Escalate to the point of violen violence. One of the things that makes this particular crisis different, and there have been three others of this sort during, since xi has been in office. This one is different because it has done violent. Which is concerning because it suggests that those agreements and protocols are no longer working. It also tells you what the triggers could be, which is that they were supposed to be in the process of disengagement. They had met on june 6th to actually disengage and on june 15th, something went wrong during the process. Both sides accuse d the other o instigating the clash, but what essentially resulted in deaths as chairman schiff mentioned, for the first time in a number of years, and that suggests they both first need to get back to what they were doing. Theyre in dialogue with both the military and diplomatic levels to at least disengage. The problem might be in where the triggers might be if either theres a misunderstanding or not respecting the agreements that are reached during these talks. All frankly accidents. This is area that is rough terrain, High Altitude, not great weather. And troops deployed from both sides deployed at a high number of in strength than they have been in decades. So theres always the potential for accident, but the two sides are at the negotiating table even as they have kept this build up and in some cases, are increasing it. So i think the situation remains serious. There is, i cannot rule out the potential for escalation. Having said that, they both have clearly shown a desire to at least stem the escalation for now. Whether or not we can actually resolve it in the near term is questionable because the two sides seem to want very different things. The indians want the chinese to move back to positions as they were in late april. It is not clear that the chinese would be willing to do that or that india has the leverage to make that happen. I thank you. Your testimony is very helpful. Thank you. Mr. Swawell. Thank you to our panelists. If there was a playground choose up basketball and we get four other countries to pick to be on our side to counter china, who are the four that you would pick and sounds like india is one of them. Let me jump in here. One of the most striking things to me in the last year or so is the way that china has succeeded in alienating some of the most, you might say, these were almost nonaligned countries like sweden, canada, india. These are the old classic 1950s nonaligned countries. Australia. I think that the landscape is ripe for the picking, if you will. To regather up countries that were in a state of ambiguity or greater ambiguity, if there was some American Leadership to do it. Now i know secretary pompeo has been talking with you, but even in europe, we just released a report two days ago on the state of sort of the atmosphere in europe. Its radically different now than it was just a few months ago in regard to china. So i think that youre asking which of the main players, well, certainly the eu as one player, is i think very ready to reengage with the United States in some posture towards china. I think definitely australia, which is in a state of rather high alienation. And india, very, very striking whats happened just in a matter of weeks there. So its a moment thats very propitious with the United States, but at the same time, that we have that situation, we seem to be focusing on alienate ing our allies, rather than uniting with them. Thank you for that answer, and chairman, ill defer to other members so we can get more questions in. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Heck. Mr. Quigley asked the exactly the question. So i pass, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. And my thanks to the panelists. Fascinating, provocative, important conversation. Thank you, mr. Heck. Mr. Welch. Sorry, muting. You hear me now . Yep. Thank you very much. Professor shell, its very good to see you again. Thank you. You talked about the implicit and actually explicit premise that guided our policy for years and that was the engagement with china changed, it turns out they havent. First question i have, was that a naive assumption or the failure to materialize be attributable to the current leader of china . Thats a can you hear me . Yes. Thats a good question. I think, you all can hear me, cant you u . Yes. Good. Was it naive. My only estimation is that it was not to presume that with some leadership, it was possible to engage china as it emerged from its malice revolution and slowly help you know, guide it in a temperate and patient way into some different form. That was the presumption and indeed, during the 1980s, there were many, many reasons to believe that that was actually happening. And was successful. Then 1989 and the beijing massacre came, you know what happened, and that threw things off track. And yet naud the trip president clinton made to beijing in 1988, that was very striking to see how president clinton and the men. They were actually friendly and enjoyed each Others Company and we had reforged a relationship. Was a hope that was restored. And then of course, we had another interim then you know whats whats happened with xi. We have changed, i think help change, catalyze, many aspects of china through educational exchange. Im going to interrupt one second because i only have five minutes. Thats very helpful. I was interested in all of your testimony, but basically, the way i understand it, is that the best thing for us now would be to rebuild, would be to approach countries with whom chinas trying to compete with us and say how can we help. But a total focus on the Economic Issues because youve outlined what a savage future is in store as a result of covid. Is that a fair characterization of your testimony . Thank you, congressman. I would say not a total focus on the economic. What i would say is to balance out our approach so were not overprioritizing National Security arguments for government leaders who are consumed with economic recovery and are looking for lifelines to be able to provide for their own people. Okay, thank you. And professor, you mentioned