And subcommittee on Global Competitiveness will come to order. I know this seems a little strac strange with an empty room except for three witnesses live in front of me and many of our colleagues are going to be joining us virtually. But i want to welcome all of you nonetheless to this important hearing. This subcommittee continues to do its work in exploring the unfair trade practices of foreign governments, especially china and russia. The topic of censorship in china is a common one because it is growing effect on business in the United States as well as culture. Last fall, for example, the National Basketball association had the Market Access blocked in china because an individual american citizen using a media platform not allowed in china expressed a political opinion. Now the topics have become more manufactu important. The timely information about the spread of covid19 due to chinese censorship has contributed to the havoc wreaked on our economy and health and indeed the pandemic. The story is nothing new for some joining us today, as chinese censorship has long been growing and long had a negative effect on people around the world such as those in tibet or the uyghurs in the gin chang province. Censorship definition is a good place to start. The sensor or prohibition considered obscene, politically unacceptable or a threat to security. Today well focus on how the use of censorship has become a barrier to global trade. When the World Trade Organization was founded two exceptions to the principal of National Treatment and most favored nation were created. Those are for public morals and National Security. There is no exception for a country to restrict trade because its something politically unacceptable. With discussions over reforming the wto multilateral talks on ecommerce and the prospect of a phase two bilateral trade deal with china progressing, the subcommittee is uniquely involved in informing a nonbarrier tariff to trade. Well help to determine if the censorship of information via Digital Media by countries like china constitute a trade barrier in violation of the wto. As well as multilateral and Bilateral Agreements and practice. If so well look to determine the economic damage caused the human, cultural and political ramifications and what remedies should be created to combat this unfair trade practice. On a bilateral basis, what is clear is the lack of reciprocity for countries like china and russia and the United States. The Chinese Government spends billions of dollars to promote propaganda overseas. A form of offensive censorship. For years russia has broadcast the state propaganda in the United States and has justly been designated as a foreign agent. The lack of reciprocity takes advantage of our Free Expression to promote the countrys agenda online in media, entertainment and our education system. Meanwhile, china and russia do not grant the United States the same access to its markets or media. Instead, china has been expelling our media, having kicked out three wall street journal and other reporters earlier this year over chinese censorship of covid19. For centuries, countries block trades through physically restricting access to their ports. Today the same thing happens but with fire walls, filters and outright restrictions to access. In fact, nearly 100 of Global International traffic travels through a crisscrossing network of undersea cables that form the backbone of Global Digital trade. These cables are another front in the Global Technology like huawei rapidly controlling contact and trade censored. The blocking or filtering of traffic by nation states is growing. The censorship is fragmenting our markets and culture and understanding of one another. The internet itself is becoming less global. China and russia are building their own infrastructure, to cut themselves off from the world, but exporting their authoritarian model to other nation states through efforts such as the digital silk road. It is important that congress support our nation in meeting that challenge and im working together with all of the colleagues in the senate and in the house to include parts of the chips for america act in the National Defense authorization bill currently on the senate floor. If were forced to rely on china to build our networks, and our technology, the world we know will be much less freer and open to expression of opinions and do business. This bill will help us create production for high End Semiconductor that underpin the technology we use in our daily lives and let the United States remain a Global Leader in promoting free trade of goods, information and speech. Finally i look forward to discussing what remedies are available. Last fall a chinese american constituent of mine in texas reported he was censored here on american soil by the Chinese Government. His american we chat account was shut down for supporting protests in hong kong. His response was, quote, if you have censorship in china, fine. But in this country im a republican but i suffer the same as democrats. Were all censored. I look forward to exploring this topic in the same bipartisan fashion in which we hope to proceed. It is time for congress to ask hard questions and that is why weve called our panel of four experts here today to discuss this issue. Let me now recognize Ranking Member casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for this hearing and i want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. This is, as the chair has noted, the third in a series of hearings held by the subcommittee outlining Chinese Governments Civil Military agenda and efforts to influence the economic and geopolitical order in a manner that benefit the authoritarian and anticompetitive practices. Just yesterday the Chinese National Peoples Congress passed a National Security law for hong kong that significantly erodes hong kongs special status and based on available reporting will deny people of hong kong the right to protest, the right to assemble or the right to criticize their government. The United States congress has been clear time and again that citizens of hong kong must enjoy certain rights that are distinct from Mainland China in efforts to undermine the status quo as an affront to the people of hong kong and decades of [ technical difficulties ] to execute a clear and coordinated strategy. This applies to trade and to the Chinese Government most recent efforts to erode the rights of people of hong kong. Here in the United States at this time, we know that were in the midst of a Public Health and jobs crisis. So much suffering all across our country. Weve seen the cost of our reliance in the context of this pandemic, this Public Health crisis, our reliance on a Single Source supplier and more to the point our reliance on production from a nonmarket economy. Last year senator cornyn and i began this effort by outlining the main issues related to Market Access of china and then focused on specific initiatives and actions undertaken by the chinese starting with the belt road initiative. Today we return our attention to censorship. We have direct barriers such as blocking movies frommering their market or restricting content to blocking internet firms to dictating content related to chinas territorial and economic claims and to demanding action or inaction by businesses related to taiwan, hong kong, tibet and the ongoing human rights abuses in gin chang. The Chinese Government has become assertive in demands within and outside of its borders. The mandates related to extra territorial censorship is particularly troubling. The Chinese Government respond to a message of solidarity for hong kong for the general manager of the Houston Rockets for one example, brings to life the lengths the government will go to censor speech no matter where in the world it occurred. The intended message sent by beijings disproportional response is clear, that Chinese Government can exert command and control over any enterprise operating in china, public or private. Simply stated, Chinese Government is using its market power and steadiful speech, speech of our firms and speech of our people. These actions are inconsistent with our principles, inconsistent with our values, and those of our allies. The introduction of corporate social Credit System take this is activity to a new level. The actions undertaken by the Chinese Government are clearly restrictive and discriminatory. They are in sidus and counter to the necessary conditions of a fair, Global Economic system. Since this hearing was originated, or originally scheduled in march, weve seen all too clearly the cost of relying on china for production for our nations critical capabilities. Whether that is personal protective equipment or otherwise. I recently introduced the market economy sourcing act which will begin to right size supply chains toward the United States and other marketoriented countries. But this is but one measure that must be adopted to refocus our trade rules to the Global Economic system. If we hope to sustain, to