CSPAN - Hearing on China's Coercive Economic Practices

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 27, 2025 03:53-05:39 - CSPAN

01:45:57

Hearing on China's Coercive Economic Practices

Participants

Appearances

carlos a gimenez

rep/r 01:18

rahm emanuel

01:37

shontel brown

rep/d 01:19

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		c-span.org slash podcasts.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
		Former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Rah Emmanuel, and former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison testified at a hearing on China's coercive economic practices.
		During their remarks before the House Select Committee on U.S.-China Competition, lawmakers also highlight China's control in the minerals sector and U.S. alliances in the region.
		The select committee will come to order, and we are going to be having members joining us at different points in this morning's hearing.
		But I want to welcome our witnesses, former Prime Minister of Australia, the Honorable Scott Morrison, and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, the Honorable Ram Emmanuel.
		It's great to have you both with us.
		And Ambassador Emmanuel, I want to thank you for your hospitality when we came and visited Japan, and you served in that role as ambassador, and we appreciate all you did to help the committee understand the issues relative to Japan.
		It's also very rare for a former head of government to appear before Congress not as a ceremonial guest, but as a witness.
		And Mr. Morrison, your presence underscores both the seriousness of this issue and the strength of the U.S.-Australia alliance.
		We're here today to address one of the most urgent threats democracies face in the 21st century.
		The People's Republic of China, economic coercion of other countries.
		China uses market access as leverage, employing tariffs, regulatory blockades, and diplomatic intimidation to target democratic nations that speak up for human rights or national sovereignty.
		These are not isolated acts.
		They are part of a coherent strategy.
		And for too long, we treated China's rise as an economic opportunity detached from the party's geopolitical ambitions.
		But today it's clear as trade between the CCP and the free world has grown, so has its appetite for economic leverage and control.
		And Mr. Morrison's government called for an independent inquiry into COVID origins.
		Beijing didn't argue.
		It retaliated with tariffs on wine and barley, with bans on lobster and coal, with a list of 14 political demands that made clear what the CCP wanted, submission.
		Lithuania opened a Taiwan office.
		China launched an embargo.
		South Korea deployed a U.S. missile defense system.
		Beijing shut down factories and blocked exports.
		Norway awarded a dissident the Nobel Peace Prize.
		China responded with salmon bans and frozen diplomacy.
		These weren't policy disputes.
		They were sovereignty violations.
		In each case, the message from Beijing was clear.
		We will control your behavior through your economy.
		Xi Jinping has said himself, China must tighten international production chains' dependence on China to form a powerful countermeasure and deterrent capability.
		That's not economic development.
		That's a blueprint for coercion.
		But democracies have a choice.
		We can allow fear of retaliation to define our foreign policy, or we can build the tools and coalitions to fight back.
		That begins with moral clarity.
		Our values, free speech, rule of law, national sovereignty, are not bargaining chips.
		They are non-negotiable.
		It also requires a whole of society response.
		We must leverage statecraft such as trade tools, export controls, and investment guarantees to support allies under pressure.
		We need to reindustrialize our own defense manufacturing base, reshore or friendshore production of critical inputs, and build international coalitions that reduce dependency because the next round of coercion won't wait until we're ready.
		It will come when we're weakest.
		We also need to remember that China's coercion is not just about trade.
		It reaches into our own societies and attacks our core values, targeting diaspora communities, leveraging propaganda, and exploiting our open systems to create doubt, sow division, and instill fear.
		That's not a problem for law enforcement alone.
		It's a challenge to democratic cohesion.
		And finally, we must double down on the efforts that Beijing fears the most, including AUKUS, the Quad, and deeper Indo-Pacific coordination with our friends.
		The CCP wants to isolate the United States from our allies.
		Our answer must be unity and collective economic resilience to Beijing's bullying.
		Economic coercion is not a phase of Chinese foreign policy.
		It's the logical and inevitable conclusion of the Chinese Communist Party's worldview.
		And ominously, it is a warning of what is to come if we fail to meet the CCP's challenge.
		It's time for the free world to stand together.
		Thank you.
		And with that, I'd like to recognize our ranking member, Raja Krishnamurthy, for his opening statement.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		and just turn this on.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	I'd like to address three things.
	One, how the CCP has attempted to coerce the U.S. and our global partners.
	Two, some of our current vulnerabilities to CCP coercion.
	And three, how we can combat such coercion.
	Today, we confront a truth that is hiding in plain sight.
	The CCP is not just building an economy, it's building leverage.
	It has turned globalization into a trap and has weaponized interdependence.
	The CCP has a track record of using its state-controlled levers to target the U.S., our allies, and anyone who dares to defy political will of the CCP.
	The CCP does not view its economic tools as democracies do.
	Instead of using these tools to uphold freedom, democracy, and human rights, the CCP wields its powers to punish free speech, bend democratic nations to the CCP's will, and gain even more leverage.
	First, let's take a look at how the CCP has used the coercion playbook across the globe.
	The chairman mentioned Australia.
	He mentioned Lithuania.
	But in Norway, they were targeted after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a Chinese dissident.
	Japan blocked from rare earth exports after a territorial dispute in the East China Sea.
	And the list goes on and on.
	This brings me to my second point.
	America's own vulnerabilities to coercion from China.
	From our medicines to ships to drones, we are dangerously reliant on China.
	But today, I want to focus on rare earth elements.
	America relies on China for over 80%, 80% of its rare earth processing.
	The PRC developed this control over decades of careful planning and execution.
	In 1992, then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping famously said, the Middle East has oil, China has rare earths.
	Let's look at why rare earths are so important.
	They are in something we take for granted every day, namely rare earth magnets.
	And I have one in my hand.
	China produces 90% of the world's rare earth magnets.
	And how does that work?
	Well, I have something here.
	This is a simple motor that spins because of rare earth magnets.
	But it's not just in this gadget.
	It's in everyday items, including this toothbrush and even this drill.
	It's basically in everything you can possibly think of.
	These rare earth magnets power almost all items that involve motors in our daily lives.
	Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is when China decides to cut off these rare earth elements, the motors stop and our economy comes screeching to a halt.
	And that's what just happened recently.
	After Trump, President Trump announced a slew of tariffs, the PRC retaliated and blocked a raft of rare earth element exports, including the ones that go into these particular important magnets.
	The sudden export control set off alarm bells for American businesses, workers, and consumers who would be the ones to eventually pay the price for shortages.
	Ford even announced that the rare earth shortage forced it to shut a factory in our hometown, Ambassador, of Chicago.
	China can so much as flip a switch and cause major damage to the American economy.
	That is why this morning I'm sending this letter, Mr. Chair, to the Commerce Department, asking what they're doing to ensure that China holds up their end of the recent deal on rare earth exports.
	I'm also sending another letter, Mr. Chair, to the State Department, urging them to work with our allies and partners to diversify our worldwide critical mineral supply chains.
	This brings me to my final point.
	We must answer CCP coercion with resolve, unity, and resilience.
	That means building a collective defense among democratic nations against coercion.
	It means investing at home and diversifying our supply chains.
	And it means imposing costs, not just unilateral tariffs or sanctions, but coordinated responses that make clear, if you attempt to coerce one of us, you will face all of us.
	Thank you and I yield back.
	Thank you, Ranking Member, and as usual, your visual aids and material that you bring to these hearings is exquisite.
	So thank you very much.
	If you need a toothbrush, I'm getting a hint here.
	If any other member wishes to submit a statement for the record without objection, those statements will be added to the record.
	Our witnesses today, I want to first start by Mr. Scott Morrison, served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2018 to 2022.
	He has contributed mightily to the defense of the West and our shared values from the Quad to AUKUS, and we are incredibly privileged to have him here today.
	Welcome.
	And we're also grateful to be joined by Ambassador Rah Emmanuel, who has served our nation as the ambassador to Japan, as Mayor of Chicago, in Congress, and as the White House Chief of Staff.
	Quite a record of service.
	As a good Chicagoan, he is known for his mild manner and circumspect tone.
	We're looking forward to what will no doubt be colourful testimony from him today.
	With that, I want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for being here this morning.
	Mr. Morrison, you're now recognised for any opening remarks you might like to make.
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to Congressman Krishnamurthy.
	Also, thank you.
	And can I start by also recognising the members of the committee as well and thank you for your invitation to be with you here today.
	It is an honour to join you.
	And can I thank you also for the important bipartisan work you do on this committee.
	I'm very familiar with it, was at the time I served in office, and not just for the United States, but for all US allies and partners around the world.
	Australia and the United States are the closest of allies and the best of friends.
	For over a century, we have stood together in every conflict, making Australia unique amongst US allies around the world.
	As long-standing, resilient, and modern democracies with market-based economies, we believe in a world order that favours freedom, based on fundamental values of universal human rights that respect human dignity, the rule of law, open and fair trade, freedom of religion, speech, association and thought, and transparent representative governance.
