chris took the lead story usa today american support air travel profiling. they believe to whether the president's response to the bombing went far enough. they said three to one they favored the idea of subtracting airline passengers to more intensive security checks if they fit a profile of terrorist based on age, ethnicity and gender. good idea? something that goes closely to the israeli model. even if you are going for the right reasons, they still make you break out in a cold sweat. it is human judgment. rather than having a bureaucratic model that says we are going to have any body scan, people find their way around the system.

we have to recognize the bureaucratic system is not going to work. we have to allow for some gray matter analysis. that person over there, for whatever reason, they are behaving suspiciously. we are going to ask him a couple of questions. people that are trained in this, they will be able to spot the kind of behavior that will warrant them from being pulled aside. host: next phone call. caller: i voted for george bush twice. i voted for president obama this time around. what the republicans have been doing for the past year or so it

iis anything and everything that deals with america is wrong. they know the right way, the way it should have been done. there is never an american way of doing things coming from the republicans. if it is not done by republicans, then it is the wrong way. do you think it is fair, people like me, who are independent, and a vote for people who they believe are on both sides -- not one side -- looking at everything from an american view? guest: i think you are exactly right. that is the environment that many of us hoped for when it came to washington.

that is what the president hoped for. there would be an american way, he was going to bring down the partisanship, and we began the year with a stimulus bill that must $787 billion which was passed with democratic votes. from my standpoint, rather than looking at the coalition's where there are democrats or republicans to support the stimulus plan, health care plan -- that really would enable us to move forward recognizing and that neither party is the repository for having the correct answer. i think, in some ways, the president is driven by the leadership in congress. harry reid and nancy pelosi helped the president make the decision to pass these legislative priorities. getting 218 democrats to vote

for a piece of legislation was an easier way to move for a rather than getting 60 democrats and 60 republicans moving legislation forward. they moved to the president in a position that said we recommend you take a more partisan approach and we not go along the bipartisan approach on three major pieces of legislation. i am disappointed by that. i was more than willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt a year ago to work on these issues but the leadership in the house and said that decided on these major pieces of legislation, they would go it alone. now you are seeing the final steps as we move through health care. negotiations will be held in secret with the only democrat in the room. two years ago, in the campaign,

we expected to see all of this on c-span. we were hoping to. but that is not the direction leadership in the house and senate will be moving to. we will end up with a partisan approach. on and disappointed by that, as much, if not more, then you are. host: next phone call. caller: good morning representative hoekstra. why do we continue to be on the defensive in screening people to get on their plans? -- good morning, representative hoekstra. host: what do you mean by that? caller: all the people trained to be suicide bombers are said to mecca and medina during the hajj.

i said to an intelligence director, i bet there are a lot of that people there. i think we ought to bomb mecca and medina -- guest: i am not sure how many are there for the hajj, but it is probably in the millions. an indiscriminate bombing is something that i would be opposed to it. that would be a relative, if not a very bad idea. right now within the muslim community, the number of individuals that have radicalized his very small. an indiscriminate bombing on their holy site would definitely be something that i cannot in courage. host: a comment on twitter --

guest: absolutely, we are at war with an ideology. we have to recognize it is an ideology. more importantly, muslims need to recognize there are some within that are trying to hijack their religion. they are going to be the most effective and most forceful in dealing with this issue within their religion. if you take a look at it, people say that this comes from the port, lack of economic development -- this young man from nigeria, he came from one end of the well-to-do families in the country. his father was a high-ranking thinker. it was the ideology that brought him in.

host: biloxi, robert, you are on the line. caller: let me give you some history. i m a u niter, not a divider. -- i am a uniter, not a divider. richard reid, the shoe bomber. you were in the head of the intelligence committee. i believe you are the person to correct some of the problems that happened, and now you are complaining because what you recommended did not work. i do not know where you are coming from. these past eight years of republicans -- are remember the energy bill. it was secret, if you recall. it was nothing obama had anything to do with, and now you say democrats are doing things in secret?

you guys kept locked in secret. -- a lot in secret. guest: we were on the weekend news shows with some other democrats, and we work tirelessly together. we were in nine years. i have not criticized the system we put in place, other than to say we addressed the problem of information-sharing. now we need to address the problem of the information analysis. i am more than willing to work with democrats and the president to make that happen. national security should be a bipartisan issue you will also find on the record unchallenged president bush pretty repeatedly on his on a willingness to share certain intelligence information,

information that i thought we were entitled to on the intelligence committee. just as i am challenging this president on sharing information on fort hood, i challenged the previous presidents. it is the congress's response ability to hold the executive branch accountable and to oversight, whether it is a republican, democrat, one of your members, or anyone else. richard reid, this is why we should try this guy in detroit in civilian court. just because we were wrong with him does not mean that we are run here. let us set a consistent pattern that as we move forward, let us try them in military courts. host: the headline in -- next phone call is from

michigan. you are on the line. caller: here is my presidential voting record, just so everyone knows. i voted for ronald reagan, bush, perot, clinton, gore, and obama. what do you think about dick cheney coming out and calling obama weak the day after the christmas day attack? as far as information-sharing goes, you hear about things that 9/11 commission did not pick up on. able danger was blocked by a military lawyers to share

information on purpose. what are your comments on that? guest: thank you. i understand some of the frustrations the former vice president may have to. repeatedly over the last 12 months, everything that is wrong with america has been blamed on the previous administration. i might prefer at this point in time to say, mr. cheney, kind of back off. i understand why he is speaking. he is proud of his track record. it is an imperfect track record on some of these national security cases, but it was a focused effort. he is saying, wait a minute, here is what we accomplished. it may not be perfect, but i want to set the record straight. the second thing on information- sharing.

you are right, i do not remember the specifics on the table danger, but prior to 9/11, we had boxes of information that could not cross the line from the intelligence world over to the fbi, homeland security. we have broken down those walls. when i am concerned about is, now that we are treating this as law enforcement, we are going to start building those walls again and information will not be shared. i cannot tell you how many times i have asked for information and the answer is we cannot share that information with you because we are involved in a legal process. but this information is important to understand the larger context of the threat we face. now i am worried about that,

that information which we cannot share with other people. this is what happened after fort hood. was there information that we had that was part of the investigative process that should have been handed over to the intelligence communities? host: last phone call. joe from oklahoma. caller: if we had all the information, we, the public, would be able to come back all this terrorism. i wonder if you are familiar with the book "final jihad." guest: not with that particular book. why don't you give me the particulars? caller: the first vice presidential pick for president bush, frank keating?

former cia, fbi, former governor of oklahoma. he was the first choice for vice president and elected not to do it. his brother wrote a book called "finally jihad" that described timothy mcveigh and blowing up a building. i imagine you are on the intelligence committee, so you know about these things. i wonder what you were doing, listening to yourself contradict yourself, talking about obama not leading the charge on terrorism when the heads of those house committees leading health care bill, who is leading

who? host: final thoughts on the intelligence system, what happened on christmas? guest: i think it gets to be a question of information and analysis. we have this data, so how do we push this information out? in reference to the caller, i hope we start declassifying more information and make it available to the american people. the recidivism rate of detainees from guantanamo. that is something important to think about as we released prisoners. i think there is allow a lot of information that would help the american people better

later. now live to chairman ike skelton

getting this hearing under way. >> the first hearing before this committee. we're certainly pleased that you could join us today and testify on recent security developmenting involving the country of china. also i wish to welcome willard's wife donna seated behind the good admiral and we welcome you, and if the admiral missteps a bit, why, you just whisper in his ear and help him out. welcome. this is a very important and a very timely hearing. it's interesting to note that just this morning press reports indicate that google is contemplating pulling out of china, which we may discuss a bit in our hearing. i'll stress for some time the critical significance of the developments in china to our national security. in recent years, while we've

been highly focused and events in the middle east and south asia, china's influence has grown in asia as well as beyond. and i'm pleased that the obama administration prioritized the united states and china's security relationship and encouraged by the joint statement that raumted from the president's recent visit to china. i welcome the administration's efforts to increase u.s. and china relations and cooperation in areas of common interests ranging from counterterrorism and nonproliferation to energy security. we must work together with china for the settlement of conflicts and reduction of retentions that contribute to global and regional instact including denuclearization of korean peninsula and the situation in south asia. i particular welcome the administration's support for increasing military to military contacts i've long viewed contacts is essential.