sustain marketoriented principles for the next, say, 100 years, we must take action now to ensure competition and market principles are not simply words in a textbook but rather infused into our system of government and governance. When it comes to trade, we must be responsive and creative to address challenges and harness opportunities. There is no doubt congress, citizens, and businesses must support and defend the Economic Security of the United States of america. I look forward to hearing today from our witnesses and discussing potential responses including the required disclosure of these types of requests, the appropriate federal entities and trade rules that prevent free writing from nonmarketing. Thank you, senator. Thank you, senator casey. Would you like to take a few minutes to introduce our witnesses and we look forward to hearing from all of you today. I ask all witnesses summarize your written testimony and try to abide by the five minute rule. Well come back and ask more questions and your statements will be made part of the record without any objection. Our first witness is mr. Richard gear, chairman of the International Campaign for tibet headquarters in washington, d. C. Mr. Gear is an internationally known actor and philanthropist who worked for 25 years to advocate for human rights of tibetan people and preserve the tibetan culture. Also cofounder of tibet house u. S. And creator of the Gear Foundation and cosponsored five historic visits to the United States by the dalai lama and i understand you had a recent addition to your family. Congratulations on your new son. Thank you for being here. Next id like to welcome nigel cory, from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation here in d. C. Mr. Cory is an if expert on data and digital trade issues in the global economy. He spent eight years working for australias department of Foreign Affairs and trade which included positions covering Global Economic and trade issues among g20 countries and at World Trade Organization. Hes also held diplomatic postings in malaysia and afghanistan. Third id like to welcome beth maltson, a fellow in the open Market Institute here in d. C. She focuses on the impact of monopoly power on trade and the consequences for National Security. She previously served as Democratic Council for the ways and Means Sub Committee and was six years with the United States trade representative where she participated in trade negotiations and litigated trade disputes. She spent three years detailed to the Senate Permanent subcommittee on investigations. And finally id like to welcome mr. Cleat williams from straus, helder and feld here in washington, d. C. Mr. Williams advises a variety of clients on International Economic law and policy matters. Before he joined the firm, he served as the white house at the white house as Deputy Assistant to the president for International Economics. Hes represented the United States as a key negotiator and litigationed 30 wto disputes. His work here on capitol hill on the House Budget Committee and for the former speaker paul ryan. Thank you very much for being here. Mr. Williams and all of our witnesses. And mr. Gear, if you could if youre there, please proceed with your opening statement. Im here. Somewhere. Thank you for joining us. This is bizarre and prefer this facetoface, but lets engauge each other anyhow. And chairman and Ranking Member and members of the committee, thank you so much for your introduction and in inviting me to testify. It has been 35 years since i first testified in congress and that is on behalf of our Central American brothers and sisters and on tibet for the last 30 years or so. Tibet has certainly been my compass that has helped me navigate through the world and certainly through washington and probably through all of my life. This is the first time ive testified before the senate since i last met with one of your greatest colleagues john mccain. He was a good man. And he was a good friend. He was a good friend as well with the dalai lama and the tibetan field. He was the best of us. Like john mccain and many of you, im sure, that i hope that our government could deliver at its best. Not only for the american people, but for the millions of people all over the world who look to us, to look to the United States and its democracy and freedoms and its openness as a source of inspiration and refuge while they live under oppression and violence. American leadership is at its best whether it sets its view beyond the horizon and looks with balanced confidence at the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead. But the rise of china in the world today is not something beyond our horizon. It is right here. It is right in front of us. It is in our face and it affects our daily lives, our workplaces, our freedoms, our privacy, our health, obviously were finding out, our elections and they will certainly shape the future of or world. After looking at the committees work since 1949 to place the u. S. On the world stage and advance the Community Party authoritarian model everywhere in the world, im happy to offer my experience to this existential important conversation. The conversation about the future of our relationship with the chinese is crucial, not only to the u. S. And frankly weve been tragically naive under both republican and democratic administrations, but it is equally crucial for our democratic allies. Ive been involved in supporting tibetan people and a vision with the dalai lama where peaceful coexistence for almost 40 years now. When it comes to china, tibet supporters have been in for the long haul, say. We knew that was happening in tibet would not stop there. And the chinese authoritarianism would expand well beyond tibet as we see in xin jung and beyond chinas borders. Clearly we have a rapport with the chinese people. Theyre the same as us. We wish they enjoy life and opportunities and joy and happiness for families and for their children. But what i fear is the chinese Community Party model of development that is predicated on control, dominance, and violence. Chinese leaders have often quoted an old chinese proverb on the outside be benevolent, on the inside be ruthless. I recall a time in the 90s when members of Congress Called on the white house many times to condition chinese most favored nation status on clear criteria that would protect the rule of law and human rights. That coalition unfortunately was defeated by powerful interests with short sighted financial goals. And a very naive understanding of chinas 100 year plan which theyre probably 50 years ahead of already. Conventional wisdom that by opening or markets to china this would somehow and by itself produce meaningful political and social reforms. As we now the opposite has proven to be true with more restrictions, control of region, mass incarceration, crack downed on dissent including concealing critical information about the spread of coronavirus. We also see the Chinese Government using economic policies to prey on weaker countries through the extremely dangerous belt and rod initiative, the long plan to control natural resources, supply chain, trains, support and sea land and the environmental Worker Rights reforms we advocated for then would have also protected the larger economic interests of the u. S. And our allies now. Let me give an example. The u. S. Opened its doors to chinese investments and products and various forms of chinese cultural influence including state media. We even allowed state sponsored confucius to gain a foot hold in Chinese Companies like huawei, that spend large sums of money to lobby the u. S. And enter the u. S. Markets. But as you also know, china does not reciprocate. Access to Chinese Market is limited. They do not allow American Media to broadcast in china. It is lack of reciprocity fueled by an orwellian system of state censorship and powerfully restricts access to information and american and foreign Media Companies access to one of the Worlds Largest media markets. In fact, china has repeatedly insisted that u. S. Tech companies accept strict censorship to gain access to its 1. 