they would apply a strawman argument to this saying that this is where we are at and there is not much that we can do and we have to do the best that we can. these side deals, you said that these iranians would be able to conduct their own testing, but we don't really know that, right? because the terms of that collection art obtained -- are contained in the signed deal. that will be the precedent for every undeclared site in this agreement and it is not the case the director said that this is not true and the iranians actually pulled the samples themselves. you will have to ask of those folks. for think we've got time

one more question and we are going to go in the back there. yes, i am russell king, retired federal employee. during the bush administration, it seem like there was a certain amount of melodrama about terror. russia has bombed some areas of syria, not where d.a.s.h. happens to be, but where some rebel groups are. could russia be waging a proxy war and putting its agents undercover and on the other hand, in middle eastern countries, there is a conflict in saudi arabia and iran, a war by proxy, kind of like in lebanon, where certain portions of the populations will take one side or another.

both of those countries are islamic states. what will we do to make either saudi arabia or iran accountable for their conflict in other countries in the middle east? >> i don't know how to answer that. you are asking what will we do and it goes down to the other end of the avenue. i would make the observation, however, that if in fact the press reports indicate that the u.s. government believes that the russian airstrikes hit units trained by the united states, it does suggest a certain amount of effort on the part of the trained to find people in syria, it strikes me as not, as i might have said in my earlier career as a soviet

specialist, an accident, comrade. >> i said this a little bit earlier. the russians are not in syria to defeat isis. well, i want to thank our panelists for a somewhat depressing but nonetheless illuminating discussion. that both of them will continue to be important voices on this subject in the future and i appreciate the time that they spent with us this morning. thank you. [applause] >> more now from the foreign-policy initiative. republican senators cory gardner and dan sullivan are interviewed by bloomberg columnist josh rogan. this is 45 minutes. josh: thank you all for coming .ut to our asia panel today

we are smooshed between the two panels and lunch, and i have some opening remarks, so i will take about 45 minutes. [laughter] asia atbegan studying gw back in 1990 -- [laughter] josh: i was told that this would be the asian century and we are still waiting on that but there is still time. asia and iive in studied japanese and i went to work for a japanese newspaper and i eventually hit what they call the rice paper ceiling. if you are an american there, there is no upward mobility. i came home and i covered the senate and at this time, this was mid august. there was a group of very senior, very well-established senators who care a lot about asia.

among them were daniel inouye, , all ofedy, john water those senate leaders are now no longer in the senate. but i remember one particular story when i was covering the nomination of the u.s. ambassador to south korea, it was being held by sam brownback. senator warner came up to me and i said, senator warner, what are we going to do about this? he put his hand on my shoulder, i think to not fall over, and he korea,josh, i fought in i had friends in korea, and i will always look out for those little guys." so now we have a new generation of senators who are learning about asia and learning about the leaders of asia and we have two of the most prominent here today and we are very lucky. is the chairman

of the asia policy and the cyber and senators sullivan -- and let me begin with you to start a few remarks. sen. gardner: thank you very much for having me here today and braving the weather as this must be the calm before the storm, i think. i look at what is happening around the globe and from the event, and frighteningly so in the middle east with the russian activity into syria, our long-term interests related line in the asian region. if you look at the last several decades and the last several years, it is truly remarkable what they have been able to accomplish.

but the question is, what are we going to do to make things right in china and to make sure that it will be a great nation alongside other great nations that adhere to international norms of behavior and follow the rules of the road of a truly great nation? comes to, when it questions of economy and questions of security and expansion in the south china comes to cyber security and intellectual property, right now they are not meeting those goals in order to become that truly responsible great nation that can be a part of a world that truly needs leadership on these issues. month, had an opportunity to visit china, i was in asian, i was in south kong, andan, hong meeting with leaders and officials and talking about