	While sincerely holding such beliefs, we're also conscious of our imperfections and capable of self-correction through our own democratic processes and the safeguards of transparent and accountable institutions.
	While our histories differ, Australia and the United States see the world through a similar lens.
	It is through that lens that we have both been able to identify the rising threat from authoritarian states who, not content with absolute control over their own populations to preserve their own regimes, also seek hegemonic control over their own regions and to recast the world order to accommodate their illiberal objectives.
	Most significantly, this involves the subordination of a rule of law based on universal human rights to one arbitrarily defined by the state and to draw an equivalence between their regimes and freedom-based societies.
	The Chinese Communist Party, the CCP government of the People's Republic of China, is such a regime.
	This will not change, nor can it be negotiated away.
	Rather than opening up their society during post-Cold War globalisation, the CCP used China's newly granted access to global trade, capital markets and legitimacy in international forums to build the economic, diplomatic, technological and military capacity to one day challenge the global order in an attempt to make it more favourable to their regime's security.
	That day is now.
	I appear here today in a private capacity, having previously served as the 30th Prime Minister of Australia from August 2018 to May 2022.
	And during that time and my earlier cabinet roles commencing in 2013, I witnessed and experienced firsthand the dramatic escalation of the CCP's regime's assertive and aggressive behaviour towards the countries in the Indo-Pacific region to achieve their goals.
	In Australia, this included targeted illegal trade bans and diplomatic estrangement.
	In November 2020, the PRC Embassy in Canberra helpfully released to media a list of 14 points of grievance with Australia that set out the grounds for the CCP's coercive and bullying actions.
	And I table a copy of those points for the committee's information.
	The grievances included Australia exercising our sovereignty over foreign investment on national security grounds, making and enforcing laws to curb foreign influence and espionage, allowing freedom of speech in relation to criticisms of China and our national parliament and media,
	and making and supporting national statements in international fora critical of Chinese aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea and towards Taiwan and against their own population in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, as well as calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.
	I have no doubt that the primary objective of the PRC's targeting of Australia during this time was to make an example of Australia as a key US ally in the region, to punish Australia as a warning to others.
	I am pleased that our government provided the example of resistance and resilience by standing firm rather than acquiescence and appeasement.
	Throughout this period, we moved to work with our allies and partners in the region to deepen our ties and strengthen our cooperation.
	This included the initiation of AUKUS and together with India, Japan and the United States, the establishment of the Quad Leaders Dialogue.
	Both of these measures began under the first Trump administration and were realised by the Biden administration.
	They also became further points of grievance with the CCP.
	After the failure of the CCP's coercive efforts to break our resolve, the PRC took advantage of the change in government following the 2022 federal election to effect a reset and adopt a different set of tactics.
	This included abandoning their economic and diplomatic bullying and coercion for more inductive engagement, laced with charm and flattery.
	That said, the PRC still continues to engage in intimidatory behaviour by their military against Australia when it suits them without remorse.
	While the CCP's tactics may have substantially changed, their objectives remain the same, namely to neutralise public support for Australian government actions to counter the potential security threat posed by the CCP, such as increased defence spending or restricting investment in critical technologies or sensitive supply chains, to normalise and establish an equivalence between the CCP's authoritarian regime with free societies to provide licence for their activities,
	to weaken the network of US alliances and partners within the Indo-Pacific that provides an effective deterrent to CCP behaviour injurious to a free and open Indo-Pacific, including peaceful absorption of Taiwan, and to isolate US influence in the region.
	In conclusion, there are many lessons from our experience.
	Above all, I would highlight the need to never become casual about the potential threat and to remain vigilant.
	And in the same way that the CCP seeks to target our alliances and partnerships, these same relationships must form the core of our shared response.
	Strengthening and deepening the networks of US alliances and partners is critical to resilience and deterrence.
	This is as true in the economic sphere as it is in the security sphere.
	In this new area of post-globalisation strategic rivalry, it is critical that these tracks of national policy are aligned and integrated.
	It is also true that the U.S. allies and partners must understand that it is in this new environment that more will be required of them in these relationships, both individually and collectively, including by Australia, in the years ahead.
	I look forward to your questions and discussing these issues with you further.
	I am also pleased to be appearing here with Ambassador Emmanuel.
	Well, thank you very much, Ambassador Emmanuel.
	You may proceed.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the Ranking Member and the members of the committee.
	It is an honor to appear before you today.
	I obviously don't have the eloquence of the Aussie accent or the show and tell of the Ranking Member, my good friend.
	For more than 60 years, the partnership between the United States and Japan has been the cornerstone of both peace and prosperity in a free and open Indo-Pacific.
	As Ambassador, I sought to deepen our ties and confront our common challenges, none greater than China's most pernicious and persistent tool, economic coercion.
	China has made coercion its currency of economic statecraft and retaliation a replacement for negotiation.
	And where it cannot conquer through division, it chips away through corruption and control.
	In 2010, China cut off exports of critical rare earth minerals, as noted earlier, to Japan, hitting Japanese industry and consumers over a dispute involving the Senkaku Islands.
	After 2012, confrontation between Manila and Beijing in the South China Sea, China quarantined fruit exports from the Philippines and sent vessels to protect Chinese fishermen and blocking Philippine fishing boats.
	2016, after Seoul, South Korea decided to deploy the U.S.-THAD missile system to protect itself from North Korea launches, Beijing orchestrated boycotts by Chinese consumers and tourists, punishing South Korea for acting in its own self-defense.
	When Lithuania in 2021 allowed a Taiwanese office to open, China banned all bilateral trade.
	China slapped import restrictions on a range of Australian goods, coal, barley, beef, copper, and wheat, over Australia's calls for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 in 2020.
	Sometimes China's coercion is overt and obvious.
	Other times it is covert and conniving.
	It also exerts softer pressure, as it did with the National Basketball Association, which succumbed to Chinese pressure over one team's general manager tweeting support in 2019 for pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
	More recently, Beijing has refused to export a type of magnet, as noted by the ranking member's comments, essential for industrial manufacturers here in the United States.
	Most dramatically, Ford halted production of certain advanced vehicles, including their facility in the city of Chicago, their oldest plant in the United States.
	Our country, with the largest economy in the world, sits atop many rare earth minerals, vital to our future prosperity.
	But China has a near monopoly, 90 percent, on the ability to process them.
	China's coercion and message is not limited, in this instance, to the American audience alone.
	It is playing out across the global theater, as other nations observe.
	Regardless of the method, the message from China is the same.
	Submit or suffer.
	Beijing exerts economic pressure to achieve its political goals and bend nations to its political will.
	Their goal is clear.
	Isolate one to intimidate all.
	Ours must be to isolate the isolator through an alliance to counter China's coercion.
	As the 31st U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I saw up close and clear-eyed how China pursues its geopolitical goals, not through innovation and inspiration, but through intimidation and infiltration.
	During my time in Tokyo, the Embassy issued an unprecedented report on Chinese coercion to neutralize this tool that Beijing perfected over the last 15 years.
	The takeaway?
	To secure our standing in the 21st century, America and its allies need an anti-coercion coalition to counter China's aggression.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		Beijing's bullying is not a foreign policy, but an example of a failure of one.
unidentified		Nevertheless, the world's response has been scattered, slow, and too often silent.
		Continuing on the current course is a recipe for continued coercion.
		The United States cannot afford to be alone, passive or partisan in the strategic competition.
		Cutting off our allies, cutting off our research and development, and treating investments in key industries like semiconductors as tradable, are a unilateral disarmament of our strongest advantages as a country.
		We must lead a resilient anti-coercion coalition to resist economic intimidation and respond with strength when deterrence fails.
		It should be based on mutual commitments that are public and reciprocal.
		First, as I called in a piece about a year ago in the Wall Street Journal, such a coalition would need the economic equivalent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Article 5.
		An attack on one is an attack on all at its core.
		Look no farther than what the EU adopted in 2023 after Lithuania was coerced by China, an anti-coercion instrument that focuses on deterrence and allows for retaliatory policies by the EU.
		Countries should support allies under economic assault with a unified response.
		Resilience requires a willingness to retaliate and recognize China's weaknesses and prepare to go after them.
		I know that you find it surprising that I would advocate that.
		Nations would insulate themselves from China's pressure through collective resilience.
		That requires leveraging alliances.
		When I arrived in Japan, I worked to expand trilateral ties.
		Today, Tokyo, Washington, and Seoul, as well as Tokyo, Washington, and Manila, are not just allies.
		We are aligned.
		We strengthened our economic ties, enhanced our military readiness, and deepened our intelligence sharing.
		Second, America cannot self-imulate.
		The Chinese undoubtedly understand how important intellectual property and advanced research are to their own ambitions.
		It is a false choice to suggest the U.S. must pick between free markets and government intervention.
		To maintain our economic sovereignty, we must have both and invest in our advantages.
		Talent from around the world that comes to America, research and development, science, our universities.
		Surrendering our strengths is self-defeating.
		Finally, nations must have our own tools of economic cooperation, which can be used to shore up supply chain resilience.