4 billion people. The another example is freedom of movement. We have a respect tor the tibbanet people and the unique buddhist culture and fragile and beautiful land. It is the roof of our world. It is the third pole and the greatest source of the worlds freshwater. But here is what happens in tibet. The Chinese Government highly restricted access for americans including journalists and politicians like in other areas of china. While chinese citizens face no such limits when they visit the u. S. They go where they want. And Congress Passed the reciprocal access to tibet act. This is a good and rational and systematic response and we hope the state department will implement it soon and as it is required by law. As an actor, which is why im here, i think, i know youre interested in my experience in the Entertainment Industry and growing chinese influence there. Well i cant say that my speaking out for human rights has directly affected my career. Im probably an unusual case and we could talk about that more in the q a session. There is no doubt that the combination of chinese censorship with american film studios desire to access Chinese Market could lead to self censorship and to avoiding social issues that Great American films once addressed. Imagine Martin Scorseses life of the dahl a lamb yu or my film critical of the chinese legal system. Imagine that happening today. It wouldnt happen. As i conclude my remarks i would like to call your attention to two bills in the senate, the first is sponsored by senator carden, casey, cornyn, rubio and widen. The tibet policy and support act, strengthens u. S. Policy in tibet, while addressing one key and overrising issue, the selection of the next dalai lama. This cant be allowed to be controlled by the communist party but only by tibetan buddhists and i ask you to cosponsor this bill and raise it with the Senate Leadership for swift passage by the Senate Foreign relations committee. Now the second bill is the mongolian third neighbor trade act introduced by senators sullivan and cardin and majority whip thune and would give better access to market manufactured in mongolia. We could go into this later. Mongolia is under extraordinary threat and pressure from china. This will create jobs for mongolian women and reinforce Democratic Institutions and it is a concrete way to strengthen democracy and at our most critical time in the indo pacific and who will help mongolia remain independent. I call on the senate to pass this bill as well as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your attention and i look forward to your questions. Thank you for joining us. Well hear the other Opening Statements and come back for questions. Mr. Cory. Thank you. Good afternoon, senators. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify on the use of censorship as a nontariff barrier to trade. Let me start by saying that it is pofrnimportant to acknowledgt china used censorship as a disguise for protectionism. Do you have the mic on. Let me start by saying that it is important to acknowledge that china used censorship as a disguised use for protectionism and censorship means overly broad and discriminatory control over digital content, distribution platforms, infrastructure, and the firms involved and this disguised protectionism has already cost the u. S. Economy so dearly. But this cost will only rise if chinas able to expert its model of digital governance to other markets around the world. The United States needs a stronger strategy to push back on the direct trade impact of censorship. Stakes are high. If we fail to act the u. S. Could use its ledge in the Global Digital economy and this is especially the case given censorship and over disputes over internet policy are part of a troubling rise of socalled digital sovereignty. China is the worlds leader is using overly broad and restrictive and discriminatory rules around content it deems illegal. China is advocating for its own model but other countries are also attracted to it. And theyre drawn to it for political reasons, because it provides them with control, but it is also providing them with a protectionist tool because they like the economic impact. And while censorship is not the only restrictive tool that china has used, it is a central one that led to a generation of chinese internet consumers having an internet experience that is completely different to most people in most countries around the world. And it is known that china used the great fire wall to block access to thousands of foreign websites which is obviously a clear barrier to Market Access. But it is only one tool of many. It is less known that censorship is also a key factor that leads to u. S. Firms from being p prohibited from operating in key sectors in how it plays a part in the opaque discriminatory and restrictive content review process for video games and movies and tvs and also a key factor to that limits or restricts the ability to connect to the Global Internet which essentially renders their ability to use cross border to access use or develop software on a cross border basis. Now, while the primary motivation for censorship in china is regime stability, it gets the economic benefit and the economic benefit to china and the cost to the United States is already significant, in that over the last 20 years a host of u. S. Industries and firms have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. And while it is hard to calculate at an exact cost, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation conservatively estimates that, for example, that google, which withdrew from the Chinese Market in 2010 has lost 32 billion over a five year period from 2013 to 2019. In contrast, amazon and Microsoft Cloud Services which are also severely restricted in china, estimated to have lost over 1. 6 billion just over a twoyear period from 2017 to 2018. And why should we care about this . Because this lost revenue of billion dollars would have supported employment here in the United States. Some u. S. Policymakers want to exacerbate the imof censorship in china by calling u. S. Firms to leave china or stay out of china because that is a moral of doing business there and with or without u. S. Terms, ties to internet are censored since they first connected to the internet. But there should be no doubt that it is in americas economic and security interests that is Many American firms as possible sell goods and services into the china market. Every dollars worth of digital and physical exports is a dollar that chinese firms dont earn and u. S. Firms could otherwise use to reinvest in research and development and to support economic and Employment Opportunities here in the United States. It is also important to recognize that human rights and trade are not mutually exclusive. The United Government should still obviously lead the charge around the world in advocating for human rights and democracy, but in china and elsewhere, but it should be able to develop, i suppose a nuance understanding of how it is playing out in developing a countering strategy to how china has deployed censorship in the way that it has and to ensure that it doesnt spread any further. As a consequence, we recommend to congress that it ask the u. S. InterNational Trade commission for detailed study into the impact of censorship and this study could form the basis for new rules for u. S. Tr to use in trade agreements and use by the department of commons and have a strategy that is needed to counteract chinas effort to advocate for its own model because there is a fierce debate underway at the moment over which direction countries should go, which approach they should take and chinas is based on censorship and protectionism. And again i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mrs. Ballson. Thank you so much. My name is beth balton and im a fellow sat the open markets institute. Ive worked at ustr, the accounting over sight board and the Senate Permanent subcommittee on investigations and the house ways and Means Committee and all inform my testimony today. In 1989 france sick fuca yauma argued that the dissolution of the soviet union reflected liberalism and that economic liberalism would pave the way for political liberal locally and this and when we let china into it. Developments into china have shattered that theory. Rather than demmock rattizing as the global economy, the party has weaponized that integration, using its economic leverage to quash the rights of home citizens in their home countries. It is a vector for [ inaudible ] go so far as to identify the most salient eyes of democracy. We see how this came to pass. In designing the rules in the 90s we focused on capitol flows to produce ideal economic and political outcomes. We didnt guard against a government that would exploit that system with a fundamentally anticompetitive zero sum treat. It is that anticompetitive strategy, not Natural Advantage that has led us to the economically depend on an authoritarian regime. It is wrong to say we couldnt have seen this coming. Founders of the trading system foretold this outcome and sought to prevent it. They designed a regime grounded in fair competition, cheating through currency manipulation or monopoly behavior was prohibited and without the rules state trading governments, uber mon on lifts, would destroy Free Enterprise and democracy. These rules were memorial oralized in the havana charter signed in 1948 by over 50 countries. But it never entered into force. It is popular lore that an isolationist congress enacted it but the Business Community rejected it. We managed to forestall Free Enterprise by keeping the soviet union out of the gat but can he did allow the prc, a modern state trading government into the wto and the prophecy now seems to be coming true. It is not too late. Addressing the ability to interfere in our Civil Liberties required us to reduce the economic leverage over us. I offer five recommendations. First