challenges that we face in the region and opportunities that we face in the region. i think there are some tremendous opportunities. right now, senator sullivan and i will be talking about the rebalance of the pivot. this is seen directly through a military rebalance. we have to pass and put forward tpp to move beyond a military intervention of rebounds. that isto leaders here, a one-sided policy right now that needs to be multidimensional. we face arees that truly real and could lead to a greater conflict. if we don't take them seriously, this means that we have to move -- if we take them syriza, this means that we move beyond rhetoric on the south china sea and on security issues in cyber security and when it comes to economic issues and whether the new national laws could threaten

the security of our corporations. ofn it comes to the billions dollars of international property theft each year, of the $300 billion of international intellectual property theft, the majority came from china. we've got to solve these problems. you have very serious issues if there is going to be a reasonable world that will represent half of the world's population, half of the world's economy, and indeed, a long-term interest in our future. josh: thank you. a little bit: about my background, i have had the opportunity in my career to view asia from a couple of different lenses. alaska isk at a map, certainly an asian pacific state, so as a state official in alaska, like a lot of state

officials, i was out in china and korea in regards to our economic opportunities. i also served in the bush administration as the assistant secretary of state of energy financeand terrorist portfolios under secretary rice, so i spent a lot of time in china and a lot of time in japan and other parts of asia, and also was a former member of the and also deployed in that part of the world is a marine. that i was a u.s. senator. josh mentioned my interest in the region. -- i at the shank a lot of was at the shangri-la dialogue and they did confirm with josh, whom i saw there at a bar and whatever i said at the bar will not be quoted here as long as whatever he said at the bar will not be quoted here -- [laughter] sen. sullivan: but just a couple

of thoughts from my perspective. recognizel of you that american foreign-policy is at its strongest when the executive branch and the legislative branch are working together. when the parties, democrats and republicans, are working together. if that is certainly a way you look at our history, that has been our tradition on major foreign-policy issues, and the way that our constitution is set up. , the good news, in regards to the so-called rebalance is that there is a bipartisan and executive and legislative coming together on that strategy of president obama. you look at the defense authorization bill that we are going to be taking up here on the senate floor, there is a

strong amendment in there, it was actually an amendment that i drafted that really focuses on the importance of it and it was passed down through the armed services committee unanimously. a lot of his work hard on the and a lot of republicans worked with the president and his cabinet to move forward on that. the military rebalance is something i have been very interested in. say, hey, maybe it doesn't exist, but i think it does to some degree. -- some some relevant element of the rebound that i would like to talk about. huge opportunity in terms of energy that we did not have 10 years ago in terms of exports of lng and experts of oil. the asians need it and want it and it is a great way to keep our economy strong and to secure

relationships in that element of a rebound, so i have been trying to convince the white house and all of the cabinet in the obama administration that this should be a three-pronged strategy, economics, and military. but even on this import and strategy, it is starting to decline, like it is in a lot of the world in regards to america's steadfastness on key foreign-policy issues. why? talk abouthing to your policies, one thing to make statements about policy objectives. it is quite another to act on them. and the difference between talk and action are starting to become very apparent, certainly in other parts of the world, syria, the middle east, ukraine, russia. unfortunately, i think it is starting to creep into our

asia-pacific strategy. let me give you one obvious example. when we were at the shangri-la dialogue, we made one point at the outset to meet with secretary ash carter and we were literally walking around the conference together, the chairman of the armed services committee, the secretary of defense, a republican, a democrat, ranking members of the armed services, we were doing that purposely. [no audio]

sen. sullivan: the white house does not seem to want to do that . why does that matter? some of you might recall what happened in the spring of 1996,

now returned to the third taiwan straits crisis. china had moved forces close to taiwan, was shooting missiles in terms of a provocation with regards to the taiwanese presidential election. surged twolinton carrier battleships to the region, not 1, 2, to show american resolve. there was a time on the debate and i remember hearing it on the radio and i was thinking, hey, this is kind of provocative. wasone else on the show actually saying that we need to send [indiscernible] shipping through the taiwan strait. was amber that because i marine infantry officer, a lieutenant, at the time on a

marine amphibious assault ship, a very large vessel on the taiwan strait when that happened. we did send a ship. it was the ship that i was actually on. and that was a demonstration of american resolve. was it risky? some say it was risky. is a would say this, it lot riskier to actually accept de facto pronouncements of view,ies that, in my don't represent what the international community focus is on. we actually regularly do that , and is a u.s. navy think it is important to remember we can't lose our credibility in this part of the world. there are other allies, other countries, they are looking for american leadership, we have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way, but we need to bolster our credibility and not undermine it. josh: thank you, senator.