it builds trust, promotes understanding, prevents conflicts and it fosters cooperation, and given my own visits to china in recent years i know how important these relationships are. looking back at u.s./china security cooperation under the previous administration, there are positive steps, but there's still much progress to be reeved. in the new administration will continue to face many challenges and i remain concerned by trends and ambiguities regarding china's military modernization including china's missile buildup across from taiwan and the steady increase of china's power projects and capabilities. moreover, china's military budget continues a trend of double digit increases at a time when china provides more and more of the loans that support the american economy. china's transparency on defense issues is still limited and questions remain regarding china's strategic intentions.

this was highlighted days ago following china's concerning missile interseptember event. at the same time the reduction of tensions across taiwan state is a positive development. i hope 20 see further progress in that area, including meaningful action by china to reduce its military presence directly opposite to taiwan. i'm also encouraged by china's recent involvement in a counterpiracy operation in the gulf of aden. this demonstrates responsible use of chinese military power in line with its international responsibilities of which i hope we can see more. i continue to believe china is not necessarily destined to be a threat to our country, but there are trends and ambiguities that do concern us. i continue to believe that the united states must demonstrate our own interests in the asia-pacific region including our ability to project power effectively there. at the same time we must also

okay knowledge china's limit aces and recognize china's choices may well be shaped by our own actions. so i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the actions that the department of defense and the department of state are undertaking, and i hope they will help us better understand recent security developments involving that nation. i also look forward to receiving a 2010 department of defense annual report on this subject which is due to this committee in the month of march. however, before we begin i turn to my friend from california, the ranking member, bob mckeown. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for holding today's hearing on recent security developments involving the peoples republic of china. today's our first opportunity to examine the administration's policy towards china, and how such a policy is aligned with our overall approach to the region. this hearing also gives us a

forum to better understand china's military buildup and activities where they're expanding areas of influence around the globe. all of which have serious implications for the strategic posture of the united states. i'd also like to welcome our witnesses that chairman recognized and thank you all for being here today. i look forward to your testimony and our discussion. as i review our policy towards china, it's my understanding that president obama's team may follow an approach of strategic assurance as put forward by deputy secretary of state james steinberg. this strategy is based on the belief that china cannot be contained and, therefore, we, america, and the international community must accept its rise to power. in return, we seek china's reassurance that its stature will not come at the expense or security of other nations. for example, strategic assurance may be demonstrated in part via

china's cooperation with the united states and other nations on matters of shared interests. in particular with the last year we worked together in our handling of the global financial crisis, countering piracy off the east coast of africa and isolating north korea for its persistent and aggressive nuclear and missile tests. while these are positive steps in our relationship, we cannot ignore the reality that china still falls short in the column of reassurance. actions speak louder than words. here are a few examples. first, on monday china demonstrated its resolve to expand its strategic capabilities with a missile defense test. as of yesterday we heard from the pentagon this test was conducted without advance notification to the united states. what are xhin in a's intentions for employ as missile intercept system? once again we're left in the dark to questions of china's commitment to transparency and cooperation.

more concerning, this test comes at a time of tension over our arms sales to taiwan. is this test intended as an aggressive signal? second, according to the latest u.s. china economic and security commission report, i foet "there's been a marked increase in cyber intrusions originating in china and targeting u.s. government and defense related computer systems." an active they could potentially disrupt u.s. commercial and banking systems as well as compromise sensitive defense and military data." and the chairman remarked about google and the problem that they're having, and where we're moving in that direction. third in march 2009, a chinese naval vessel behaved in an aggressive manner towards the "uss impeccable" despite its rights with its maritime exclusive zone, this incident

indicates its willingness to violate international law and increases risks of china's expanding military operations in areas where u.s. forces routinely operate. independently these examples are a cause of concern, but more so when seen under an umbrella of marked uncertainties surrounding china's future course in terms of its military and security ambitions. i'd like to now turn to the neighborhood in which china resides bringing plea to the president's recent trip to asia. while some see the u.s./china joint statement as a significant accomplishment from my view we're merely left with a laundry list of issues that need to be worked out. furthermore i'm deeply concern with a message we sent to our partners in the region. from australia to india, the trip raised questions about who has the upper hand in the u.s./china relationship? at a time when we should be

focused on reaffirming our commitment to the region we left many doubt be the depth and breadth of american power and influence. for example, in this 2009 defense white paper, the government of australia states -- excuse me -- we also need to consider the circumstances of a more dramatic and in defense planning terms sudden deterioration in our strategic outlook. while currently unlikely, a transformation of major power relations in the u.s. pacific region would have a profound effect on our strategic circumstances. of particular concern would be any dim mun nugs of the willingness or capacity of the united states to act as a stabilizing force. i hope each of you will give concrete examples ever what we're doing to alleviate these doubts. finally, in just a few weeks, the department of defense will

submit its 2010 quadrennial defense review to congress. shortly afterwards we'll receive the nuclear posture review. in the 2006 qvr the pentagon odored china was as strategic crossroads that had the greatest potential to compete militarily with the united states. in its 2009 annual report to congress on china's military power, the department maintained that the pace and scope of china's military transformation continued to increase. fueled by the acquisition of advanced foreign weapons. also similar to years' past it noted that china continues to develop and field disruptive technologies. including those for access and area denial as well as nuclear cyber and space warfare. when we received the qdr i'll be looking closely at any changes to the department's assessment of china. my theory is we will downgrade the attempt it an attempt to

justify last years end futch e cuts to key defense programs. if the conclusion is the same as it was in 2006, then i expect the president's budget to invest in the necessary capabilities to execute our contingency plans in asia. this is the type of strategic reassurance our allies need and is the key to stability in asiab

a word to the members. we will be back in our old haunts, the committee room, around the 1st of next month. so it will be much more convenient for us than it's going to look very, very good. i'm very pleased with what i saw yesterday. each of the witnesses today, as i understand it, have statements to make and we will call on admiral willard first. admiral? >> thank you, chairman skelton, representative mckeehan, and members ever this committee.

chairman, thank you very much for introducing my wife donna who joins me today. she's been a military spouse for 36 years in addition to being a mom and a grandmother, and she's now very much a joint spouse at pacific command with oversight of the needs of army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard families. as well as families of our civilian workers with pay com. i'm pleased to have her here as we. thank you, sir. i've now been in command of the united states pacific command for about three months. and although i may be new to pay com, i've commanded extensively in the asia-pacific region. consequently during my 36 years of service, i've developed a great respect for this part of the world. in that time i've come to believe that now more than ever it's vital to our national security interests and economic prosperity.

in previous tours as now, the emergence of chine in and its military has ban reteen topic of decision in my interaction with regional leaders. of concern the most, reconciling china's declared desire tore a peaceful and stable environment for economic development with a new military capability and capacity that appeared designed to challenge international freedoms of action and potentially enforce influence over regional nations. reconciliation of these two divergent positions can only occur through continuous, frank conversations and mutual actions with a strong and mature military to military relationship. a relationship that does not yet exist between the united states military and the pla. and until it does, and it's determined that china's intent is indeed benign, it's critical that we maintain the readiness

of our forward deployed forces, continually reinforce our commitment to our allies and partners in the region, and meet each challenge by the people's republic of chine had in a in a professional manner consistent with international law. it's clearly in both nations interest and the asia-pacific region's interests to manage these complexities and to develop a relationship with china that is constructive in every way. at u.s. pacific command our goal is to support this relationship by identifying opportunities that allow us to work more closely with china. while also encouraging her to reconcile strategic intent with increasingly sophisticated combat capabilities. congress can assist by maintaining a focus not only on china but on the growing importance of the asia-pacific region to our nation and to our global partners. our messages during engagement

with chinese leadership both in beijing and during our visits to washington, d.c. must be consistent, resolute and invoke the nation's principles an values. i offer my staff's support, direct support to you during travels to the region and invite to you stop in honolulu and visit u.s. pacific command on your way to or from this area of responsibility. finally, i would like to thank this committee for the strong support you provide to the men and women of our united states military. despite being involved in two wars, a retention in recruiting rates remain very strong, which is a direct reflection ever the quality of life initiative supported by you and by the american people. on behalf of more than 300,000 men and women of u.s. pacific command, please accept my sincere appreciation for the work that you do for us and for this great nation. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions.

