hosting a state visit for an autocrat, chinese president hu jintao. this generally have the upper hand? i think most americans misperceive the economic relationship between the united states and china. today i would like to comment on three of those misperceptions. first of all, everybody says that china is decreasing its dependence on the united states back. well, china has an economy that is geared to selling things to last. the chinese economy is dependent upon exports, and its export sector is especially reliant on sales to the united states. last year when all the statistics are in at the we are going to see within 140 percent of china's overall trade surplus related to sales to the united states. that is up from an already stupendous 90% in 2008.

that trade dependence gives us enormous leverage because china is not a free trader. it has accumulated surpluses because of clear violations of its obligations under the world trade organization. second, everybody says that china's debt provides up -- our debt held in the hands of china provides a weapon. since august 2007 the chinese have talked in public about using that as a weapon, and, of course, they call it appropriately the nuclear option. welcome but china hasn't used the nuclear option since it first started talking about it. the reason is they know their attack plan won't work. let's think about the worst possible scenario. the chinese stump all of our dead at one time. we have to look at the way global markets operate. if they do that they have to buy something which means they have to buy things denominated in

pounds, euros, and in. that would send those currencies soaring through the ceiling in values which means that london, brussels, and takeya would have to go out into that global market to rebalance our currencies and bring them back down in value. the only way they can do that is to buy dollars. there would be turmoil, but it would not last long, just a few weeks, maybe a calendar quarter at the most dubious after this is all done we would have our debt held by our friends, rather than our potential enemy. i think the global markets are deep and can handle just about everything. although i do not think the united states should be accumulating debt and suddenly i don't want the chinese to hold it, i also don't think it gives them a weapon. third, you hear many commentators say that china's currency manipulation is not the sole cause of america's trade deficit. well, of course that is right.

there are a number of reasons that relate to our trade deficit. china's currency manipulation is an important reason. due to beijing's active manipulation it intervenes every day. the discounted value to the u.s. dollar is somewhere in the vicinity of 20-40%, maybe 30 percent would be a good estimate for today. a discount of that magnitude, of course, is significant. and i practiced law in asia many of my plans for u.s. manufacturers, and i would watch my plans haggle for days over pennies on unit prices. that is how important prices. it is counter intuitive to think that a discount of 30-40%, and that is what we are talking about, would not have an affect on our trade deficit. you don't have to take my word for it. chinese premier bob, the top of economic officer came to the united states last september and

talked about the possibility of countless chinese enterprises going bankrupt and countless chinese workers becoming unemployed if it increased in value. well, if that is what the currency does to china's manufacturers and their employers, then what to you think it does to hours? nonetheless, many economists say, you should not do this currency bill, h.r. 2378 which passed the house. i think we certainly need to. china won't change its destructive currency practices if we appeal to its self-interest, which is what the bush to administration and obama administration were doing. we have to apply pressure. >> thank you. take you so much. mr. yang. >> thank you, your excellency. the key for the opportunity for me to testify on the fundamental matter in the

relationship between u.s. and china. it is the matter of how chinese government treats its own citizens. china is the country with the most prisoners in the world, including a nobel peace prize winner. .. established by local governments of very little. these prisons take down

arbitrarily. going beyond these preconceived term, their three new types of measures to control. that is chinese authorities have increasingly using for years. number one, direct violence. direct violence against humans d rights activists and petitioners have increased in recent years.g the people who have been doing this our local policeman ored by hired by police. ficials ar in some cases, government officials are also involved. yet years house arrest has become more and more widely used as a means of limiting us the dents -- dissidents and their families. as the wife of a blind human rights lawyer or, li jing was

placed under house arrest. ever since he was released after sevenning four years and three -- serving four years and three months in prison last september, the entire family has been put under house arrest. the chens, the entire family, has not -- has been cut off from all contacts with the outside world. those who tried to visit them were badly beaten. lu shah's wife has been put under house arrest since last year when her husband won the 2010 nobel peace prize. and her communication with the outside world has been completely cut off since october 20th last year. number three, disappearance. i also urge you to pay attention to the disappearance of chinese citizens as a result of the

government's unwarranted actions. the most notorious case is shin. he has not been heard from ever since last april. after repeatedly detained and severely tortured, and his wife has been with us today here. here. another important case is that mongolian scholar who was arrested in december 1995 for peaceful activities demanding more autonomy for the mongolian region. he was later sentenced to 15 years in vail request, his -- in jail. his prison term was set to end in december last year, but a few days before that the chinese authorities detained his wife and son. he was never seen getting out of of riz, and today the entire -- prison, and today the entire family has not been heard from.

