    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                AUGUST 21, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-94

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
                                     ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-991 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New York

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
              Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                      Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

                         MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   AMI BERA, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. James Carouso, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
      East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.......    10
    The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau
      for Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development............    18
    Ms. Faith Bautista, president and chief executive officer,
      National Asian American Coalition..............................    37
    Mr. Joey Quinto, publisher, California Journal for Filipino
      Americans......................................................    41
    Mr. Zosimo Laurel Contreras (litigant in Philippines property
      dispute).......................................................    76
    Mr. Richard J. Rogers, partner, Global Diligence LLP (attorney
      representing Cambodian victims before the International
      Criminal Court)................................................    80

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. James Carouso: Prepared statement............................    13
    The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement...............    21
    Ms. Faith Bautista: Prepared statement...........................    39
    Mr. Joey Quinto: Prepared statement..............................    43
    Mr. Zosimo Laurel Contreras: Prepared statement..................    78
    Mr. Richard J. Rogers: Prepared statement........................    82

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................   106
    Hearing minutes..................................................   107
    The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
      Affairs: Material submitted for the record.....................   108

               PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

                                  ----------

                            FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
    the Ursa Major Suite, Cal Poly Pomona University, 3801 West
    Temple Avenue, Pomona, California, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman
    of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Salmon. This committee will come to order.
        Chairman Royce, I welcome the opportunity to convene this
    subcommittee hearing with you today on Property Rights and
    Development in Southeast Asia.
        I always enjoy coming to California, and the Cal Poly
    Pomona campus is truly a beautiful backdrop.
        Mr. Chairman, you are very lucky to represent such a
    beautiful piece of our country, and I would like to thank our
    distinguished witnesses for their participation in the hearing.
        Today I look forward to hearing about the progress that
    Southeast Asian countries have made in developing rule of law
    and protections for property rights. Given varying structures
    of governance and levels of development among Southeast Asian
    countries, we know that large challenges remain for countries,
    for individuals, and for businesses. I hope to learn more about
    these obstacles as well.
        We are concerned about the abuse of power and gross
    violations of property rights in Cambodia. Private property
    rights were greatly impaired under the Khmer Rouge, though
    Cambodian law does not recognize private, state, and collective
    ownership by private individuals and indigenous communities.
        Despite this, land-grabbing by the government for their
    political cronies and businesses has escalated significantly
    over the years. Up to \1/2\ million Cambodians have been
    reported to be displaced by forced land seizures. Poor and
    vulnerable populations have been identified as most harmed by
    forced evictions and lack of compensation for their land. Due
    to high court costs and lack of resources for many of those
    adversely affected, many disputes never make it to court. Those
    that do, end up facing an ineffective system to seek redress
    for violations and unfair treatment.
        I know that USAID has funded programs to train lawyers and
    judges and support NGOs with legal aid and property rights
    education, and the World Bank and other donors have funded
    similar projects. I welcome additional solutions to the tragic
    condition of property rights in Cambodia.
        The Philippines' 1987 constitution includes many provisions
    which protect private property rights, and efforts have been
    made to protect landowners from squatters and unfair land
    takings. The Philippine Government has attempted the execution
    of land reform programs for many years, with varying degrees of
    success and failure.
        Despite efforts, much of the vulnerable rural population of
    the Philippines remain landless, and the population living in
    informal settlements with no enforceable legal basis to their
    claims continues to grow. Inconsistencies in Philippine land
    and property policies, exacerbated by a weak legal system and
    political or business interference, have stoked competition
    over land ownership claims and privileges. Overlapping or
    fraudulent land titles can fuel conflict, contribute greatly to
    instances of squatting or land grabbing, and hinder greater
    economic development.
        A tradition of government corruption in the Philippines has
    made these issues harder to address. USAID and other
    international organizations and NGOs have worked to improve the
    land rights in the Philippines, such as supporting the
    development of the Residential Free Patent Act of 2010 that
    streamlines titling of residential lands. These efforts advance
    governance and advocacy for the Filipino population and help
    those without a voice.
        Similarly, I look to our distinguished witnesses for
    insight on how we can catalyze more positive momentum in the
    Philippines. Land grabbing and insufficient protection of
    property rights exists elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and I
    welcome discussion about efforts to address issues in other
    countries as well. For instance, in Burma, citizens and
    organizations cannot own any land, since it all belongs to the
    state. Forcible and uncompensated land confiscation is rampant
    in Burma, and its drive for economic growth has stifled
    progress on the issue. I would be interested to hear from the
    State Department and USAID on what work we have done in Burma
    to aid in reversing this injustice.
        Similarly in Indonesia, property rights are inconsistent,
    and the land rights of the vulnerable and the poor are
    insecure. Capacity to interpret laws fairly and unambiguously
    is limited. In Vietnam and Laos, the land, as they say, belongs
    to all, but it is administered poorly and inefficiently. Here,
    Thailand has been a model for Southeast Asian nations, boasting
    a transparent land administration system that has issued title
    deeds to much of the population.
        The United States strives to be a voice of reason and to
    help galvanize necessary reform throughout the region. We will
    seek to promote and protect fundamental rights that are
    inconsistently enforced and poorly upheld in Southeast Asia.
    Furthermore, we will work with our allies to encourage the
    development of transparent, enforceable, and equitable laws
    that will benefit all members of these diverse countries.
        Members present will be permitted to submit written
    statements to be included in the official hearing record. And
    without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5
    calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous
    materials for the record, subject to the length limitation in
    the rules.
        I now yield to Chairman Royce for his opening statement.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Salmon.
        I think we should start by thanking Cal Poly Pomona for
    opening up this hall to so many people here today. We had an
    opportunity not too long ago to have the director of USAID out
    here in this very hall, and Cal Poly Pomona gave us a forum to
    talk about the challenges about rebuilding after Tacloban, and
    specifically about legislation that this committee, my
    committee had passed that I had authored that allowed aid to go
    immediately, and food to be purchased locally with respect to
    our USAID efforts in the Philippines.
        But today I am particularly appreciative of my colleagues
    here from Congress, and the State Department and USAID being
    here again. Director Shaw I thought did a great job. We had a
    town hall meeting here last time. This time we are doing this
    in the form of a hearing in order to get into an issue that I
    think is very, very important, and that is what can we do to
    help change this phenomenon of land grabbing and the
    dislocation of people that are being pushed off of their land
    by government policy around the world, and specifically some of
    the new programs that USAID is championing in the Philippines
    and elsewhere in order to achieve this goal.
        I did want to mention my wife Marie used to be a professor
    here at Cal Poly Pomona, so I have had the opportunity to be up
    on the campus a number of times for international programs. But
    in this case, we are looking at how we can best promote not
    just the rights of people in parts of the Philippines right now
    where, because of the Marcos legacy, they do not really have a
    tradition of land title. This was one of the things that
    President Aquino was trying to change and is trying to change.
    But locally, as you go into certain parts of the Philippines,
    Marcos' practices of seizing land and transferring that land
    into the hands of people who are well connected locally, has
    created an environment where, you can see by the concern of the
    community here, you can see that people, frankly, are losing
    their property.
        Land title reform is a big part of the solution here, and
    that is what we are going to talk about today, and we are going
    to hear from witnesses.
        We had had some successes, but as we aim, frankly, to
    deepen our engagement in Southeast Asia and transform our aid
    so that it supports sustainable economic growth, we have got to
    consider whether the underlying conditions exist to realize
    that growth. In countries where citizens are denied basic
    protections under the law, including the right to secure
    property and the right to basically have title, those
    conditions don't exist.
        So if I could just speak to Cambodia for a minute, Chairman
    Salmon, over half of land holdings are held informally there,
    without legal title. It would help enormously if we could put
    into effect a change that would give land title to those who
    are farming that land, because as the Cambodian economy has
    developed, many Cambodians have been displaced by the Hun Sen
    government. The government and domestic and foreign businesses
    are responsible for seizing much of this land. The government
    has appropriated lands and homes forcibly, often for
    agricultural use or mining or logging.
        According to testimony that I am going to submit for the
    record here, the Cambodian Government of Hun Sen maintains its
    political and economic power, and I am going to quote Meach
    Sovannara here, his words. He is a U.S. citizen who is being
    held in prison right now in Cambodia for speaking out about
    land reform and other issues like this. I am going to quote
    him:

            ``They maintain economic power through the control and
            harsh repression of anyone who stands in the way of
            their economic enrichment and political control, and
            anyone criticizing their policies and actions.''