>> thank you admiral. secretary gregson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear today to discuss recent military and security developments in the peoples republic of china. i'm pleased to be joined by old friends and colleagues admiral willard and mr. david sheer. china's rap it rise as a regional political and economic power with growing global influence has significant implications for the asia pacific region, the united states and the world. these developments occur in a dynamic environment with little historical precedent. as secretary gates said during the past three decades an enormous swath of asia has changed almost beyond recognition. hundreds of millions emerged from poverty to higher living standards as a result of cooperation, openness and mutual security. new and re-emerging centers of power alike are realizing

extraordinary growth and development. from india to indonesia, china to russia and australia to japan, millions have moved from poverty to prosperity. china's rapid development to help drive this extraordinary and dynamic growth. in turn china's gains greatly from asia's growth. the united states welcomes a strong prosperous and successful china as president obama stated, the relationship between the united states and china will shape the 21st century which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world. but this development occurs as new challenges emerge. our newest security issues cover a very wide range. these include economics, regional areas of tension, terrorism, proliferation, energy supplies, piracy, the effects of chimt change and disasters both man-made and natural. they are increasingly

interconnected, the world, and common demands for resources require cooperation and integrated solutions. since the committee's last hearing on this topic, we have seen several significant developments. some positive. others troubling. many are documented in the secretary of defense's annual report on military power ever the people's republic of china. on one hand, we had several positive examples of china's contribution to international peace and stability. we are encouraged by china's support for u.n. security council resolution 1874 and its efforts to support the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. china is also developing emergency military capabilities allowing it to contribute cooperatively in the delivery of publy goods from peacekeeping and counterpiracy to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. we appreciate the positive experience of our two navies working in concert with the international community to combat piracy in the gulf of

aden, and we are looking forward to building on these experiences. but we have concerns about the pace, scope and lack of transparency in china's military modernization. the people's liberation army is changing from a mass army designed for protracted wars ever attrition on its own territory to one developed for winning short duration, high intensity conflicts on its periphery against high-tech adversaries. weapons material to is a this are procured from both foreign sources and at an increasingly capability industrial and technical base. organizational and doctoral changes as well as technologies designed for anti-denial nuclear space and cyber space arenas. modern expansion of military capabilities across the taiwan strait continues with the addition of more missiles and enhanced air surface and undersea capabilities. over the past several years china developed and articulated

rules and missions for the pla that go beyond immediate territorial issues. we will continue to use military engagement with the prc to democraten stras u.s. commit to the asia-pacific region and act as a partner in addressing common security challenges. we will maintain and enhance our presence and alliances in asia and clearly demonstrate u.s. resolve. our interests lie as they have for the decades of asia's rise in constructive engagement with china combined with a strong network of alliances and partnerships throughout the region. thank you and i appreciate the opportunity to be here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. secretary sheer? >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. my colleagues from the department of defense have already addressed our military to military relations with shine in a. so my remarks focus on the

president's november trip to asia as well as our broader security goals regarding china and the region. since coming to office, president obama has repeatedly stated that the united states welcomes it's emergence of china and that's in an interconnected world. power does nod need to be a zero sum game. we welcome an international role for china in which its growing economy is joined by growing responsibility. and i would reiterate our desire that as the chinese economy grows, they become a responsible member of the international community. president obama's trip to asia in november 2009 with stops in japan, singapore, china and south korea was intended to demonstrate the u.s. commitment to the region, build trust, or tick late values on issues such as human rights and strengthen and expand our cooperation with china. the trip was productive in this regard. during his first ever visit to

china, the president deepened his acquaintens with his chinese counterparts and demonstrated the importance of cooperating on such issues as iran, north korea and afghanistan. the president set the stage for further cooperation with china in preparation for the copenhagen conference on climate change. he discussed exchange rates and trade, clean energy, military to military exchanges, human rights and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. we outlined the key accomplishments of the visit in a joint statement issued by president obama and president jintao on november 17th. it has been said before that in order to get china right, you have to get the region right. the united states is a vital contributory asian security and economic pross pirarosperity. our active presence promotes regional stability and security. we intend to deepen our

engagement and strengthen our leadership in the region strengthening commitments to allies and partners and enhancing involvement in regional institutions. the secretary addressed these issues as well as our presence in the region in and important speech in honolulu yesterday. the president's trip to china democraten -- and the region demonstrated the importance we place on east asia, which remains vital to the u.s. security and prosperity. in the november joint statement, the chinese recognized the positive role the united states plays in east asia by stating that china welcomes the united states as an asia-pacific nation that krints to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. the trip was also a continuation of our efforts to build a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship between the united states and china. as president obama has said, the ability of the united states and china to partner with each other is a pre-requisite for progress

on some of the most important issues of our times. those issues include several important security challenges. issues such as north korea and iran cannot be successfully addressed without intensive and sustained involvement by china. to date, we've been encouraged by china's willingness to cooperate with these areas, although we have a lot of work to be -- there is a lot of work to be done. we obviously do not see eye to eye with the chinese on every issue. for example, on taiwan, the united states remains committed to our one china policy based on the three joint communiques and the taiwan relations act. we believe this policy is contributed greatly to the peace and stability of the past several decades and we remain committed to that framework. we welcome the improvement in crossstraight relations over the past year. at the same time we have voiced our concerns about china's rapid

military modernization program as it relation to taiwan. china's continued military buildup across the taiwan strait despite improvements in crossstate relations raises@@@ b i'd

reich to say a little something on the subject of google. as you all may know, google made a statement yesterday about a cyber attack on its facilities allegedly originating from china. and secretary clinton made a strong statement on this yesterday, which i'd like to repeat for you all. she said -- we have been briefed by google on these allegations which raise very serious concerns and questions. we look to the chinese government for an explanation. the ability to operate with confidence in cyber space is critical in a modern society and economy. the secretary also said she will be giving an address next week on the centrality of internet freedom in the 21st century and we have further comment on this

matter at the facts become clear. the second will deliver a speech on internet freedom next thursday that was scheduled before google's announcement. she has been very engaged on the issue of internet freedom and anticipated the need to stake out clear policy ground on this subject. the secretary had dinner with ten executives of leading high-tech companies last week and discussed internet freedom during that dinner. she has been actively listening and learning from those seamed executives, including google ceo schmidt. she takes this issue very, very seriously. and we have been in touch with google subsequent to their contact with secretary clinton, and we have been in contact with all of the agencies dealing with cyber security on this issue, and we will be happy to remain in touch with you on this subject. >> thank you very much. secretary shear. a question to admiral willard

and secretary gregson. what is the major security challenge our country has with china? and to secretary shear what is the major non-security challenge we have with china? admiral? >> chairman skelton, i think a major security challenge is the level of uncertainty that exists in attempting to reconcile the public statements that china makes regarding its long-term intent, which is generally that it characterizes its military capabilities and capacities as defensive only, and seeks peaceful and harmonious environment in which to grow its economy and prosper.

with a military capability that is not necessarily consistent with that characterization of the future, in that the power projection capabilities, the capabilities capacities, both in asymmetric areas and conventional areas tend to exceed that description. that ambiguity that currently exists and our attempts to reconcile that are the security issue that we, we hope to tackle in a military to military dialogue with our prc counter parts. >> secretary gregson? >> i would only add to the admiral's remarks that we remain particularly concerns about their ongoing developments in the nuclear arena, cyberspace as secretary shear eloquently discuss and space capabilities.

their development in the air and maritime realms fit in there but particularly nuclear, cyberspace and space capabilities constitute a potential asymmetrical threat to our ways of doing business. we watch all of this very carefully. >> thank you. secretary? secretary shear? >> let me discuss the major non-security challenges by sharing with you our priorities for our non-security relationship with china. number one priority is coordinating with china on the global financial crisis. economic recovery is president obama's number one priority and economic recovery and how we coordinate with the chinese on this subject is the number one issue on our agenda with the chinese. we want the chinese to rebalance their economy as we rebalance ours. china will need -- chinese

people will need to save less and consume more. we would like to see the chinese economy shift away from its emphasis on heavy industry export oriented industry. we seek the chinese pursuit of a market oriented flexible exchange rate. all of these issues came up in the president's meetings in beijing with his chinese counterparts. his second priority is cooperation with china on international security issues sump as iran and north korea, and the third priority is a coordination with the chinese on the subject of climate change and i think on climate change we achieved some progress both with the chinese and the international community in the context of the copenhagen conference several weeks ago.

