looking at possible exports 

from the United States of over $11 billion as a benefit not only to 

the American workers but to companies that want to export to 

Korea. Is there a possibility of looking at this separately if this is 

really the main impediment to the agreement? I was just wondering if the administration is viewing that rather than continuing 

to put the auto issue as part of the—almost like 1⁄10 of 1 percent 

of the other provisions of the FTA that are both in agreement by 

both countries. 

It seems to me that we are putting on hold the bigger part for 

something that is just specific and maybe it takes more—it will 

take more time to negotiate because, as you said, this—I don’t 

know if it is because of the tariffs that the Korean Government 

puts on our vehicles when we export to Korea. There is a claim 

that the tariffs that they put in as an offset of some of the things 

that we export to Korea, especially agricultural products. This is 

something that comes into the meat industry or the beef. You 

know, I think Korea is one of the biggest consumers of beef in the 

world, and I was just curious if we are going to continue to have 

the auto industry to hold the benefits that could be given to the 

American people as well as the workers and the businesses who 

will benefit from this free trade agreement. 

Ms. CUTLER. Our focus now is on understanding and trying to 

address the concerns put forth by the automotive industry but not 

limited to the automotive industry. The submissions to our Federal 

Register notice are public, and if you have time to comb through 

hundreds and hundreds of them you will see that there are other 

concerns as well. 

With respect to beef, the comments do suggest that our beef industry is now pleased with the inroads they have made into the 

Korean market. But some other concerns have been raised more 

generally with respect to nontariff measures. In any event, we are 

looking through all of these concerns. We are trying to come up 

with a package of proposals which will level the playing field, address the remaining issues so we would be in a position to move 

this agreement forward in Congress. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, that was our hope as well. But it 

seemed to have been that the previous administration had really 

moved to get the free trade agreement for some other exchanges 

that took place at the time when this proposed free trade agreement was brought for public review. 

I wanted to note also that you had commented about APEC and 

its ability to cope with the global financial crisis. Will this be one 

of the issues that will be taken up in our meeting in Singapore, Mr. 

Tong? 

Mr. TONG. Yes. I definitely think this will be a major topic for 

the leaders as well the finance ministers to meet a few days previous to the leaders meeting in Singapore. Our expectation is that 

47

both the finance ministers and the leaders will review some of the 

outcomes of the Pittsburgh G–20 summit and, we hope, endorse the 

principles agreed to in Pittsburgh and take on commitments as an 

Asia-Pacific region to implement those approaches to economic 

growth and recovery. But I think it is going to be a major theme 

in Singapore. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Touching upon the issue that my friend 

from California had covered earlier, I note with interest that for 

years Russia and China had been moving or proposing to the global 

community about having international currency rather than using 

the dollar as the international currency of exchange. What is your 

comment on that? 

Mr. TONG. I am always real cautious about matters related to the 

currency, but I think that what we are finding is happening on the 

ground in actuality is that, while there is some discomfort in some 

economies to the very prominent role played by the U.S. dollar in 

the international financial system, that there is also a sense of reality and a sense of the continued importance of the U.S. dollar. 

So sometimes there is a tradeoff between reality and aspiration on 

that front. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don’t know about reality and a tradeoff. 

But let me just ask you, in the advent of the recent economic crisis, 

ironically a country that happens to be the most stable economy 

happens to be China, which is not even a capitalist country other 

than the fact that they implemented free market principles since 

the time of Deng Xioping. It think it was in 1978. 

What I wanted to note with interest is that on the failure of our 

own economic institutions, for lack of regulation perhaps, for lack 

of just greed perhaps in corporate America. And yet somehow we 

just continue skipping over and not really admitting to ourselves 

there are some very serious moral and ethical questions raised 

about how we have gone on doing business, which has completely 

impacted our economy in a most serious way. 

And I think this probably bears on what China and other countries are saying: That if this is the kind of example that is causing 

economic instability around the world because of our conduct and 

what we have done, do you think that perhaps the idea of an international currency, with some sense of stabilization efforts, to make 

sure that the world economic crisis doesn’t have another repeat of 

history, with what we are going through right now? 

Mr. TONG. I am not sure whether a change in the way that international currencies are handled would improve things or not. But 

I will say that we have heard quite a bit from the Asia-Pacific 

economies over the past year, concern about the United States 

economy. It is sincere concern. They have the best interests, for the 

most part, in seeing the U.S. economy recover, and, fortunately, we 

are starting to see some signs of recovery. But we have heard from 

the Asia-Pacific economies great concern. 