i will start off with a few questions and then we will go to the audience. following up with what you just thinksenator sullivan, i last month, chinese ships were found to be operating within 12 miles of your state. today, it was announced that china has quietly become -- quietly begun construction on its first aircraft carrier. what do you think of china's lou water -- blue water strategy and what do think american response should be? the question i had asked admiral harris was that if this was provocation. we had a certain visitor in alaska at the time and his name was president obama.

i was serious, i asked if he thought this was acquitted and or if this was something else, and they did not have a clear answer and to be sure, i am not sure that anybody knows. again, i thought that the department of defense response was almost muted. it was almost apologetic. "hey, they are operating off the coast of alaska, it is no problem." it is kind of interesting because that is an expensive deployment for five chinese naval ships. but there are those of us who are encouraging a navy response that is within the 12 miles own of some of these submerged reefs that have been built up. we are not doing it to be provocative, we are doing it

because otherwise, we are going to essentially let backs on the ground change the situation and we will be in many ways to factor recognizing that i think certainly our military and most of our other members of the foreign-policy community in the united states and some within the obama administration don't recognize. secretary of defense ash carter didn't recognize it. so i think we need to keep a close eye on this. josh: you mentioned action on cyber in the recent summit between the president and the -- cyber and there was a recent summit between the president of united states and president of china. we heard that there was going to be sanctions and that there were not going to be sanctions and there might and there might not be, what is your valuation as

head of the subcommittee on a response to that act? d.c. the is is -- do you think it is a real thing? sen. gardner: there is a commonality in my opening sullivan'sd senator opening comment and cyber response. an administration that continues to lead from behind. president xi jinping is taking this incident of cyber security very seriously and he recognizes that it is not the flavor of the month. it is going to define us for generations and in fact it is so serious that he is actually the head of this new cyber community -- cyber committee in china. a member of the committee to talk about what they are doing, and this agreement that they had last week, time will tell what it means. raise your hand if you think the

chinese have your fingerprints. that is exactly right. stateds nothing publicly either before the event or after the summit about opm. and while this agreement, while is a modest first step, only time will tell of how much information we are going to give to them and how much information that they are going to give back, but we also have to recognize under the national security laws that china is putting into place, will they ignore this cyber agreement because they say it goes against their laws on national security? so we need to have tough public diplomacy. we could have called in ambassadors. have talkedt should about that with president xi jinping. this is the first of many steps that need to be taken.

i personally believe that congress has to do a better job. right now you mentioned i am of the head of the new foreign relations subcommittee on east asia-pacific and cyber strategy. --we have forward the foreign relations with a cyber component. we have homeland security with a cyber component. we have commerce with a cyber component. we need to be able to take the heads of these committees and put them on a committee so we can have a whole government view on what we should do with cyber policy. we have an amendment pending to the cyber bill that requires [indiscernible] to develop a cyber strategy and then we ought to review the framework that the white house put out because we have not had one since 2011. josh: what did he say to you when you met him? sen. gardner: i think we agree

that i would come to his hometown and he would come to mind, but we also talked about how they would like just more information about what we think again, it is a sign that they are not taking us seriously on cyber policy. we can't just throw a thesaurus through the 12 miles own and use words to try and describe how this is against international law. we can't just have policies with china without backing them up. we need to pursue sanctions and we need to continue to make sure we are not just talking but actually acting. josh: thank you. senator sullivan, china has increased its relation -- its activities in the arctic. what else needs to be done and what do you see if the asian powers, including china and russia, continue? sen. sullivan: we are not doing well on our arctic policy.