>> mr. mckeown? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening statement i highlighted some of the concerns when it comes to our policy approach towards china, from what i can gather from last year's annual report to congress, you share some of the same concerns regarding china. a shift in strategic priorities and behavior especially as it expands its need to access to more markets and natural resources opinion expanding and improving disruptive military technologies in areas sump as space and cyberspace, a lack of transparency when it comes to military budget intentions and decision-making, and its increasing leverage around the region and around the world. gentlemen what precisely is the president's china policy? how is it different from his predecessor? and how will it seek to address these shared concerns?

i want to start with you, admiral. >> thank you, sir. i think from the military standpoint, our approach to china is very much twofold. it is first and foremost to seek to grow a relationship with china that encourages their constructive contributions to the security issues in the asia-pacific region. it's the purpose behind a military to military dialogue. it's the reason for our emphasis to the chinese on the need for continuity, some constancy in terms of that dialogue. we think that it's lagging behind the other engagements between our nation and the people's republic of china. secondarily on the issue of the ambiguities that currently

exist, the inconsistent sis that we deal with in the asia-pacific region, we bear the responsibility to ensure our forward presence and the readiness of our forces in the region to assure our allies and partners in the region and to continue to grow those relationships as secretary gregson described in his opening comments. so as to maintain a security in the region that we've frankly been responsible for for the past 150 years. so we will maintain our presence in the region as robustly as we have in the past, as we continue to engage the chinese in dialogue and hopefully foster an improved relationship and get to some of the ambiguities that has been discussed thus far this morning. >> thank you, secretary gregson? >> in the president's words stated to the chinese at the

security and economic dialogue as well as in beijing, we seek a positive cooperative and comprehensive relationship with china. the secretary, secretary gates' sberps or his characterization of our policy is that china is not a strategic adversary, a partner in some respects but competitive in others. our defense strategy released in 2008 states, as you mentioned a chinese potential for competing with the united states, and u.s. interaction will be long term and involve peace time engagements as much as it involves field and military capabilities. it's impossible to separate our engagement with china from our engagement with the region. our consistent and increased engagement with the region, our enhancements of our alliances and partnerships there in the, not only in the east asian region but increasingly through

the indian ocean area will be essential to us shaping the environment that will allow us to also shape or develop comprehensive relationships with the chinese. >> secretary shear? >> in order to build a positive cooperative and comprehensive relationship, we are engaging with the chinese to seek out common interests and common interests and devise ways of pursuing those common interests together. this is a -- not an easy task. it's, it can be very challenging. while we share common interests, our interests are not always identical, and our bilateral relationship with china, our approach to the region as a whole as well as through maintaining our military strength in the region are all part of a comprehensive approach to developing a relationship with china.

>> thank you. china has, they're shifting away from labor intensive operations and moving towards increasing production of high technology goods. they've matured as a manufacturer and assembler of advanced technology products. they've created an attractive environment for foreign companies to make investments with increased subsidies, tax incentives and professor reshl loans, at the same time we're hearing concerns from industry that defense policy changing, emerging from the qdr coupled with recent anticipated cuts in dodd spending will force u.s. industry to divest itself of certain capabilities, reduce our production lines and inhabit innovation. gentlemen, as the president develops hi china policy, to what extent does u.s. industrial policy enter into his decision-making? concern about our workforce.

do you share my concern that the united states industrial base may be unable to sustain the technological innovation that's been the hallmark of the u.s. military given the current fiscal environment? can you provide specific examples how the president's china policy seeks to address china's unfair trade policies and ensure that the u.s. military continues to have access to the manufacturing capacity technological capacity and strategic materials necessary to equip our war fighters in the future? >> if i may start, congressman, with regard to china's unfair trade practices. we have a multitrade with cline has includes pursuing cases in the wto on chinese unfair trade practices and we achieved several successes last year in this regard, particularly with

the protection of intellectual property rights. we are also informing, enforcing our laws and regulations on trade and the president's decision on the 421 case is a case in point. again, we are also vigorously pursuing the chinese on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. overall, as we -- as we seek -- as we pursue economic recovery, i think attention to our technological capabilities will be central to the administration's approach to both the economy as a whole and to our economic relationship with china. >> admiral? >> representative mckeowckeown, industrial base and the production of our military

capacities is with my scope and i would only offer that the work that you do as a committee to help to strengthen the united states industrial base on behalf of its military, the attention that you pay that, and i know that secretary gates' emphasis on doing what we can to sttdjáarbrbárbrbrbrb

they're able to procure certain items of foreign military goods and technology and then reverse engineer it to suit their needs. at the same time, it's industrial espionage is not unknown. our intelligence agencies and teg knowledge control agencies exercise vigorous control as possible to ensure that we not only prohibit unauthorized american transfers of technologies to china but also that our other partners around the world abate, our tech control restrictions. behind the industrial base, of course, is also the american educational base, and i think that we need to make sure that our-- that base, the colleges and universities, the quality of the graduates we are producing is maintained. we have the advantage of

qualified students from all over the world that want to come to the united states to go to our schools and we are enriched by that process, as is our entire educational and then on into the industrial and technical base. we need to make sure that we maintain that as a priority so that we can meet the goal that you set out that we maintain our advantages. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman? >> i thank the gentlemen. doctor snyder? >> appreciate you all being leer. secretary gregson, hard to believe it's been about 40 year since your vietnam days. right? we appreciate your service there as a marine. a young marine in vietnam. i want to drek my questions to you, mr. shear, because of limit aces on time. admiral and secretary, feel free to join in if want to augment what mr. shear has to say. mr. shear what do you -- what

does the chinese government perceive as their greatest existential threat? >> i think chinese security goals. chinese pursuit of security goals, i think the number one goal is preservation of the clinese communist party. i think the chinese communist party is concerned about the prospects for social stability in china. i think they spend a lot of time in resources trying to ensure that the vast social and economic changes they're undergoing do not shake their rule of china. >> so as the chinese -- as the chinese government sitting there looking ahead, they see their greatest constituents, not the united states, not taiwan. not the japanese or any other foreign entity. they see their greatest

existential threat as something happening internally? is that a fair -- >> yes i think the chinese pay a lot of attention to internal security and internal stability. and there is a number one -- number one goal for them. >> would you -- i forget the length of time it's been since we had that devastating earthquake from china i i think caught the world's attention probably longer than some of the tragedies do because of what happened to the school buildings, and i was surprised by the level of cracking down the chinese government exerted on parents trying to find out what happened. as you look back at that, how do you analyze what occurred with regard to the internal discussions, internal investigations that that occurr around the destruction of the school houses? >> i agree. the destruction of the school houses, the loss of lives and

the overall destruction is tragic. we did everything we could to help the chinese recover from that. >> i'm interested in stifling the investigation internally about what occurred. the building codes in the school building. >> my belief is that the chinese government has conducted an investigation and that they have concluded that they need to improve building codes. they have not been transparent to which they have conducted this investigation. they have as you say repressed on this subject. it was very interesting watching the chinese public's reaction to the earthquake however. there was a great deal of spontaneous reaction on the internet, voluntary groups arose spontaneously for communication on the internet and a lot of

chinese up and volunteered to go to 7 wan to help it out. >> about the number one threat they perceived. the parents will find out why their children died because of bad local government policies and approval of building codes. isn't that an indication of evidence for your first statement. is that a fair analysis? >> i agree. >> i wanted to ask, you are a linguist and have a lengthy