around the time of the nobel peace ceremony, liu xiaobo friends and supporters were either put under house arrest -- [inaudible] so coming pack -- back to the issue, i guess the question is why should china's treatment of its citizens be important concern for u.s. foreign policy toward china? we have a slew of analysis and answers to this question, and some people can even denounce this question as irrelevant, but i just want to echo the question from "the wall street journal" article last monday. will a rising power that fails to honor commitments to its own people -- >> thank you, mr. yang. >> -- responsibility to fulfill its commitments to other -- >> thank you. that's a good question. thank you.

mr. sutter. >> thank you very much, madam chairman and members of the committee. the u.s. relationship with the people's republic of china has been troubled throughout its twisted history. important areas of converging interests between the two powers are usually accompanied by important areas of differences. the relationship has become very broad-ranging, multifaceted and complicated, and it is the most important bilateral relationship in the world today. a pattern of seeking to advance common ground while managing differences prevail throughout most of the george w. bush administration. like president bush, president obama showed a course with china involving pursuing constructive contacts, preserving and protecting american interests and dealing effectively with challenges posed by rising chinese influence and power. a strong theme in president obama's initial foreign policy was to seek cooperation of other world powers to deal with

salient international concerns. he worked very hard at this, but he found the chinese leaders offered only limited cooperation on issues like climate change and others. more worrisome were the challenges that the chinese administration posed for the obama government, and this has been well documented by my ceeg, mr. wortzel, particularly about the maritime areas around the periphery of china but also a hard line on the president's arm sales to taiwan, on his meeting with the dalai lama and u.s. interveptions in the south chi ya sea and other issues. the obama administration reacted calmly to these tests of assertiveness by china. it gave no ground on any of the chinese demands. it also found that the chinese assertiveness over various issues damaged china's efforts to portray a benign image in

asia. these asian governments became more active this working more closely with the united states and in encourage an active u.s. presence in the asia pacific. the overall effect was a decline in china's position in the asia pacific and a rise in the position of the united states. meanwhile, the obama government made clear to the chinese covet and to the world that the united states is prepared to undertake military measures needed to deal with the build up of chinese forces targeting americans and american interests in the asia pacific. it also helped to move china to curb north korea's repeated provocation by warning privately as well as publicly that the united states viewed north korea's nuclear weapons development as a direct threat to the united states. over the past few months, china has tried to ease differences with the united states in the period leading up to the current visit of president hu jintao. they've done a number of different things in calming the

situation between the united states and china over these various areas of differences. looking out, president obama wants to pursue closer engagement with china as part of his administration's overall reengagement with the asia pacific. his administration, also, has made clear it will not give in to pressure and, if needed, will respond to such chinese actions with appropriate military, diplomatic or other means. it may appear less certain that president hu jintao shares president obama's interests in reengagement. on the other hand, china's recent assertiveness has proven much more costly than beneficial for china's broader interests. it's against this background it seems likely that prevailing circumstances will preserve and reenforce the positive equilibrium in u.s./china relations for three general reasons. first, both administrations seek

benefit from positive engagement in various areas. second, both administrations see that the two powers have become so interdependent that emphasizing the negatives in their relationship will hurt the other side, but also will hurt them. third, both leaderships are preoccupied with a long list of urgent, domestic and foreign priorities. in this situation one of the last things they would seek is a serious confrontation in relations with one another. thank you for your attention, i look forward to responding to your questions. >> thank you so much to an excellent set of panelists. i will be recognizing members for five minutes of questions and answers in order of seniority. for those who were in their seats when the gavel fell, and in order of arrival for those who arrived after the briefing began. i would like to yield my five minutes for questions and answers to congresswoman burkle of new york. the congresswoman is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, madam chairman. i'll direct my question to colonel wortzel, but if anyone else on the panel would like to comment, i would welcome the answer as well. first of all, thank you for your service. according to recent news reports, china facilitated the shipment of missile parts from north korean aircraft to air iran cargo flight at beijing's airport. how involved are both the chinese government officials and chinese companies in weapons procurement for iran and in the development of iran's nuclear and missile programs? >> congresswoman buerkle, pretty heavily involved, i guess would be -- >> could you push the button? put the microphone closer to your mouth. thank you. >> thai very heavily involved. -- they're very heavily involved. they accept those shipments from north korea through china, they facilitate them. those things don't happen