we must address our supply cain dependency, so much has changed since early march whether this hearing was first scheduled. People understand in very real terms what it means to have a supply dependency problem with china. Since the 70s, the United States is having a conversation about policy and we need to identify critical sectors and map out supply chains and not just of d sources, not just of finished good o, but components as well. Second, we must recognize that unless we reform the systemic Global Trading incentives, it will difficult for us to sustain diversification. As long as the rules tolerate anticompetitive inducements offshore, supply chains will end up back where they started. Therefore, we need the right slate of reforms. The narrow focus on subsidies is grossly insufficient to dweel the much more structural problem of the approach to trade. Third and related to the question of sustaining simply chain diversification, we must keep an open mind about tariffs. They can be a useful tool for driving behavior. The United States has the lowest bound rate at the wto. That low rate coupled with anticompetitive ccp behavior has made it lucrative to offshore american production and export it back. Until global reform, tariffs must be one way of incentivising the sources we want. Third, we must work with our ally iies but be realistic. They dont see it as a threat to economic and political freedom. However, supply chain diversification is an area where we can cooperate with countries that share our values. Fifth, we must accept that true Market Access in china is a losery. The ccp will give us as much Market Access as they want to. The more we telegraph that unfettered access is possible, the more leverage they have over us. It puts us in a position of weakness and increases their ability to interfere with their Civil Liberties. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. Thank you very much. Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. Chinas expanding its use of sensorship to proemote National Interests with add a verse consequences around the globe. This has been driven home for us by the suppression for information on the coronavirus and the impact this has had in the United States. While sensorship is just one of the many tools used to promote partys interest and weve talked about others already today, it is something that is not been prioritized in policymaking including the phase one negotiations that i was a part of while i was in the the administration and therefore, it is ripe by further exploration and action. Chinas sensorship activities manifest themselves in many ways. One example is the dpragreat fi wall, which restricts free speech through filtering. China currently blocks over 10,000 websites and as ive been getting ready for this hearing, ive seen other estimates that put that closer to 20 or 30,000. They also control domestic news outlets and direct them to avoid unfavorable stories on issues related to the economy and of course, the coronavirus itself. Chinas indirect efforts sensor speech with troubling. Last year, china retaliated against a single tweet by a single individual by a single team by prohibiting the broadcast of all games of all teams in china, which was a clear effort to intimidate those abroad who intended to speak out and whoever wanted to do business in china and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Chinas social credit scoring system will enable its regulators to comprehensively monitor and influence behavior in realtime. Overall, chinas policies enable it to suppress disfavored views, spread propaganda and promote a Business Environment where only its companies can compete. China has been encouraging other regimes to promote similar policies and has yet to back down in the face of u. S. Pressure. China responded by expelling journalists from beijing. And i find it particularly ironic that chinas wolf warrior diplomats that taken twitter to influence Global Opinion on a site thats totally banned many china. At the wto, the u. S. Could seek to challenge chinas restrictions on foreign Internet Service providers under the service agreement, which bans prohibitions on Market Access and discrimination. These rules drafted before the internet age and arent specific. China could also try to avail itself with certain exceptions. I believe that the u. S. On balance has a strong case, but given the time and resources that it would take to bring a dispute and some of the uncertainty i mentioned, i think its better to move in a different direction. So how should we deal with this issue . Let me give you a couple of ideas at the outset. First, we must consistently highlight chinas nefarious policies and use the full power of government to seek change. Governments are better positioned than companies to push back against this behavior and we should not expect our companies to do this alone and we cant even always expect them to do what we think is the right thing on their own. They need the xwovt behind them. Second, we must work with key allies to do the same. China will find it more difficult to stir up anti u. S. Sentiment and excuse its behavior if others stand by our side. But those others must not hedge their bets and they must not send the wrong signal to china by adopting singular policies. The eus digital sovereignty agenda and the discussion of e then fire wall is a case in point. Third, id apply the same advice to us. As we seek to count er the thret posed by china, we must be careful not to adopt the same policies that we are condemning. Policies that stifle free speech or increase Market Access barriers. This will backfire economically and cause us to lose the moral high ground thats so important to building an Effective International coalition. Fourth, we should pursue a broad wto reform agenda with explicit rules on sensorship, forced Technology Transfer, subsidies, intellectual property, theft, and i think some of the ideas beth raised are worth considering. We should require china the take on the same obligations as the United States and fix a dispute settlement system. The wto is falling short of its objective, no doubt, but aban n abandoning the system we created, not china, helped create would be a tragic mistake. China would like nothing more than to see the u. S. Created system collapse. Fifth, we should negotiate a broader range of trade agreements. This include as revamped japan eu collateral. Add on chapters with australia, a new taiwan fta and a renegotiated tpp. Putting politics aside, the tpp provides a great opportunity to encircle china. There are legitimate concerns about it, but it should be reformed just like nafta, which were going to bring into force tomorrow. Lets do the same on tpp. Sixth, we must pass new laws to protect u. S. Companies so they can safely access a market of over a billion consumers. Ideas like protecting employees, being terminated for voicing opinions about foreign government. Prohibiting u. S. Companies from complying with sensorship requests all deserve debate. Finally, we must not draw false equivalence between the Chinese Government and its people. Many good chinese citizens are suffering with their voices muffled by the same policies ive just been describing. A commentary that was briefly posted online in china this year before it was deleted by the sensorship Police Stated the openness of information is the best vaccine, blocked ears and eyes, also a contagious disease and no one can escape. Thank you. Well proceed with a round of five minutes per senator of questions. Mr. Gear, let me start with you, if i may. Your courage in confronting the Chinese Communist party for its methods and tactics of censoring, retaliating and punishing those with whom it disagrees is commendable and i thank you for that. Weve seen the sensorship that can be imposed by the government but also the practice of selfcensorship of companies that want to do business in china. Can you describe how chinese practices operate and the magnitude its changed in parallel with the growth it has experienced . Yeah, well, in my experience, simply in the government diplomatic world, ive seen other the last 40 years, china is not shy about letting everyone know that they dont like the dalai lama to be treated well. Tibetans to be treated well. The three ts, tiananmen square, tibbett and taiwan. They call everyone, local, state, national, all over the world, if any of those issues do come up. But ive seen it over the last 30 our 40 years that countries and diplomats do selfsensor. They take it upon themselves not to put themselves in a position where theyre going to be reprimanded by the chinese or lack some kind of economic access. Norway went through a horrible period when was giving the noble prize. They were cut out completely from trade china. Moving on to movies, i see the same thing happening over these last years. As i said before, certainly, youre not going to see any film made by a studio thats critical of china. Its an investment, money coming in from china. Let me go