        His family is with us today, Jamie Meach, who is with us,
    and her children, their children.
        Chairman, could I ask if they could stand in the front row?
        Mr. Salmon. Absolutely.
        Mr. Royce. Jamie, could you and your family stand? I am
    going to put your husband's statement in the record here today
    with the support of Chairman Salmon.
        Mr. Salmon. Without objection.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you.
        So he has been imprisoned. We are also going to be talking
    with the State Department about doing what you can to get those
    American citizens back who are held overseas because they are
    speaking out specifically about human dignity and freedom and
    this issue of land grabbing.
        According to the Cambodian League for the Promotion of the
    Defense of Human Rights, three-fifths of arable land in
    Cambodia is controlled by foreign agribusiness companies.
    Foreign investment--it can be beneficial--but it has to be
    rules based. It has to be above board. These large plantations
    fail to provide stable employment and adequate income for local
    residents who formally farm that land.
        In some areas of the Philippines, land ownership is
    informal and narrowly disputed among local elites and clans.
    Tens of millions of Filipinos work as lease holders or rent-
    paying sharecroppers. Outdated land administration laws and an
    inefficient land administration system have resulted in
    fraudulent, overlapping land titles and widespread land
    grabbing. The perpetrators are politicians and foreign
    investors. Besides insecure land rights, over 12 million
    families in the Philippines do not own the rights to their own
    homes. So there is a desperate need for proper titling, which
    would unlock vast wealth for Filipinos, as noted economist
    Hernando de Soto has testified before our committee.
        President Aquino has made considerable efforts to reform
    and clean up politics in the Philippines, but his few years in
    office cannot undo the years of damage done by President Marcos
    and the legacy President Marcos left, especially in some
    regions in the Philippines.
        Last February I led a bipartisan congressional delegation
    to the Philippines where we were able to observe the
    destruction done by Typhoon Yolanda. Several members of this
    committee were there with me, and I appreciate very much, Brad,
    you and Matt, and all the engagement in the Philippines. I was
    glad to see such a strong U.S. humanitarian effort. In the
    aftermath of natural disasters like this, on top of losing
    their homes, victims can also find themselves without a shred
    of proof to the rights to their property.
        In the Antipolo region, I was personally prevented, at
    gunpoint--and this was on a trip I took prior to last year. It
    was 2 years ago. We took a delegation out there. I was
    prevented, at gunpoint, from accessing the property of a
    constituent by what appeared to be a member of a local security
    force. He had closed off the road. He closed off access of a
    public road to people in that area that owned their property.
    In my meeting with President Aquino I pressed him on the
    importance of protecting property rights. Filipinos as well as
    Cambodians have great economic potential. We should be working
    to unlock that potential.
        President Aquino is working to unlock that potential, but
    USAID needs to help us find a way at the local level to make
    sure that local governments do this as well.
        Today we will hear from victims of land grabbing. Because
    property rights are essential to stability and economic growth,
    we have to do all we can to encourage nations to offer these
    protections to their citizens. This would dramatically improve
    the lives of Filipinos, Cambodians and others in Asia, while
    improving our economic well-being and security.
        So again, I thank you, Mr. Salmon, and I thank our ranking
    member here as well.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you. [Applause.]
        Before I recognize the ranking member, I do need to talk
    about some of the etiquette issues associated with
    congressional hearings. As Mr. Royce said, he did this before
    in a town hall. A hearing is very, very different. In fact, in
    a hearing, the only people that will be speaking will be the
    distinguished panel members. We have two panels today. The
    other people that will be speaking are Members of Congress up
    here on the dais that will be making opening statements and
    asking questions. There is no audience participation other than
    being here.
        As far as the rules of the road, so to speak, we would ask
    that if you haven't done so already, to put your cell phones on
    silent. Also, this is not a town hall meeting, so we don't
    cheer and we don't boo and we don't have public outcries. It is
    just the nature of congressional hearings. We are not trying to
    offend anybody. That is just the way that they are done.
        I would like to recognize the ranking member.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    and Chairman Royce, the chair of the full----
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Salmon. Again, we would please ask the audience if they
    would refrain from clapping or cheering. Thank you.
        Mr. Sherman. I want to thank you for having this hearing. I
    think field hearings are an important part of what our
    committee does. I remember Chairman Royce and I did a field
    hearing at the border focused on terrorism issues, and I look
    forward to our committee doing field hearings, as appropriate.
    I think almost every Member of Congress here believes that it
    is best to have such field hearings in Southern California, and
    at least one member here believes that it is best to hold them
    in the 39th Congressional District. But only Marie Royce
    believes that, of the two major campuses in that district, the
    best place to have it is Cal Poly Pomona.
        Mr. Royce. And that is despite--if the gentleman would
    yield?
        Mr. Sherman. I yield.
        Mr. Royce. That is despite the fact that her husband went
    to the other campus.
        Mr. Sherman. Exactly, which simply demonstrates who the
    primary decision-maker is. [Laughter.]
        The focus of today's hearing is on land rights in Cambodia
    and the Philippines. America has an interest in the economic
    and political development of Southeast Asian countries. We
    spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to promote
    that economic development. It is important for our economy
    because these are not only current but future trading partners.
    It is also important from a national security perspective as we
    work to make sure that not only does Asia have a robust China,
    but that the nations on China's periphery are also robust as
    well.
        Critical to that economic development is the rule of law.
    In fact, if you look around the world, those countries with the
    rule of law are doing well, and those without the rule of law
    are not. And particularly important is real estate law.
    However, millions of people in Cambodia and the Philippines
    must deal with government corruption, outdated laws, inadequate
    record-keeping, and I look forward to hearing from our panel as
    to what the United States can do to improve the situation.
        As to Cambodia, a nation much smaller than the Philippines,
    with only 15 million people, in 2001 Cambodia amended its law
    to allow private ownership of land. They established a
    framework in which individuals could register land and have
    their ownership recognized by the Land Management Ministry.
        Unfortunately, most Cambodian citizens lack either the
    knowledge or the means to go through the formal process of land
    ownership. They are either unable to fill out the necessary
    paperwork or to pay the required taxes and land fees.
        However, since 2001 Cambodian officials have used the land
    law to seize rural lands and provide them to domestic and
    foreign businesses, political figures, and in many cases they
    have done so without the consent of the lands' inhabitants and
    without the consent of those who may turn out in justice to own
    the land.
        As one opposition Cambodian lawmaker explained in a New
    York Times op-ed, ``Farmers only become aware of the
    transactions when the construction companies come in to remove
    them, bulldozers and security guards in tow.''
        As a result, land seizures by the Cambodian Government have
    displaced 770,000 Cambodians, nearly 6 percent of the nation's
    population, since the year 2001. This paints a picture very
    different from most countries in the world. The government has
    leased almost 5 million acres of rural land, which includes
    three-fifths of the nation's arable land, to foreign entities.
        In response to land corruption, the World Bank suspended
    new lending to Cambodia in 2011 and called on the Cambodian
    Government to stop wrongful eviction of civilians, and in 2012
    Cambodian officials announced the suspension of land leasing to
    foreign entities and launched a program in cooperation with
    Cambodia's Ministry of Land Management to measure land plots
    and to distribute titles to villagers.
        Nearly 500,000 such titles have, in fact, been distributed.
    This program will prevent the displacement of Cambodians in the
    future, but it does not solve the problems of Cambodians who
    have already been displaced from their homes. In fact, the U.N.
    Human Rights Council has found the Cambodian National Authority
    for Land Dispute Resolution to be largely ineffective in
    settling land cases.
        I know that one of our witnesses is from USAID. Jonathan,
    we look forward to your announcement on how we can help provide
    the rule of law in real estate in Cambodia.
        As to the Philippines, as Chairman Royce pointed out, we
    had a chance to visit the Philippines and discuss the rule of
    law and economic development with the President of that country
    and so many others. In 1988 the Philippines passed a
    comprehensive agrarian reform plan which distributed land to
    tenant farmers. Though this gives farmers the right to till a
    certain plot of land, it does not grant farmers ownership of
    that land. Over half of the land holdings nationwide are still
    held informally, without official legal title, and 70 percent
    of the farmers do not own the land they till.
        The other major problems with the land claims of the
    Philippines relate to just basic record-keeping. USAID reported
    in 2011 that outdated land administration laws and inefficient
    land administration and adjudication infrastructure and a poor
    land information system have resulted in problems of fraudulent
    overlapping and duplication of land titles and widespread land
    grabbing.
        To make matters worse, the Philippines is a nation that
    often suffers from natural disasters, including typhoons, and
    that can destroy paper documents in government buildings.
    According to a recent Oxfam report, typhoons and other natural
    disasters have destroyed essential land records and has
    provided an opportunity for landowners, or at least those
    purporting to be landowners, to evict tenants from land so it
    can be developed for commercial purposes. Corrupt Filipino
    bureaucrats and landowners have sold huge parcels to foreign
    companies to build an airport, a resort town, and a host of
    other facilities.
        U.S. assistance to the Philippines totaled $190 million in
    2014. In addition to this, we signed a $334 million U.S.
    Millennium Challenge compact with the Philippines in 2010, so
    we have a real interest in economic development in the
    Philippines. Our money and, more importantly, the efforts of a
    generation of Filipinos will go for naught unless the rule of
    law, and particularly the rule of law involving real estate, is
    adhered to.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Salmon. Mr. Rohrabacher, did you have an opening
    statement?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I will make this short because I know we
    want to get on with the witnesses. But I, first of all, would
    like to thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Salmon for the leadership that
    they have provided on human rights issues in general. You guys
    have--these have been real heroes here, and it has been my
    honor to have worked with both of them. Ed, ever since he got
    to Congress as a freshman--I was already there, by the way--Ed
    has been the champion of broadcasting to people throughout the
    world so that they will know that they are not forgotten in
    their struggle for freedom and not forgotten by the American
    people.
        We supposedly, as Americans, hold freedom and the rights of
    human beings to be our number-one value. This is how we will
    prove that. We will prove it by making sure that people in
    these countries where they are oppressed get the message that
    we are on their side, but also hearings like this where we
    insist that human rights be respected for our country to deal
    with those governments.
        By the way, human rights, so often people think human
    rights are only elections, freedom of speech, freedom of
    religion. But human rights also means when someone owns a piece
    of property or someone has worked his life and the life of
    their family for generations on a piece of land, for that land
    to be taken away, for that property to be taken away is a
    violation, a fundamental violation of human rights, as is
    restricting someone's right to worship God the way they would
    choose.
        So today we are reaffirming in this hearing, especially to
    the people of Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Burma, and
    other Southeast Asian countries, that we understand that there
    is a challenge there to their freedom and to the well-being of
    their families and to their human rights, and that we are on
    their side, and we want to find ways of how we can make that
    situation better. When governments think that they can take
    land and property away from ordinary people and give it to
    their cronies, basically crony capitalism has replaced
    communism as a chief oppressor.
        Vietnam isn't a communist country anymore. Communism means
    Marxism, where nobody owns anything. They are just a corrupt
    dictatorship where they are taking care of their cronies. The
    same is true in Cambodia, and the same is unfortunately true at
    some level in the Philippines. But we know that the Filipino
    people, because they have a democratic process, are trying to
    work their way through it and make it better.
        Well, that is what America is all about. We come from every
    race, religion, and ethnic background, and it is up to us to
    make sure that we reach out, using that, because I can see
    people from here from all of the countries I just mentioned. It
    is your job to speak for America there to make sure that the
    people of your countries, where you came from, that they know
    that America does stand for these principles, and also we are
    very pleased to have you here as the American fabric. That is
    what makes us a strong country and a force for freedom in the
    world.
        So, thank you, Ed and Matt. I am looking forward to the
    testimony.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Ms. Chu?
        Ms. Chu. Thank you, Chairmen Royce and Salmon, and Ranking
    Member Sherman, for inviting me to take part in today's
    important hearing. And thank you for holding this hearing in
    Southern California, right next to my congressional district of
    Pasadena and Monterey Park. This whole area is home to so many
    people who are affected by what we will hear today, and this is
    an important opportunity to connect the work we do in
    Washington, DC, to home.
        I particularly want to thank today's witnesses for sharing
    what will be heart-wrenching personal testimony on land
    ownership rights in Southeast Asia and what we can do to help.
    I have had the good fortune to speak with a few of you in the
    past, and I know that all of us will benefit from hearing your
    stories.
        Land ownership is a cornerstone of a nation's economy and a
    necessity to rising out of poverty for many. It can encourage
    investment and build ties to communities. But too frequently in
    the developing world, weak property rights are abused to help
    the elite few or reward cronies at the expense of the most
    vulnerable. And women and those lacking education, those who
    need help the most, are often the most susceptible.
        The two countries that we are focusing on today, Cambodia
    and the Philippines, are particularly egregious offenders. We
    are going to hear just a few stories of blatant land grabs by
    the powerful, and often done through force. But I know that
    there are many more who have had similar experiences.
        In the Philippines in particular, the abuse of weak land
    titles that we have seen in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013
    has been shocking as redevelopment becomes an excuse to push
    individuals out of their homes.
        The governments make the apparent argument that they are
    working for the benefit of the country, trying to bring in
    investment and support growth. But their disregard for land
    ownership is a setback to true and stable economic growth. Few
    provisions exist to ensure that individuals who have lost land
    are compensated in a fair and long-term manner, and the
    benefits brought in are going to the ultra-powerful few who
    already control most of the wealth.
        The result is that now in Cambodia, for example, three-
    fifths of the arable land is held by foreign agribusinesses.
    The massive displacement policies by these governments are
    creating large numbers of landless poor, many left to live in
    squatter colonies. This is an unacceptable situation leading to
    a long-term crisis.
        Combined, Cambodia and the Philippines received almost $270
    million in U.S. foreign aid in 2014. This gives us enormous
    leverage to encourage growth and reform that will help the
    vulnerable and not just the powerful. This is the morally right
    thing to do, and it is the right thing to do for long-term
    stability.
        Today I am eager to hear expert testimony on the causes and
    the breadth of the problem, as well as the tools that are at
    our Government's disposal to push forward reforms. These
    stories from the second panel will drive home the urgency and
    humanity driving our need to act.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today, and I
    look forward to hearing from each of you.
        Mr. Salmon. We are grateful to have two excellent witnesses
    from the administration, and we are really appreciative that
    they could join us on our first panel this morning.
        First we have James Carouso, the State Department's Acting
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Asian and Pacific
    Affairs; and Jonathan Stivers, who is USAID's Assistant
    Administrator of the Asia Bureau.
        We will start with Mr. Carouso.

        STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES CAROUSO, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S.
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Mr. Carouso. Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce, Ranking
    Member Sherman, members of the committee, thank you for the
    invitation to testify before this distinguished committee on
    land tenure issues and their effect on Southeast Asia's
    economic development, a topic of significant importance to the
    Department of State.
        The Assistant Secretary for the East Asia and Pacific
    Affairs Bureau asked me to----
        Mr. Salmon. Mr. Carouso, could you pull your microphone
    just a little closer? Thank you.
        Mr. Carouso. Is this better?
        Mr. Salmon. Yes, thank you.
        Mr. Carouso. The Assistant Secretary really regrets he
    couldn't be here today, so he sent me.
        Special thanks to Cal Poly Pomona for providing this
    beautiful venue.
        My colleague, USAID Administrator Jonathan Stivers, will
    speak to the various programs USAID supports to address land
    rights in the region. I will focus my remarks on the State
    Department's efforts to improve the protection of land and
    property rights in Southeast Asia both from a human rights
    perspective and from a commercial perspective, which affects
    U.S. citizens and corporations abroad, as well as the
    countries' economic growth.
        Land and property rights issues remain critical in much of
    Southeast Asia and have a disproportionate impact on
    marginalized populations, including women, children, and
    indigenous groups. Transparent and fair land tenure laws, when
    followed, have a direct impact on foreign investment, poverty
    alleviation, and social stability. Without guidelines for
    officially-recognized land ownership documentation and
    effective mechanisms for dispute resolution, individuals are
    left in unstable situations and vulnerable to exploitation and
    abuse. For these reasons, we see land rights as a critical
    element to improving respect for human rights, strengthening
    the rule of law, and encouraging economic growth in the region.
        When looking at land tenure issues from a human rights
    perspective, a major challenge in Southeast Asia is that
    vulnerable populations, particularly women and indigenous
    groups, often lack the basic documentation to show their rights
    to the homes and land upon which they live. In Cambodia, for
    example, at least two-thirds of the population, many of them
    poverty-stricken farmers, lack proper title deeds to their
    property. This is largely a lingering effect of the Khmer Rouge
    regime, which abolished all private property and, consequently,
    property records as a part of its efforts to create a
    collectivized agrarian society. Lack of updated records leaves
    families who are removed from their land with little legal
    recourse to prove ownership of the land or property on which
    they live and vulnerable to human rights abuses.
        Recognizing this challenge, the State Department's Bureau
    of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor just recently began a new
    program to assist vulnerable communities in Cambodia, as well
    as in neighboring Vietnam. Working with local NGO partners,
    this project aims to create a multi-stakeholder, human rights-
    based approach to land use impact studies in communities,
    integrating these processes into land governance and dispute
    resolution initiatives. This builds on previous efforts from
    2007 to 2010 that helped communities understand land rights
    under Cambodian law and legally document land claims to prevent
    eviction and ensure fair compensation, should the land be sold.
        A subsequent challenge to the enforcement of land rights is
    the strength of rule of law, which varies wildly throughout the
    region. Weak judicial institutions and corruption encourage
    private claimants to seek solutions outside of the legal
    system, which in turn hinders their ability to obtain a stable,
    legal solution to their dispute. It also unfairly prejudices
    the system toward the wealthy and powerful, exacerbating
    existing social and economic inequalities.
        The State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics
    and Law Enforcement Affairs is working around the world to help
    countries combat corruption by working with governments and
    civil society to build transparent and accountable public
    institutions operating in the criminal justice sector, a
    cornerstone of strong, stable, and fair societies that offer a
    level playing field. INL works with these partners through
    training, technical assistance, and mentoring to fight
    corruption and promote laws and court systems that are fair,
    legitimate, and accountable.
        To take the Philippines as an example, the Philippine legal
    system contains a fairly robust set of laws that regulate land
    in urban and rural areas. These laws address inheritance
    issues, provide guidance on property ownership, and require
    registration of land titles through the judicial process. The
    Philippines also has institutional actors who oversee the
    implementation of these laws, including the Land Registration
    Authority and local government units that develop land-use
    development plans and zoning ordinances. The Government of the
    Philippines has also partnered with the World Bank and the
    Government of Australia to develop land administration policies
    and laws that formally recognize and record the rights of land
    holders through the Land Administration and Management Project.
        In the Philippines, the institutions and laws governing
    land rights exist, but outdated land administration laws, an
    inefficient land administration and adjudication
    infrastructure, a poor land information system, and weak
    judicial institutions have resulted in problems of fraudulent,
    overlapping, and duplicate land titles and have led to
    widespread accusations of illegitimate land seizures. These
    challenges have also contributed to high transaction costs in
    securing, registering, and transferring property rights, and to
    tenure insecurity. Inconsistent legislation and policy
    declarations have led to unsustainable land use and conflict
    over competing land uses. Over the past decades, many countries
    in the region, including the Philippines, have tried various
    versions of redistributive land reform programs with little or
    no success in an effort to redistribute land from the landlords
    of various agricultural products to their tenants.
        The strength of land rights has an impact on human rights
    as well as rule of law issues, but it also has a significant
    impact on a country's commercial climate and overall economic
    prospects. As Chairman Royce indicated earlier, Hernando de
    Soto, a Peruvian economist known for his work on land rights
    reform and the informal economy, found that a nation cannot
    have a strong market economy without strong property rights.
    Many small entrepreneurs lack secure legal ownership of their
    property under a functional legal framework and therefore lack
    access to functioning financial markets, so they may be unable
    to obtain credit, sell or expand their business. Without the
    ability to monetize or collateralize their biggest asset, the
    growth potential of small-holders and entrepreneurs may be
    limited, and they cannot seek legal remedies to land conflicts
    in court.
        In an effort to provide accurate information to U.S.
    businesses interested in investing abroad, the State Department
    prepares annual, country-specific Investment Climate
    Statements, while the Department of Commerce writes Country
    Commercial Guides. These reports include a detailed discussion
    of the quality of a country's legal and institutional
    frameworks for protecting property rights, including the
    transparency of their regulatory system, the legal basis for
    land ownership, dispute settlement mechanisms, and corruption.
    These act as a prod to these governments to do better.
        In addition to State and USAID advocacy programs and
    reports, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation also
    considers the rule of law and property rights in its initial
    selection of partner countries. Where these issues later prove
    to be binding constraints to economic growth after a country is
    selected, MCC may support projects that address them.
    Currently, MCC has a partnership agreement known as a
    ``compact'' with Indonesia, will complete a compact with the
    Philippines in May 2016, and is developing a second compact
    with the Philippines.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify on
    the status of land rights and land tenure in Southeast Asia and
    on the various programs the State Department supports to pursue
    greater justice on these issues. I look forward to answering
    any additional questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carouso follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Stivers?