right now, we dont want to get sboo sb into a competition about supply chains thats going to jeopardize our citizens, that makes total sense. But going back to what mr. Hines asked, do we have to begin strategic decoupling to have maximum flexibility to assert u. S. Interest and to protect ourselves against the chinese activity . So, congressman, thanks for the question. Its a big strategy question because it really comes down to whether or not the american people, american businesses, american political leaders, want to pay higher costs for everything. So, sure, if you want to decouple, thats something that the u. S. Could start to do. But it would have a major longterm Economic Impact on the United States. Right. Theres a reason why theres such economic interdependence. Because it serves the economic interest of u. S. Businesses, u. S. Consumers. And u. S. Workers. Right . And so the question becomes you know, from my perspective, you know, at what cost are we really willing to engage this economic decouple iing . Is it really many the economic interest of the United States . And my view is where there are National Security risks, we need and we need to identify those and i know there are some studies going on right now, that theres probably some you know, limited focus, economic decoupling that needs to occur to make sure that we dont rely on suppliersa. Z in china for ke technologies, key widgets that are necessary for security. The question becomes do you want the u. S. Government to begin getting involved in shaping International Economics in a way that is not clear really gives us that much leverage. So i think it begins with what is it the United States wants to accomplish and how is it that decoupling is the right tool as opposed to other tools . Thank you very much. I yield back, mr. Chairman. We will now go to mr. Maloney. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and to the panel for a fascinating discussion. My question is for mr. Shell. Youre welcome to answer. I had an opportunity to be in the region right before the pandemic and one thing thats fascinating is how some of our partners seem to be shifting in a region. We seem to be exploring interesting opportunities with vietnam. Singapore has become increasingly important to us. Philippines tend to be receding. Had an opportunity to be in taiwan and to spend some time with wen, who is a remarkable person and partner and who very successfully stood up to an onslaugt of efforts by the chinese to undermine her election. Who are our most important partners in the region and can you say a word about taiwan, how much threat you see it being under . The temptation that might exist for president xi with the u. S. Distracted with the pandemic . Could you say a a word about our partners, in particular, taiwan, and where they fit in this con ver sags . Well, i think with hong kong as of last night, really being moved into the column of being absorbed essentially in new ways into the, into the, what we could try to, taiwan will be the next on beijings sight, so its extremely worrisome. And the South China Sea is also very worrisome. You ask who are the logical partners we should pay most attention to. We have an alliance with korea, japan. Neither one would have to move out of china nor can they economically. But that takes some very delicate diplomacy to reaffirm that, which is very, very strong. What do you do about philippines . Its an alliance partner. Then there are these other countries like vietnam, singapore, india. That are definitely in play. So we have some very good ally and partners if we treat them well. China has none. Doesnt even have a friend. Except north korea has treaty obligations, but thats not much of a friend. So, you know, theres plenty of resources. The question is does the u. S. Have the leadership capacity and the vision to reweave that fabric in a way which is, will be in our National Interest enough. Thank you. Congressman, may i jump in as well . Please. Just to align with my colleagues comments, you said china doesnt have any friends and in a sense, its true, but if you look at how other countries assess their interests with regard to china, its a sea of red in terms of disinterest. With the exception of economic growth. And then the its a column of green across the line with these countries who see china as an important economic partner. So on the one hand, the United States coming in saying you have to choose between us or china, its just not going to work for these country governments who want to prioritize choice to build Economic Resiliency when they are in such a fragile economic state. I want to quickly go back to congressman swawells question about the Basketball Team. On this, im going to take a slightly different take in that im assume iing japan might be our deputy coach, but i would prioritize countries that are critically important within their region and some of them may not be fully aligned with u. S. And western sbrinterests, if they fully align, that would certainly be to our benefit, and i would include in that a Basketball Team india, germany, if an individual country, if not the eu. Brazil for latin america. Then importantly for broader asia, indonesia, which is sort of the Sleeping Giant of the region. But certainly one geo politically that china does quietly pay a lot of attention to. If we can press on something for just one second. Obviously, we have nothing at the scale of the one belt one road initiative. Any amount of time spent with it, its hard not to be impressed with the scope, scale and ambitious of that effort. Its alarming how closely tied it is to the strategic interest and colocated with the assets of ours. What should we do doing about that and what would an Effective Response to address that green column look like in terms of the United States . What level would we have to engage at . Is it possible . Is it necessary . My comments, im really taking a hard look at what our economic strengths are and how were using them to build prosperity both at home, but with our partners abroad. Theres a narrative chinas been trying to take. Their model, i believe, doesnt work