back a little bit. And understand how the film system works in china. There are only 34 International Films that are allowed to be shown. A year. In china. And 12 of those onethird of those, has to be an i max film of 3d film at minimum. So what they want is these high profile movies theyre called. Digital cgi films, marvel movies, et cetera. Which are consumed at a high level in china. Entrepreneurs can make a lot of money. The two biggest distributing companies in china are state own ed. Its owned by the state in china. Some of it is quite silly. It was a movie high profile movie where tom cruz was walking through shanghai and there was some underwear on a clothesline. The sensor onned to that because it made shanghai look like a less developed city and it was removed. Christopher robin was not allowed to be screened in china because there was some amusement that winnie the pooh looks like xi. Yes, i see this in studios and it comes up recently with me. There was a hollywood script that takes place partly in china. And the producers of it at first balk ed at the idea of me being in the film. Then they were talked to and also the supporters of the dalai lama in tibet. They took a deep breath and said no, were going to make a moral decision. So we are talking about making the film. Of course, we arent talking about shooting in in shanghai. Im not allowed to go to chip. I dont know if im allowed in hong kong. I asked pointblank to chinese actresses if i could work with them and they said absolutely not. Careers would be over in china. Theyd never be allowed to work again. Ive had other circumstances with very talented chinese directors. One was in tears with me, having to call me up and say that he couldnt work with me. That his career would be over and his family could not travel. This is personal to a lot of people. My own career i cant say suffered because i dont make c xwrks i kind of films. They would only be shown on the black market. The film that i made, red corner, many years ago, of course we couldnt shoot it in asia. We couldnt even get insurance because of me and the threat from the communist party. But when the it was shown, i did go to hong kong after that. Although it wasnt officially shown in china. As i was going up the elevator in a hotel there, the elevator operator looked up at the camera, it was watching us. And as i past at my floor, he said thank you for red corner. There is that technical surveillance in a police state that by which we know that the budget for surveillance in china is larger than the military budget. Senator casey, you have some questions . I understand we have a little technology issue. Let me turn to senator cassidy. Thanks very much. Oh, there he is. Dpo ahego ahead, senator casey. I want to first note for the record because those some oh other members of the senate may not know this, but youve got strong pennsylvania roots. Personally and in your family, both your parents and i know that you want to, want to note that for the record and we appreciate that. I know that we always are welcoming people back who want to move back. I also want to thank you for the great work youve done, calling attention to these issues over now decades. In a manner that sometimes is not the kind of sustained effort that those of News Washington undertake. There has to be a lot more focus than weve brought to bear on these issues related to china. Youve been sounding the alarm for years. I wanted to start with your observations with regard to both the tactics and the strategy employed by the Chinese Government. Especially over the last decade. To compel or to illicit actions from individuals or companies or some case, governments. And secondly, whats your advice r for terms here in the United States as well as the congress . Am i on now . You hear me . Hello. Yeah, you do. Well, thank you for your kind words and i have to say yes, my mother and father both came from susquehanna county. Brooklyn, pennsylvania, which i dont think is any larger today than it was in the 20s when they were born. Farming community. Dairy farms. My father grew up milking cows. By hand, early on. So, i still have family there. And consider that maybe my spiritual home. Big overriding thing from my point of view is that we have to understand, chinas playing the long game. Theyve been playing the long game. They do have a hundred year plan and they are way ahead. They were very clever. They realized they were coming from a very weak position and they decided that they would be the cheapest place in the world to make products. This was well thought out from their side. They werent looking to make profits. What they were looking to do is own the markets. Which they do at this point. We get our medicines from china. We get most of our manufacturing from china. We get almost everything we buy in a store made in china. They own us in many ways. And certainly tharks to them is controlling a world, the world that we have bought into, which is one of whos going to make the most money. Weve mad some huge mistakes, very short sided. Very naive. Theyre much smarter than us. Much more patient than us. They creep into power as we back off. As we pivot away from auctisia we leave a vacuum, they fill it immediately. When we back off in the virmal world, they fill it immediately. When we break up our alliances, they come in immediately. Theyre making alliances with italy right now. The balkan road is now ensconced in italy. It should be the american road. The its the chinese belt and road. Again, its longterm thinking and especially now that theyve made xi emperor for life. This hundred year plan will be continuous. As we change administrations, we change focus of what were doing, how were thinking, how we approach the world, there are spaces and vacuums that are created and the chinese have taken them every single time. They creep into every open space. Ive talked to leaders all over, please, do not take a loan to build an airport or a port from the chinese because they will take it. They will take that away. Weve seen it in sri lanka and were going to see it in italy. So i think the strategy for us is to step back and understand this longterm strategy for world dominance that is come frg the Chinese Communist party. Part of that is talking to each other. Having these alliances. Relying on tpp. Relying on real honest relationships with the eu. This is a world of strong alliances can confront what the chinese are doing and win. I know you had a question. Maybe ill go in the second round. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Senator cassidy. Mr. Gere, you just said something. Thank you all for testifying. Incredibly important hearing. I thank you very much. And you just mentioned creep into power. I kind of like that. Froms as the kind of this is how you know, creep into the vacuum. And ask how do we stop. I am struck by your testimony, it affects their ability to do digital censorship to the economic power that they are improving and i like the whole change you had in your thing, if you have free trade by itself doesnt necessarily make things happen. It has to be otherwise with guardrails. I was recently told by Central American countries that the workers rights, the human rights and the environmental requirements we place upon them in order to conduct trade has increased their cost of production and put them at a competitive disadvantage for a Company Looking for a low cost place to produce. To say the least environmental protections et scetera, and so t kind of slides that way. Do you have a thought on that . Is that to me . Am i pronouncing your name correctly . You did. Thank you very much. Yes, i think this is something th that, we see it with mexico as well. I think the race to stopping this race to the bottom which is anticompetitiveness, for trade is to incorporate the standards at the wto and very surprising to me that in light not only of these issues in Central America and mexico and other places, but in light of tazrene, the fire in bangladesh, the collapse of rana plaza in bangladesh, it surpr e surprises me that labor issues and this race to the bottom are mott part of the wto reform package. There were labor rules in the havana charter, which was supposed to be the governing document going back to 1948. If china were actually required to adhere to those rules like everybody else, then youd have the opportunity to mitigate the race to the bottom. Let me ask, you mentioned the problem with our supply changes going through china. They are going to be the low cost, willing to sacrifice labor rules, human rights, et cetera. Granted vietnam might be lower cost than other places based on labor. If were talking about bringing supply chains and decrease in the china by which they can coerce people to accepting their censorship, we have to take into accommodation what youre describing now. Is that the essence, im adding to it, but would you agree . I think thats right. Ipg we need a race to the top, not to the bottom. I think labor is part of o section 301. So that