		Reshoring without French shoring will not succeed.
		In other words, we must offer victims real relief in real time from China's coercive trade actions, including export credit lines and expedited licensing.
		Australia's response to China's coercion is the best example of how to replicate going forward.
		And if I could, and I know I am past my time, conclude with one single story.
		During my tenure in Tokyo, China banned Japanese seafood from its market, citing false concerns about contamination from the Fukushima area.
		As ambassador and working with the Indo-PACOM in Honolulu, our military, we exposed the hypocrisy and coercion with photos of Chinese fishing boats operating in Japanese water fishing, having banned the Japanese fish.
		To show the safety of the seafood, I know you find it shocking, but I went swimming and surfing in Fukushima with members of the parliament and publicly ate local seafood and vegetables.
		I also led efforts to have our U.S. military bases purchase Japanese seafood and served it proudly at both the residence of the ambassador and at the embassy.
		And took a number of you also when you visited shopping at the local Fukushima area in Tokyo.
		At a very public campaign, China recently abandoned its boycott of Japanese seafood.
		Now, if I could, if one skinny ambassador with a big mouth could do that, imagine what countries could achieve together.
		Cracking the code of coercion isn't impossible.
		It takes unity and sustained resolve and respect for our allies.
		We are in a strategic competition between free nations that innovate and a surveillance state that imitates.
		Between democratic resilience and authoritarian reliance.
		United, coordinated, and committed, an anti-coercion coalition is the best offense and the best defense against China's campaign of intimidation.
		Again, thank you very much for this honor to testify today.
		Thank you, Ambassador.
		We'll now move to five minutes of questioning from our committee members.
		I'll begin with Mr. Morrison.
		During your time as Prime Minister, China issued a now infamous list of 14 grievances targeting Australia's domestic laws and sovereign decisions.
		What should that list tell us about the nature of PRC coercion and the kinds of values it seeks to undermine in democracies?
		Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I think fundamentally it demonstrates that the CCP fundamentally has a problem with representative democracies and there are some irreconcilable differences between an authoritarian regime in China as much as an authoritarian regime in Russia or Iran for that matter and the activities of free and open states.
		Late Prime Minister Abe, Ambassador No well and I knew well also, spoke of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
		That is a threat and a challenge to regime security in China.
		And I think we have to be clear-eyed about this and not pretend that there is somehow that this is going to be resolved through discussion.
		Discussion is fine.
		Engagement is good.
		It's better than the alternative.
		But if we think that that is going to produce a change in the mindset in Beijing about what their objectives are, then we're frankly kidding ourselves.
		So you worked to coexist to avoid conflict.
		That requires deterrence and a wide-eyed appreciation of what the Chinese state is all about.
		At every point, even the most moderate of their leaders, like Zhang Zimin, were very clear about the fact that even when they entered most favoured nation status, they still said amongst their officials that the West, particularly the United States, is still looking to see us destroy our socialist system.
		They won't change.
		So we have to deal with that reality.
		What advice would you give to leaders of other countries who are facing something like this?
		I think the first one is to know what you believe in and why your country believes that and know what your red lines are.
		I mean, those 14 points of grievances that they tabled, I remember I tabled them at a G7 meeting in Carbis Bay to all the G7 leaders.
	It was a G7 plus meeting.
	And I asked the simple question, which of you would relent on any of these points?
	And the answer was none.
	These are just the simple behaviors of transparent representative democracies with market-based economies.
	And so know that you believe those things, keep investing in those things and understand what the red lines are that are produced by holding those beliefs.
	The other thing I would say is make sure that you're building your internal resilience to coercion.
	And you mentioned in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, that a whole of society approach is necessary.
	I completely 100% agree.
	And our response dealt with everything from interference in our political system through ensuring that we kept an open mic for free speech in our parliaments and media and so on.
	You need to build the internal resilience, and that means an appreciation of the potential threat.
	And that is somewhat in jeopardy in Australia.
	Most recently, the Lowe Institute completed a survey, which for the first time in quite a number of years, there is a greater value on the economic partnership with China than concerns about the security threat.
	And I'll table that for the committee.
	That is an objective of the CCP, that Western democracies will go to sleep on the threat.
	And that's why I think the work that your committee is doing here, the work, and I'd stress the bipartisan work that is done by this committee, and the ambassador and I perhaps might disagree on some elements of policy.
	Not sure.
	We'll have to have a beer and find out.
	But I know one thing.
	By our statements here today, I think we've sung from the same song sheet as indeed you and the ranking member have.
	Thank you very much.
	Ambassador, I'd like to follow up on your testimony where you talk about basically an Article V economic, sort of a collective defense mechanism.
	Could you talk a little bit more about that idea?
	Sure.
	Two kind of predicate moments.
	One is how the EU came to Lithuania's defense and China realized Europe was bigger than Lithuania and it was too much.
	The second piece is when the G7 was held in Japan when I was ambassador, there was an adoption, or the first time actually in the communique, a reference to coercion by China in some effort.
	So you have the two predicates.
	And then I suppose the third point is I do mean this, when you look at Korea, you look at Japan, you look at the Philippines.
	Australia is the best kind of blueprint of what you want to replicate worldwide.
	They did it on their own.
	The Prime Minister is much greater at this and more knowledgeable, but basically used their existing trade relationships, their existing alliances, and put them on steroids and really operate in.
	China realized they couldn't isolate Australia, which is why I call, you want to isolate the isolator.
	Article 5 is the equip because it basically goes to the exact vulnerability of China's strategy.
	Their strategy is to take it to Australia or take a Japan and make an example out of them.
	And everybody should stand by and not only not want to go where Japan is, but let it happen.
	And then it's not just Japan, but its audience is much larger.
	If everybody got together and had a collective self-defense, which is what Article 5 would basically indicate, the basic premise of China's coercion unfolds and it reverberates.
	In every case, and I don't want to overplay the role that I play, but in the ban on Chinese seafood, the ban on Korean products or tourism, the ban on multiple products out of Australia, in the end of the day, China threw in the towel when everybody could work, either their economic relationships or political strategic relationships, so they were not isolated.
	So the Article 5 builds off of that basic premise.
	And I think that is what we need right now because we have to eliminate what, as I said in the opening statement, is the most persistent and pernicious tool in their economic state.
	Cracked.
	Thank you very much.
	Ranking Member Krishna Morthy.
	Hey, thank you, Mr. Chair.
	And it's such an honor to have such distinguished witnesses today.
	So thank you so much for coming in.
	I don't normally do this, but I brought in a nice bottle of Australian wine.
	Ever since China banned it in 2020 for Australia calling for a COVID investigation, this wine has been called freedom wine.
	And Prime Minister Morrison, you helped Australia sell a lot of freedom wine, right?
	I remember Secretary Pompeo sent me a picture with a very similar bottle at the time.
	And yeah, look, at some point, China was going to tire of drinking Wuhan Pino, I think, and was going to go back to the better product.
	Well, what's really fascinating about this is that Taiwan actually coined the term freedom wine.
	And what's fascinating is that when you and I visited Taiwan last year, they served freedom wine at the lunch.
	And that goes to what the ambassador was talking about, which is what when friends and partners band together, they can fight bans by China.
	And so what's also interesting is that I also brought something else, freedom pineapple cakes made by what in Taiwan are called freedom pineapples.
	This is because after CCP banned Australian wine, you guessed it, they banned Taiwan's pineapples.
	And Ambassador Emmanuel, after this ban in Japan, sales of Taiwan's pineapples went bananas, right?
	I am waiting for you to hold up some Chicago 312 beer.
	It's coming.
	Unfortunately, Ambassador, Japan was the next target.
	And you alluded to this because after Japan attended a 2023 summit with the U.S. and South Korea here at Camp David, which you attended, China banned all Japanese seafood, citing food safety concerns.
	But, Mr. Ambassador, here are some pictures of you.
	Judging by these...
	Here goes our friendship on two of these out of three photos.
	Judging by these photos, Ambassador, I think you believe that those allegations of safety concerns were completely fabricated, right?
	It was complete fabrication because they were just simply trying to hurt.
	They were trying to hurt the Japanese for doing the right thing.
	In my opening remarks, I alluded to this man, Leo Xiaobo, one of China's champions of democracy who won the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison in China.
	And in response, the CCP cut ties with Norway, where the Nobel Committee is based, and banned Norway's salmon.
	There seems to be a trend here.
	Norway's response to the CCP was this.
	Norway said, Norway attaches high importance to China's core interests and will not support actions that undermine them and will do its best to avoid any future damage to bilateral relations.
	Now, Ambassador, to me, that's not an apology, that's groveling, wouldn't you say?
	Yes, Mr. I think that, Prime Minister Morrison, this is what Beijing wanted you to do after you called for an investigation into COVID.
	I want to turn to my next topic.
	In my opening, I mentioned that China dominates rare earths.
	In contrast, we only have one rare earth mine in the entire U.S.
	It's owned by MP Materials, which just recently received nearly half a billion dollars of investments from DOD.