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
                              DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Stivers. Chairman Salmon, Ranking Member Sherman,
    Chairman Royce, and distinguished Members of Congress, thank
    you for the invitation to testify on the role of USAID in
    advancing secure property rights, which are fundamental to
    development not only in Southeast Asia but globally. It is an
    honor to be here today before the committee at Cal Poly Pomona,
    and it is also a pleasure to be here with my State Department
    colleague, James Carouso.
        Land rights are not only an economic issue but a human
    rights issue. In countries around the world, the absence of
    secure property rights protected by an effective rule of law is
    a major constraint to poverty alleviation and security. In
    Southeast Asia, we know from our decades of work and public
    surveys that property rights are either at the top or among the
    top concerns of the people of this region.
        Chairman Royce, in particular you have been a champion of
    this issue, challenging us at USAID to provide more effective
    assistance to those fighting for property rights. Thank you for
    your leadership.
        Strengthening land rights is central to USAID's mission of
    ending extreme poverty and promoting resilient, democratic
    societies. Our activities are making a difference in the lives
    of many who have suffered injustices and are paving the way for
    generations yet to come.
        When property rights are unclear, households are less
    likely to make long-term investments in their land, investments
    that can promote economic growth and prosperity and lift people
    out of poverty.
        When there is unfair confiscation of land for large-scale
    commercial operations, it often results in damaging the
    environment, which further destabilizes rural communities.
        When women do not have the right to own or access land,
    their families and communities suffer, because women with
    secure rights to land and resources tend to better invest in
    their children's nutrition and education and the future of
    their countries.
        When accessible and effective mechanisms for resolving land
    disputes are absent, conflict can erupt that undermines peace
    and stability. We know that some of the oldest, most
    complicated conflicts in Southeast Asia are rooted in disputes
    over land.
        For the purposes of the hearing today, I will provide brief
    overviews of the land tenure challenges and our initiatives in
    the Philippines and Cambodia. But, of course, I am open to
    answering questions about other countries in the region.
        In the Philippines, the U.S. Government's Partnership for
    Growth has supported collaboration with the Government of the
    Philippines to address the country's most serious constraints
    to inclusive and lasting growth. Protecting land rights is
    absolutely key to that effort.
        The results of a recent USAID assessment of key constraints
    to secure property rights identified the challenges of
    overlapping mandates and lack of coordination between
    government institutions working on land issues; a low
    percentage of land parcels that are formally registered,
    estimated at only 50 percent due to the high cost and lengthy
    property registration processes; and delay and the high cost of
    court cases has caused a large backlog of all types. For
    example, 90 percent of the cases, of which 17 percent were land
    disputes, handled by the Supreme Court in 2012 took more than
    20 years to make their way through the system.
        In response to these challenges, USAID has been leading the
    way. Some of our current projects in the Philippines include,
    first, the JUSTICE Project, and this provides technical
    assistance to help improve the efficiency and predictability of
    the adjudication of court cases. In the largest court district
    in the country, which handles an estimated 15 percent of all
    court cases in the country, the median processing time has been
    reduced by between 60 and 78 percent in the last few years.
        We have introduced automated case management, which wasn't
    there before, docket decongestion and streamlined litigation
    procedures.
        What remains to be done is to scale up these interventions
    out of just this one district in order to have a broader impact
    on delay and congestion. We are now in the process of expanding
    this project to eight additional urban areas and hope to expand
    it even more in future years.
        Second, we have the COMPETE Project, which promotes
    economic growth in a variety of ways, including providing
    technical assistance for government agencies to enhance land
    tenure and access rights. Through this project, we supported
    the implementation of the Residential Free Patent Act, which
    was passed by the Philippine Government, which streamlines the
    process for obtaining residential land titles outside the
    lengthy court process, and it also helps facilitate the process
    of using these titles as collateral to obtain loans. Our
    support has helped establish a public land titling program that
    during its first year increased the number of residential
    titles issued from 5,000 to 65,000 per year.
        Third, through our Rebuild Project, we have helped restore
    approximately 250,000 land ownership records damaged or
    destroyed by Typhoon Haiyan.
        And last, moving forward, I am pleased to formally and
    officially announce the launch of our new SURGE Project, which
    stands for Strengthening Urban Resilience for Growth and
    Equity, that will promote land rights in the Philippines. This
    project has been in the design phase, but today we are
    obligating $10.6 million in the first year of a 5-year, $48
    million program subject to the availability of funds in future
    years. This includes helping targeted cities at the local
    level, as Chairman Royce emphasized, with land use planning and
    zoning, improving land management information in coordination
    at the local level, and strengthening the capacity of land
    management offices to secure land and access rights.
        This committee's counsel, and particularly the leadership
    of Chairman Royce, has been integral in shaping the activities
    under the SURGE Project. I am proud of the work that we have
    done together with this committee, former Administrator of
    USAID Rod Shaw, who was here in January to speak about this
    issue, the Asia Bureau in Washington, and our mission in the
    Philippines. I think this is an excellent example of how the
    constituents and the community can forward issues to Members of
    Congress who take a leadership role in the issue, work with the
    administration to produce real outcomes to try to improve a
    system that needs a lot of improvement.
        I look forward to further engaging with this committee as
    we get SURGE off the ground in the coming months.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Stivers.
        Oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Stivers. In Cambodia, the state retains broad powers to
    acquire land, including for large infrastructure and private
    forestry and agriculture, which undermines individual property
    rights and attracts irresponsible investment. Property rights
    in Cambodia are further complicated by a weak rule of law,
    which enables existing legislation to be circumvented,
    particularly in cases that involve rich and influential
    individuals or companies, which leads to conflict and forced
    displacement in Cambodia.
        USAID is focusing on empowering the reformers in Cambodia
    through support for civil society and support for indigenous
    peoples involved in land disputes. Some examples include an
    organization which we provide funding for whose advocacy
    resulted in the government returning land to 747 families just
    a few months ago. The Prey Lang Community Network, which is a
    group of indigenous communities advocating for the protection
    of the largest remaining lowland evergreen forest in Southeast
    Asia, we provided support to secure communal land titles and
    helped them earn income from a variety of non-timber forest
    products. We helped improve forest monitoring through extensive
    mapping, data collection and community patrolling, and this
    effort has improved monitoring and reporting of land rights
    violations and environmental degradation.
        And for the first time in Cambodia's history, the
    government now formally recognizes the rights of indigenous
    communities through the issuance of communal land titles, an
    historic benchmark that USAID supported. We also supported a
    local NGO Open Institute in the development of a cell phone
    application that gives one minority group first-time access to
    nearly 70 articles of Cambodian land law in their native
    unwritten language which helps them better understand their
    legal rights relating to land ownership.
        Mr. Chairman, at USAID, advancing secure land rights is at
    the core of our mission and a key part of our work across
    sectors. Secure land rights protected by an effective rule of
    law are necessary for both democratic governance and inclusive
    economic growth that helps lift the world's most vulnerable
    people out of poverty and engender more resilient societies.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to your counsel and questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thanks, Mr. Stivers.
        I am going to start out with a question that would be
    directed to both of you, and then I will yield to the chairman.
        For many Southeast Asian countries, foreign investment from
    large corporations furthers economic growth. However, some of
    the region's rural farmers have had their land taken away by
    these large agribusinesses, developers and others. In Cambodia
    alone, over 400,000 rural people have been displaced by
    acquisition of land by these large corporations.
        How can these countries effectively balance the desire for
    increased and continued economic development and that kind of
    prosperity with the need to protect the rights and the
    livelihoods of the poorest citizens?
        We will start with you, Mr. Stivers.
        Mr. Stivers. Well, I think that in terms of that question,
    the issue of land rights is central to that in terms of helping
    farmers. We know the constraints to farmers in terms of being
    more productive and accessing their lands. Access to credit,
    prohibition of land sales, especially in the Philippines, are
    issues that need to be addressed in order to realize the full
    potential of our reform programs. Connecting rural areas to
    urban areas is a key part of our SURGE Program, for example.
    But if you don't have respect for land rights, it is hard for
    farmers to realize their full economic potential in a country.
        Mr. Salmon. Mr. Carouso, do you want to take a stab at
    that?
        Mr. Carouso. Fair, adequate, and timely compensation for
    any taking of land under eminent domain is part of every modern
    society. Clearly the question is, are those characteristics
    met? Is the land taken for the public good, and do those who
    are affected have access to a judicial system that will fairly
    consider whether they are being compensated fairly and in a
    timely manner so that they can go on with their lives?
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield to you.
        Mr. Royce. Chairman Salmon, let me yield to Brad Sherman,
    if he would like to go at this time.
        Mr. Sherman. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program was
    enacted in the Philippines in 1988. It had the declared
    objective of redistributing public and private agricultural
    lands to farmers and farmworkers who are landless and have
    perhaps an equitable title of ownership, and it was designed to
    empower agrarian reform.
        Is the CARP legislation still substantially in place today?
    How is the land distributed in the Philippines among the
    government, private landowners, tenant farmers, small
    landowners? How does the government decide which lands are
    public and which are private?
        Mr. Stivers. In terms of overall, I think the World Bank
    estimates that about 50 percent of the land in the Philippines
    is for private use. I'm sorry, 47 percent for private use and
    about 50 percent for public use. But 50 percent of that----
        Mr. Sherman. So the government owns half the land?
        Mr. Stivers. For public use, yes. I should say 47 percent
    is private. Now, the problem with that statistic is that 50
    percent of land parcels are registered, so it is hard to know
    the specifics of those kinds of statistics. But that is from
    the World Bank.
        Mr. Sherman. I interrupted you and asked a multi-part
    question.
        Mr. Stivers. In terms of cultural programming in the
    Philippines, USAID doesn't have actual agricultural programs in
    the Philippines outside of some work that we do. But certainly
    the lack of land rights poses challenges to farmers there, as I
    mentioned in response to Chairman Salmon's question.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Carouso, are there particular large
    international companies that are benefitting in the Philippines
    from land seizure? And perhaps you could address Cambodia as
    well.
        Mr. Carouso. I am not aware of any particular large foreign
    entities in the Philippines taking advantage. It is mainly a
    Philippines issue. There is a large, powerful Philippine group
    that seems to control much of the economy. Part of the problem
    is that there are so many laws and regulations at the Federal
    and local and provincial level that people have a hard time
    understanding the law and who has jurisdiction. One of the
    things that AID's programs are trying to do is help streamline
    and make sensible all these laws.
        In Cambodia, my understanding is it is mainly Chinese and
    Vietnamese entities that are buying up these large parcels for
    basically corporate-style farming.
        Mr. Sherman. Do they then employ the people who had
    traditionally worked the land as farmworkers, or where do they
    get their labor?
        Mr. Carouso. I don't know the answer to that, but typically
    Chinese like to employ Chinese. But I don't know if that is----
        Mr. Sherman. Does the Cambodian Government allow Chinese
    farmworkers to work for these companies, or we don't know?
        Mr. Carouso. I will have to get the answer for you, sir.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Stivers, I don't know if you have a
    comment about that.
        Mr. Stivers. No, I don't know how to answer that question.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Stivers, what can USAID do to help
    modernize land title registration in the Philippines?
        Mr. Stivers. Well, I think the first thing we can do as we
    move forward with this new SURGE Program, which I think is
    absolutely essential in terms of working with local
    communities, local governments in terms of making the system
    more efficient, our approach really has been a holistic
    approach which is focused on the judiciary and the
    administrative issues in terms of land titling, focusing on
    constraints to economic growth more generally, and then
    resilience to natural disasters. I think between that approach,
    in addition to tackling corruption, of course, which is a major
    issue, is the way to move forward.
        In terms of the courts, it is making the court system more
    efficient. It is challenging, but the court system is the way
    to resolve land disputes, and that is the appropriate way, and
    we need to help the Philippines make that system work better,
    and that is what we are doing with our JUSTICE Act.
        Administratively, trying to make sure that the government
    and the local governments have the capacity to respond to land
    disputes, issue land titles so that people can have their land
    registered appropriately. It is a lot of technical assistance,
    which is what USAID is best at in terms of how to, how do we do
    this, and I think that is where we have a comparative advantage
    over other countries especially and we can make a difference.
        Funding is always a consideration in terms of how much we
    can provide. We can work in one court system, but as the people
    in this room know full well, the challenge is so great and we
    have so much that we can do, but the best we can do is take our
    small projects and try to expand them the best we can.
        Mr. Sherman. The Philippines, and even more so Cambodia,
    are relatively poor countries in Southeast Asia. Are there
    other countries in Southeast Asia with similar economics that
    are doing a better job? And if so, why are they able to do a
    better job of making the rule of law apply to real estate? Are
    the kinds of problems we have talked about here observed in
    Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, or is this a region-wide problem
    with developing countries? We have the two examples we focused
    on here today. Are they far more egregious?
        Mr. Stivers. I would say that in terms of--there is a great
    need in Southeast Asia on this issue, a great need in all the
    countries that USAID works in in Southeast Asia--Timor-Leste,
    Indonesia. Burma surely has huge land rights issues and land-
    grabbing issues.
        We have focused on the countries where we believe we can
    make the most difference, the Philippines number one. But I
    think there is a great need to try to expand to other countries
    because this is almost the number-one concern over all other
    issues in many countries, and we see that from public surveys.