could be on the table. Section 301 on labor with respect to our negotiations with china as well. Why not. Okay. Thats very helpful. I dont have my notes in front of me, not used to working remotely. The gentleman who spoke at the very end. I think you spoke of a need to kind of confront this digital and censorship across the globe. How do we get for example italy to not accept censorship when according to mr. Gere, hollywood is accepting censorship . So, thank you for the question. What i was referring to in general is that i think we need a much more robust negotiating agenda with a range of potential allies that is more explicit on this censorship question. Weve made some progress and some trade agreements, the usmca, the japan digital trade agreement where we talk about nondiscrimination and the free flow of information across borde borders. I think doing so would help address some of the concerns i have about the wto dispute and some of the uncertainty that could be put into place by some of chinas counterarguments. So i think a much broader trade negotiating agenda is the way to go. The other thing on italy that i think mr. Gere was referring to was that italy had basically signed up for some belt and road money. It happened about two years ago when i was in the administration and i was involved in calling italy and trying to get them to stop. The problem wurks they were in an economic crisis. They wanted, they wanted infrastructure and china was offering it cheaply. The its a huge problem. We need to have an american alternative. Id like to see us put more money at that effort and see us link up with other trading pa partners and then have international standards, thats another area id like to go. Thank you. I yield back. Senator mendez. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you to our witnesses. You know, the movie industrys thirst for profits and for access to chinas huge audiences makes it uniquely susceptible to the party that ccp likes to encourage others to impose on themselves. One quart of aqua mans Global Box Office came from china. Disney earned 600 million off of avengers end game in china. Thats a lot of leverage. And the peoples republic of china is very clear that when it comes to movies, it wants products that are not only entertaining, but that align with the partys world view. So can films that are not ccp propaganda pieces really get access to china given the role of china in the Global Box Office . What effect is china having on the movie industry overall . I dont think its as dark as you were describing in this moment. Those movies you brought up, pure entertainments. And politically neutral. I think that challenging films along the lines of all the president s men or red corner that i made, highly unlikely that these kind of films are going to be supported by chinese investors, and especially if they say in advance, which they often do, that theres no way that that film will have access to the chinese people. How about, but even in the case of and i get those are benign, but in the case of top gun maverick, whos producers removed references to the japanese and taiwanese flags at the request of a chinese investor, china still has a lot of power to dictate their preferences. Thats fair, but its illustrative of their weakness. How silly is that . How completely ridiculous. The way theyre hyper sensitive about the dalai lama. The kindest, most generous man on the planet. Whos consumed and saturated with love and compassion and forgiveness. The mere mention of his name makes them crazy. The problem is that communists parties everywhere lack legitimacy and someone like the dalai lama, for instance, is legitimate. People love the dalai lama for deep and powerful reasons. You dont love the communist party. You abide by it because its powerful. And it controls you. But you dont love it. But true legitimacy comes from the heart. Thats really what theyre afraid of is something that touches the heart and through the heart, a sense of right and wrong and decency. It would challenge even the idea of a communist party or totalitariani totalitarianism. Anything that challenges that even in a poetic way is going to make them crazy. I agree with you. How u small is it of them to be worried about japanese or taiwanese flags, but even something as small as that is something film makers were willing to submit to. So thats what worries me. I agree with you on the dalai lama. I appreciate what you have done in your long quest to have the recognition and the freedom of the dalai lama to do what he does, dbut this is what im concerned, you know, we know what the chinese are and what they do. Im concerned about their influence over us. I look at the fact that president xi has declared that every foreign movie to be shown in china must be vetted. By the Central Propaganda Department and depending on the contents, the ministry of state security, the ministry of public security, the Ethnic Affairs committee and bureau of religious affairs also may be involved. I dont think theyre looking at lighting or cinemaing ra fi or editing. I think theyre looking to preempt themselves and this is a challenge. I wonder. I wonder and i say this to the panel yesterday. Does this influence film makers choices to preempt themselves from offending chinese sensors . What happens if the Creative Team is unwilling to make the sort of changes that china wants . Well, you have different types of movies. And certainly, a top gun kind of movie is not a, an art Film Festival kind of movie. Its mass market. The changing of the flags on his uniform is a major blow to the soul of the film makers. Its not that kind of film. Im worried about the rapt hole that one goes down at this point. If all of our films become primarily by chinese money, then clearly, youre going to see films that are there to glorify the Chinese Party in some way. I think film makers are going to make the kind of movies they want to make. The commercial movies youre talking about, you know, they want access to a mass market and i cant blame them for that and minor changes along the way its hard for me to fault. Im more concerned about the soul of story telling and movies and entertainment, which is beyond the kind of marvel movie kind of movie making. Thats done. Its going to be north korean. Theyre all going to be north korean from now on. I always thought those were paper tiger anyhow. That, i never felt comfortable with that in any event. But the as i mentioned in my original talk, the inability for serious films looking at deeply the situation profoundly in china, will not happen now. I want to make one last comment. I understand richard what youre saying. Sometimes a soul is lost step by step and dollar by dollar. Thats the rabbit hole im afraid of. Yeah. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Senator cortez masto. Thank you to the panels. I appreciate the conversation today. Let me turn to hong kong. American and European Companies are receiving pressure from the Chinese Government party to endorse National Security law and other cp actions towards e restricting freedom and civil lib erties. We know that. The pressure will certainly extend to other issues the ccp deems sensitive, but we have also seen is the pressure on companies who want to do business in china. And to change some of their i dont know, policies, principles, some of their products in response to the pressure on china, so i guess my question to all of the panelists is what can congress do to support american companys experience in the ccp government pressure and propaganda . I mean thats the challenge we have here. What do we need to be aware of here in congress . What can we do to support our American Companies who want to get into that market but at the same time, stay true the our freedoms, democracy and who they truly are as a business . I want to bring again the attention to reciprocity. Norms of reciprocity. We have to demand. Weve given away way, way too much. We didnt have to. The chinese, theyre sitting back in their chairs going we got what we wanted again. Again and again and again. Reciprocity. Just the norms of International Behavior. Access to their market, to information. Those are huge things to them. We can demand there is reciprocity. Its possible. Its use for for a journalist, you should get into north korea and into tibet. Reciprocity, the norms of International Behavior have to be demand ed and we cant be drunk with those shortterm goals of money, i cant. We see what its done to us over the last 25, 30 years. Let me open it up to the panel because i think mr. Cory earlier, you said that the u. S. Should ask the swer National Trade commission for a study on chinas sensorship and protections. So we have the study. Then what do you do . Because we know, and let me put it to this perspective. Once we have the study, is there opportunity to bring in International Organizations or other countries, allies and friends to really put pressure here and focus on rescue propertity and what we should do b doing to address