as efficiently or as well as ours and building that shared prosperity, i think thats something we should be focusing on. In terms of the infrastructure in bri, it is critically important. And the Digital Infrastructure and now the trade and financial infrastructure that beijing is trying to overlay on it. If you are an emerging market economy, that is in desperate need of funds to build out an infrastructure to connect your economies to others and your underbanked and the Traditional International institutions arent going to fund you, youre going to take the money. Youre going to take the investment, but you dont want to only have one choice. You want to have options. Thats why the japanese have been try iing to build out thei own infrastructure offerings. I think critical here, congressman, is rather than say, its a competition between u. S. Or japan, supported infrastructure and china supported infrastructure, what would really be powerful is to take the example from u. S. Companies who are currently in china, who are certainly taking steps to diversify their supply chains, but even with all of this talk of decoupling about the increasing protectionism and tech pressure, theyre not leading china. Theyre working to develop models that would allow them to bridge these two Worlds Largest economies and likewise, as beijing has already built out this pretty impressive infrastructure system, which is not without fault and is not without issue, notably, we should be finding ways to rather than forcing these countries to choose, china or a non china option, we should be finding ways to compliment that infrastructure where appropriate. Provide Better Options where we can. And really focus in on how our actions are viably allowing that country government to build connectivity and to realize the growth they are going to need to be able to serve the needs of their constituents. Thank you. Thank you. Well go to now mr. Murphy, then miss demingings then mr. Castro. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Can you hear me . I can. Great. Well, you know, i want to direct my first question to dr. Madon. As you had talked about, it seems like china is throwing its elbows in the neighborhood. Its throwing its elbows in the South China Sea. Its throwing its elbows with regard to taiwan. Of course hong kong. And now on the border with india. And i wanted to ask you, you know, without taking steps that would escalate the crisis, what can we do, the United States, to assist india with regard to productively responding to this situation and more broadly, you know, getting china to comply to a rules based order . Thank you, congressman. In previous crisis and even in the last one in 2017, which involved the chinese and indian militaries standing off on the eastern side of the border, which was in a clean difference between china, you saw the u. S. Supporting through diplomatic support, and weve seen statements supportive, and i think theyve been appreciated in india from both the administration but also members of congress and both sides of the aisle to india, which is always concerned about external partners reliability. This is a consistent and bipartisan support for countries who are facing this kind of pressure from china. Theres also been american capabilities, for example, are being seen, already being used by india during this boundary crisis. So youve seene helicopters tha india required. Recognizance aircraft are operating as well. And youve seen indias Strategic Air lift capability, which has been enhanced considerab considerably. They really make a difference. Theyre supplying these troops in these High Altitude areas. So i think in terms of capabilities, weve also seen information sharing through this crisis and these, i think the ability for the u. S. And india and for the u. S. To be helpful to india, has been enhanced way number of agreements and dialogue mechanisms that have been set up over the last decade or so. And so i think that the structures in place, i think its helpful often because theres a concern that this doesnt become a geopolitical football between the u. S. And china, that the administration has taken the stance to let india set the pace of asking for that support. I think that is a good idea. And so i think there are a number of ways, some of which have already happened. I think the others, what ive heard, they have shown a desire to be supportive. I understand. Im going to switch topics briefly. Thank you. Dr. Sumter, one of the big kind of revelations from the recent john bolton book, which you may have heard about, was that President Trump talked to chairman xi about quote unquote lightning sanctions on zte, which had really been a bad actor in the telecommunications space. And according to bolton, President Trump said he was doing this as a quote unquote favor to chairman xi. I wanted to get your reaction on how ba how, based on your experience, the chinese would have viewed this type of offer, and how this type of interaction with chinese would either enhance or detract from u. S. National security . Thank you, congressman. Yes, i think whats interesting about that particular exchange is that i believe the president assessed that he could have the same effect by placing sanctions on huawei. A year later. As a means to pressure china to do more on the negotiations for the trade deal for that phase one trade deal. And actually, it backfired. So such a transactional approach to our relationship with the worlds second large economy is not helpful. It certainly didnt put our current government in the space that i thought it would when it tried to use that play again. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Miss evans. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, and to everyone who is with us today. Dr. Sumter, you talked about our open market based economy versus chinas state directed economy system and you also said perhaps we should focus on not so much on getting china to change its ways, but to rethink what competition actually means. Could you just give us some examples of what you mean by that and go a little deeper for me, please . Absolutely, congresswoman, and thank you so much for that question. So this whole focus on changing china, and i want to get my other colleagues on the panel to weigh in on this as well. Replacing overemphasis on our ability to change china when the changes are viewed as an exten shl issue by beijings leaders. So its going to be remarkably hard to get them to move the dial, especially when were acting on our own. When were acting in concert with like minded allies like the european and other sort of non western market economies who recognize that chinese model comes a at risks to the functioning and competitiveness of their own model, thats where youre going to have a much greater chance of changing china. But rather than focus solely on trying to change china, i think, especially at a moment when covid is upending our own social and economic fabric, now is the time for us to invest in our own domestic renewal and Natural Sources of competitiveness. This means significant investments across the board in rnd, education and health care and infrastructure. Also, ready ing our workforce t excel in a 21st century post covid economy. We could also be doing more to support u. S. Economies who will be competing for consumers in those economies and also those critical emerging markets that are so central to future growth. So, my argument is such concentration on domestic renewal and the external contest would shift the u. S. Approach from just trying to change chinas model to finding a way to viably compete with it and i think you put elements of that in my, my colleagues comments as well on the panel this afternoon. Id love to hear their thoughts as well. Thank you. Just one more thing for you. You know, the list that you just gave sounds like things we should have been working on proactively in the first place. The fact that its post covid19 while were in the middle of the pandemic, does it make it more difficult or does it provide the greatest opportunity to bring the change . My apologies. It provides the greatest opportunity. If theres anything we can do to support the work of congress and moving us in that direction, please count me as a ready supporter and thank you for your efforts. Thank you. Are there other witnesses who would like to add anything to that statement . Orville here. One thing, its important just to footnote a moment that the idea of changing china, of course, is a bit naive to assume that the histories on our side will change. However, i think whats really wanted as the first point is to inhibit china from doing things like South China Sea. What its done in hong kong. What it might do in taiwan, and dont forget the East China Sea where its up against the pacific. Isnt it a kind of naive missionary issue alone. Its also a question of trying set some guidelines that china is willing to operate in rather than to overthrow the regime as it currently exists with the construct of power in asia. Thank you, dr. Shell. Any other witnesses . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Castro. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses for your testimony and insight. China has gotten less respectful of both sovereignty of autonomy. Obviously with hong kong, thats a case offing being less respect of their autonomy. In terms of sovereign thet tsove gotten more aggressive in the South China Sea. Obviously with india recently. Theyve also gotten less respectful of human rights over the years, with respect to whats going on in hong kong now and with the uighurs, who have been basically held in concentration camps. And so, i think the fundamental challenge for the United States obviously is what you do with that when were talking about our largest trading partner. And so for me, i think part of whats been missing in the Trump Administration is a fundamental understanding of what our posture and strategy is comprehensi comprehensively with respect to china. So how i think about it is how we allow china to compete, but not cheat, on all these things. Thats a question i would pose to you. Considering they do all these things, considering theyre our largest trading partner and the second largest economy in the world, how do we allow them to compete, but also how do we not allow them to cheat . This is evan. Ill take a crack at that. I couldnt agree more in terms of the diversity of challenges that china poses. To your point about the Trump Administration, but first and foremost, the United States is going to have to have a debate and i think congress is a a good place to start, about what it means to define the u. S. China relationship in terms of strategic competition. And everybody talks about strategic competition. Its the buzz word in washington these days about u. S. Policy. But strategic competition really isnt a policy. Its just a description of the condition of what exists between the United States and china. So the question becomes what combination of unilateral, bilateral, multilateral and global policies can the administration adopt that begins to specify on what issues and what feeders and importantly, at what cost the United States is going to begin going at many of these issues. A huge wart of it part of it is given how big china is, how interdependent we are with china, is going to be multilateral. The u. S. Is going to have to decide how much it wants to invest in both multilateral organization, ones that exist and perhaps future ones. Number two, putting together coalitions of the willing, like issues like the uighurs then of course, you know number theree, working within existing organizations or building new ones. Then theres the issue of allies as others have discussed before. Theres strength in numbers in international affairs. Integration of capabilities matters. The chinese Pay Attention to when theres a cohorus of International Voices condemning them for their practices. Given how interdependent we are with them, the concert is going to be willing to adopt economic sanctions, limitations on investments, so the chinese actually feel a little bit of pain associated with their policies. In a globalized world, that is becoming more multipolar, where multilateral organizations