without the concurrence of central authorities in the provinces and from a national air control system. they've got their own customs people, so they're well aware of it, and they could stop it. they have refused to participate in the proliferation security initiative which would have the effect of at least helping to control north korean proliferation. i mean, they simply have very different interests in iran than we do. and i would argue that one of their interests is frustrating united states policy and creating a second potential military competitor that is at least a barb down in that part of the world. that limits what we can do, that means we have to be a lot more

careful in how we act. they've sold -- everything falls below the limits of the missile technology control regime, but they have sold short-range missiles, they have sold cruise missiles, antiaircraft missiles. so they're not doing a thing to reduce the potential level of violence and tension in that region. >> thank you very much. >> the gentle lady yields back? if i'd like to reck these the ranking member, mr. berman, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i'd like to get mr. chang's response and also, perhaps, hear from mr. wortzel and sutter on the very interesting thesis that

mr. chang had which, essentially, looking at the issue of our debt obligations to china and our trade deficit as, perhaps, more our leverage than china's lev ram. leverage. and to ask you to play that out a little longer. to what extent are you suggesting we use that leverage and whether it's in countervailing duties or in passing the kind of legislation that the house passed last year, and for what policy purposes should they be restricted to persuading and pushing china to live within the wto ground rules? or should they be utilized to achieve broader geopolitical and

military or purposes? so that's one question. i'll ask 'em all right now, and then the second question, 15, 20 years ago there was a notion that in its heart of hearts china liked american presence in the western pacific, that that was a lot better for them than japan reconsidering its traditional military policy of thinking about it own nuclear weapons. more recently, what south korea might decide to do. in a way there was a beneficial effect. is that just out the window now? is the chinese military modernization so strong now that they're not concerned about that, and they are truly seeking to have us reverse a position we've had since the end of world war with ii? -- world war ii? and add to that if either robert

sutter or larry wortzel would do it, this weekend this isn't the visit of the most recent emperor of china, there's a people's liberation army out there that's starting to do their own hinges without necessarily can -- things without necessarily under the direct direction of the leadership of the communist party. is there anything to those couple of stories that are emerged recently? and finally if we can get it, i don't know if there'll be time, mr. yang, you were eloquent regarding the issue of political disappearances and the families and the abuse and what goes on inside china. but what you weren't able to get into is how do you think -- what role can we play in affecting and can changing that? i do worry that there won't be time for that last, but go ahead. >> first of all, i'd like to thank the congressman forking fg so polite in his

characterization of my views. most people think that i'm wrong, and you were very nice in saying so. [laughter] i think there's a couple things that we these to do. first of all, we need a little bit less diplomacy. we're feeding china's sense of self-importance. i think we don't need new agreements on economic matters because everyone says, you know, when there's a problem with china, let's go out and negotiate a new deal. we have tons of deals with the chinese. all we need to do is enforce them, and we need to enforce them more vigorously which means we need to take cases to the wto more quickly. and also because of the real problem that china does pose to american manufacturers as i heard earlier, i think we need to do a little bit of self-help which is h.r. 2378. in other words, imposing penalties at an early stage for chinese subsidies. of course, currency manipulation is one -- >> basically, you want to limit that to the economic issues, the

currency valuation, the violation of trade rules, the subsidies, not to larger geopolitical issues? we only have 30 seconds. i'd just like to get real quickly from mr. wortzel and be mr. sutter. >> i think the pla is not an independent actor, it is firmly under the control of the standing committee of the chinese communist party and the central military commission. i think china's ambivalent about the u.s. presence. it's very happy that extended deterrence restrains japan from becoming a nuclear power but wants a more forceful role in the pacific, and i think gordon is absolutely correct on -- >> thank you. we'll continue with mr. sutter at another time. before yielding to mr. smith, i'd like to recognize as has been pointed out the presence of chinese human rights dissidents in the audience representing a

cross-section of pressed groups inside china including representatives of the fallon gong -- falun gong, one of several american citizens unjustly imprisoned by the chinese regime. and now i'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the subme for five minutes -- subcommittee for five minutes. >> you know, ladies and gentlemen, besides being the jailer of the 2010 nobel peace prize winner, we have to ask ourselves who is hu jintao? let's not forget that in 198ed just a few months before the massacre at tiananmen square, hu jintao was beijing's iron fist. the man who ordered the savage beat being of tibetan nuns and monks. hu jintao presides over a gulag

state, clearly a dictatorship. he is directly responsible for the systematic detention and torture of millions of peaceful chinese, tibetans and uighurs. harry wu knows what happens this those gulags. torture, cattle prods put under the armpits and genitals. president hu jintao presides over that sickness and that perversity. president hu's secret police hunts down christians, falun gong and tibetan buddhists, especially the falun gong who are massively being killed in this china today. president hu is responsible for the barbaric end and, really, the worst violation of women's' rights, in my opinion, ever. the one child per couple policy relies on forced abortion to achieve it goals.