    So we would like to do more, yes, in other countries.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Mr. Salmon. The Chair will recognize Chairman Royce.
        Mr. Royce. I think one of the reasons it is the number-one
    concern is the testimony that I think, James, you mentioned,
    Hernando de Soto's work. He did a lot of work in the
    Philippines, and part of that was to try to determine how we
    could get those building blocks down so that people could
    borrow against property and create economic growth and how you
    would really have the fundamentals necessary. His work is still
    a best seller. ``The Mystery of Capital'' is the name of it,
    especially for students here. ``The Mystery of Capital, Why It
    Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.'' It is a book
    on economics by the individual who helped do land reform in the
    Philippines, by this economist Hernando de Soto.
        When we look at the situation after Tacloban, and our
    committee was there on Tacloban, we asked questions at the time
    about what could be done to ensure that individuals did not
    lose their land after the consequences of being displaced. I
    recently saw a story in the Philippines Enquirer that indicated
    that on the neighboring island of Sicogon there were 6,000
    families who were prevented from returning to their homes by a
    company that claimed that it owned the underlying rights. It
    was a developer. The developer says, well, I own the underlying
    rights to the land on which the families lived. And, as they
    say in the press, these reports may be the first signs of the
    onslaught of an age-old problem fundamental to many conflicts
    in disaster- and poverty-stricken areas--access to land.
        So if we could follow up on that case, I will be in contact
    with you.
        Second, I understand USAID conducted an assessment in the
    Antipolo region in the Philippines and identified numerous
    challenges in the land tenure and titling system there. What
    were those challenges, quickly, if you could explain them, and
    I will ask USAID this question, Jonathan. How can they be
    addressed? And what, if anything, can USAID continue to do to
    help address these problems?
        Mr. Stivers. Well, thank you. It was about 1 year ago,
    actually today, that we sent a scoping mission out to the
    Antipolo region to look at the cases there and see if they were
    reflective of the broader challenges to get a better sense of
    the challenges faced in that region and how to make our
    assistance more effective in terms of tackling these issues.
        The findings revealed that there is unresolved rival
    property claims, growing private real estate investment in that
    area, and institutional gaps in land administration at the
    local level. Some of the challenges I mentioned in my
    testimony. Overall, it is reflective of what is going on in the
    country, frankly.
        Overall, overlapping mandates and lack of coordination
    between government institutions; the fact that only 50 percent
    of land parcels in the country are registered; and delay and
    the high cost of court cases. I think USAID is taking the right
    approach in terms of trying to address this issue as
    holistically as possible in terms of trying to make the courts
    more efficient, trying to promote economic growth and
    government administration, and dealing with the issues that you
    mentioned in relation to displacement from Typhoon Haiyan.
        Thank you for providing the leadership in order to give
    USAID the space to move forward on these issues in a very
    difficult budget environment that we have.
        Mr. Royce. One of the other things that struck me when I
    was out there is that local security forces, private security
    forces seemingly, have a role or have taken a role through use
    of force in asserting claims by developers. I wondered, have
    these security forces been held accountable for such acts? And
    how often, in what circumstances, and at what level are these
    cases being raised by the U.S. Embassy in Manila? I have raised
    the issue on three occasions, but I just wondered in terms of
    the Embassy itself, do you have a dialogue going on? Maybe
    James could speak to that issue.
        Mr. Carouso. Sure. Mr. Chairman, following your visit,
    Ambassador Goldberg called on the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
    the Secretary of Justice, and key folks at the Presidential
    Palace, all the way to the top, pointing out that this is an
    indication of a severe lack of rule of law, that private
    security forces could act with such impunity.
        The interesting change over time is it is no longer the
    official security, the official police and military. It is the
    privatized. But the problem is, then, how does someone seek
    justice to push back? That is the missing gap that the new
    program should fix.
        Mr. Royce. My time is almost up, but I would ask one other
    question along this line. How is it possible, taking Hernando
    de Soto's theory, that the reason we have created such
    incredible opportunity here in the United States is because of
    our ability, something we don't really understand, our ability
    under land title to borrow against that property? Therefore,
    any of us can basically start a business. Is it possible with
    the situation as it is in parts of the Philippines, where
    people do not have access to clear title, is it possible for
    them to go out and borrow against that home or that farm in
    order to raise the capital to have collateral, to have that
    access to the capital that they are going to use to develop
    something or to build on the land? What is that circumstance
    like in these areas where this is still a gray area?
        Mr. Carouso. I would suggest that having the land title is
    absolutely essential to that, and the fact that people don't
    have land title and there are competing claims is a barrier to
    getting credit.
        Mr. Royce. Therefore to economic growth, to development.
        Mr. Carouso. Right.
        Mr. Royce. To opportunity for the next generation. That is
    why it is so important.
        But I have exceeded my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Dr. Chu?
        Ms. Chu. Mr. Carouso, in 2013 the World Bank ranked the
    Philippines 108th out of 189 countries in the world for ease of
    doing business. Now, the good news is that they improved 30
    places since 2012. The bad news is that they are 108th, and
    that reflects the country's continuing problem with poor
    revenue collection, inadequate spending on social services and
    infrastructure, government corruption and instability.
        What kind of return on our investment are we seeing in the
    Philippines, and what is the administration's view of this
    stance, the world standing by the World Bank? Is there any
    progress really going on with the Aquino government?
        Mr. Carouso. Congresswoman, this is an issue that we point
    out to our Philippine colleagues constantly, that if they want
    to continue the very impressive economic growth they have
    achieved over the past few years, they have got to do better,
    and they acknowledge that. The fact that they have improved 30
    places is quite significant, and we attribute that to the fact
    that the Philippine people elected President Aquino on the
    basis of he was a reformer, he was going to fight corruption,
    he was going to fight the big landowners, but it is a tough
    job. What the United States Government has been trying to do is
    support him in that effort, help him as much as we possibly
    can, while recognizing that it is, obviously, up to the
    Philippine people to do that.
        To be blunt, the fight we have to some degree on improving
    the ease of doing business is that there is a sense of
    nationalism, that if foreigners invest, that means somehow
    Filipinos, even poor Filipinos, don't have those opportunities.
    So we are trying hard to explain that foreign direct investment
    is an economic driver that lifts all the boats, not taking away
    any benefits from domestic entities.
        Mr. Stivers. And if I could just answer also, the umbrella
    of all of our work in the Philippines is under something we
    call the Partnership for Growth. In 2011 we entered this
    agreement with the Philippines Government to address the
    binding constraints to economic growth and development. It is
    only in four countries that we have this worldwide, and it is
    those key countries that we hope to be the next generation of
    the emerging markets where we can kind of tackle the governance
    issues, plus the economic growth competitiveness issues and
    combine them together under a plan and a rubric.
        Since that time we have seen real GDP growth average almost
    7 percent since that agreement. As you mentioned, the world
    competitiveness rankings have increased, although not high
    enough, of course. But the world's leading credit agencies have
    upgraded Philippines sovereign credit ratings.
        There has been a lot of success. Land rights, of course, is
    key to making this work. But in terms of a strong ally in the
    region, in terms of the Philippines, trying to help the
    Philippine Government have a better rule of law, a stronger
    rule of law to improve their competitiveness and economic
    growth is kind of under the umbrella of Partnership for Growth,
    and we have seen some success, not enough. We have to do a lot
    more to help them.
        Ms. Chu. In fact, Mr. Stivers, it was 37 years ago that the
    Philippines senate passed a comprehensive agrarian reform plan.
    But since then, you, the USAID, has reported that the majority
    of the world population remains landless and there is confusion
    over land titles, leading to a continuing problem with land
    grabbing, and much of this has to do with the outdated and
    contradictory laws and the powerful who are taking over these
    lands.
        So, we know that there are more than just resources. There
    are legal problems that are getting in the way of getting land
    to the world's poor. Which of your programs would most
    accelerate the process, since it has been 37 years since they
    passed it, with not much progress?
        Mr. Stivers. Well, I would suggest our COMPETE Program that
    I mentioned in my testimony. But I think in terms of moving
    forward, the SURGE Program that I mentioned, which we are
    launching now, is going to have a real focus on the population
    centers outside of the Manila metro area which have not
    experienced the same economic growth as the Manila area. So
    focusing on those issues, connecting some of the rural to urban
    areas, and working on the land titling and land rights issues
    are key to that. That is what we think will make some progress
    moving forward.
        Ms. Chu. And lastly, let me ask about Cambodia, Mr.
    Stivers. Last month, about 200 Cambodian villagers protested
    outside the Cambodian Parliament building demanding a
    resolution to their land dispute cases. According to the
    reports, lawmakers responded that the National Assembly is not
    the court, so they cannot decide who are the winners and
    losers.
        While we want to maintain the independence of the courts,
    are there legislative solutions that can be put forward to make
    the judicial system more favorable to vulnerable populations?
    And what do you think about the feasibility of the UNHRC's
    proposal of an independent body to resolve these disputes?
        Mr. Stivers. The rule of law and human rights are the major
    focus of our policy in Cambodia and a serious, serious concern.
    We believe that it is less an issue of the law, what the law
    says, because the laws are actually not bad in terms of how
    they are written, but in the implementation and practice of
    those laws. So that is where we are focused in terms of trying
    to empower the reformers and a lot of these civil society
    organizations who are pushing for real change in terms of their
    individual land disputes, their group land disputes, and they
    have had a strengthened voice over the years.
        So we believe that is the right way to focus our assistance
    in Cambodia.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Just a few details here on some specific points that have
    been made.
        There are many problems in Vietnam, for example, where we
    don't have political freedom, and economic freedom is basically
    based on cronyism with the ruling elite, with the ruling
    political elite, and you have now an economic elite.
        There is no foreign aid to Vietnam, is there?
        Mr. Stivers. We provide foreign assistance to the people of
    Vietnam in a number of sectors. We do not provide any
    assistance to the government. We do health work in Vietnam,
    yes, and some other sectors. In terms of rule of law and things
    of that sort, yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we have an aid? How much money are we
    spending in Vietnam?
        Mr. Stivers. The USAID, in Fiscal Year 2014, it was $95
    million, total, of which half of it was health and fighting
    infectious diseases.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Health and infectious disease.
        Mr. Stivers. Yes, PEPFAR----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So they are repressing their people, and
    they are using their own money for instruments of repression,
    and we are using our money to aid them, to make sure their
    people are taken care of with infectious diseases. Actually,
    they have plenty of money to take care of their people with
    infectious diseases. It is just that they don't spend it on
    that. They spend it on repression and other types of repression
    like having a huge police force and military force to make sure
    that the thumb is down on their people.
        What about Cambodia? How much do we give in foreign aid to
    Cambodia?
        Mr. Stivers. We provided, in Fiscal Year 2014, $66 million,
    of which about half of that was in the health sector also.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Mr. Stivers. And about $20 million of that was in democracy
    and government, empowering the reformers, those sorts of
    issues.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. I understand the last point, and I
    think it is important for us to understand that when we do
    invest in countries by helping people and NGOs, et cetera, that
    are demanding human rights, that that does edge that country in
    the right direction.
        When we start taking over the actual obligations of the
    dictatorship to take care of its people, like in responding to
    infectious diseases, I think we are actually bolstering the
    dictatorship itself. I know that we would like to be able to be
    the benefactor to everyone around the world who lives in a
    dictatorship, but I don't think that is right, and I don't
    think it will lead us to more of a democratic society.
        We have two types of government that we are talking about.
    In the Philippines you have a democratic society. In the
    Philippines you have a democratic government, but it is not in
    the area of respecting the rights of its ordinary citizens in
    terms of their property rights. They fall far short of what we
    consider to be the standard.
        Helping governments like the Philippines is not something
    that I find objectionable, but I do find it objectionable that
    we are providing any type of assistance that would take away
    the burden of that government to their own people of
    dictatorships like Cambodia. Hun Sen has only been there, I
    guess, about 30 years now.
        Let me just note that also and for the record, we are not
    going to forget Sovannara Meach. An American citizen now is
    imprisoned in Cambodia by this vicious dictator. We will not
    forget him, and I would hope that our Embassy and also our
    people who are involved with aid and trying to develop trade
    relationships with these countries will not forget, especially
    when an American citizen is put in jail, much less their own
    citizens, which we should care about. But when they have one of
    our own and we move forward with ordinary relations, it is
    unconscionable.
        So I would hope that--I like what I have heard so far. You
    are paying attention to this issue. Actually, you have some
    very fine ideas that we are about to implement. We are going to
    watch very closely.
        Again, I want to thank Mr. Royce for his leadership, and
    Mr. Salmon for his leadership, and we will be watching. So,
    thank you very much.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
        Thank you to the distinguished panel. We would like to
    allow you to go ahead and excuse yourselves from the dais. We
    would like to seat the second panel and move forward as quickly
    as we possibly can. Thank you.
        Mr. Carouso. Thank you.
        Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Salmon. All right. We are fortunate this morning to
    also hear from a second panel of witnesses with personal
    knowledge of property rights in the region.
        First, Ms. Faith Bautista is the president and CEO of the
    National Asian American Coalition. Welcome here today.
        Mr. Joey Quinto is the publisher of the California Journal
    for Filipino Americans. Thank you, Joey. Glad to have you here
    today.
        Mr. Zosimo--did I say that right?--Zosimo Contreras joins
    us as the current litigant in a property dispute in the
    Philippines.
        And Mr. Richard Rogers is a law partner at Global Diligence
    LLP and represents Cambodian land-grabbing victims before the
    International Criminal Court.
        We thank the panel for joining us this afternoon, and we
    will start with you, Ms. Bautista.