state department experience. where are we at with regard to the development of chinese language skills amongst our folks here that aspire to be both part of the military and part of the group, but also the state department. where are we at with chinese language? >> the state department itself has an extensive language program in washington and in beijing. i myself was one of the first, the first foreign service officer to study chinese in mainland china after 1949. i went to the johns hopkins center, but -- >> the fact that we have an aggressive program is an indication that we don't have language skills. where do you see that? terms of -- as we move ahead? >> i agree that we need more chinese language skills developed within the american public at large. we have seen great growth in chinese language teaching in

high schools and at the university level. in this regard the president announced a very strong initiative during his trip to increase the number of american students in china to 100,000 over four years. we will be working to implement that in the coming weeks and months. >> thank you for your service. >> relative to doctor snyder's question, i would like to suggest that china has two concerns that largely eliminate their very aggressive build up. the first is taiwan. the tiny island the size of maryland and 3/4 is inhabitable. 1,300 million people. taiwan can declare independence like other regions like tibet and see the empire unraveling if taiwan can do that and i hope to

resolve this. i think china will do anything necessary militarily to keep taiwan from declaring independence. the 2nd major concern they have and admiral, you mentioned that on the 8th page of your prepared testimony. i have nine numbers to china three years ago to talk about energy and they began discussion of energy by talking about host oil. we in the congress have a lot of trouble seeing beyond the next election and business community is focused on the next quarterly report. the chinese are looking ahead decades and generations and they will indeed be a post oil world. the chinese are now aggressively buying up oil all over the world and good will. i ask the state department, why would they buy up oil. in today's world it makes no difference who comes with the global auction with the dollar

that buys the oil. who makes the oil makes no difference. the chinese were buying oil because they didn't understand the market place. they understand the market place very well and think that the future, the chinese will tell us guys, i'm sorry. we own the oil and we cannot share it with the world. to make that a reality, they have to have a navy big enough and spread dploeglobally for th passage of this oil. to the extent that we use 1 slash cingular 4 of the world's oil and done nothing to reduce demand, we think we haven the day that the chinese will tell us we are not going to share our oil with the world. what should be our policy relative to energy? i think it's an over arching issue that oil is $80 a barrel

and the world will never have sustained good times until we do something meaningful about alternative energy. we the world have done nothing meaningful about aggressive conservation or alternative energy. when wha ought we be doing to avoid this real potential threat from the chinese to deny us access to oil because they own it. >> congressman, we are pursuing the dialogue with chinese on the subject of energy security in which we raised our concerns about chinese efforts to lock up oil reserves with long-term contracts. we will continue to engage them on this subject at very senior levels. >> engaging on the subject is quite irrelevant. as long as we continue to be largely dependent and increasingly dependent on foreign oil, we have no

meaningful program of conservation or development of alternative energy to wean us from what oil is. oil is an incredible energy source. the quantity and quality is unmatched anyone in liquid fuels. to the extent that this one person uses 1/4 of the world's oil and to the extent that this continues, do we not make inevitable this confrontation over energy? >> we share your concerns on this subject. our energy security dialogue with the chinese is aimed at avoiding meaningful leadership action. sir, i don't see that. do you see it? >> we have worked with the chinese to increase their

cooperation with the international energy agency. we have seen progress there and the chinese were building an oil reserve and emergency oil reserve which we welcome. we are going to keep pursuing this issue with the chinese. i would suggest we ought to confirm that collectively we do not precipitate huge crisis over energy. thank you. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to all of you and for your services. if i can follow-up on my colleague's question, how would you characterize china's energy dependency as the defense policy. would you say that to a great extent or if you would like to characterize that for us.

how is it used the military technologies as incentives to secure energy deals s. that a large part of their policy or to a lesser extent and what should we do about that? >> i will defer to my colleagues on this subject. >> thank you. >> we see china increasingly developing the ability to get and move beyond concerns of territorial defense and moving around the world to protect their access to energy sources. it drives a lot of foreign policy. we developed on the chinese navy thinking on the lines of communication from the persian gulf and saudi arabia is their biggest supplier of oil and angola is the 2nd. the chinese are concerned with

energy extraction and mineral extraction in central asia and other areas. it is a definite driver on the policy. sale of military technology is a concern particularly to states that are a keen interest to us such as sudan and others where@f energy, is that an issue that has some transparenciy in discussion or would you say

again that that's of great concern to us that we are not able to impact greatly? >> i think the chinese have been quite vocal regarding their concerns over the lines of communication in particular. as it relates to the movement to include their trade and as well energy and other natural resources. they refer to in particular the malaka problem, their choke point, all of our choke point at the straight of malaka and the value and experience of protecting and securing the sea lions to include the choke points that exist between the sources of those natural resources and commerce and china itself. secretary gregson i think said

it well. the expansion in the naval capacity and the air forces certainly has a dimension to it that has to do with securing their regional commercial interest. how far that will extend beyond the asia pacific region and the satellite and east china sea into the indian ocean region remains to be seen. they are demonstrating the capability to operate at longer ranges by virtue of their assistance to the international counter piracy issue and gulf now. their ability to sustain their operations there. >> would you say in the development of our relationships and that we are working with that in a more cooperative way or again, not having quite the ability to have that on a level

of discussion we are seeking. what are we doing about that? >> at the same time we are discussing with the chinese energy security and regional security issues and at the same time we are seeking more transparency from the chinese and defense and security policies. we are also strengthening our relationships throughout the region and particularly in southeast asia. secretary clinton visited southeast asia three times last year. she is in the region again. as we speak, that remaining in contact with our friends and allies throughout the region, particularly in southeast asia will be an important role in our addressing this. >> if i may touch on one aspect on transparency, it's not strictly a defense equity, but there is active engagement in

the specific and educational communities on refund development between china and the united states. it occurs in conferences and efforts under the cog zens of the department of energy and interior. so that's one encouraging sign that there is thought to life beyond oil. >> thank you. >> thank you jeptle lady and gentlemen from virginia. >> i want to begin by thanking you for not just this hearing, but asking a lot of tough questions about china and the united states relationships before many members of congress did that. i appreciate your leadership and thank you so much for your service and for your wife's service. i know that's a partnership team and for all of your staff. i know the heavy work that you had to do to come to a hearing. mr. secretary, we appreciate all of you being here. i will try to ask my question and we will have short and

succinct answers. i love for you to extrapolate on the record, but we only have five minutes before the microphone goes dead. i looked at your testimony and as i read that testimony, china currently has 290 ships in the navy. am i accurate in that assessment? >> roughly. >> that number doesn't exist in a vacuum. isn't it significant that we try to extrapolate or get some idea of what their ship building plan actually is so we know how many ships they are going to be building over the next several months if we want to project our strength against theirs? >> of course. >> sorry that a component to our evaluation? >> it is part of a broad evaluation of china. >> if we look according to the 2009 military power of people's republic of china report produced by the pentagon, the estimate was that they had 260

ships. is that correct? >> i would have to go back and see that. >> it was so we missed it by about 30 ships. how many ships do we currently have roughly in our navy now? >> in the pacific command, i have access to about 180 ships. >> overall in the navy? >> about 283. >> about 283. according to the report given to us, they had 260 ships. again, as one component. fewer ships than we did. they had more than we do. again, i know that's one component to lock at, but it shows the importance and significance of having an idea of what plan they are undertaking so we know whether that is accurate. mr. secretary, i would like to ask you if the united states

currently has a ship building plan. not whether it's being modified or not whether you like it or me what it is. do we currently have a ship building plan for the united states of america as you know it from the department of defense? >> there is a plan as delinea d delineated. >> are you aware this department of defense is supposed to give the united states congress that ship building when they smitd the budget so we would know and make the same comparisons that the admiral would talk about and knowing about the ship that is the chinese had that we were supposed to have that submitted to us at the time the budget was submitted? >> it's not our intention to ignore any requirements from congress. >> i'm asking if you know that was the law or not. >> i did not. >> and the question i would ask you, mr. secretary, if you

could, supply for the record at some particular point, if that plan exist, i would submit the law require that we get a copy to make the same comparison. secondly, this committee unanimously had a congressional inquiry demanding that you comply with the law and give it to us. we haven't had it. i ask that you submit for the record to us the legal justification of why you refused to give the united states congress their ship building plan. i would also submit for the record because i won't have time, how we can legitimately talk about the lack of transparency with china when we won't submit our own plan to the united states congress.