face challenges, theres strength in numbers. The u. S. Is going to have to you know, play more of a broader game involving building coalitions and i think thats going to be essential going forward. We dont see a lot of that in the administration. I think its one of the critical core weaknesses of their china strategy. But i certainly applaud your framing of the challenge. Its, its can i ask you, because i have about 40 seconds. But you know, just as a broad impression, which of our allies are willing to take on china . Whos willing to press china as far as you can tell how willing are our european allies . It depends on the issue. It varies. Theres no one list of allies for every issue. On the South China Sea, theres one issue. On East China Sea, theres another. Human rights, its another. So i think the u. S. Is going to have to get a lot more nimble. The countries that come to mind are the ones that were referenced before. Japan, australia. India, south korea, the eu. But of course the eu is big and diverse. You know, look. Nobody wants to choose between the United States and china. Which also people dont want china to dominate and they dont want chinese values, especially its restriction on ethnic and religious minorities, to prevail globally. Countries are increasingly concerned the u. S. Needs to play a leadership role. Thank you. One quick, final thought. China really cares what the outside world thinks about it. And it particularly cares what liberal democratic world thinks about it s, even though it doest seem it does. It makes a great deal of difference to beijing. Thank you. Thank you. We have a bit more time if the witness are willing. If members have any final questions. Id like to start with a pubbing back on on one of the points that was made. This is the idea that we can change china. I certainly appreciate there are real limits to our ability to change any other nation and more profound limits in the effort to make nations look more like us. But i think there are some important ways we need to change china. For example, chinas imprisonment of millions of uighurs in concentration camps. I dont think we can view that as inevitable. Well always be that way, were powerless to do anything to change china and its policy toward the uighurs, for the reason that, mr. Shell, you mentioned. I think they do care what the rest of the world thinks of them. And we are in a position, if we are, we show leadership to impose cost on those kind of human rights violations, i would certainly concur with the sentiment that chi china views state run economy in terms that its necessary to the maintenance of its form of rule. But i dont think that mean that is we cant change china or should stop trying to change chinas intellectual property. The unfair trading advantage it has by subsidizing state run Companies Like huawei to compete in market based economies that dont have heavily states or industry. Id like to get your further thoughts on what you think is within our ability to change in terms of chinas behavior. Whats the best way to approach it. In particular, im deeply concerned about their export of digital totalitarian model. Their digital safe cities initiative. They may not care whether other countries adopt their state run economies, but they do seem to be taking steps to help other countries maintain autocratic rule. So, would love any of you that would like to share thoughts on those matters. I would love to come in on this and i couldnt agree with you more about the direction your comments. First and foremost, i think as orville pointed out, history suggests we should be humble and judicious about changing china. And i think that a broadly, thats true. But number two, the history of the u. S. China relationship, and as both the professor at georgetown and a former staffer on the National Security counsel, the history is pretty clear that the u. S. China relationship. The u. S. , both itself and in concert with others, has been effective in shaping the direction of both chinas foreign policies and its domestic policies. When it comes to issues of arm as control and proliferation, when it comes to issues of chinas participation and multilateral organizations, when it comes to the trajectory of economic reform in china, the u. S. Has had a positive effect on shaping chinas behavior. I think the imperical record is very, very strong on this point. Number three though, going forward, thats going to be more challenging. Simply because the fact that the party state system that xi has built, i think is very pride fu and proud of their accomplishments. Theyre increasingly resistant to pressure from the outside simply because the chinese economy is bigger and has a more global footprint. They have, theyre resistant to pressure from the outside that. That makes it more difficult. But number three, sorry, number four, they also have their own interests and the issue is how do you connect American Strategies and Global Strategies for shaping china with chinas own interests . I think thats the strategic question because i do think chinese choices are shapeable. But i think for the United States, its going to require a lot more diverse strategies. Incentives and disincentives. Bilateral, multilateral, even global. And the frank reality is americas going to have to get more patient. The idea that you can adopt you know, a series of sanctions and expect chinese to change in six months is limited. You know, china is a big, complicated place. Xi has been very effective many consolidating political power. So it is shapeable, i think its just going to take a much more diverse, very dated strategy to do so. Americas capable of that, but i think thats going to mean rebuilding our credibility in the international institutions. Rebuilding some of our alliances and then revamping and revitalizing our approach to Strategic Communications with china. Well stop. You know, chairman schiff, if i may, if you had been with me in 1975 when i went to china when mao was still alive and had seen the changes since, i think you would have a bit more optimistic about those ways in which china has both changed in which i think the