    STATEMENT OF MS. FAITH BAUTISTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
               OFFICER, NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION

        Ms. Bautista. Thank you, and thank you so much for doing
    this. As far as I am concerned, you have a lifetime supply of
    lumpian and pancet for doing this for the Filipino community.
    So, thank you.
        I am the CEO and president of one of the largest pan-Asian
    American advocacy organizations in the U.S. We are also the
    most prominent Asian American proponent of home ownership in
    America and work closely with thousands of generally small and
    medium-sized Asian American businesses such as the Island
    Pacific Supermarkets.
        I am here to represent the Belisario family and the
    Belisarios of the world that reside in the U.S. There are
    thousands of these families who are U.S. citizens and are, in
    effect, subsidizing the Philippine Government and its corrupt
    officials and cronies who continue to misappropriate property
    titles from Philippine American citizens. I wish to give a
    personal example and also wish to disclose that I am a domestic
    partner of one of the victims. The example I wish to describe
    is the Belisario family who now resides as citizens in the
    U.S., including my boyfriend.
        Here is the tale that could happen only in a foreign nation
    where corruption is considered the usual law of the land.
    Forty-four properties of the Belisario family were illegally
    seized by the Philippine Government or those acting as its
    agent. For example, titles were transferred from the legitimate
    owners to non-legitimate owners, often without any
    documentation.
        The Belisario family's mother and father died in the
    Philippines, and their six sons and daughters moved to the U.S.
    more than 30 years ago. These five children--I am sorry, one is
    still in the Philippines. These five children have spent at
    least 2 years each in the Philippines unsuccessfully seeking to
    regain their illegally seized land and properties.
        I have a complete list of these properties and the records
    that demonstrate that they own the property and that the
    properties were illegally seized. I am providing it to the
    committee today. Some of the property was illegally seized
    through illegal use of eminent domain powers. There is even
    evidence that the Philippine Government admits to some of the
    illegal seizures and the millions of dollars--hundreds of
    millions of pesos--due the Belisario family. For example, a
    bank in the Philippines has some of the documents but will not
    release the documents. This is apparently due to orders of the
    Philippine Government or those who contend that they are acting
    under the authority of the Philippine Government.
        I am unclear that the estimated $20 million to $30 million
    due the Belisario family will ever be repaid, and I am unsure
    how the U.S. Government can ever make the Philippine Government
    compensate families such as the Belisarios. However, I have the
    following recommendations which could benefit many thousands of
    Filipino American families in the U.S.
        First, every Filipino American who believes their property
    was illegally seized at any time since the Philippines became
    independent in 1946 should be able to provide a simple form to
    the Secretary of the Treasury, Jacob Lew, or the USAID,
    documenting their grievance and setting forth the amount due to
    them.
        Second, the Secretary of the Treasury or the USAID shall be
    granted the authority to request directly from the President of
    the Philippines that the Philippine Government promptly and
    comprehensively respond to each complaint filed by an American
    citizen.
        Third, from funding from the billions of dollars each year
    that the U.S. provides to the Philippines in various subsidies,
    the Philippine Government shall jointly, with the Secretary of
    the Treasury and leading Filipino American community
    organizations, appoint an independent auditor or special
    monitor to examine each claim and provide prompt reports with a
    specific resolution. This is a method the U.S. Secretary of the
    Treasury is very familiar with. That is, Treasury frequently
    uses special monitors to examine records of major banks as they
    relate, for example, to improper foreclosures.
        Since I have personally worked and met with the Secretary
    of the Treasury, the chair of the Federal Reserve, and the U.S.
    Comptroller of the Currency, I would be happy to offer further
    suggestions to this committee and to appropriate Federal
    Government officials. I am also prepared, at my own personal
    expense, to assist any independent special monitor in
    developing effective auditing mechanisms. I estimate that this
    could result in billions of dollars, or hundreds of billions of
    pesos, being returned to hard-working Filipino American
    citizens.
        And I just want to let all of you guys know, we have an
    office in Washington, DC, and I really appreciate Congressman
    Chu, Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce, and all of you, that you
    really do care for the Southeast Asian. We are great citizens
    in this country, and thank you again for your help.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bautista follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Quinto?

    STATEMENT OF MR. JOEY QUINTO, PUBLISHER, CALIFORNIA JOURNAL FOR
                           FILIPINO AMERICANS

        Mr. Quinto. Good morning, Chairman Salmon, Chairman Royce,
    Ranking Member Sherman, Congressman Rohrabacher, Congresswoman
    Chu. I am Joey Quinto, publisher of California Journal for
    Filipino Americans.
        I am here today because I am a land-grabbing victim, in
    particular a victim of land-locking by a well-connected and
    powerful military general in the Philippines.
        My family has two properties in Antipolo, Philippines. But
    a retired military general has been blocking the access road
    for many years now, so we and the more than 700 land parcel
    owners could not enter our properties.
        The general, who has a two-story house, gates and fences
    with security personnel blocking the access roads, does not own
    land in Antipolo as per the Assessor, and does not have a
    building permit as per the Antipolo City Hall.
        The general is a chairman of a savings and loan. The
    Central Bank is the regulator. Under Republic Act 8791, it
    states that all directors of a supervised institution should
    possess honesty and integrity. I requested the Philippine
    Central Bank to open an inquiry, but they declined my request.
        I also have given the documents to some government
    agencies, but none of the agencies have done any action to stop
    the general from blocking the access road. This is lack of
    government accountability, no rule of law, and no respect of
    property rights.
        The Department of Environment and Natural Resources tried
    to do their inspection to our properties, but they were stopped
    by the security personnel of the general.
        In another circumstance, the mayor stated in a letter to
    the ombudsman that the City Hall's personnel, together with the
    Philippine National Police and the SWAT team, tried to enter
    but they were stopped by the security personnel of the military
    general.
        Clearly, this general has the power to stop the Philippine
    laws from being enforced. He is either above the law or simply
    being tolerated by the Philippine Government.
        The Philippine Republic Act 6713 requires all public
    officials and employees to respond within 15 days to any
    communications sent by the public. Disappointingly, numerous
    government agencies have been disregarding Republic Act 6713.
    In fact, I have been requesting the police chief for a copy of
    the letter the general has given him addressed to the
    Philippine Central Bank. But for more than 130 days now, the
    said letter has not been given to me.
        The Department of Interior of the Local Government, the
    DILG, is a national government agency that has direct
    jurisdiction to the police and local government. I requested
    the DILG to call on the police chief to give me a copy of the
    letter from the general, but they were helpless. Even the
    mayor, who finally issued a violation of illegal structures to
    the general, has not acted completely against him. It has been
    more than 15 days now that I have requested a condemnation
    letter and removal of the illegal structures of the general,
    but I have not received any reply.
        I also requested the DILG to call on the mayor to execute
    the notice of removal of illegal structures, but they have not
    exercised their jurisdiction to the mayor.
        The culture of delay and no response could be considered a
    violation of Republic Act 6713. The general is just one of the
    many abusive individuals in the Philippines.
        Let me now cite some victims who are suffering because of
    land grabbers.
        Mr. Pablo left the Philippines because the land grabbers
    wanted to kill him. This is with a police report.
        Mr. Cabrillos has been trapped in a corrupt court system.
    It has been 15 years of no progress on his fight for his land.
        Mrs. Bolozzos stated that the land grabber burned her house
    with the intention of killing her.
        And a family in Cebu did not get any protection and help
    from the police against a military officer who built fences
    around their property.
        The Philippine Government should follow the guidelines of
    the U.S. grants that come from American taxpayers.
        With the help of the U.S., I hope that the rule of law,
    property rights, transparency, good governance, and government
    accountability could be enforced in the Philippines so land
    grabbing could be resolved.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Quinto follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Contreras?

         STATEMENT OF MR. ZOSIMO LAUREL CONTRERAS (LITIGANT IN
                     PHILIPPINES PROPERTY DISPUTE)

        Mr. Contreras. Greetings, U.S. Congressman Ed Royce, U.S.
    Congressman Matt Salmon, and members of the Committee on
    Foreign Affairs.
        My name is Zosimo Laurel Contreras. I am here today to
    represent my family and to express my great disappointment and
    heartache about our land in the city of Tagatay, Philippines.
    The land I am referring to was inherited by my mother, Adelina
    Laurel, from her father, my grandfather, Conrado Laurel.
        To give you a little background on my family, my grand-
    uncle, Jose P. Laurel, was the President of the Philippines;
    and his son, who served as Vice President of the Philippines,
    Salvador Laurel, is my second cousin.
        This inherited land is very, very important to us, as it
    would be for any family.
        Early last year in January 2014, I went to the Philippines
    to visit our property with my cousins. I was shocked when I saw
    fences, block walls, and pineapple plantations on our land.
    Despite our 2001 court order for the land grabbers to vacate,
    they continue to occupy the land. While I was taking pictures
    of our property, someone came over to me and harassed and
    intimidated me, asking what I was doing and why am I taking
    pictures. I told them this is our property, and they told me
    the land is theirs. They told me that I own the title, but they
    own the land. They warned me not to go there anymore.
        On June 15 of 2014, I visited our land again and saw a big
    house being constructed on the property, and there was no
    permit. Immediately after, we went to the mayor's office in
    Tagatay City to complain about the land grabbers' activity. The
    mayor's office sent a letter to the settlers to cease and
    desist the construction. We also sent letters to the land
    grabbers to vacate the property by July 30 of 2014, and they
    told us that we have to have a court order to execute the
    removal of the land grabbers on our property. At that time, we
    had our court order which gave us authority to remove them.
    They told us we need to leave and threatened us. We were
    outnumbered and intimidated by them as they told us to go home.
    The police, who were with us at the time, just stood there and
    didn't help. We felt disappointed we didn't have help from our
    local government authorities.
        On another occasion, my cousin and I went to our land to
    have it surveyed and noticed the land grabbers removed the land
    markers. She then hired a surveyor to have the markers replaced
    and was harassed and threatened by the land grabbers, who were
    carrying guns. They told my cousin that she should not continue
    surveying the land.
        I was also advised by my cousins and brothers in the
    Philippines that I should not go there alone because of the
    dangerous situation that might cause harm on me. The land
    grabbers had machetes, guns, and we are outnumbered by them.
        I am here to graciously ask for your assistance to work
    with the Philippine Government and help my family keep our
    precious land which has been inherited through so many
    generations. We need your help. We cannot let the land grabbers
    control us. We cannot continue to feel helpless. Where is the
    justice? Where is the rule of law in our Philippine Government?
        This is a serious situation. We should not be afraid to
    protect and visit our own land. As a responsible landowner, my
    family and I continue to pay all the taxes on the property;
    however, no one is representing us. The police, who were with
    us, acted helpless and scared. Where is the respect for the
    property owners, and who will protect our rights?
        Please, please help us and the rest of the property owners
    who are victims of these land grabbers.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Contreras follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Rogers?

     STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD J. ROGERS, PARTNER, GLOBAL DILIGENCE
        LLP (ATTORNEY REPRESENTING CAMBODIAN VICTIMS BEFORE THE
                     INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT)