for the record, i was excited to think about the victories. that's with the economy with china and we want to get them publicized. we would love to have them so we can talk about them and get them out. thank you so much for your service and being here. >> i might point out that one of the most memorable congressional moments was when along with mr. forbes we planted the tree in memory of the american flyer who is flew the hump and those who were part of the flying tigers in the 2nd world war. i hope that you will be able to revisit that place and give us an update on the tree we

planted. the vessels that defend and have to refuel every to five days. a logical assumption is that weak link in our carrier task forces the oiler that supplies that destroyer or cruiser that

protects the carrier. if i'm a potential enemy of the united states, i will not hit us where we are strong, i will hit where we are weak. it is my understanding that we have a limited number of oilers in the pacific. between 8 and 12. the logical part is the weaknesses and exploring them. the ied in iraq. what steps is the navy taking? should some scenario develop in the pacific where a potential enemy's first step is to take out the eight or 12 oilers. does the fleet then fail to sail because one of the things that the congressman impressed upon is our need for energy dependence in the long-term. one of the ways we can achieve that is we know with a nuclear power surface combatant, each one can save about 10 million

gallons of fuel per ship per year. you don't need that oiler. you lose that weak link. we passed legislation that said the next generation is going to be a nuclear power. what i don't see is the navy taking any steps to implement that. that's one thing. the 2nd thing is the short-term. you only have eight or 12 of this thing that is vital. what steps does the navy have as a back up. should a clever foe decide to take out the oilers. what's the back up plan and what are we doing in the short-term to increase the numbers so the worst case scenario doesn't happen? >> thank you. you bring up some provocative issues and that is how we handle some of the tactical level risks to our force compliment when we conduct a major scale operations.

certainly our protection of our tanking assets at sea. it's a major factor in our planning. and in the way in which we attempt to mitigate potential vulnerabilities. i think to your point regarding nuclear power, we gain great flexibility and our submarines being nuclear power. as you suggest we rely on the refueling. i would offer that you refuel at sea and in port. when we are operating in the western pacific the approach is to complete both of those. we also have the capability to exercise rather rarely to refuel our surface ships from our carriers themselves. our big deck ships have the

opportunity to conduct refueling. of our smaller escort ships. between protection operations around them and the various ways in which we can take advantage of geography and the force compliment to conduct refueling. we managed this problem and our naval commanders are tasked. this is keenly an area we have to focus on and the adequacy of our tanky fleet to be able to ensure that we have the freedom of actions that we require in our operations. it's very important. >> admiral, if i may? >> please. the chairman will gavel this thing in 20 seconds.

i laid out my concerns. would you have someone at your convenience and hopefully in the near future com visit with me in detailed and indepth answer that you will be able to give in public. >> actions may be .

>> what the level of tension is at all. before you were an admiral, we have troops there and the question here is china's role in being able to influence actions in north korea, particularly with their nuclear missile activities.

how you see china, where china is now and both of those issues, relationship with taiwan and the potential for military action there. how china is doing in helping us get back to the six-party talks and what's going on in north korea. >> thank you for those questions. i will go quickly so my colleagues can jump in. since the election, taiwan and china have undertaken a series of actions that we find favorable. direct flights, visitations, offshore islands and business ties. all the normal peace time engagement that we think contributes to a decrease in tension. operates in support of our objective about peaceful settlement of issues across the taiwan straight. it's been mentioned more than a few times before. we remain concerned about the

build up of military capabilities across the straight and you watch carefully the amount of that build up and the type of systems that they are developing to make sure that we maintain the ability to fulfill our obligations under the taiwan relations act. on north korea you are encouraged by china's support by the resolution of 1874. very important to prevent north korea from profiting from their nuclear-related technology and missile-related technology. important to keep north korea from exporting any weapons systems prohibited under 1874. china's support is essential to maintain a consensus to keep 1874 a viable resolution and we are positively encouraged as i said about the development on that. in the meantime, we continue to ask china to exert their influence to work on their neighbor to convince them of the

wisdom to complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. >> that's what we are getting down to. we said it for a long time that we cannot have success with the denuclearization and the demissilization if that's a word without china's active participation. because of the influence that china has with north korea. are we seeing that or sort of quiet notice? >> we are seeing influence. we are seeing the influence on our part and made it clear that we intend to fulfill all of our obligations to our allies and we will to the extent that we are not successful in achieving complete verifiable denuclearization. we will enhance those alliances

and ability to enforce our alliance obligations. that is a condition. >> thank you. i see my time has expired. i yield back in two seconds. >> thank the gentlemen from washington. mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for coming today. in regards to monday's missile test, how would you characterize the notification china gave to the international community compared to the missile tests? >> i'm not aware we received notification until after the test. >> how would that differ largely with the ballistic missile test

process? the u.s. undertakes for russia. do we provide notification? >> traditionally they noticed air men and various things, yes. >> so there was no indication at all or -- there was no communication in the community about the missile test and his seasons and so on. at least as far as we know from china? >> i'm looking at my colleagues. i am not aware of any. >> yes. i'm sure you can share some of that.

it was not aimed at specific countries and that no debris was created by this test. before i move further, i have a statement for the record. thank you. thank you. china may be our most important dialogue in asia right now. japan clearly remains the most important region. with the new japanese government trying to seek or create or develop in concept, east asia security group. between japan, china and south korea. statements indicate that japan all along was intending to include the united states. how would you discuss the steps

that the united states has taken to strengthen the relationship. the various set of relationships with china. the secretary can start there and secretary gregson can follow. >> we are working with the japanese to distract the alliance. secretary clinton met in honolulu yesterday and celebrated the 50th anniversary of the u.s.-japan security treaty. they recommitted to strengthening the alliance. i think it was good news. pars>parse> >> secretary greg? >> penning is the continuation of the realignment with the build up of u.s. forces in guam. the guam program also includes near continuous presence of japanese aviation and ground

forces in guam and training. we look forward to rapid implementation size a way to adapt and transform the military and security aspects of our alliance for the new century. >> back to the missile test and this may be for admiral willard or secretary gregson. given the arms sales going through and the context of the missile test, do we see this as a tit for tat or anticipate something else happening and most of us said china suspended the military discussions with the talks and those started up again last month, i think. are we anticipating another a

tit for tat and arms sales. . >> they reacted vocally and the military to military engagement has been suspended. whether or not that's the case at this time or not will remain to be seen. i would offer that in the discussions that the general had with the secretary and with me on his way back to beijing, we emphasize the need for constancy and military dialogue and we were explaining the mutual benefit of maintaining it. whether or not differences erupt between our governments or not.