censorship and protectionism. That the United States recognizes that this is no longer some minor trade, that this is a part of the strategic calculation with china and because what weve seen are that countri countries like australia, United States, canada, european union, are somewhere along the spectrum in waking up to what china and the Chinese Communist party represents to their trade interests, their economic interests, but also their home political interests and values there. Action is applied outside of china in the United States. In australia and elsewhere. Document iing those, bringing t transparency so t. O. That. Its also setting up mechanisms to talk with u. S. Firms and industries who are in the impossible position to try to stand up to the Chinese Communist party to get a better understanding. What are they asking for, whats the legal basis for it there. Because only then does the United States and i think the study would reflect that the United States cant do this alone. It needs to lead the charge in making the case and pressing back what chinas doing but the point has passed. Whether United States can do this on its own. Whether that was ten or 15 years ago. Its a matter of fact that t the in providing a collective response because thats really the best chance we have for affecting change in china and outside of china. Senator widen. I appreciate all our guests being with us. And great to see you, mr. Gere, welcome. I want to ask you all about something john bolton wrote in his book, the former National Security adviser. Just going to read it to you. At the opening dinner of the osaka g 20 meet ing in june of 2019 with only interpreters present, xi had explained to trump why he was basically building concentration camps. According to our interpreter, trump said that xi should go ahead with building the camps. Which trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. The National Security counsels top asia staffer, matthew pottenger, told me that trump said something very similar during his november 2017 trip to china. Though we have very knowledgeable witnesses on this panel, and i would just like to see if any of you believe that encouraging leaders to build labor facilities for religious minorities, if is anything but a reputeuation of American Values. Does anybody think that that is not the case . That this is a repudiation of American Values . Yeah, i mean, its, i dont know what crazy movie were in all of a sudden. This is dr. Strangelove. I cant imagine theres another person in u. S. Government or another person, an american citizen, who even remotely would believe what the president said. That concentration camps with the right way to go. Its appalling. Anybody want the add to that . Its appalling. It certainly does for me and our family knows a lot about concentration camps as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Chairman, senator casey, good job. Incredible important hearing and i look forward to learning more about all that you have discussed. Thank you. I know that we moved to the next questioner before and you had your hand up, wanted to make a comment on some of the earlier testimony or questions, go ahead. Thank you very much and let me just comment quickly on the last two questions. First, on this question about the osaka dinner, i was under the mrks by that time, so i have no firsthand knowledge of it. While i was in the administration, i did work closely with matt and ambassador bolton and others on trying to push back on the policies and i think that ultimately, its appalling in the u. S. And alleys around the world need the stand up against it. The comment i had just want ed o make on the previous question was about what we can do to help our companies. I do think that in particular, we need to play a robust role at the governmental level. A lot of this conversation has been about how its terrible that we are trying to access chinas market because that gives them more leverage. I might flip it another way. And say that by having access to chinas market, we are getting a lot of money that our companies can then pump into research and development to make sure theyre an innovation leader ahead of china. So another way to put it is that china is subsidizing our innovation. I think if you look at our semiconductor industry, which you have paid a lot of attention to, they get 30 or 40 of their sales in china, so thats an important source of revenue for them. I think we also need to do our part like the chips act, but i think its important not to only look at this as to what the adverse consequences are of Market Access, but also look at the positive ones, but in terms of helping our company and say i like the idea. I mentioned this in my opening of disclosure. Making our companies disclose when theyre pressured by the Chinese Government. I think you should do that for forced Technology Transfer as well. It puts the onus on the u. S. Law instead of the company and therefore, makes it much more difficult for china to retaliate because the problem is not the u. S. Company, its the u. S. Governme government. A similar thing is prohibiting u. S. Companies with censorship requests in our jurisdiction and what i like about this is that it is resip row cal. And beth will be familiar with this. Ledgislation that you all have been looking at basically would say its unacceptable to refuse information to our audit tors and what those companies tell our regulators is we cant do it because of chinese law so lets do the same thing. Lets tell our companies they cant comply with censorship because of u. S. Law. Thats what chinas doing to us so lets do it back to them. Just as its unacceptable for them to say they cant access the audits. Its also unacceptable for them to say they cant access our companies. Thank you for mentioning the chips act. The act to bring manufacturing back onshore and the simply chains of Critical Technology that can you imagine if we did not have access to that and we didnt have the capacity to build it here in america. Obviously, thats a huge vulnerability and the virus has taught us many lessons. Most of them painful. But some of them but to a different path. We cant continue to depend on china because its cheap. Especially in some of these very sensitive areas. I think senator brown is next if hes with us. Well, i understand that hes not able to be with us, so mr. Gere, let me just ask you in how much money does the Chinese Government invest in hollywood . Do you have any way of quantifying that . Im probably not the person to ask. I was looking through some material last night and there were some deals in the 250 million range. There were several in the hundred million plus range. We can run those numbers down. Let me ask you this. Last year, i was very much involved to inform the committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, but we were focused primarily on Foreign Investment in technology and start ups. As you know, the Chinese Government doesnt observe any distinction between the private sector and their military. And in fact, the private sectors compelled to share anything they have that the military wants with them in the national, in the communist party. But given what youve described about the selfcensorship and the flins that china has on the sorts of movies that hollywood makes, do you think we ought to be looking more broadly beyond Just Technology and other investments that chinas making in the United States that helps facilitate the path theyre on . I think they read us well as before. The hundred year plan was to step back and really look at the rest of the world and they saw the trajectory that the u. S. Was on. Money was the way. And they began by creating products that were created, manufactured, the cheapest in the world, as we all know. That created the situation where they controlled those markets. Were seeing tragically now with the medicines. They own our pharmaceuticals. Right. This is going to permeate everything in our society as long as money is our prime motivator. If it wasnt for that, its power and control. They gave up the money part of it early on to create control understanding that that control would pay off decades later and thats what theyre reaping right now. I want to go back to something i think mr. Cory said and emphasize it. The turn that this Administration Made that the u. S. Should go it alone has been a huge mistake in terms of china. The only way we can Counter China is if the u. S. And the eu, our european friends and allies, and japan and independeia, crea coalition that really understands what the chinese are trying to do. And that we negotiate with them as a group. As democracies. Free market democracies independent. Its the only way that were going to make any real change here. The u. S. Government, the u. S. Congress has done extraordinary things, but the u. S. Cant do it alone. Especially in this situation where its America First and all those frankly kind of naive clay sh cliches. Were in a very connected world and lets be interconnected with