have probably seen in press reports significant increases -- you have probably seen in press reports significant increases from russia and china and it is looking like it is going to be a very important transportation route for the entire globe. obviously, a place where there is a norm us resources -- where there is enormous resources. there is quite shockingly a of the arctic, particularly in regards to russia. in the last year, there is a new arctic command, they have four new regained teams, 13 new and conducted an exercise that i think took a lot of us by surprise in the arctic ous by anynorm

standards, probably one of the biggest exercises in decades. what are we doing? the department of defense has announced that they are going to remove the only airborne brigade combat team in the asia-pacific and the arctic. that is heavily based in alaska. so i actually think that is not good for my state but i certainly don't think it is good for the national defense of our country. so we are acting. congress is acting. amendment i put forward and again it was unanimously approved by the there will be a provision that requires the department of defense, the secretary of defense, to put together an o plan, an operation plan for the arctic. and for those of you who understand what that means, that is a serious endeavor for the military. right now, the department of

defense has a defense strategy for the arctic that is 13 pages, seven of which are pictures. mentioningfootnote russia, climate change is mentioned six times in the strategy. it is not a serious strategy. so congress is demanding that we do have a serious strategy, and again, we need to work with our allies. again, this is very high partisan with a number of members who are taking an interest in this. i think we are acting i think you are going to see a lot more activity of the armed services committee and we are likely to hold a hearing in the next two months on our armed strategy and the importance of it. paying attention and even secretary carter has admitted how key the arctic is and how we are late to the game and we need to catch up. josh: thank you. senator gardner, you discomfort -- you just came back from several trips, including one to

hong kong. there was the pro-democracy protests that took over hong kong. can you give us an update? you spoke with leaders there, what is the state of the movement? is there any possibility of further unrest? how has china responded? just andner: there was article in "the new york times" about the umbrella movement that contained thousands of people that came together really spontaneously and i met with protesters, leaders of the movement, while i was in hong kong. i met with council members as well as the chief executive while i was in hong kong and there is great concern about the future of democracy, this special administration zone, this region, excuse me, and what it means to have autonomy. if you look at freedom of the press, for instance, one of the indexes have moved hong kong from one of the most free press

rules policies in the world to now some were in the 70's. 70's.ewhere in the they still have a very strong and independent judiciary in hong kong, but what happens if you lose the rule of law in hong kong? i have talked to american businesses here and financial service companies that do business in hong kong who are talking about their concern with sort of the infiltration or sort of loss of freedom. so what is the future of the movement? filing charges against students, these students are walking around with backpacks, you can pick them out from any student in america. but they have had more influence than some members of congress have had over some people in hong kong and they are very concerned about what is going to

happen next and how they are inng to promote democracy hong kong and how they have maintained the rule of law. i think, again, we have to make sure as a country that we are leading and we are constantly standing behind hong kong and making sure that the agreement that has been entered into our matched and met and that there is no backslide into more and more government control. josh: do you believe the obama's attitude with hong kong has been robust enough? sen. gardner: i don't think the obama's administration attitudes have been robust enough. josh: you mentioned taiwan and i am old enough to member a time here in washington where there was a lot of mention of taiwan. we pushed legislation and it seems to be out of the news now.