	This deal will, one, allow MP to make more magnets, these things which I talked about earlier, and two, create a 10-year guarantee that DOD will buy MPs rare earths at a floor price, ensuring that MP and hopefully others can compete.
	Now, Mr. Ambassador, it feels like the administration and the private sector need to do more of this with regard to going all in and creating our own resilient supply chain domestically.
	What do you think?
	Mr. Ranking Member, what I would say is to think the short answer is yes.
	I have advocated this before, and I think we as a country, and the National Security Council does this.
	They issue at the beginning of every term a strategic review of the challenges.
	I think the National Economic Council inside the White House should do the same on economic both opportunities and vulnerabilities, and then be able to then lay out a blueprint how to ameliorate or reduce your vulnerabilities and how to accentuate your strengths.
	And I would note, if I could, in almost every instance, Japan, in the case of both the Philippines and Australia, one of China's great vulnerabilities is food.
	They target other countries' food.
	That is a strategic opportunity, given their psychological and economic vulnerability as it relates to sourcing food product for 1.5 billion people.
	If I might ask one final question: this image from the American Revolution is the join or die image.
	This was used to rally the 13 colonies to fight back together against British tyranny.
	We have updated it into this new graphic, which I think builds upon what Ambassador Emmanuel was talking about, which is join or die.
	Today, America and our friends, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and others, are like the divided parts of the snake.
	And if we operate together, we can fight Chinese coercion.
	And I think, you know, Ambassador Emmanuel, this is what you were referring to in your Article 5 comments about fighting together against Japanese coercion rather than fighting alone, right?
	Correct.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you, and I yield back.
		Thank you.
		Representative Jimenez.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And really, I didn't know neither one of you were coming.
		I just came here to watch Raj do his thing.
unidentified		It's a pleasure to see both of you, especially you, Ambassadors.
		Pleasure to see you again.
		And by the way, I want to commend you on the great job you did as Ambassador in Japan.
		I'm known here as pretty hawkish on China.
		And I consider China and their products, China to be basically a drug dealer.
		And the world is addicted to Chinese goods.
		And when China wants to punish anybody, just withhold the drugs, right?
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		And so there's only one way you cure yourself is you have to rehabilitate yourself.
unidentified		We must decouple from China.
unidentified		Because if you don't, no matter what you do, I mean, I guess they acquiesced to you.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Prime Minister, and said, okay, now we will allow your products to be sold in China and we won't impose economic sanctions, et cetera.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		But I think that was a way of trying to keep both everybody from actually decoupling from them so that any time in the future they can do it again.
unidentified		Do you have a comment on it?
		I do.
		I think that is correct.
		The actions to lift the bans on Australian products was undertaken sometime after Australia withdrew the actions we brought against the PRC at the WTO.
		So it first required a withdrawing of the allegation of illegal trade bans before they even, frankly, contemplated removing those.
		I think what the PRC learnt during their experience of seeking to bully us is that that was ineffective and it wasn't working because we stood our ground.
		And I want to stress one point in relation to what the ranking member said.
		Yes, the political statements that were made around freedom wine or indeed the campaign that the ambassador led in Japan, they are strong political statements, but the pain of what was done particularly to our wine industry was real.
		And our vitnas and others experienced that.
		And yes, there was some freedom once sold, but not enough to make up for that impact.
		And my point about that is you stand up, it hurts, and you have to be prepared to take that.
		And one of the most encouraging things I used to receive when I was Prime Minister was letters from farmers who said, this hurts, but what you're doing is right and will stand with you.
		And I've never been more proud of Australians than at moments like that.
		And so if you're going to stand up here, you've got to be prepared to take a few hits in the process.
		But you're much more able to do that if you can take hits with your mates.
		And your mates have got to show up as well.
		And they're the sort of things that I think you're referring to, Ranking Member and Chairman and others, in the political support in that demonstration, which was very important.
		I received it here in many other places.
		So yeah, they realized they got it wrong.
		The Wolf Warrior diplomacy, all of that, was a massive tactical error.
		And they took advantage of the change of government to try and reset that and take a different approach.
		Because you're right, a decoupling of the two economies, ultimately, apart from single source supplies like rare earth materials and so on in the United States, China has a lot more to lose on that front because of the size of the US market.
		You already see U.S. capital has been draining, particularly private capital, out of China now for some time.
		The same is true in Korea and Japan.
		They've wised up as well.
		So that movement of capital and U.S. markets and access to it, I think, is an incredibly important card and can be deployed both in U.S. own interests and in the interests of allies and partners.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Prime Minister, the problem that I have is that I want to decouple faster, okay?
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		And I know it's going to take pain.
unidentified		But what I'm seeing is They will acquiesce because they're in it for the long haul.
		And they want to keep us hooked as long as they can.
		And frankly, we're feeding the monster that eventually will eat us up.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		And the food that they have is our capital.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		It's our money.
unidentified		And so we're actually, for every dollar that goes to China, it's going to be used against us.
unidentified		It's going to be used against the free world.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		And so the faster that we decouple, and look, we just did a deal with to continue to get rare earths from China.
		I don't think I'm all that crazy about it, to be honest with you, because then we don't have this critical need to make our own.
		We can still rely on some of their rare earths.
unidentified		And eventually, one day they will cut us off.
carlos a gimenez ▲ ● ▼		And so, you know, my time is up and I yield back.
		But again, thank you for your courage.
		And again, Mr. Ambassador, thank you for the great job you did.
unidentified		I really can I make a response in support of that last point in particular.
		We are kidding ourselves if we think at some point if the PRC can find an alternative source of supply for what they need, in our case, resources and various things like that, if they can find it from a more compliant source, they will, no matter how much dialogue you're having, if it appears from somewhere else, they will take that decision at the appropriate time for them.
		But equally, where you have vulnerabilities on single-source supplies like critical minerals and rare earths, before you jump off one lily pad, you've got to have another one to jump onto.
		And that does require a concerted effort.
		And I remember this was an issue that we raised when we were here back in 2019 with the President in his first term, of the need to build these supply chains around critical minerals and rare earths, which had exactly the features of what you've just mentioned in terms of MP materials here in the United States.
		If you can have a resistance to the price manipulation which China applies to rare earths and critical minerals through their stranglehold on processing, every single time an Australian rare earths mine might try and get going, what do they do?
		They manipulate the price.
		The market tanks, they go out of business.
		They control the market with ruthlessness.
		And so that requires end users, which are in Japan, Korea, and the United States, to be able to give clear and certain price signals into the supply chain so alternative supply chains can be built.
		When you can do that, and when you can have greater variety in the markets in which you're selling into, we were able to find other markets for our barley.
		The coal kept going out of Australia at the same rate it was before out of Newcastle Port.
		It was still making its way to China.
		I think Singapore became one of the biggest coal miners in the world during that time.
		And it still got there.
		But you had to have your options.
		When you have your options, well, you have resilience.
		Thank you.
		Representative Torres.
		Thank you, Mr. Chair.
		I see America's critical mineral dependency on China as our single greatest strategic vulnerability.
		In 2010 and 2011, China engaged in economic coercion against Japan, imposing export controls on rare earth elements, the first known instance of Beijing weaponizing its chokehold on critical minerals and rare earths against a foreign country.
		Since 2010, we have known that Western countries like the United States are dangerously dependent on China for critical minerals and rare earths.
		We have known that China is able and willing to weaponize its chokehold on critical minerals against adversaries like the United States.
		Despite knowing these dangers, the U.S. is no closer to achieving critical mineral independence than we were 15 years ago.
		In fact, China controls more of the world's rare earth refining today than it did back in 2010 and 2011 during its economic coercion of Japan.
		I guess my question is: why has the United States been so dangerously complacent when it comes to breaking out of critical mineral dependency?
		America made itself energy independent from the Middle East, yet we seem to lack the same sense of urgency around making ourselves mineral independent from China.
		Why the discrepancy?
		Is that for either one of us?
		Either one of us.
		Do you want to go first, Mr. President?
		No, I will follow you.
		Congressman, if I could take one step back, we repeated for basically a decade that China was an economic competitor or a strategic competitor.
		And when President Xi comes to power, he makes a decision that China is a strategic adversary, not a competitor.
		It is a very different psychological outlook.
		Second, to your point, and why I advocate this in conjunction with an Article 5-like instrument tool, is to take an assessment of your vulnerabilities.
		I don't, if I could, as you went through basically two years of war in the Middle East, including with Iran, as you noticed, energy prices did not spike.
		And I know we all know this, it has been written, so I'm not violating any prior assignments.
		There were models where, God forbid, there was conflagration in the Middle East, you were going to see energy go to $140 a barrel.
		That didn't happen.
		And why?
		Because of the United States.
		Full stop.
		And we worked at it over decades, did not abandon the effort of resilience as related.
		So you need exactly that type of resilience and study where your vulnerabilities are, what you need to shore up those vulnerabilities, not both yourself independently, but with allies and friends alike.
		So both reshoring and friendshoring and complacent.