and president hu's china, brothers and sisters are illegal. they are illegal. anyone in the audience who has a sibling in china, you're only allowed one. as a direct result, the cumulative effect of this barbaric policy, there are 100 million missing girls in china. most of the feminists have been silent about this terrible gendercide directed against little girls. let me ask yang jianli who has been an outspoken leader on behalf of of chinese human rights, it seems to me when a man like hu jintao comes in, the press give him a free pass. i would ask the press to ask the hard questions, not just the generic question about human rights. ask specifics about what is happening to liu xiaobo, what is happening to gao whose wife is

with us today? missing and repeatedly tortured and the terrible burden they put on the children of the dissidents. ask the tough questions to the press, president obama and hillary clinton. just a glossing over of we talked about human rights, something on a list of talking points won't cut it. be specific and press this hand who, i believe, ought to be at the hague being held to account for crimes rather than being treated with a state dinner. so i would ask mr. jianli, please. >> [inaudible] >> i'll answer congressman berman's question in last round. i think u.s. government should, the least the u.s. government can do and should do is raise i

the specific cases in various meetings with their counterparts. this upcoming, i mean, this meaning, for example, if obama really raises the issue of liu xiaobo, it works. it worked with my case, it will continue to work with other cases. and can -- look at the practice of the u.s. government in the last two years. the government believe that private talking will work more effectively. but look at the record. the u.s. government has not been successful this past two years in helping get think of the rirses out of the prison -- prisoners out of the prison. so we have to apply pressure raising specific cases both privately and publicly. and that's the least the u.s. government can do and should do. and another way to do it to engage with chinese democracy movement directly.

now we have a recognized leadership. thousand we have a shared principle -- now we have a shared principle that is enshrined in china -- [inaudible] so democracy movement is viable in china. so engagement with china contains a part that if engaged with the people with china's democracy movement. thank you. >> thank you. and you emphasized the word publicly. not just private conversation. >> yeah. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. pleased to recognized mr. payne for five minutes. >> thank you very much for yielding, ms. chairperson. i would like to focus my line of questioning on china's economic interests in africa and the impact and implications of china's engagement with african nations for governance, economic growth and human rights across the continent. expansion of china's investment in africa that we witness today

began in the 1990s. in that decade alone, china's investment grew by an impressive 700%. accompanying this economic expansion was the wave of chinese migrants from be 750,000 in 2007 who live in africa now, mainly construction, mining workers and oil workers and private traders, but not an expansion of the africa middle class that would normal hi accompany -- normally accompany infrastructure development. there's been p complex and varied reactions among analysts regarding china's engagement in africa ranging from enthusiasm and guarded optimism to concern over potential chinese strategy and economic threats to western or african interests. so i'd like to get your thoughts on the overall scope of china's growing ties with africa, what are the main political and economic roles, the main benefits and drawbacks, also, in

this what way would you say china's relations with african governments have a negative impact on human rights in africa, and what are the potential opportunities for u.s./china cooperation on political, humanitarian and development priorities in china? they've had a meeting where 43 countries were invited to china, 42 showed up. on one hand they had open fire on workers who protested about poor working conditions in zambia, chinese soldiers just fired on them and wounded 11 or 12 of them. but on the other hand, they give 4,000 scholarships a year to african students, and that may be to indoctrinate them to china. so maybe mr. wortzel and mr. sutter would like to take that. >> thank you very much, congressman. this is a very complicated and important issue. keep in mind i think the driving force of china's high profile in

africa is somewhat desperate in a way. they need resources. and so what you find is a highly-competitive environment where companies of china are in africa getting these resources. this a way -- in a way the government is sort of lagging behind these companies as they search and get these resources. the intensity of the chinese economic development is such that for the chinese to improve their gdp, they have to use four times the level of resources that are used in the united states for the same amount of improvement. they need stuff. and so they're all over africa trying to get the material they really need to promote their economic development. at the same time, china's full of competitive companies that are looking to sell things, and the chinese administration wants to have a balanced trade with africa. and they have one because all these chinese enterprises -- very competitive among one another -- are building things throughout africa, selling things. ask as you say, these migrants have gone to africa to sell these sorts of things. it's a very understandable way