so again i think we will be testing the maturity of the military and the military relationship in the future, not just over our legal obligation to conduct the taiwan arm sales. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to ask the panel to address what i believe has become a very serious emerging national security threat as it relates to china. it has to do with industrial-based supply issues controlled by china and not any specific threat. i am hoping given your background and your current positions focusing on specific garnering of your thoughts and comments, a worldwide demand for rare earth elements are escalating rapidly. they are used in a number of

applications including emerging green technologies and many of us on this concern as to what that means for american innoefing as and domestic jobs growth. the fact that so many national security and defense systems require these materials to function and operate is a greater concern to us here at this hearing. 95% of worldwide rare earth reserves are being accessed today are located in china or controlled by chinese-led interests. today there no rare earth elements of or production sites of significance taking place or anywhere outside of china. chinese domestic demand for rare earth elements can equal chinese production as early as 2012. furthermore in october of 2009 an internal report by china's ministry of industry and information technology disclosed proposals to ban the export of

rare earth and elements and restrict supplies of the remaining metals as early as next year. i asked the witnesses to comment on these developments and address their entities and awareness of the reliance on these rare elements and what they feel are the strategic implications and how they plan to develop an appropriate policy to mitigate this supply crisis as it relates to national security and defense. the 2nd question about or years ago and since we don't have a formal relation with taiwan in terms of an ambassador, the

general counsel might be determined, i'm not sure what the term is for the representative is in washington. i was at a dinner and seated next to him and asked him what the most significant national security was to him and he said a recession in china. then he felt that the leadership of the people's republic of china will look outward and ask the threats to deflect the attention of the people of china on their own domestic problems. that's what he felt that taiwan would be the most vulnerable. i wonder if any of you can comment on that. >> the relationship of economic development and national

development to the authority, legitimacy of the later ship has been often discussed as a matter of speculation and a connection has been drawn. get inside. we are not relying on the conditions of prosperity. we are taking all appropriate

precautions to react if the situation worsens regardless of what the prosperity situation is across the street. i understand the points of your dinner companion and i think it's an interesting observation from their side. we remain oriented on the capabilities. . >> chinese government certainly appeals to chinese nationalist sentiment frequently. we don't see an uptick in that or an effort to blame problems on foreign sources as a result of the economic downturn. it looks to us like the economy is turning around at 8% growth last year. they may have 8% to 9% growth this year. we are not seeing that phenomenon happen right now.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentlemen. mr. kissle. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome chair men. thank you for being here today and thank you for the service that you rendered to your nation. i'm going to go back a little bit as we know. china is an ancient kingdom. many thousands of years old. i'm going to go back 2,000 to 3,000 years. when we asked history, we tend to separate our timelines and forget that history moves at the same time period. in the time period while europe was in the middle ages and before, china was a prospering kingdom. arguably could have made some of the same decisions that europe later made in terms of the conquest, expansion, exploration, and did not.

if the history book that i taught from was correct, was a decision that this was not a pursuit they wanted nationally to evolve to. while europe later came to dominate the world, china in many ways chose not to do that. if you look at the history since then, of course the time period when the european nations tended to dominate china, china never pursued that course of what may be called aggressions or expansion or looking overseas and other places for their national prospects. i'm trying to get an idea in my mind, what is the mind set of the chinese now? when we talk about the ambiguities that exist among what china may be doing for our two secretaries, if you had to

narrow it down, what is the chinese mind set? is it aggressive or defensive or we want to be equal to or want respect? what is the mind set of the chinese nationals? >> we are familiar with your view of chinese history. from our historical experience, we see rising powers as a potential challenge. to the international community, we hope to avoid that in china's case by engaging. >> i don't mean to interrupt. what is the chinese mind set. i understand how we view it, but what do you think they long-term, how are they trying to position themselves and why? >> the chinese want to express themselves as a major global power and have done that economically so far. i think that remains a lower

priority on their list after securing communist power and party stability. after domestic economic development. i think a lot of world trends are working in their direction and time for them to enjoy some of the largest that they and the benefits of being a world power that they were not able to do for the last couple of centuries. >> one other question being in a different direction would be a great limitation towards china in the ability to continue in the economic expansion. wonder what your thoughts are and how that figures in and how much it figures in and what it might mean long-term.

>> with conservative economic growth, there is potential that the resource allocation of precious liquids like oil and water will become an item that is going to be an act of management. the river is one way to manage water and related items like fresh water fisheries and things. it starts in china and of course goes through southeast asia and any time somebody puts a dam at one point, it affects everybody downstream. those obvious gs. this will be an item of major concern. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> the gentlemen from louisiana,

mr. fleming. >> thank you. my question is for admiral will a ard, these are issues brought up about oil and energy in general. they have travel up to 2,000 kilometers. they can easily have an attack an aircraft carrier and we don't have anything for that. hopefully still under development and not actually capable. what issor navy's plans to protect the aircraft given the potential shift in power?

protecting our navyrces closer of china itself. one element of the strategy by china, there is development of a ballistic missile that we believe is intended to target surface ships to include our aircraft carriers and it's an issue of major concern. we within our programs are protecting our capabilities to include our aircraft carriers from that. the details we would need to discuss in a closed session. >> this may put more emphasis on the need for the next generation

bomber which is a forum that is a standoff and we sort of laid that aside recently and i wonder if we need to take a stronger look at that than what we are seeing here. >> when we approach the anti-access capabilities that are being developed here that we have to look broadly at all of the cape tablts that provide us opportunities to continue to operate with freedom of action inside the envelopes of that capability. certainly our bomber force and recapitalization and extended range weapons as well as our

availability to penetrate with surface ships and not give us access where we require it are all parts of the defense strategy to accomplish that. >> thank you, sir and thank you for your service. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. taylor. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to yield to our only member of the ranger hall of fame, this member of congress, mr. marshall. >> thank you, mr. taylor. appreciate that. i'm curious about the extent to which we can expect that china might be more helpful to us where terrorism is concerned and specifically the efforts in iraq and afghanistan and our worries about pakistan and india. a couple of chinese colonels

published a book called unrestricted warfare in the mid 90s. probably most of you have already read that or at least read a summary of it. that piece, that book explores ways in which china can engage in conflicts with the united states. publication of the book is authorized and improved by the chi these government. it's not so many years have passed since the publication of the book. among the things that these two observed, it's that the close relationship between america's political belief and the military industrial state combined with the american

expeditionary capacity means that it's a matter of time before america gets involved in conflicts. if there is an ongoing attitude of china that it's good to see the economy weakened, china might be holding back in the system with regard to iraq, afghanistan and terrorism in general. this is costing us a lot of money. i would like comments about india and the flash points and the nuclear power and control by both and any thought that china will join the effort against terrorism. if you think about it, given the nature that they are involved in the economy, they are going to be a target also eventually.

>> with regard to the approach to american economic health, the chinese recognize that we are interdependent economically and the relationship benefits both sides and we engaged on the subject at eastern levels and the working level through counter terrorism working group that met recently. in general our issues with the chinese is fairly basic level, but we are working on it. on the subject of afghanistan and south asia generally, the chinese share our interest in peace and stability in south asia. particularly in afghanistan and it's right on chinese borders. we have engaged the chinese intensively on the subject.

special envoy holbrook has been to beijing twice to discuss the subject. they have expressed an interesting cooperating, but we are at the early stages. >> we have not seen anything concrete? >> not yet, no. >> the terrorism is concerned and have we seen anything concrete there? >> we conducted exchanges with the chinese, particular low in the run up to the olympics. we are continuing those exchanges and i say we are at a basic level. what are we proposing that they are not willing to do? >> we think the chinese expressed an interesting and general interest in cooperation. we conducted a working level meeting with the chinese to discuss specific ways in which

we can work on the ground before the president's visit in november. i think they are thinking this through. right now we@@@ we involve the network and we don't know of an opportunity for china to contribute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. franks? >> thank you, mr. chairman and

willard. i want to direct my first question and thank you for your lifetime commit to the cause of human freedom and all the things that people talk about. the importance of protecting the freedom of people like you personified and we are grateful to have you here today. i was encouraged about your discussion related to protecting our battle groups from emerging chinese missile technology. as you probably are very aware, the report said we had to be careful because it could have set the strategic balance between the u.s. and china and the u.s. and russia. in light of some of the recent reports and the media that china is working to perfect or develop a mid-range and long range missile defense capability, they don't seem as concerned as we

are. i guess my question to you, can you talk to us a little bit about the chinese missile defense technology advans and pacifically the median to long range capabilities? >> i would only offer that in terms of their missile defense capabilities that they are by and large still in the research and development stages. that this is a subject actually of inquiry regarding the most recent missile to missile engagement. that has been witnessed and that the chinese has we discussed earlier reported on over the past several days. in terms of levels of detail and so forth, obviously.