		Magnets would be an area.
		Now, I know you would find it hard to believe, but as a middle child, I don't mean to destroy the comity of the group right now.
		But I say this because, as I noted earlier, Europe's plank posts Lithuania.
		The only time they have thought of employing that unity was now with the United States because of how we are negotiating with the EU.
		They haven't deployed it, but they threaten to.
		So it was designed with China in mind, but it is actually looked at and made to be deployed with us.
		One of the problems for China right now is given the war in Ukraine by Russia, they have lost access to the European market.
		Leveraging, as the Congressman noted, our own market.
		That is a powerful force against China, plus our allies in the Indo-Pacific, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, India, Philippines, and other countries.
		So understanding how we organize as a group and put together that economic coalition with real tools to confront both their coercion and will foyer tactics in service of a larger interest is key to our long-term economic independence, our economic resilience, and our competition with China.
		I want to squeeze in one more question.
		There are reports that China has agreed to resume exports of rare earths to the United States in exchange for the United States resuming exports of H-20 AI GPUs to China.
		And there are competing views, right?
		The argument from the Administration is that it wants to make the world, including China, dependent on an American AI tech stack that includes NVIDIA chips.
		But then the opponents argue that the H-20s are just too computationally powerful.
		How should we view the deal?
		Should we see it as building an American AI tech stack or as American capitulation to China's economic coercion?
	Well, I think this goes to knowing where your red lines are.
	And in the point I made in response to another question.
	And these are either sensitive technologies which are aiding a strategic rival or they're not.
	And that plays into the U.S.'s security interests or it doesn't.
	But somewhere that call needs to be made.
	And greater minds than mine will have to apply themselves to that in making that decision and evaluating that deal.
	And some will argue that Chinese tech will catch up and they'll have their own versions of it and they won't need it.
	Look, in my experience, everyone can make whatever argument they want around these issues, but it all comes back to that fundamental question.
	What is the security interest?
	And what is the red line that you can and cannot cross?
	Mr. Congressman, what I would say is like in any review, you want to find where China's vulnerabilities are and make sure they're dependent on the United States or the free world in those areas.
	They have a tremendous amount of vulnerability to three sources, food dependence, energy dependence, and fear of their own people.
	And where those vulnerabilities are, we want to go at them and make them actually, rather than totally disengage, make them more vulnerable by making them more dependent.
	Could I also touch then and follow up to your earlier question, which is why has it been going on for so long?
	Because end users want cheaper prices and China will give them the cheaper prices.
	And until there is a resolve to break that hold, which is a vulnerability at this end of the chain and in other end-user parts of the chain, be that in Japan or elsewhere, you made the point about what occurred with Japan and rare earths earlier.
	That is true.
	And the answer to that was a company, an Australian company called Linus set up a rare earth processing facility in Malaysia with support from the Japanese government through Jogmec.
	And that enabled such a process to provide a secure supply chain to Japan.
	Now, I applaud the Japanese government for the initiative they took, but took strong leadership.
	It put clear guardrails in place, and Linus is now building a plant in Texas which will do heavy rare earth processing.
	Now, the rare earths business is a pretty marginal business, and it doesn't take much to rattle it when you have price manipulations.
	And so the measure that's been taken with MP, I think, is an excellent one, but it's one that should really be extended to allies and partners, whether they be in the United States or French short elsewhere.
	Thank you.
	Representative LaHood.
	Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I want to thank both of you for being here today and your service.
	Ambassador Emmanuel, welcome.
	You had many accomplishments as ambassador to Japan.
	I want to highlight one of those was the Chicago Cubs opening their season in Japan this year with a three-game series.
	So I think you had something to do with that.
	So thank you for that and bringing the Cubs to Japan.
	Ambassador Emmanuel, I think what many of us appreciated in your service in Japan was your bluntness, your honesty, and your straightforwardness.
	And I want to read from an article from September 20th of 2023 from NBC News, the title, White House told U.S. Ambassador to Japan to stop taunting the Chinese on social media.
	Rahm Emanuel has mocked Chinese President Xi Jinping, speculating about the recent disappearance of a top official.
	And then you went on on social media with the hashtag Mystery in Beijing Building.
	And my question is: that was strategic and that was tactical.
	And I think many of us appreciated you taking them on.
	What was achieved by that and what were the ramifications?
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		I think since we know each other pretty well, one, there was never an effort to really silence me, but even if there was, it didn't succeed, as you know.
unidentified		And the effort was to show, as like in the situation when I bring up the situation in Fukushima, and I want to compliment Aquilino, who was head of the Indo-PACOM at that time, because he had resources, and we caught pictures of the Chinese fishing boats in Japanese waters.
		That picture told a thousand words.
		It was part of a campaign over a period of time that paid dividends because China threw in the towel at the end.
		So part of this was also to show the hypocrisy of what China was doing.
		And there was a Minister of Defense, there was a Foreign Minister, and there was basically three or four cabinet ministers who went missing and never heard from again in three or four terms.
		I think I cited Agatha Christie, and then there were none, was actually the social media at that point.
		So it was to show the hypocrisy of China, also to show the fact that what they were doing and basically lift the curtain on that kind of actions in that area.
		It didn't stop because, as you could see pretty recently, there's have lost count, I think, four to five members of the People's Liberation Army, their armed forces, the commanders and leaders of that forces, have all now been fired, et cetera, in that effort.
		So it was to expose the hypocrisy of the political acts of what they said.
		They always, and I think the Prime Minister knows this, they always say it's win-win.
		But all roads lead to one destiny, Beijing's advantage.
		Yeah.
		Thank you for that.
		In your response to Mr. Torres' questions, you talked a little bit about partnering with our like-minded allies.
		We haven't, I came a little late, but we haven't heard TPP.
		Now, that's in the past.
		But when we think about TPP and what we wanted to do there, in terms of writing the rules of the road when it comes to trade in the Indo-Pacific region, partnering with our like-minded allies.
		Now, that ship has probably passed, but that seemed to me what you were referring to in terms of how do we work on the economic front, how do we partner with our allies there to do that?
		Is that still a strategy you think has legs?
		I don't think you should, if I couldn't, Mr. Congressman, don't isolate it by region.
		One of the successes of the past strategy, in my view, was that Europe realized that it was not North Atlantic over here and the Indo-Pacific over here.
		There was one strategic sphere.
		You want Europe engaged economically, politically, in the peace and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific.
		That gives us greater leverage.
		You don't want this just on Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
		You want all our friends involved and pulling in the same direction.
		Now, I think, as rather the G7 communique indicated as EU's action after Lithuania was isolated, you want countries of like-minded and like-minded interests to come together, form an economic union where anti-coercion is at the core of confrontation.
		It flips the script where China is trying to isolate an Australia or trying to isolate Japan.
		They become the isolated party.
		You want the economic coercion to quiver to be taken out so they don't rely on it.
		And remember, if you take all the countries we talked about in the Indo-Pacific, you take the United States, Canada, Mexico, the EU, they cannot export their capabilities just to the developing world.
		It's just not that big of a market today.
		The other thing I would say to you, it also then goes through a vulnerability.
		Half the cases at the World Trade Organizations are brought by other countries against Chinese companies doing exactly what the Prime Minister said, crushing price to destroy competition.
		You saw it in the steel plant in Chile, 20,000 people laid off.
		South Africa, an ally of China, brought a case.
		Brazil, an ally, brought a case.
		All in the steel luminary.
		So by pulling these markets back and uniting them as allies and friends, we'll have our disagreements, but we're united in our confrontation on China.
		You make China's attempt to crush other countries' manufacturing and industrial capacity a vulnerability of theirs.
		Because right now, China can be the target of public ire and anger rather than, in the situation, the United States.
		Flip the script.
		Thank you for that.
		Mr. Morrison, you want to comment on that?
		Yeah, I do.
		I want to agree with what the ambassador has said, but I think that's enough.
		But I would also want to highlight the issue that you've raised in your question.
		Particularly in Southeast Asia and with the Indo-Pacific more broadly, many of our aligned friends, the idea that we would ask them to make a choice in this strategic rivalry is unwise.
		There are nations in the Indo-Pacific of which that's entirely appropriate, and Australia is one of those as a core ally of the United States.
		But other countries in the region want choice.
		And so where China is active in a particular country, well, that will happen.
		The response to that is not for U.S. or other allied interests to not be there.
		The response is to double down and be there even more strongly and to provide them with that choice.
		And I observe this with many countries in Southeast Asia.
		They would not only want to see us, but they would want to see our pension funds.
		They would want to see our companies, and they particularly want to see those coming out of the United States.
		Companies like Mitsubishi are very active in Indonesia and so on.
		This is a good and positive thing because in many of these Southeast Asian countries, economic security is security.
		It is their primary issue.
		And so while we can speak as allies of our shared values around the issues that are most important to us, they will not always completely overlap.
		And we must prioritise the economic relationship with these countries to give them assurance and confidence so they can become like-minded partners on particular things.