United States has exerted pressure to change in a constructive way. Real challenge is to not be naive about it. To be real is istic about it. But i think weve had a profound effect on china. Civil society. Government. You name it. Culture. If you, ooeven in beijing today if you u talk with people who have been educated or in the cities, theres a tremendous amount of disaffection. So we shouldnt lose heart and say we cant change china. We failed. Well always fail, and just give up. No, i dont think thats the question, but a certain realism is required and nay eve ta sounds arrogant and intemperate. So we have to try, but be modest in our aspirations. If i may just to add one very kind of visible xal principle of where the u. S. Working as evan said, with allies and they can have actually have made a difference. This is in terms of the belt and road initiative. Along with the u. S. , australia, japan, india, the eu and others, highlighting some of the downsides of the prokts, kichbd high levels of debt its caused, et cetera, but also helping third countries. Smaller countries like myanmar, for example. Scrutinize these contracts better. The u. S. Has actually helped along with allies and made the chinese have to up their game. In terms of these projects. Not across the board. Theyre still problematic in a number of cases, but theyve had to already up their game and even many the last few weeks and months, many terms of debt restructuring, because a number of these projects are not investments, theyre loans. Announced they were going to either forgive debt or restructure it, china announced that it would do so as well. And mr. Chairman, if i may, just to align my views with those of my colleagues who have just spoken here for the record. And as a former Government Official who served in beijing and saw firsthand how u. S. Diplomacy did cause china to shape its behavior both economically and in terms of external policy as well. I do think if we can take a long view of the path to change for china, that we shouldnt give up on shaping chinese behavior and showing that theres a better pathway than the current path way that beijing has chosen to take. But many all in all of this, wed to be Crystal Clear that beijing will act according to its view of the Chinese Communist partys interest. So we need to be mindful of that when were working with our allies to try to get them to steer in a a direction that is different from one that beijing has determined is in its own best interest to do so. Thank you. Mr. Himes . Anything further . Theres just one quick question i keep sort of noodling on this interaction between the chinese economy and its political system. Its undeniable that the increase in per capitacapita, m class, some wealthy klaas, theres been a dramatic change and the story around the world has always been that as people get money and become middle class or become wealthy, they begin to demand that government be responsive to their needs and desires. They begin to demand government accountability. Im not saying the chinese necessarily are going to demand some day to look like a new england town meeting, but can we expect to see a strategic undercurrent as individual chinese become more middle class, more wealthy . Strategic undercurrent of demanding some form of less autocratic, more Responsive Government . Or are the chinese just very different . Well, you know, the old presumption used to be that open markets equalled open societies. And if you developed a middle class, they want to have better housing and more consumer goods, and ultimately a say in their government. I think sadly, it hasnt quite worked out that way. I think what discovered many the case of china, that this middle. Clay class, which is quite vibrant and dynamic and charge, is quite conservative. And a the parties made a kind of wager with them. You leave driving to us and well let you go to the mall. And its worked pretty well. Except when things happen and people need to voice grievances like a pandemic. Like a flood. Like many things that were all too well acquainted with. But its very hard the to gauge the level of dissent. But only to conclude by saying that i think the middle class in china has proven to more congre than we imagined it would be and more malleable to the partys bidding than we thought. If i could come in on this, i gree with orvilagree with orvil that thats a conund rum, why the middle class hasnt asked for more. One of things the communist party has sought to do in the past ten to 15 years is improve the accountability and efficiency. So in other words, improving their ability to deliver services to this growing middle class. Thats one of the reasons why xi has made anticorruption such a big part of his own you know, tenure as chinas top leader. And so i think that you know, to some degree, the communist party has you know, focused on these questions of accountability and efficiency. It just hasnt extended to liberal politics as orville rightly pointed out. Whats interesting and it will be an interesting question to see how it plays out, why it is as people have grown wealthier in china, theyve become more comfortable with growing, not declining, communist Party Control in their lives. And i think the next ten years are going to be important in this regard because the middle class is getting pretty big. Were talking about hundreds of millions of people. I teach the students of many of these middle class families at georgetown and students themselves are grappling with many of these issues themselves because they enjoy rights as students at georgetown that perhaps they dont have going to a a Major University in china. I dont think this story is overon questi. Mr. Swawell, any further questions . Yes, thank you, chair. Just quickly, it does look like this was a global final exam that everyone was given as it e relates to covid19 and we have monumentally failed it. And as the chair pointed out, theres no evidence that virus came from a bio lab, however, does china view this now that wearing face masks and taking precautions is a health would china view this as an opportunity if they wanted to develop a, a bio, develop