the bes t of the world and the best of the world still exists. Our european brothers and sisters. Japan. Independeia. The great democracies of the world. We can do this together and create the world we want and counter the Chinese Communist party. Thank you. Senator casey, are you, do you have any other questions youd like to ask . Mr. Chairman, hope you can see and hear me. There we can. We can see you and hear you. Okay. Thats great. I was hoping at least for audio, but thanks so much for the hearing. I just had one question i wanted to ask earlier about the havana charter, which she gave some of the history of that, the fact that it was signed by 54 countries, but never went into force and that there was opposition from our at the time, from our Business Community. I guess i had asked you in addition to the history and the significance of it, whats still relevant today . And in particular, how it relates to conditions of trade in terms of trade. Thank you so much for the question, senator casey. I think theres been this narrative that the foundation of the Global Trading system was about tear i have lariff libera about nothing else. I think thats false and extremely harm f. Some of the things mr. Gere was talking about, about the philosophy we had in the 90s, about the conditions we had and let china are in tracing back to our own his rhode island if you look at what was motivating the founders of this system, initially fdr and john main ard and those who followed them, these were people who had lived through the guilded age. And more importantly, they had seen how particularly in europe, authoritarian governments had been able to deploy concentrated economic power in the form of cartels and trusts to pursue an awe tear yan agenda and they were just thinking about you know, italy and germany and the past, they were looking ahead to the soviet union and that was communist rather than fascist, but it was the same fundamental problem, which is this relationship between an authoritarian government and concentrated Industrial Production and thats why so much of the havana charter is about making sure youre protecting competition itself because they believe that protecting comp tetition was a y of protecting democracy and somehow, that entire line of thinking has been lost so lets look at what we are confronting today. Is the havana charter relevant today . Well, its a second guilded age. Weve again got problems with income inequality and this goes to the issue with senator cassidy. You cant just keep suppressing labor rights and expect not to have author, so if we want to deal with these issues then weve got to have a set of rule that is promotes competition. Weve seen a rise in industrial concentration and we bring all this to bear and look at whats going on in china and in my view, we see the emergence of the very thing that the founders of Global Trading system were trying to revent, which is an awe tor tear yan government that is not only able to leverage Industrial Power to pursue its ends, but its actually able to use the multilateral trading system to execute that agenda and i really want to point out something in nyour opening remarks thats important. This really isnt about publicly owned versus privately and havana charter kors both. Im concerned that we spend a lot of our time talking about state owned intenterprises in ca when the available isnt who n owns whats. Its the relationship between those industries and the government. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator casey. Senator cassidy, do you have another question . I do. Were sort of winding down heerk but i want to give everybody who has another question an opportunity. Go ahead, please. Again, i go back to your i guess thesis, the economic power that allows them to exert this censorship data and so and again, i find that valid. So its a little bit far fueled from this hering, but still, youve raised it so im going to ask you. I agree, we should not allow people to use arbitrage environmental laws of workers rights or human rights using slave labor et cetera in order to undercut the ability of a worker in the United States, for example. On the other hand, theres attention there. If we have environmental laws that we really need and another nation does not, we require everybody to have the same environmental laws and the same labor laws even though obviously conditions say in Central America are different than those in the United States. I say that as regards to what is the minimum wage, for example. So, if were going to reexamine our trade relationship, i think everybody would agree, i think at least, that if were going to demand a certain environmental standard for air pollution in the u. S. And chinese air pollution blows over to the u. S. , we should ask for the same environmental standard there. But going back to wage rates. Do you concede that wage rates would also require you to have some sort of policy because otherwise, our folks would be disadvantaged . Im actually very supportive of what is in the new nafta. Im supportive of the rules that have been enforceable in our trade agreement since 2007, which is core labor standards. This isnt about setting a specific prescriptive set of rules that every country must follow without record to its development level. This is about setting a floor and what the founders of the system did in the havana charter. Okay. And so if we had that floor as part of a trade agreement with china, that may be a remedy, if you will, know iing that its easier said than done, but a potential remedy. Correct . Yes, and i would use the wto and section 301 to establish that. You point out that since its a consensus organization, it would be difficult to work through wto. I think thats true. I think we should ask for it. And if we fail there because undoubtedly, we will fail, what was the section 302 and anything else . I think there have been proposals, not in any concrete terms, but proposals and access to u. S. Markets and having essential standards as part of our domestic regime and i think those are worth considering. Okay. Thank you very much. Senator cortez masto, do you have an additional question . Senator wyden . Do you have any other questions you want to ask . Well, let me just say how much i appreciated and i know we all appreciate your testimony here today and mr. Gere, for what its worth, you know, i think we need to sort of get to a place where we recognize that administrations, whether theyre republican or democrat, can have good ideas and some not so good ideas. I know this administration seems to believe that bilateral trade negotiations are optimal and i can understand why their argument is that if you do a multilateral trade agreement, youre going to have to give too much in order to get, but there are benefits and i think you described one of them, particularly dealing with china. We do need to work with our allies and to confront this challenge. One, because they are in the same the same situation were in. Theyre being eviscerated economically and threatened militarily and it is important for us to work with people who share our values to counter this incredible aggressive economic and military threat from china. Let me thank you for raising that point and i think youll find a lot of people in congress who share that view. With that, let me thank all of you for joining us here today on this very, very important topic. Were going to have a deadline of two weeks for additional questions. It may be that senators have some additional written questions they would like to ask and well keep the record open for two weeks, if the witnesses would be so kind as to respond to those. We would very much appreciate it. And with that, the subcommittee on interNational Trade, customs and Global Competitiveness stands adjourned. Thanks so much. Weeknights this month, were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight, reel america ar chi value films. As the u. S. Postal service and its role of voting by mail are the subject of reports, we feature films on the postal service. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 eastern. American history tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. I believe we should be stronger than we now are. I believe we should have a stronger military force. I believe we should increase our strength all over the world. But i dont confuse words with strength. When the president of the United States is going something that is right, something that is for the purpose of defending the security of this country against surprise attacks, he can never express regrets to anybody. Americans watched the first ever televised president ial debate between massachusetts senator john f. Kennedy and Vice President richard nixon. And well look back at the event with the university of virginia Barbara Perry with a live discussion on how the debates came to be, the issues the candidates and how the debates set the tone for future president ial campaigns. The
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.