		And so, and by the way, for the TPP, the door is always open, they're always welcome, and we should never allow the PRC into it, certainly if the U.S. is not into it.
		And the first one that should be coming in should be Taiwan.
		Thank you.
	Representative Brown.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I have the honor of representing Ohio's 11th congressional district, a district that has been defined by the grit of working families, the contributions of small businesses, and the promise of American manufacturing.
		I want to focus today's hearing on how Chinese Communist Party's economic tactics have very real impact on everyday Americans.
		For too long, China has taken advantage of our open markets while putting up walls around their own using tools like export restrictions, retaliatory tariffs, and targeted boycotts.
unidentified		That might sound abstract in policy terms, but it hits closer to home than people realize.
		When China imposes rare earth mineral restrictions, it doesn't just pressure Fortune 500 companies.
		It ripples through U.S. supply chains, raising costs for factories in the Midwest and threatening jobs in places like Cleveland and throughout Northeast Ohio.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		When China blocks key components used in American auto manufacturing, it's not just trade policy.
unidentified		It's a family on the East Side who can't afford to fix their car.
		It's a union worker furloughed without notice.
		It's a parent watching groceries and gas get more expensive while global tensions rise.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		Ambassador Emmanuel, your testimony underscores how China is leveraging its dominance in rare earth processing to apply economic pressure globally.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		From your experience in Japan and your work-building alliances, how can the United States and its allies act quickly to shield workers and consumers from price shocks and supply chain disruptions stemming from China's coercion?
unidentified		Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Congresswoman, for noting the type of work that goes on in your district and across.
		And I say this also as the ranking member made note of the Ford plant, as I did, shutting down in Chicago.
		And as Mayor, I convinced Ford to bring a third shift there, about 1,200 workers, not only and then an additional couple thousand on supply side.
		So to see them shutter the plant, it's not just shuttering a plant.
		That's right.
		It means workers going without, as you noted, without paychecks, little leagues and the community that's built around that plant and supporting all the other activities that go on, they all come to a screeching halt.
		Not only did we talk extensively earlier about alliances working on an anti-coercion kind of coalition, but I also think knowing how to invest in our own strengths.
		I do happen to think the alliances and allies we've built up since World War II is a strength.
		We'll have our disagreements, like every family does, but in the end of the day, we share more in common than the disagreements and the highlights of those.
		I think the United States has an incredible capacity, both in our research, our innovation, our technology, and our ability to take risk.
		That is a strength.
		Abandoning any one of those is unilateral disarmament.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		The universities in Ohio, while they're competitors at University of Illinois or University of Michigan or any other statewide universities, is the envy of the world.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		The technology that comes from Ann Arbor, the technology that comes out of Columbus, Ohio, the technology that comes out of Champaign, Illinois, like the Internet, the envy of the world.
unidentified		You know, one of the opportunities I had by living overseas is you get to see America in a different light.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		I used to say lip service, you know, the innovation, the ecosystem.
unidentified		But guess what?
		It's not lip service.
		It's a shining example.
		So not just protecting ourselves, but our strength.
		China replicates, copies, cheats, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft.
		We out-innovate everybody.
		To cut research and development dollars to our universities, to attack the ability for them to attract talent.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		I know this may be heresy right now.
unidentified		That is literally taking our strengths and making it a weakness.
		And it's wrong.
		And so that to me, when you look at your universities in your state, the amount of not only innovation, but amount of startups that come from there, the next future in the sense of technology that comes from there and companies that come from there, that's where America plays a home game.
		That's an away game for China.
		You want to play on our turf.
		Nothing to take away from the universities in Australia.
		Don't get upset.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		But we have something that every other country in the world is envious of.
unidentified		What goes on at our universities, what goes on at our companies, the people that come from around the world, to be part of that?
		Why would we cut off our nose to split our face?
		That's a home game for us.
		Play on our turf.
		So that's how you respond.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		So this is for either of you.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		Many industries in my district, steel chemicals and manufacturing, have been undercut for years by China's unfair trade practices, including dumping products below market value and subsidizing state-backed firms.
unidentified		How should Congress strengthen our enforcement of countervailing duties and anti-dumping measures in a way that not only holds China accountable, but also ensures timely relief for American workers and producers?
		Interestingly, one of the things that led to China imposing, the PRC government imposing their trade bans on Australia was that we had taken some anti-dumping decisions on steel, on railways and rail lines and so on.
		One of the conditions that the new government agreed to in order to have all those trade bans dumped was to drop those anti-dumping decisions as well.
		And so anti-dumping, I think, is a real threat to China.
		And not just here in the United States or in Australia, but increasingly in developing economies all around the world.
		The number of anti-dumping inquiries and actions being taken by developing countries, because the PRC economic model is based on overproduction.
		Their consumer economy is weak, and they make up for it by driving overproduction at what is effectively at non-performing prices for their state-owned enterprises.
		They wear the losses, they dump the products, and this is starting to burn relationships between the PRC and what they would call their clients under the BRI program.
		So this is a weakness for the PRC.
		And so to highlight this over-production, dumping of products, be here in the United States or elsewhere, and working together with allies and partners to back each other up on those measures, I think is really important.
		And having some harmony about how these things are investigated and rooted out, not only will that be beneficial here, but I think it will be welcomed in developing countries, which the PRC often uses and lists to try and achieve their own objectives, particularly in international institutions.
		And that's another area I'd highlight the PRC's influence in international institutions.
		We talked about critical minerals and rare earths.
		One of the increasing sources of that in the future will be from seabed.
		And the involvement of China seeking To go and see bed license mining in the Southwest Pacific and others, and to crowd out allies and partners in that field is a troubling issue and one that the U.S. can play an important role in.
		I know, Mr. Chairman, we are on short time here.
		There is an example right now on the magnets.
		There is a company in Australia, MP here in the United States.
		I think there's really important to underscore both your question and what the Prime Minister answered, which is China's attempt while we'll be right now, given what we're doing, will be to crush the price of magnets worldwide through subsidies so that neither the Australian company or the American company can get their sea-legs and be a standalone, capable company.
		Supporting both the price and the ability to withstand price competition, and that's not market-driven but state-driven, is going to be essential to our future, not short-term, over the long term, decades, economic independence and sovereignty.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		Noticed, I think it was two to three weeks ago, China banned all scientists who work at the magnet industry in China from traveling overseas.
unidentified		I don't think it was because they've recommended that their holidays be sent only in China.
		Because they knew that intellectual capability and they're going around the world at the very time that Australia and the United States are starting to build up a magnet industry that is basically dormant to a standalone is a thing that they don't want to see happen.
		So they can't go to conferences, they can't go to international gatherings.
		So sustaining those companies, reshoring, friendshoring, will make us economically independent of China's coercion.
shontel brown ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Representative Moran.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to both our witnesses, Prime Minister and Ambassador.
		I want to thank you in particular for being strong, steady, and effective voices as it relates to the threats that the Chinese Communist Party poses, in particular as we are talking today about economic coercion, which no doubt is a threat to America's way of life.
		No question they seek to change behavior through fear and intimidation and anti-American coercion across the world.
		And this committee, I think, must take steps to address the CCP's coercion and craft legislation that will be a tangible document for Xi Jinping and his economic advisors to understand where we stand on this issue.
		I don't think the American people understand how bad the situation is about the intimidation.
		When I look back in preparation for this hearing, I was astounded.
		Just a couple of examples that I'll bring out.
		During the 2023 field hearing that this committee held back when Mike Gallagher was the chair, in New York City, there was a threat put out to those that would be witnesses, and those witnesses didn't want to reveal their identities because they understood the reprisals that might come from the CCP.
		In 2021, Reuters reported that the PRC embassy in Washington, D.C. had sent letters to U.S. firms pressing executives to urge members of Congress to amend or withdraw bills that sought to enhance U.S. competitiveness on the international stage.
		Those are the kind of actions that the PRC is going to take.
		And we certainly remember what happened to South Korea when China imposed economic penalties against South Korean companies, costing them billions of dollars after Seoul agreed in 2016 to a U.S. request to deploy FAAD missile defense systems in South Korea.
		There seems really to be no limit on the actions the PRC will take to engage in economic coercion.
		I want to start with you, Prime Minister, and talk about the use of arbitrary laws by China or their arbitrary application of laws, their own laws, in this regard.
		In 2020, China implemented the Export Control Act, which, as you know, gives the CCP the ability to halt exports of critical minerals or technologies based on a national security criteria, with frankly no basis in fact on their side.
		They've used laws like this to stop the export of key goods when countries don't hold their same political view, as you know.
		They also implemented the unreliable entity list in 2020.
		That's their term, which allows Beijing to blacklist foreign firms from undefined acts that they see as harmful to their national sovereignty.
		In the U.S., we have similar laws, but frankly, we provide evidence and we fairly and equally apply those laws.
		That's not the case for China.
		I want to go back to when you were dealing with this in Australia.
		Prime Minister, what steps did you take to lead Australia in the face of direct economic coercion by China?