the responsibility of lawmakers, especially on these relevant committees, to continue the u.s. commitment to taiwan? what needs to be done? sen. sullivan: i don't feel it has been abrogated. mentioned,, as you with the involvement of the congress, the senate and the house played a very important role in terms of really shaping that element in foreign policy. isi said on the outset, it one of those areas where it has a lot of bipartisan support, and i think that is where we are the strongest. i think on that issue, i don't see a lot of daylight between the executive branch and the congress right now, but i will totion this, kind of, josh, kind of broad and the point of your question. we have a lot of focus

on the middle east, a lot of focus on terrorism, there are a lot of smart foreign policy former officials, current foreign-policy thinkers, who view the rise, or is someone would say, the reemergence of china in the asia-pacific, as the number one national foreign-policy issue of the united states and our allies and we will be dealing with that for the next generation. i happen to agree with that and i think there is a huge opportunity, it shouldn't all be negative. i spent a lot of time in china, but there are huge opportunities, certainly on the economic issues, and there are obviously challenges. corey and i had the opportunity last friday to meet with present xi jinping when he came to the congress, so we were one of the five republicans who got to sit down with him. it was a very good discussion. but he had talked about, and i

had actually given a speech on the senate floor just a few hours earlier, he has been using coined by graham allison at harvard about when you see in history rising powers challenging established powers that historically, often times, that doesn't turn out so well. ware was the pope and asian the warger more -- between sparta and athens and the seriousness for me is two things, we as a federal government, as congress, as members of congress, we need to be paying a lot more attention to this. but it seems a little

incongruence about the discussion of foreign-policy. to me, the most important way to avoid that trap is being a strong home. we have a strong economy that is actually growing again, something we haven't done in years. traditional levels of american economic growth. this is something that is ultimately going to underpin so much in my view of our for a policy in asia, of our military, it is the key, and it is often something that is overlooked. we keep growing at these horrible, low rates, the new normal as they call it in washington of 1.5% or 2% gdp growth. we need to be stronger back here. josh: very quickly, you both met with president xi jinping. what was your impression of him? what did you think of the man? time todner: we had talk about the south china sea, we had time to talk about ciber, and again, i think the foreign minister was there along with

all the other officials in the room and we have a lot more work to do and it is going to take a lot more than just an hour, an hour and a half, in some room in the capital to break through on these issues. and whether it is hong kong or voting rights or cyber administration or our policies on opm, we have to engage. josh: what about the guy? president gigi paying? xi president gigi paying -- jinping? sen. gardner: this is important where we actually have to back up what secretary carter said at the shangri-la dialogue. we will operate anywhere that we have always operated. josh: your impression presents -- sen. sullivan: i think it was a good meeting, you know, direct both ways.

we asked direct questions -- josh: what did you think of the man himself? sen. sullivan: he was very intelligent, very committed to his country, and somebody who -- you know, we are going to need to be focused with dealing with him and his leadership and think -- he was direct. and i think we were direct, and i think in some ways that is actually very useful. you know, i saw a transcript pressis -- from his conference with president obama, and a statement along the lines of, "we don't engage in cyber theft" or things like that. you know, i am not sure that is the prevailing view of the united states. [laughter] sen. sullivan: but seriously, those kind of statements with the president of the united states stand in front of you, that does undermine your could ability. josh: so you -- undermine your credibility?

josh: so you are saying he lied? sen. sullivan: you are saying that. [laughter] josh: so if you have questions, please let us know your name and your affiliation. yes, sir, a question in the back? and please wait with her hand up and the mic will come around to you. >> hello, you both met with xi j ago,g, and about one month i read that there were some christian churches destroyed in youcoastal provinces, and can't blame that on his predecessor, he has to blame that on himself. and also, i think they have pictures of chairman mao in china, reverend chairman mao, and after world war ii, there were jewish investigators who stop that kind of things. so there is a lot going on. 18th or 19th

century, i believe, there was something called the count how where western leaders would put their head down in respect to the chinese rulers. do you think there is any kowtowing at all? sen. sullivan: i think you raised a really good point and i think this goes back to my point of bipartisan, strong commitment from the legislative and executive branch, and that is it with regard to human rights, particularly with dealing with authoritarian regimes. that has been the tradition of american foreign-policy, whether it is a president who is a democrat or republican. i met with president bush and president hu jintao, and the president saw it and one of the