        Mr. Rogers. Good morning, Chairman Salmon and members of
    the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me here to
    speak about property rights in Cambodia and about the problems
    of land grabbing.
        I would also like to express my appreciation to the
    Cambodian communities who have traveled from far and wide to be
    here at this hearing today to show their support for your
    important work.
        Mr. Chairman, the current Cambodian regime, which has been
    in power for 30 years, appears to have two very basic but
    interrelated objectives, and they are the maintenance of power
    at all costs and the self-enrichment of the ruling elite,
    primarily through land grabbing.
        Unfortunately, to achieve these objectives, the ruling
    elite have committed human rights violations on a massive
    scale, often under the guise of development. And of all the
    human rights concerns that plague Cambodia, land grabbing is by
    far the most prevalent and probably the most destructive.
        According to groups monitoring the land crisis, from the
    year 2000 to the end of 2013, land grabbing had adversely
    affected, in one way or another, over 770,000. New research
    suggests that the situation is actually getting worse, not
    better. In 2014, there were an additional 50,000 people
    affected by land conflicts.
        So the total number is now around 830,000, increasing by
    about 1,000 people per week, which amounts to a staggering 5.5
    percent of the entire Cambodian population.
        Mr. Chairman, a significant proportion of these people have
    already been forcibly evicted, and while we don't have a
    precise nationwide figure for this population displacement, it
    is thought to run into the hundreds of thousands. The evictions
    themselves are often violent, with private security firms,
    police and the army using live ammunition, tear gas and
    bulldozers to drive out villagers who protect their homes with
    sticks and stones.
        Residents have been shot or beaten, entire villages have
    been burned to the ground, and evictees are often sent to live
    in squalid resettlement camps.
        Not surprisingly, the Cambodian Government claims that the
    economic land concessions they award to private businesses
    bring economic benefits to the local communities. But research
    by the U.N. and others suggests that, more often than not, they
    actually have the opposite effect. The way that these
    development projects are implemented leaves ordinary Cambodians
    with a loss of traditional livelihoods, with a lack of clean
    water and sanitation, with food shortages and malnutrition, and
    with crushing unemployment.
        In fact, those who profit are a tiny group of ruling elite
    made up of senior members of the ruling party, senior members
    of state security forces, as well as the government-connected
    business elite.
        Unfortunately, the Cambodian judicial system is part of the
    problem and not the solution. There is a decent legal framework
    to regulate land use in Cambodia, including the economic land
    concessions. The problem is that the laws are simply ignored
    both by the government and by the judiciary when there is money
    to be made. In fact, the ruling elite have relied heavily on
    corrupt and biased judges to implement the land grabs,
    intimidate the poor, and crush their opponents.
        So no one really expects the Cambodian courts to be fair
    with the massive land grabbing and illegal displacements that
    have occurred over the last 15 years.
        Mr. Chairman, it is widely accepted that the forced
    evictions were illegal in the sense that they breached
    Cambodian national laws, as well as international human rights
    conventions. But do they also violate international criminal
    law?
        Well, as the lawyer for a group of Cambodian victims, I was
    asked to advise whether or not the land crimes have become so
    serious that a case could be brought before the International
    Criminal Court in the Hague. While land grabbing is not an
    international crime per se, forcible transfer of populations
    can be. It can be a crime against humanity if it is
    sufficiently widespread and part of a state policy.
        After analyzing thousands of pages of reports and evidence,
    we found that when the mass evictions over the last 15 years
    are considered together, when they are looked at cumulatively,
    the situation meets all the legal elements of crimes against
    humanity.
        So in October 2014, we filed a communication to the
    prosecutor of the ICC asking her to open an investigation, and
    we are now waiting to see if she accepts the case and moves it
    to the next stage.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, in my written submission I outlined
    three recommendations that I thought could help address the
    problems of land grabbing. First is the adoption of a rule of
    law accountability act for Cambodia, or even better perhaps is
    the adoption of the global Magnitsky Act and its application to
    Cambodia. I understand that there is a bill already being
    considered in the House and the Senate.
        Secondly is increased funding and support for Cambodian
    NGOs who monitor the land grabbing.
        And thirdly is the prohibition of U.S. funding or military
    training for Cambodian military units that take part in illegal
    forced evictions.
        Mr. Chairman, there are few populations around the world
    who have suffered more mass atrocities and are more deserving
    of justice than the Cambodian people. At the very least, they
    deserve a stable home. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        We now go to questions.
        Mr. Rogers, I would just ask one question. I know some of
    the members up here have other obligations, so we will try to
    move it along as quickly as we possibly can.
        Mr. Rogers, you are pressing a case, then, with the Hague.
    What is your expectation, and what do you think the timing is
    of them responding back to you as to whether or not they are
    going to take jurisdiction? And if they decline, do you have
    other venues that you can pursue legally?
        Mr. Rogers. Well, I think we stand a very good chance. One
    has to remember that the ICC has limited resources and many
    difficult issues to deal with, so it simply can't open every
    case. But I think that this is a particularly strong case. The
    numbers are incredibly high. We are probably talking about
    300,000 or 400,000 people affected by a law that is explicitly
    listed in the ICC statute, and that is forcible transfer of
    population.
        So there is a very compelling argument that they should
    move forward with this case. I also think that the evidence is
    very strong, primarily because the NGOs in Cambodia on the
    ground have been very courageous for many years and have been
    doing an excellent job obtaining very credible evidence.
        So I think there is a good chance that they will move
    forward, at least to the next stage, which is called a
    preliminary examination. But if they do move to that stage,
    then the Cambodian ruling elite will realize that they are
    being watched, and if something doesn't change, then the next
    move will be issuing indictments and possibly arrest warrants.
    So even getting to that next stage will make a huge difference
    to the human rights situation in Cambodia.
        Mr. Salmon. Would it be possible, if it does go to that
    first phase, and if--I mean, I know these are a lot of ``ifs''
    and hypotheticals, but is it possible that the Cambodian
    Government could contact you and offer some kind of a
    settlement to fix the issues with these people?
        Mr. Rogers. It is not the way that this procedural system
    works. It is not a case like a domestic case, where you can
    withdraw.
        Mr. Salmon. No, I understand that. Oh, okay, so you
    couldn't withdraw.
        Mr. Rogers. I cannot withdraw.
        Mr. Salmon. Okay. Once you pursue a criminal action, it is
    on cruise control, basically, then?
        Mr. Rogers. Absolutely. It is there before the prosecution,
    and it is information for them to act on. So I can't say you no
    longer have the right to this information.
        Mr. Salmon. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Royce. I will defer to Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Salmon. Mr. Sherman?
        Mr. Sherman. Ms. Bautista, the problems for land grabbing
    in the Philippines, are they widespread throughout the country
    or focused only in some of the provinces?
        Ms. Bautista. Throughout the country, sir.
        Mr. Sherman. Okay.
        Mr. Quinto, is there such a thing as title insurance in the
    Philippines, or basically the system is so chaotic that title
    insurance companies aren't willing to ensure even a small
    portion of the title?
        Mr. Quinto. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member. I
    have spoken to the former president of the First American Title
    Company. They were hired by the World Bank to fix the titling
    system in the Philippines. After a month they came back, and I
    asked them why, don't you want to be paid? They said, Joey, it
    is hopeless. Once they come in there, Ranking Member, if
    someone claims, they have to pay for the losses. They said the
    first thing they have to do is stop the corruption.
        There are instances wherein one property, the same
    property, has 10 owners, and they found out this cannot be done
    by the other 9. They would not go into a public office and put
    it into the computer. Someone inside the office would do it.
    That is corruption.
        So when they came back here, they told me, Joey, it is
    hopeless. The first thing is they have to stop the corruption.
        Mr. Sherman. Is corruption widespread throughout the
    judicial and legal system, or is it particularly--what we are
    seeing here is real estate title, but are you talking about a
    corrupt judiciary? Is it as corrupt in non-real estate cases,
    or is real estate a special province of corruption?
        Mr. Quinto. It is hard to speak for other instances,
    Ranking Member, but in terms of real estate losses, just like
    Mr. Cabrillos, he gave us a certified and under-oath letter
    that he was encouraged by the Philippine Government to sue, and
    he sued the land grabbers. The only thing, it has been 15 years
    now and the paper is not moving at all. So the land grabbers,
    they control the judicial system.
        Mr. Sherman. Now, the land grabbers, when they get the
    land, do they then collect rent from tenant farmers who were
    previously living there? Do they displace those who are living
    and working the land and bring in other people? Who is
    physically using the land in these cases? And I realize my
    question focused more on rural land than urban, but what do the
    land grabbers physically do with the people who had been using
    the land?
        Mr. Quinto. With the example of Mr. Cabrillos, Ranking
    Member, they are still paying the taxes because they know if
    they default it will go to tax sale, so they are wise.
        In my case, we still continue to pay the property taxes.
        Mr. Sherman. But who is living on the land? What is the
    land being used for?
        Mr. Quinto. You know, they are waiting for us to give up on
    paying the property taxes so that they could buy from the city
    hall.
        Mr. Sherman. What is on the land? Is somebody farming this
    land? Are there buildings on the land? How is the land being
    used at the present time?
        Mr. Quinto. I will talk about my specific case, Ranking
    Member. It is beside a golf course, and it is not my fault if
    that golf course was designed by Arnold Palmer. They know how
    precious is that land. Right now, the value is zero because we
    cannot use it.
        Mr. Sherman. So this is urban land that is left unused, it
    would have great development potential.
        Perhaps I can ask Mr. Contreras, the land that you are
    aware of, is it urban or rural? Is it used, or is it completely
    unused because of the property dispute?
        Mr. Contreras. It is rural or urban. It is a city. It is
    Tagatay City. It is a resort city.
        On our land, to answer your question about what they are
    doing to the land, they do plant pineapples, trees, bananas,
    and they stay there. And when you ask them to leave, they
    threaten you. In fact, we sent a court order to move out. Even
    the Tagatay City, the mayor helped us to send that letter. We
    distributed that to them, and they just ignored it. And
    whenever we come there again, people are looking at us, what
    kind of cars we are driving. They look at us. They know who we
    are. So after that, they all gathered around and circled us and
    threatened us. That is not the kind of life we are looking for
    in the Philippines.
        Mr. Sherman. Democracy in the Philippines doesn't mean
    anything unless people can vote for a government that is
    willing to control what happens on the ground.
        Mr. Contreras. That is true.
        Mr. Sherman. If you vote for a government that meets in a
    building and discusses laws that will be ignored, you might as
    well vote in a beauty contest. The winning side, you call in
    the phone number and this one or that one will wear the crown,
    but whoever wears the beauty crown doesn't have any influence
    on people's lives.
        If I had more time I would talk to you about why the
    government allows this to happen, but I think we have other
    questioners.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Royce?
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Chairman Salmon.
        To pick up on the comment that Mr. Sherman is making, this
    is somewhat like the situation that you might hear about in the
    United States in some small town where, regardless of what the
    Federal Government does, you have well-connected developers who
    decide that they want a certain piece of property and then
    manage to manipulate the local political system in order to
    gain that and to push people out of their property.
        So what you have in the Philippines right now is a
    circumstance where President Aquino has this as part of his
    reform program, and you have USAID on the ground trying to push
    this reform program, but we have a legacy problem here, as
    explained to me at least by some of the experts who have looked
    at this. This legacy problem goes back to Marcos and the
    decision that Marcos made, back when he introduced corruption
    at such a massive level.
        What he did, what he decided to do, was to reward well-
    connected generals and commodores and those who were connected
    to him politically by going in and destroying part of the
    titling process so that he could transfer to his allies or put
    in motion a system where he could reward his political allies
    and family members and so forth.
        The consequences of that is to reverse that now when it
    occurs at the local level you are going against something that
    has become, in some areas, apparently, habitual, where those
    who are well-connected in local government are used to being
    approached by developers, right?
        How much is this costing the Philippines? De Soto spent a
    lot of time researching this problem on the ground. He put that
    cost at $130 billion worth of human capital, as he calls it
    ``dead capital.'' This is the anchor on real development in the
    Philippines because of the inability to get over this problem,
    the corruption at this local level, which then prevents people
    from taking the decisions they would otherwise make because of
    the anarchy that has been created there.
        So the question I was going to ask Mr. Quinto, on my trips
    to the Philippines to address other issues and this issue of
    land grabbing, one of the things I have found is that it is the
    local governments that are not enforcing the law. What more
    could be done in order to try to make certain that the local
    government enforces the law and cleans up the registry in terms
    of land title?
        Mr. Quinto. Chairman Royce, to answer the question about