>> let me if i could go to secretary gregson. can you tell us about china's space program and advances in technology? have they continued spaces since the 2007 space? the question is predicated on the notion that china has with their capabilities have pursued in a phrase weaponizing space. it's clear to me that that happened, but can you tell us, have they continued pursuing space as a military venue since the last testing in 2007? >> the chinese stated that they opposed the militarization of space. their actions seem to indicate the contrary intention. we continue to press the chinese for explanation and would be

happy to provide details in a closed session. >> mr. chairman, i guess i make the point all too often here that i think it's important as a country to maintain our missile to missile defense capability and seem to be moving into a dynamic militarily and otherwise that that will be a critical consideration for us and i think that we have a moral responsibility to the citizens to be able to defend the u.s. from any missile launched from anywhere on the globe. at least that's the goal. i know that mr. reagan contemplated and hoped for that and have come further that he contemplated and the ultimate concern should be to be able to defend ourselves in that radica potentially going to be part of that equation, i think it is vital that we continue in the direction of developing that and

i thank all of you for your efforts in that regard. and i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman, miss bordallo, the gentle lady from guam. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary gregson. i appreciate working with you on the guam issues and looking forward to your answers today. and mr. shear, thank you for appearing before the committee and, finally, admiral willard, thank you, and i look forward to working with you as our new pac-com commander. i co-chair the china caucus with my colleague congressman forbes. and i have several questions regarding recent security developments in china and how it affects our posture in the asia pacific region. secretary gregson, it seems that china wants to continue becoming a global power that has serious force projection capabilities and on his most recent asian trip, president obama stated that the united states is and will remain a pacific power.

in that vein, how does the realignment of military forces in japan and to guam play in the balance of power in the pacific? and if we are to remain a pacific power, what other enhancements of our current military and civilian capabilities are needed to maintain a robust posture in the asia pacific area? >> thank you for the question. the secretary gates has remarked often that there is sovereign u.s. territory in the pacific, alaska, hawaii and guam. and with the help of our vital help from japan, we're increasing, as you know, our air, naval and marine presence in guam. this will also enable the continuous or near continuous presence of japanese and other allied and friendly forces for training with the united states in better position us for continued engagement, not only throughout southeast asia but

also the area involving the compact states and our other territories in the pacific. this will allow us to continue to develop capabilities and to continue to develop relationships across the region that will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity throughout the area. >> thank you. >> i have my final question is for admiral willard. the 2009 report to congress from the u.s. china economic and security review commission made a very intriguing and stark finding, china's development of anti-ship cruise missiles. the report state and i quote, according to the u.s. department of defense this missile will have a likely range of 1,500 kilometers, armed with maneuverable warheads and intended to deny regional access to service ships of the opposing side. when combined with appropriate surveillance and targeting systems, this missile could have the potential to destroy or

disable aircraft carriers and their associated battle groups while in transit. now i'm concerned by this finding and would like to explore our deterrent capabilities in the pacific to respond to this growing tactical threat by the chinese. and what types of deterrents are in place on our surface fleet to combat this tactical weapon? what impact could this weapon system have on our ability to project our naval power in china, such as port visits to hong kong? >> thank you, ma'am, for the question. and i would offer that -- that the chinese have developed a ballistic missile with extended range capabilities that we believe is intended to countersurface ships. they have also developed extended range cruise missiles as you suggest for launch from their surface ships and from their submarines as part of a broader anti-access strategy.

all of these developments, capability developments and the capacities that they're fielding have led to concerns both on the part of the united states and on the part of the region with regard to -- to what they're there for and their intended use. in the case of -- you bring up deterrents, there is a responsibility that we bear to the region at large to extend deterrents throughout the region, to prevent wars from happening, to prevent future contingencies from occurring. and we have been very successful, i would offer, in -- for many decades now in accomplishing that. and that is a -- that is by and large accomplished through our presence and posture in the region and that is unchanged, regardless of these developments, capabilities,

developments that you describe. we maintain a presence on the waters, in the region, as we have for a century and a half. and we intend to stay. we think that the extended deterrence that the united states offers to our allies and partners in the region, our presence to ensure security of the sea lines of communication and airlines of communication in this part of the world are separavital to our nation's security and our nation's economy and the economies of our partners. >> thank you. thank you, admiral. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentle lady. mr. mcintyre. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. because i was tied up in another manner, i want to ask you about something just for clarification. i know in december of a year ago china began to provide its naval vessels to protect commercial ships operating in the gulf of aden from somali pirate attacks.

is this a positive development with regard to u.s.-chinese cooperation and are they willing and working with the united states in cooperation vis-a-vis dealing with these pirates? >> i would -- from the pay-com perspective, we view it as a very positive development. it is a demonstration of the prcs willingness to utilize their military capability in a way that is contributing to other nations, to the international betterment of security in that particular region of the world. they began those operations operating outside of the -- the international regime that was put in place to coordinate the efforts by the many nations that are contributing to the anti-piracy effort. over the years now that this has

been occurring, i would offer that the prc has grown closer to those regimes and to the extent that there is a line of communication that has been developed and a level of information sharing that is both contributing to their operations and also contributing to the operations of the combined task force that is engaged in counterpiracy. so to both of your questions, yes, it is positive. and, yes, they have grown closer to cooperating, not just with the united states, but with the international effort that is often foreign led in the gulf of aden. >> i concur completely with the admiral. the freedom of navigation, freedom of the seas, freedom of navigation, freedom of innocent commerce, freedom of innocent passage is vitally important to both the united states and china as well as the rest of the world, particularly considering the gulf of aden and where it sits across the lines of communication that are vital to

energy supplies moving around the world. the chinese, over time, as the admiral stated, are increasingly coming to understand and to appreciate the norms of cooperation that have been established in international task force out there while they still cannot, for their own political reasons, join the international task force, their operating in cooperation with the task force and informal lines of communication and cooperation are growing and we see this as overall a very positive development. >> thank you. with limited time, let me change to another subject. admiral, do you believe that we are building enough ships to counter the continual buildup of ships by the chinese in the pacific? do you think we're keeping the pace as we need to or there needs to be a stronger buildup of the american fleet? >> i would speak for pacific command and our ability to

contend with the security issues within my area of responsibility and i believe i can do that. i think that the -- the importance of maintaining our industrial base and continuing to recapitalize our surface fleet in the navy is critically important. and that as the pacific commander it is critically important to me that my naval component contribute the level of combat power that i require for the joint operations that we conduct. >> so the question is do we have enough ships to do that? do you feel like we're on course to maintain the level of the number of ships we need to do that? >> i am satisfied with the current budget and ship building level of effort that we're pursuing in the united states navy to produce the ships that i require to accomplish my mission in the pacific. >> beyond the number of ships,

do you feel like or if in fact there becomes a problem with the number of ships, do you feel like we still have the capability otherwise to effectively counter the chinese buildup? >> the short answer is yes. currently the u.s. pacific command is contributing nearly 30,000 troops to the middle east and certainly force structure to the two wars that are currently ongoing in our nation. and as we determine our abilities to meet our obligations throughout the pacific, to include the potential for future contingencies in the western pacific, i have to evaluate the associated risks with that force structure's commitment to our two wars and what mitigations i'm obligated to put into place to ensure that i can perform my mission. and, yes, i believe i can do

that. >> we want to support you in that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from north carolina. the last question i would address to secretary gregson, in light of the google news this morning, and other recent attack against american government sites, how are we addressing the increase in cyberattacks from china? >> i think it is not only increased cyberattacks from china that the united states faces, but increased cyberattacks from a number of places including nonstate actors, everybody with access to the necessary -- >> i understand that. i'm asking you about china. >> among other things we are standing up a cybercommand as a subunified command of, a strategic command. we have a number of security

procedures that have been put in place over the years throughout the department of defense to protect our proprietary network and we continue to research ways where we can enhance our defenses in the future. this is an ever evolving threat and we take it very seriously. >> secretary shear, you have any comments? >> cybersecurity is a national priority for this administration. shortly after taking office the president directed that the national security council and the national homeland security council conduct a top to bottom review of our cybersecurity efforts. the results of that review were published in may, we're in the process of implementing those. we're particularly concerned, particularly after the google affair about chinese efforts. we will be raising this with the chinese and we take it very

seriously. >> secretary gregson, in open session, can you tell us what the jurisdiction of the cybercommand is? >> i'd like to take that for the record, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i certainly thank the witnesses today. i think this is the first hearing on china per se that we have had in this congress. and you've done very,