		And how did you see China use these arbitrary laws to pressure Australian companies?
		Thank you, Congressman.
		It's interesting that there are a number of decisions that Australia took on Huawei and so on, and we were the first to do that globally.
		But we're engaged in some abattoir issues with China, and I was raising those with the Premier at the time.
		And we were just making zero progress on this issue.
		The use of non-tariff barriers to basically be denying the ability for us to be pursuing our media exports into China, and there was just an absolute brick wall.
		Now, this is before I called for an inquiry into COVID-19.
		Much has put on that issue, and I don't resolve for it for a second.
		This led to the deaths of millions of people around the world, and their accountability on this issue has never been brought to anything.
		And it must one day, but I digress.
		Those very types of non-tariff barriers, the internal rules, the processes, they are used to frustrate, exhibit, frustrate, I should say, inhibit what were the normal trade relationships between us and China under our free trade agreement.
		So, even where you have an agreement, they will say they obey the rule of law so long as that rule of law suits their purpose at the time, or they can change the rule of law when it suits them.
		And that is the great threat of authoritarian regimes.
		The rule of law is the rule of law in the countries we reside in.
		But for China, it's the rule of law as they call that law any given day.
		And if it doesn't suit, then they will find another way to prevent the actions of others who they seek to frustrate.
		And before I lose my time today, I want to come to you, Ambassador, because you mentioned some things earlier about how do we effectively introduce countermeasures.
		And I thought one of the things you said was really insightful.
		You said make China more vulnerable and dependent in three areas: food, energy, and then use the fear of their own people against them effectively.
		So, I want to ask you specifically: how do we go about that here in Congress?
		What kind of legislative action should we take to increase the vulnerability in these areas to China and to make them more dependent on the rest of the world?
		Thank you, Congressman.
		So, your colleague mentioned about disengaging that China is a bit like a drug.
		No, one is I don't like the Cold War metaphor.
		As you go back to the Cold War, we didn't really have trade with the Soviet Union.
		The trade between the United States and China is nipping up against a trillion dollars.
		So, it's not a real metaphor.
		And the second is, China believes that there is a Cold War, it's in the science and technology area.
		They want to dominate biotech, AI, quantum computing, just go down the list.
		making sure, and this requires a deft hand, meaning you can't just use a blunt instrument, where they are vulnerable on food.
		I think it's a mistake to have Brazilian soybeans replace American soybeans.
		I think that gives us leverage.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a mistake that they can access energy either through Russia or Iran.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		I think making them more dependent on not just oil and gas, our technology as it relates to a series of things on battery research, as it relates to battery storage or other types of technology.
unidentified		But you go down the list, this is what I think the NAC would do.
		I think NAC being the National Economic Council in the White House.
		I do want to stress, though, you are doing this in conjunction with your allies.
		The mindset that the United States will do this solo plays to China's game.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		We are on their turf, isolated, just mono to mono.
unidentified		Us standing with the European friends and allies, with our allies in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens.
		We are a numbers game.
		When that force brings, you flip China's script.
		Now, I respect the institution of Congress having served here, but in the end of the day, the lead here is out of the executive branch to set the precedent, having served also at the behest of two presidents.
		So Congress can play a supporting role, both challenging and reinforcing when an administration is taking the course.
		Thank you to both of you, and I agree with you, Ambassador.
		We need strong partnerships and allies across the world to isolate China, instead of allowing that to happen in the reverse.
		One thing I would note that was, if I could do two things, Mr. Chairman.
		One is what is not fully appreciated, and I did not until I got there, how much not just our friends and allies, but people and other countries in the region do not want an untethered, unhinged China.
		They see the United States as the best insurance policy to anchor in that area.
		China's strategy, they are the rising power, America's declining power, get in line or you are going to get Australia's treatment.
		Our strategy, we are a permanent Pacific power and presence, and you can bet long on the United States.
		We have to double down on that.
		Not just Australia, not just Japan, not just Korea.
		Other countries in the region want America, not just the men and women that serve on the Abraham Lincoln or the Ronald Reagan.
		They want all of America.
		They want our sports.
		They want the instruments of our soft power.
		They want the instruments of our economic engagement.
		So if we are going to do this and stay a permanent Pacific power and presence, don't put this on the young men and women that signed up to serve on a Navy ship six months away from their family alone.
		Put it on the communities that can outproduce, out-innovate, and out-compete with China, and do it with our allies in tow pulling with us.
		That's our responsibility as a world leader, our responsibility to our values, and our responsibility to the men and women who are asked as one piece of our instrument of power.
		I fully agree.
		Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
		Thank you.
		Representative Stevens.
		So I come from Michigan, the industrial Midwest, the heartbeat, arguably, of our manufacturing sector.
		And we have been dealing with the China consideration and the coercion consideration since before the Great Recession really woke a lot of people up.
		The illegal dumping, the currency manipulation, the challenges to our automotive industry.
		And I came into this hearing with questions about minerals because after a year and a half, I've written this bill called Unearth America's Future Act.
		It's the CHIPS Act for Minerals.
		Mr. Prime Minister, I've talked extensively to Mr. Rudd about this legislation.
		Ambassador Emmanuel, I'd also love to talk to you about this.
		It is entirely comprehensive and it is a framework for how we can compete in the 21st century, the mid-21st century mark.
		I mean, we can and love to go back into history and look at this, but yes, we need to look the present in the face and the future that we're heading towards.
		What does this world look like in 2050 and who is leading the industrial rules-based order?
		My presumption on this and my charge as a federal lawmaker is to bolster the U.S. alongside our allies to achieve that goal for technology dominance, for industrial dominance, and any sort of trappings in terms of how governance structures can continue to bolster capital markets.
		But this kind of came out with Brown and her question.
		And Rom, you got to this, and I want to dig on it a little bit further.
		How do we reverse the trajectory here?
		How do we, and we're hearing a lot about the allies and that we need to work with others in the Indo-Pacific.
		And Ranking Member, I appreciated your graphic.
		But how do we push back effectively and strategically?
		And can we continue to do things like AUKUS that is a great framework for us here in the United States of America and with our allies for technology development?
		Is there a vision or a path for us to do things like AUKUS?
		And when you were ambassador, I thought, well, maybe we can do JAUKUS.
		Maybe we can tie in and work more aggressively with our allies outside some of the constraints of trade relationships.
		So it's nice to talk about onshoring and reshoring.
		I know how to do it, and I think we've got a plan to do it.
		My bill is loan guarantees, tax credits, and an RD center of excellence.
		Again, CHIPS Act for Minerals, because we can't do 85 to 95 percent processed over there.
		But can we just dig a little bit further while we're all still in the room and hearing all your fascinating responses about how we achieve this goal about 2050?
		And Mr. Prime Minister, if you'd like to start, that'd be great too.
		Well, thank you.
		And thanks for the question.
		I'd start by saying a strong America is critical for that.
		I mean, allies and partners, yes, absolutely.
		And I think they've been saying that all morning and as the questioners as well.
		But for the Allies and Partners Network to work, there has to be a strong core, and that requires a strong America.
		And an America with a strong industrial base in particular, one of the greatest successes the United States has had through allies and partners has been the sort of global security initiatives, whether it be in the Indo-Pacific, NATO, or elsewhere.
		And applying that same discipline of those networks into the economic sphere is critical to achieve that.
		But it doesn't work unless the United States itself maintains its leadership and keeps striking distance on these core things that are necessary.
		So I would agree with you.
		What's frustrating from the Michigan perspective, sir, is we have a current administration, 55 tariff announcements in 100 days.
	I appreciate how bipartisan and thoughtful we are here, but we've got billions of dollars of losses now coming out of our big three.
	We have the second fastest growing unemployment in the nation in Michigan.
	Thank you, erratic tariff policies and all the hiring phrases.
	And this is not to get overly partisan.
	Cut the deal for Michigan.
	Cut the deal for Michigan.
	I'm not yelling at you about that, but that's what we need right here.
	I don't need, yes, I get what's going on with China, and they hoard, and we give them everything with the minerals that go into materials, and that's rising costs on us.
	Cut the deal for us, right?
	Ram, did you want to chime in?
	Congresswoman, I would say, look, the past is a bit of a prologue here.
	There are three periods of great economic growth in America.
	One is after the Civil War, one is at the beginning of the 20th century, and one is at the end of World War II.
	What do all three have in common?
	Investing in America and Americans.
	Take education, land-grant colleges under Abraham Lincoln, universal high school education at the beginning of the 20th century, and the GI Bill, where Education Planck educated and trained a generation of Americans.
	You invest in Americans.
	There's nothing China is doing that's going to scare me.
	You invest in America, our research universities, our roads, our bridges, our technology.
	You dominate the rules of AI, quantum computing, biotech.
	There's a story just the other day.
	We're now, our major pharmaceutical companies are now becoming more and more dependent on China's biotech sector.
	That used to be our play.
	If we don't invest in it, we're going to lose it.
	The one thing we know, you don't invest in it, lose it.