    how the local government could implement or enforce a law, the
    DLIG, the Department of Interior of the local government, is a
    national agency that has direct jurisdiction to the local
    government, to the mayor, to all the local employees over
    there. But the problem is the DILG is not enforcing their
    jurisdiction, their mandate. It is mandated by law for them to
    exercise their jurisdiction.
        So I think it is also the local government and the national
    government or the Federal Government. When it comes to
    President Aquino, he wants to be successful in the anti-
    corruption initiative, but the problem is there are so many
    people in the Philippines who do not want him to be successful.
        Since the United States is giving $\1/2\ billion to the
    Philippines as foreign aid, that is an investment that is
    coming from the American taxpayers. I remember when the
    Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO answered your question
    about putting conditions on foreign funding. She said if the
    property rights would be an issue, she would look at it. I
    think it is about time for the United States to put conditions
    on the funding of the Philippines until they reform. This was
    done during the Aroya administration as well, wherein they put
    conditions until they reformed, so there is historical data to
    that.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you.
        I had one last question, and that goes to Mr. Rogers, and
    this goes to your issue of forcible transfer of populations.
    When we look at the fact that so much of the violence that is
    perpetrated leaves in its wake young Cambodians that are often
    susceptible to trafficking, I think you made the observation
    that we are talking about more than one crime here. By moving
    800,000 people out of having any means of support, you have
    left them in a position of extreme vulnerability in a part of
    the world where trafficking is not only a practice, but my
    chief of staff, Amy Porter, has been twice over to Phnom Penh
    on this trafficking issue of underage girls, and it turns out
    the mayor of the city was apparently involved because the
    police chief--I don't know about the mayor. I know the police
    chief was directly involved because he owned the brothel, okay?
        So you have, again, someone in Hun Sen, a Hun Sen police
    chief. When you have that level of corruption--and I will just
    give you this example. Four thousand residents surrounding
    Boeung Kak Lake, as you know, were evicted from their homes to
    make room for a company owned and controlled by a senator of
    the Hun Sen party. Residents who protested their homes being
    seized and destroyed were beaten with electric batons,
    according to the press. Several mothers and grandmothers were
    arrested and tried during a 3-hour trial. So that is the court
    system going to work against the local population.
        So, what is the status of the individuals that were
    affected by this seizure of property? I was going to ask you
    how typical this incident is and tie it into the fact that so
    many of these younger people can end up in trafficking.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you for the question. You are absolutely
    right that the nightmare doesn't end at the point of eviction.
    People, when they lose their land, they fall deeper into
    poverty, and this is particularly the case with these rural
    agrarian societies. Land is everything. It is their means of
    creating wealth. It is what they pass down to their children.
    When it is taken away from them, not only does the unemployment
    rate skyrocket, it is double the national average, but the
    increased poverty makes them vulnerable to other human rights
    violations such as trafficking. That undoubtedly happens
    because trafficking is, of course, a byproduct of poverty.
        I am glad you mentioned the Boeung Kak Lake case because in
    that case a CPP senator was awarded the land illegally--because
    it was public land, it wasn't private land--and, indeed, about
    4,500 people were evicted from their homes violently. There was
    a group of women, mothers and grandmothers, who protested. They
    were called the Boeung Kak Lake 13. One or two of them, who are
    here today, have actually spent time in prison. That is one of
    the most famous cases, but it is actually quite typical. I
    think it is only so famous because it happened right in the
    center of Phnom Penh. Unfortunately, around the rural areas
    that are much harder to access for expats and for journalists,
    this type of thing is happening all the time, as well as the
    consequential human rights violations and probably trafficking.
        Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Dr. Chu?
        Ms. Chu. Mr. Quinto and Mr. Contreras, thank you for your
    powerful testimony and telling us about your personal
    experience, the experience of your family with regard to this
    land grabbing. I find your stories to be utterly outrageous.
        I was wondering if you could talk more about how you feel
    about your personal safety, your physical safety in trying to
    assert your rights in trying to stop this land grabbing, and in
    trying to get your land back as you try to fight the system. Do
    you fear for your personal safety, and do you think other
    families in the Philippines feel this way as well?
        Mr. Quinto. Thank you for that question, Dr. Chu,
    Congresswoman Chu. A lot of families in the Philippines do not
    want to be telling their stories because they fear the land
    grabbers. They have powerful guns. For the Philippine
    Americans, it is about time for the Philippine Americans also
    to know they are Americans, and no one, no American should be
    hurt anywhere in the world because America would look for that
    person, because Philippine Americans, Cambodian Americans, we
    are all Americans. So they could hurt us, but America would
    find them.
        When it comes to our personal safety, me myself, I am
    fearful. I am dealing with this general. If the Philippine
    Government is scared of him, how much more me? I would not say
    I am brave. I am scared of him, because imagine the powerful
    Philippine Government is not moving at all. They are scared of
    him.
        So, yes, we are fearful to face the land grabbers. But it
    is also the job of the Philippine Government--in fact, the
    Consul General of the Philippines also told the Philippine
    Government, he asked them in an interagency meeting, he asked
    them who is the government? Is he the government, or are we the
    government? Why could we not implement and enforce the laws?
    And no one answered the question.
        Ms. Chu. Mr. Contreras?
        Mr. Contreras. For my safety, when I visited the
    Philippines, especially when we visited our lands out there,
    because when we go there, they know what car we are driving,
    and when they find out we are there, a lot of people that live
    in that neighborhood come around you and threaten you. I would
    say that I am fearful myself. It is not an easy thing to go
    there anymore.
        I was there three times last year, and I had a horrible
    experience going there. Sometimes I said I might as well give
    it up, give it up, but I can't because I inherited that land
    and I have the right to own it. That is how I feel about that.
    I don't know if I will go back there again, but I will. I
    promise, I will go there.
        Ms. Chu. Mr. Quinto, I wanted to follow up on what you said
    about the Millennium Challenge Corporation which provides
    foreign assistance. It seems like there is an opportunity right
    now. This MCC currently has a compact with the Philippines that
    is set to expire in May 2016 and is in the early stages of
    negotiating a second compact.
        What could we in Congress do to improve the situation with
    regard to land grabbing? I know that the MCC is not part of
    this hearing, but what, in your opinion, could we do to help
    the situation?
        Mr. Quinto. When Chairman Royce asked that question to Ms.
    Hyde, the CEO of the Millennium Challenge in the budget hearing
    on the conditions, the CEO of the Millennium Challenge, Ms.
    Hyde, said that if the land tenure is a problem, she will look
    into it, because all of the money that is coming from
    Millennium Challenge, the $\1/2\ billion, has guidelines, which
    is government accountability, rule of law, respect for property
    rights. And if they are not following those guidelines, the
    Philippines is in violation of the compact, the agreement.
        While we want the Philippines to be progressive, we also
    want everyone to have economic opportunity, not only for the
    few but for everyone. The land grabbing victims are not having
    any economic opportunities.
        So, to answer the question, in fact, Congressman Ted Lew
    sent a letter to Ms. Hyde, and she responded to communicate
    also this thing to the State Department. So they are waiting
    for the State Department also to make an action.
        Opportunity is here now. If you put conditions to the
    upcoming compact, I think the Philippines would reform in a few
    hours. They would say, ``We'll do it.'' They would not wait for
    1 year because there is a condition. America doesn't want
    American taxpayers that goes to waste, because if the
    Philippine Government would not follow the guidelines of the
    foreign funding, that is called wasteful spending.
        So I think conditions should be put on the next compact
    that is coming to the Philippines.
        Ms. Chu. So it sounds like other Congress members could
    also write letters to MCC saying that there should be such
    conditions.
        Mr. Quinto. Yes, because I think MCC CEO is also waiting
    for an answer from the State Department. The land grabbing
    victims--what I have been telling the Philippine Government,
    Congresswoman, is if these people would be able to get into
    their land, it would create employment. The biggest problem in
    the Philippines now is employment. I said who would be the
    carpenter? Who would be the plumber? Who would be the
    electrician? Do you think the owners? They would hire
    contractors. And these farms, do you think they would be the
    ones taking care of all this livestock? They would hire people,
    and they would have more income. They have problems with tax
    collection, low tax collection. They would have more tax
    collection. They would have more employment being built.
        So this is the same thing as what Hernando de Soto reported
    to Congressman Royce, creating a bigger economy.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. This has been
    very fascinating for me to listen to your tales of woe, and
    they are tales of woe, and I sympathize, and I know all
    Americans sympathize with the little guy who is being oppressed
    by the big guy. That is what we are hearing about.
        We do have that problem in our own country, however, and
    let us note that we have a major problem with eminent domain
    abuse in our country. So while we are looking at the problems
    overseas, I hope we all take to heart that we won't permit this
    to happen here.
        It is interesting that I have a friend who came here from a
    country, from Ethiopia, when his family left when the
    communists took over, and the communists took over his father's
    business, and he came here and now spends his entire time in a
    law firm that defends American property owners against abusive
    use of eminent domain to steal their property right here in our
    country.
        So we have to take that into consideration, that we are not
    perfect here, but we have a perfect ideal. We have the ideal of
    what America is supposed to be and what our Founding Fathers
    meant it to be, and that motivates us not only to hear but to
    side with people in other countries who share that vision, that
    ideal of humankind.
        Mr. Royce was absolutely correct about rule of law
    basically when it comes to title. If you do not have a title,
    as Mr. Royce pointed out, there is no collateral. If there is
    no title, there are no loans. If there are no loans, there are
    now businesses being created. And if there are no businesses
    being created, there are no jobs being created. So this is a
    very vicious cycle that starts with, number one, a respect for
    the rule of law, and then, because you have to have a judge
    that is giving you a proper assessment, a legal assessment and
    decision about the title itself.
        So what we are talking about here is unless we correct the
    basic problems that we are talking about today, there will be
    no prosperity. In the Philippines, where they have a large
    degree of freedom when it comes to freedom of speech and
    freedom of religion and freedom of the press, or Cambodia where
    they don't have a large degree, or Vietnam where they have none
    of them, we know that these countries will not prosper and
    people will not live well unless that type of basic reform
    happens.
        I would like to go into one last area of questioning, and I
    am just sort of probing here. Who ended up with the land there,
    what you were talking about, Mr. Rogers, in Boeung Kak Lake?
    Who ended up with that land?
        Mr. Rogers. It is a senator who is a senator in the ruling
    party, the CPP, that has a company called Pheapimix, who owns
    huge tracts of land throughout Cambodia and is being given
    many, many concessions.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Did they sell any of that land, or the
    lake, did they sell any of it to the Chinese?
        Mr. Rogers. Not that I know of. I think it is still in the
    process of being developed. They are filling in the lake with
    sand, which is causing terrible floods in Phnom Penh, and they
    are going to develop it themselves as far as I know.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. It has been my understanding that China is
    pumping large amounts of money into the Philippines and into
    Southeast Asia, and I am just wondering whether or not that
    money, for example that senator that you are talking about,
    whether or not he plans to sell that to somebody who may have
    already contracted with him to get that property. Our friends
    from the Philippines, are there any negative situations being
    caused by Chinese investment that you know of? No? Okay. I am
    just probing, trying to find out where we can document that,
    because I have been told by several people that that is
    becoming a problem, that this Chinese investment comes with the
    corruption of local officials, who then do the bidding of a
    very powerful foreign investor rather than watching out for the
    interests of their own people.
        Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Chairman.
    I have enjoyed it. This has been very illuminating, and I hope
    that again we don't forget any American citizen who is
    incarcerated anywhere in the world where they are trying to
    promote the values that we believe in. We know there is one
    case in Cambodia that we are not going to forget, and we hope
    that justice is done to our friends in the Philippines as well.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
        I thank the members of the committee. Some traveled greater
    distances, some not so much.
        We appreciate the staff who have come here today.
        We appreciate the great witnesses that we have had.
        And I can't tell you how much I appreciate what a polite
    and wonderful group of attendees have been here today. I am
    sure many are from Cambodia and many from the Philippines. We
    are just thrilled to have you here today and really appreciate
    your courtesy.
        Rest assured, this is a serious issue. The chairman of the
    full committee has a penchant for staying with something until
    it gets resolved. He is very well known for that in Congress,
    and we are thrilled to be here with him today.
        With that having been said, we are going to adjourn the
    committee. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

             Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a
    Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]