a virus . Is that crazy to think about, that they may have stumbled upon a real weakness that the United States has and something they could exploit . Thats a hot potato and a difficult one to answer. But i think we should never underestimate the degree to which china, this is born of a lot of historical sense of inadequacy, wants to regain an ascending position in the world. We see a little of this in russia, too. It is a society of that ideology is one of grievance against impei imperi imperialism, the outside world, just as putins is as well. This means in its context, it can, i dont predict it will do something as you suggest, but it can do some pretty brutal things in the name of gaining its place in the world. Which it feels is its rightful place and was denied of great powers over the last century and a half. This is evan. I would only add that i think if theres one lesson that weve learned with covid as distinct from sahr sars sars or avian flew flu is how keked the world is and how quickly these things travel. Im not micro biologist, but its not clear to me how u you would develop a biological weapon that you could keep contained in one particular location without triggering a pandemic that would hurt your own country. Regardless of how bad the grievance is. You know. And so i think that, and the chinese understand that quite well. Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Weve been talking about the time where the rise of the toward Traditional Democratic values as weve seen them, but theres a contradiction here as well. In the last president ial campaign, both President Trump and sanders actually, were making a huge case about how the trade deals, especially with china, have been extraordinarily harmful to average working american salaries. And mthat has not been addresse. President obama had this Partnership Based on trying to establish more Foreign Policy credentials with the region. Im wondering, ill start with you, professor shell, how do we address that domestically because i think its necessary for us to do that in order for a president to have some support for a more assertive policy with china. Well, i mean i think theres a tremendous opportunity here if theres a new administration. I wonder in the waning months of the Trump Administration, just what can be done. And i think if theres nothings going to happen currently. I mean, i think that we really do need some kind of a major new reckoning, a new effort, to see if we cant win now out with china, those areas where we might be able to cooperate. Even as we get into a more antagonistic relationship in other areas. The soviet union and cold war, there are some very modest examples here that might help us. We did ultimately end up with a rather stable relationship with russia. We worked some things out. We got some things done. You had the helsinki accords. We dont have any of that musculature with china right now. Either any of the other witnesses want to weigh in on that . In terms of your question with regard to what we should be doing with the trade pacts before us and with the mind towards american workers, i would highly hope that the next Administration Takes a serious look at the tpp now called the cttpp, and find a way to rejoin as a way of reenforcing the market based processes, practices and values that are important and critical to our own competitiveness here at home as well as abroad. China is looking very closely at the makeup of that trade pact. And its constructed in a way in which it is really, it was the first, it was the first instance of having regulation as on the digital economy. That even came from the wto. Its actually in this pact. And so as you begin to watch this assess of this pact and the value of the trades and grooods and services that will now go between these economies, not being part of that Value Creation is actually going to hurt u. S. Xhaen companies and u. S. Workers here at home. I think in terms of the wage issue, we do need to be focusing on scaling up our workforce to produce goods and services that are that are the u. S. Comparative advantage in a 21st century economy and making sure that their work is valued with livable wages. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you. Votes have been called so i guess what i would suggest, we have three more members who are still on the line with us. If any of you have any remaining questions, maybe you could pose them together and then our panel could wrap up with their conclusion to any of the questions that you may have. If you have any further questions, please ask them now. Mr. Chairman, i was curious on following up on the issue of linkage and being being able to get things done even amid the competition. For example, on north korea. Do the panelists think it would be possible to engage with china in a cooperative way to reach some sort of acceptable situation with the north Korean Nuclear program even amid these tensions or does that cooperation depend on lessening the tension in other areas, would it be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time with north korea . Any last question to pose for the group . I was going to say, what would be the number one thing you would advise the next president in dealing with china in the first 100 days. Ms. Demings. I have no questions. Thank you, chairman. If our panel could address the north korea question as well as what advice you would give the next administration on what they should try to accomplish in the first 100 days. This is evan. Ill take both. In my experience from my time in the obama nsc, the u. S. Can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think one of the unique features of the u. S. china relationship. I think the challenge that we face on north korea is that our interests are not perfectly aligned with the chinese interest. I think the chinese, as much as they dont like kim jongun, i think theyre willing to settle with a stable north korea that has a recessed Nuclear Capability as long as that north korea is basically aligned with china. And so we could go back to talks with the chinese on north korea, they would love that. The