We have also heard some relief that the U.S. Government has 

tackled the problems of our domestic economy head-on and done 

our best efforts to try and achieve a rapid recovery in the U.S. 

economy and a return to growth. 

You mentioned the role that the Chinese economy has played in 

the global macro-economy. I think it is fair to say that continued 

48

Chinese growth has been a source of stability and has assisted the 

Asia-Pacific region in getting through this past year and returning 

toward recovery. And our hope is that as the Chinese economy becomes increasingly consumer-oriented and takes a more balanced 

approach toward its future growth, that that role can continue and 

can continue in a way that also addresses some of the concerns 

that we have about the trade balance and the way that our economic relationships with China are structured. 

That is a concern that many economies share as they look toward 

China: Both a sense of the opportunity which China has created 

through its rapid growth, but a sense of hope that the Chinese will 

restructure their economy in a way that is beneficial to everyone. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Ms. Cutler? I didn’t mean to put you on the 

spot there. 

Your sense on the Bogor goals of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region by 2010 and 2020: Are they realistic goals or are they just a dream? 

Ms. CUTLER. They were goals that were agreed to in 1994. The 

industrialized countries, APEC economies, are scheduled to announce in 2010 how far they have come to achieving them, and we 

in the United States believe we have made important progress and 

great progress toward achieving these goals. 

The trade landscape in 1994 was very different than it is today. 

So it is hard to compare what leaders meant when they agreed to 

those goals in 1994 to what the environment is and all the issues 

that now come under the trade and investment rubric. 

So we think we have a good story to tell. We believe a number 

of our other 2010 colleagues have a good story to tell. And we hope, 

then, that next year under Japan’s leadership, we will have a successful review of Bogor, and then we can discuss what we need to 

do to further our trade and investment liberalization objectives 

looking ahead. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In my recent meetings with President Lee 

and several other leaders of South Korea—as you know, South 

Korea is perhaps one of our closest allies in this region. And to the 

extent that they have shared with me their concern to the effect 

that it is not just about free trade, it is not just about having a 

free trade agreement, it is about a partnership that cuts through 

not just economics, but the whole region is looking at how our 

country is treating this democracy or this country that has always 

been our strongest supporter militarily, economically, and in every 

way. 

And I just wanted to pass that message on to the administration 

that this proposed free trade agreement now—that has been 2 

years in the making—that it is not going to continue on for another 

4 years of continued negotiations. It does negatively reflect on our 

inability to say are we really—do we really have the political will 

to make this free trade agreement as a good result and seeing that 

we are serious about our commitments to our friends? 

And I sincerely hope that in the coming months, Ms. Cutler, as 

you have said, that you continue the negotiations, that we don’t 

continue the negotiations for the next 2 years and still with no result. It will bring about tremendous disappointment. And I just 

want to say that they are anxiously waiting, hopefully, not only as 

49

a benefit to them but certainly as a benefit to our country as well. 

And I sincerely hope that something positive will come as an outcome of your continued efforts to work out the differences or the 

problems that we have faced in that proposed free trade agreement. 

I truly want to thank both of you for being here. I hope and wish 

both of you all the best in the upcoming APEC conference. I understand the President also plans to visit China, and maybe even Indonesia where he was raised. 

It was very interesting at the height of the last year’s Presidential campaign, there was a national blog going on, and that I 

was a specially appointed agent of Barack Obama who went to Indonesia, which I did. I went to Indonesia and I also visited the 

school that he went to when he was a young man, and that my 

mission, as a special agent of President Obama, was to make sure 

that there was no record whatsoever indicating that he was born 

in Indonesia. 

And I just wanted to let you know that confirmation for those 

who still think that President Obama is not a naturalized citizen—

I get to the point where not only it becomes absurd and this whole 

thing about, well, why doesn’t he show his birth certificate? I think 

maybe if you go see the application when he filed for the Presidency, I am sure there is an indication of where he was born, 

which happens to be the Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, in the 

State of Hawaii, if they really are that serious and wanted to know 

where he was born. 

If anybody could find out that he falsely filled those applications 

to become President of this great country, I would be the first person that would like to shake that person’s hand to say that he 

falsely filled out that application to become President of this great 

Nation of ours. 

Again, I commend both of you for your tremendous work and 

service to our country. Thank you so much for being here. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

52


52852n.eps
53

Æ


52852m.eps