	And so to me, Michigan's fate is kind of a canary in the coal mine to the rest of us, in the same way that happened on the Ford plant in the south side of the city of Chicago.
	Actually, that plant, I don't mean to do this, exports to more markets around the world than any other plant in the Ford family here in the United States.
	Okay?
	You invest in it.
	Beijing, we're coming after you.
	There's nothing America can't do if you invest in both the American people and the American economy.
	The fundamentals of the public sector are in the rule of law, our research at universities and our RD capacity, and our ability to take risk and the capabilities of both the brains and the brands that make up this country.
	And I want to emphasize what the Prime Minister said.
	You can have all the coalition, and I'm for it.
	But there's only one quarterback.
	We proved that in Europe.
	We're proving that in Indo-Pacific.
	And we can call the play.
	And I don't mean, I know that Australia is a very important friend and ally, but I think he would emphasize that without the United States, it's a lot of independent countries.
	With the United States, you've got a team.
	I yield back, Mr. Chair.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Representative Takuta.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	And I just want to build upon the comments of my colleagues.
	I, too, greatly value our defense partnership with Australia.
	And I've been working in my role in the Armed Services Committee to expedite the construction of infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific.
	I represent Hawaii that both of our nations will be relying on.
	And our partnership, along with the United Kingdom and AUKUS, is important for all three nations and the broader security of the Indo-Pacific.
	Last week, I included an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act directing the Defense Department to explore ways to expand the AUKUS partnership that address our critical mineral supply challenges, including as it relates to rare earth minerals.
	Prime Minister, given Australia's historic strengths at mining and mineral processing, what are your thoughts to potentially expanding AUKUS to also include approaches to reducing our reliance on China and other countries when it comes to critical minerals, especially for defense purposes?
	And Ambassador, you spoke about making sure that we are countries of like-minded union.
	In particular, I'm thinking about the Quad.
	Last week, this committee convened a roundtable to talk about our vulnerabilities in pharmaceuticals, API, KSM, reagents, and solvents and such.
	And as we know, China has quite the market in this particular area.
	Thoughts about making sure that when we look at the Quad and the work that it's doing there, it also looks at particular areas where we do need to decouple and make ourselves less vulnerable, in particular with the pharmaceutical industries.
	I'm also wondering for both of these areas, rare minerals as well as pharmaceuticals and other areas of dependency, is the current tariff policies that we're seeing from the Trump administration, quite frankly, playing into China's hands.
	We need to be very smart and deliberate about all actions and how it all connects together.
	So I would love to hear that.
	And if we have some time, Ambassador, you mentioned the fact that we need to know the baseline.
	China took 15 years to get to this point where they had us by the batteries in the midst.
	What else do we need to be forward looking at in terms of where they are building up a potential vulnerability and dependency for us and our allies going forward into the future?
	I might just deal with the AUKUS question first.
	It's very important AUKUS retains its focus.
	It is a defence partnership agreement, both to ensure that Australia can have a capability of nuclear-powered submarines, which can play an important role in the network of alliances in the Indo-Pacific and be part of that deterrent effect.
	And that is, for Australia, an enormous undertaking to do this.
	And it requires our full focus on those tasks.
	Pillar two of AUKUS focuses on ensuring we have advanced defence technologies, which enables us to also strike that deterrent against, in particular, the PRC, but other potential adversaries globally.
	Again, keeping the focus on that.
	A key part of when we did AUKUS was ensuring that we had an integrated defence industrial base across those three jurisdictions, pairing back the regulations, be it on export controls or ITARs or things like that.
	And I think there's been enormous progress made on that.
	More to do, but I am deeply thankful to the US Congress for the work they've done in pairing that back.
	We've made more progress than we have in the last 50 years on those issues, and that's a positive thing.
	The reason I highlight that is that what you're raising is an important input into that defence industrial base.
	The processed rare earths that go into, whether they be nuclear-powered submarines or F-35s or whatever it happens to be, that is essential for those things to be done and everything else that is going to be done that we haven't even dreamt of yet.
	What I would humbly suggest is I think the best forum for those industrial type processes is probably more through the Quad.
	I think it certainly supports AUKUS and I think is entirely consistent with what AUKUS is doing.
	I think what's important is that it gets done.
	And I think the Quad in particular provides a good vehicle because it includes Japan.
	More recently, there's a company in Australia, Pilgrim Minerals, who have struck a joint venture with POSCO in Korea, which is a processing rare earth, sorry, lithium raw material arrangement.
	We need to see more and more of those types of deals and providing those supply chains amongst friends.
	It is in Australia's interests for the US industrial base to be strong.
	And I think this is a point that's sometimes lost about allies and partners.
	We think it's a good day, a good thing, for the US to rebuild its industrial base.
	We have a stake in that and we want to ensure that happens.
	That's why under AUKUS already we've paid half a billion in supporting nuclear submarine production here on Virginia class.
	I don't know of any other ally the United States has that is actually paying the United States to help build your defense industrial base on submarines.
	That's what a serious partner does that is keen on doing heavy lifting in a partnership.
	And so I would say a similar amount of effort and focus is required to get those supply chains on rare earths and critical metals right, because you cannot pursue the capabilities that you want under AUKUS unless you have those secure supply chains.
	So the issue you are focusing on is dead right.
	Thank you, Congresswoman.
	Two things I would say and take a note or three rather.
	One, take a page out of the export controls.
	When I was ambassador, we worked on that.
	The United States position vis-a-vis semiconductors with China was strengthened because Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Dutch stood shoulder to shoulder with us.
	That is why China squealed like a stuck pig.
	And that's a lot for a Jewish kid to say, stuck pig.
	Okay?
	So that was a joke.
	You guys got to relax around here.
	So you have to appreciate that is an example.
	China sued for peace because the effectiveness of our coalition worked to isolate the isolator.
	The Quad is a place of economic cooperation.
	You have to look at the strategic landscape.
	I said this earlier to a colleague's question.
	They are competing with us on AI dominance around the world, not just with our AI.
	Will the rules of AI be written around a China model or a U.S.-based model?
	Quantum computing, same deal.
	Biotech, same deal.
	So you look down five, six promising technologies tomorrow that are going to be the most dominant technologies, and you begin to double down both on the research dollars that go to those technologies, the security of the companies and the innovation that comes out of those research dollars, and the protection of them in their early stages to be worldwide competitors.
	Now, I do want to say, because I don't, this probably is the last answer, so I might as well kind of go with it.
	Look, I think tariffs are a blunt instrument that are being applied bluntly.
	They should be used strategically, not across the board.
	Not all problems.
	It's a hammer in search of a nail.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		That's my view.
unidentified		I think that if we thought about this strategically, looked at tomorrow, where do we want to be, how do we invest in the technology, how do we invest in the brain power, how do we invest in the muscle power to build up a competitive economic ecosystem around areas.
		And the problem when you lose your industrial base is that there is a whole series of ecosystems that is part of that, because that industrial base is part of the innovation piece.
		It is not universities over here and production over here.
		That is why you can't concede the ground of industrialization or manufacturing to China because take a look at the EV auto industry.
rahm emanuel ▲ ● ▼		We were first, like solar, but take the EV.
unidentified		We were first with a national brand called Tesla.
		Their companies, though, figured out how to recharge them in five minutes.
		We haven't.
		They have an ecosystem that is operating.
		You need that manufacturing as a part and parcel and the heart and soul of your innovation.
		Mr. Chairman, can I close on one thing?
		I do want to thank both the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the full members of the committee for having a hearing on something essential to the economic prosperity and the future of not only our country, our allies, but most importantly, the communities and people we represent.
		And for a rear moment, as somebody who also participated in this sport, this is a rear committee of bipartisanship.
		We'll have our differences on a number of other issues, but you came together on looking to the future and how to make you play a constructive role in shaping it.
		And I want to thank both of you and the members for a real thorough discussion about what tomorrow can bring and how to make sure it's to America's advantage and our allies' advantage.
		Well, thank you very much, Ambassador Emmanuel, Prime Minister Morrison.
		Really appreciate your participation today.
		Questions for the record are due one week from today.
		And without objection, the committee hearing is adjourned.
		Thank you.
		Thank you very much.
		Thank you.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
		Coming up this morning, former Trump Pence 2020 Campaign Communications Director and host of Newsmax Wake Up America, Mark Lauder, on the Trump presidency and political news of the day.
		And Greg Sargent, staff writer for The New Republic, discusses the Trump presidency and Democrats' agenda and messaging.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
		Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		C-SPAN.
		Democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
		Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Next, a hearing on managing voter registration lists and election integrity from the House Administration Committee.
		During the nearly hour and 20-minute hearing, lawmakers and witnesses discuss federal standards for voter rolls and data sharing between states.
		The Committee on House Administration will come to order The title of today's hearing is Clean Voter Rolls, Secure Elections, Reviewing Voter List Maintenance Standards.
		I note that a quorum is present without objection.
		The chair may declare recess at any time.
		Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for five legislative days.
		So members may submit any materials they wish to be included therein.

▲