disappointments of this administration, and it is in the press and everything, it is how they downplayed that element of our relationship with china over the last six years. that is not a way to advance our interests as a nation and i think that has been a strategic mistake because it looks like we ,hen don't care, and we do care you care, eye care, americans care! but we need to show that through our leaders, and i think we haven't done a good enough job with president obama coordinating those concerns over the last several years. that has not been a policy that is bipartisan or with america's interest. sen. sullivan: i think the issue of human rights is again, something we should have seen more focus on. in the days leading up to the summit and the days after the summit, i held a hearing and the subcommittee with chris johnson and others talking about the aftermath of the summit, what we

achieve, what we fell short of, and what we should be putting forward, and we talked about human rights and the fact that they are jailing the lawyers their and their treatment of christians in china. i think there is a need for more of a focus on human rights in china and again, it goes back to that point where if china wants to be a leading nation, and we think they will be a great nation that works with the world in terms of international norms, violating human rights is no way to do that. so that is something we should focus on more. follow, former secretary of state hillary clinton famously said that when visiting china we should not let you in right get in the way of building a relationship. do you think that she as the secretary of state said the wrong thing? sen. sullivan: i think that she set the wrong tone. let's just ignore human rights and try to do other things. we can't do that. josh: next question? the lady in the front?

could you please identify yourself? allie weinberg, you t discuss can tpp and is there a role in china in the tpp? sen. gardner: not soon enough. we have to get this done sooner rather than later. i want to see this done now. they recently restarted the talks and this conversation and as soon as we can get it, we start the 60 day time frame on the clock of tpp. i would like to get it started this year. i know that is way, way, way, of me, i of from

colorado, we often look up to tpp has usns, but very concerned about what is happening. but that is why we need to do it, to work with the nations represented in tpp, to build a strong relationship. so eventually, perhaps, this will show what an organization can do. i think the first steps to that bilateralt, the agreement treating -- treay. --treaty. people seem to think it has some good projects -- progress but more worked needs to be done. a few more steps need to be taken now whether -- rather than before. josh: i think that corey

mentioned that we are certainly getting encouraging messages, and i got a call from the and theor to finish president has been focused on this and the president has done a good job talking about how this is a strategic agreement. our trade agreements are very different from almost all of the other countries' free trade agreement. president talks about, "hey, we need to make sure we are writing the rules on the road in terms of international trade, not china," i think that is important. we certainly want to be a part of it. so i certainly don't think the tpp would be ready for china anytime in the foreseeable future, but what it -- what

is key about it is that it sets the standard. it is more than just an irritant between our two nations. i think you will see more than just republicans interested in this administration tension this up before he leaves office. josh: we are able to take one last question. right there, sir. sullivan, youor talked about expanding the energy strategy. can you expand a little bit on that? going back to my earlier question on the arctic, when senatoring, mccain led a group to the arctic a couple of days ago, it was

pretty dramatic in terms of -- the citizens of seed and -- sweden joined nato. 10 years ago, i don't think there would have been much interest at all in sweden joining a nato, but with regards is japan, whether it whether it is korea -- korea is the largest importer of lng in the world -- coal gas -- all of these countries need energy. all of these countries are looking at lng. cleanburning gas. they were looking like it looks like we will be an importer of to the largesto,

producer of oil again. bigger than russia. this is a huge opportunity for us to mystical he -- domestically, but a huge strategic opportunity. we are working hard and have been working hard on it for a long time. scale lng project in the world. gas to get affordable alaskans but also to the japanese, koreans, and any other country in the region. that is a strategic play not only in terms of energy security security withr our allies in the region. we have an exporting lng to japan for 40 years. that, and build upon i think it would benefit the

region and it would certainly benefit the united states. much senators.o let's give them a round of applause. [applause] >> the supreme court against its new term tomorrow and on the next washington journal, we will get a preview of some of the cases with new york times correspondent adam liptak. aron and carrie severino on the supreme court decisions handed down last year. court's newreme term comes our new series, "landmark cases," which explores the human stories and constitutional dramas behind some of their most significant decisions.