problem is, i think it would be very difficult to accomplish anything substantial at this stage because as long as north korea is not conducting provocative activities, the chinese are willing to live with that, albeit reluctantly. I would two recommendations for the president , number one, to launch a domestic revitalization initiative. The greatest step america could take to signal to china and American Allies in asia and europe, that the United States has the wherewithal to compete with china over the long term is investment at home. That would fundamentally reshape international calculations about american resolve and american capability. Number two, you would launch an initiative in terms of Foreign Policy about reembracing American Allies, getting back to the basics, rebuilding that Alliance Framework thats in europe, in the asiapacific. Dont make it about china. The chinese will draw the very obvious lessons of the implications for them. You want to shape chinese behavior, those are the best places to start in my assessment. Thank you very much. I would agree with evan. Lets begin at home. Our example is our best medicine. I think in a cryptic way, though, if the pandemic is it seems inevitable it will be by an economic downturn of some real consequence, this may be the thing that bends china and makes it more willing to concede, accommodate and to get together and work things out. I think short of that, its going to be very, very difficult. And i would lend my support to the remarks of evan and orville. My two wish list items were, number one, that domestic revitalization program and, number two, reengaging the International Community as a global leader. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Madan, do you want the last word for the hearing . Strengthen the u. S. And network of allies and partners. Pretty much what my colleagues have said. Okay. Terrific. Well, thank you so much to our incredible witnesses. What a broad range of experience and knowledge you brought to our committee. Were very grateful and continued success in your work. I hope you will all stay healthy and stay well. Thank you to our members for joining. Thank you to the public for tuning in and this concludes our hearing. Were adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. First ladies, influence and image on American History tv examines the private lives and public roles of the nations first ladies through interviews with top historians. Tonight, we look at Grace Coolidge and lou hoover. Watch first ladies, influence and image, tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. It is with Great Sadness that i come here because we had such optimism and such hope. The u. S. Congress has always spoken in a bipartisan house and senate, democrats and republicans, with one voice in defense of those who are oppressed by beijing and in support of freedom and justice for the people of hong kong. We continue to urge President Trump to hold chinese officials accountable for abuses including taking steps under the hong kong human rights and democracy act. We must consider all tools available including visa limitations and economic penalties. But here today, im very honored to join, the general secretary of trade unions, professor of Law University of hawaii, ph. D. University candidate university of washington, and virtually, electronically, former Member Council of hong kong. Again, for years, the world has watched in horror as beijing has accelerated its campaign to dismandatele the rights and freedoms of the people of hong kong, from its brutal response to peaceful protests to the introduction of the horrific extradition law that we condemned. So many times this committee, the senate, have put now chris van hollen, mr. Toomey, democrats and republicans have put the bright spotlight on what is happening. The executive commission on china chaired by mr. Mcgovern and cochaired by chris smith, vice chair chris smith have work worked hard with hearings to call attention to all of this. The commission on human rights, a former chair of this committee, in a bipartisan way, has called attention to all of this over the years, since tiananmen square, leading up to 1987 and including that. What is so sad about it is that the chinese regime thinks that they can act with impunity in repressing the spirit of democracy. 2 Million People turned out against the extradition law, 2 Million People, thats a big crowd in the United States. But when you understand it was 25 of the population of hong kong, its just almost anybody who could go out, showed up, against what the chinese reggie was going to do. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a rare appearance this morning at a House Foreign Affairs committee. Members discussed the implications of chinas National Security law in hong kong. You can watch that hearing tonight starting at 9 00 eastern here on cspan. The House Foreign Affairs committee holds a hearing on thursday on the firing of steve linick. Watch live coverage on cspan3, online at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Thursday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, nih director, cdc director, and hhs acting Deputy Assistant secretary for preparedness and response testify before Senate Appropriations subcommittee for review of operation warp speed, the researching, manufacturing and distributing of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine. Watch live coverage beginning at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan, on demand on cspan. Org, or listen wherever you are on the free cspan radio app. Next, the Senate Aging Committee holds a hearing to examine the effect of the coronavirus on the elderly and those living in longterm care centers. They heard testimony about personal protective equipment for staff and the challenges with social isolation from family during the pandemic. This is two hours. The hearing of the Senate Special committee on aging will come to order. Good morning. Welcome to todays hearing on caring for seniors amid the covid19 crisis. Covid19 has brought tremendous hardship and tragedy, placing a heavy burden on the frontline