to keep the balance the chinese seek with africa. you can see the driving force isn't really to control africa, it's really to get the stuff and to make money at the same time. and there are several good books on this. american university has done an excellent book on this if you're interested in this topic, as you are interested. so the upshot of chinese behavior vis-a-vis the united states and so fort, it's second -- so forth, it's secondary. and as a result there is collateral damage, if you will. there is a variety of things that are done that aren't very good. just a small point, i'm not sure the pla were the people that shot these people in zambia. i think it may have been guards of some sort. >> congressman payne, thank you for the question. i agree with mr. sutter. i do not believe there are pla soldiers in africa. i believe they are people out of the pla working for government-controlled security companies, and we've done a lot of of work on that in our

commission. >> this ethiopia -- in ethiopia they were soldiers that actually were killed by the olf there in the ogadon region. >> i think they were u.n. peace keepers, united nations peace keepers. i'll look at that. >> all all right. they were there protecting the oil reserves. >> i may be incorrect. china doesn't care about human rights in those countries, and they bring in their own labor and transfer no jobs what whatsoever to the african citizens, and that's a major dissatisfaction in africa. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize mr. rohrabacher, the chairman-designate on the subcommittee of oversight. for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank you for having this hearing at this moment because we have to understand that as we speak our country is

officially welcoming prime prest hu as if he had the same stature and acceptability here as a democratic leader. we welcome him the same as we do countries that are democratic and respect human rights. this is wrong. we should not be granting monstrous regimes that are engaged with massive human rights abuses -- and in this case the world's worst human rights abuser is being welcomed to our white house with respect. now, what does that do to those people in china who are our only hope for a peaceful future with that large chunk of humanity? the people of china are hurricane's greatest allies. the people of china who want democracy, the people of china who want to respect human rights and are looking forward to a more humane system at peace with the world, those are our allies.

what do we do to them when we welcome their oppressor, their murderer, the one who's murdering their children here to the united states with such respect? as we look at this visit with president hu, if our president follows suit the way our former presidents have as well -- this isn't just president obama -- we are doing a great disservice not only to the people of china and to our future, the cause of peace, but we're doing a great disservice to the american people. because what's happening, we have for three decades permitted the regime in china, a monstrously human rights-abusing regime, to have trade benefits that we wouldn't give to democratic countries. we have built them with technological transfers, with investments. we have let them get away with murder economically as well as human rights, in the area of

human rights. well, these are things we've got to call them to task for, or our situation will continue to deteriorate. we are now vulnerable to a regime that was weak 30 or 40 years ago. we are vulnerable to them. if we do not change our way of dealing with that regime, they will destroy the peace of the world, and we will be to blame for that. not only the repression of their own people. so i'd like to ask mr. wortzel in particular, china now -- not only does it have a more peaceful stand to the rest of the world, we see claims slowly but surely, more land claims and sea claims coming out. china is making claims in the pacific that threaten korea, japan and the philippines. and commerce throughout that air. area. we see claim against india and vietnam and, frankly, let me just say our russian friends someday are going to wake up and find out that they are being,

they have now become partners with some, with a country that means them great harm and is willing to take away territory. do you see any major threat to the peace of the world and the expanding territorial claims of china? .. is flooding the united states with confucius institutes at our universities that are supposedly spreading this peaceful chinese culture. with respect to their security claims, as they get stronger militarily, they are simply becoming more forceful in the region and they are expanding their claims. and that affects all the countries in southeast asia and all the countries on their

periphery. for that reason i think it was very important that both secretary clinton and secretary gates took a forceful stand on ensuring the peaceful resolution of these disputed claims in theu south china sea and east china sea. china sea here i think it's very important that our military works with and backs up japan even though we don't take a position on the disputed claims. >> let me just note that this government which we have bolstered with policies that we knew would make that country stronger under the idea it was more prosperous it would be more peaceful, that strategy hasn't worked. and this country is now the head of an alliance of rogue nations that threaten the peace and freedom of the entire world. >> the gentleman's time has expired i would like to recognize mr. sears of new

jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. as i read the newspaper, so the accounts i'm always fascinated by the statement that the chinese simply have different interests in many parts of the world than we do. i think that that hides an awful lot. i do think that the chinese have a hidden agenda, and their agenda in my eyes is more like world domination. somehow, we go back 2000 years ago, and i think that they never lost that. but we seem to help them in their goals. they just fill a void where we

are not. take north korea, for example. they do nothing. they do nothing and the use north korea to their benefit. the relationship of iran. all they do is just boost iran. and everywhere we seem to have a voice. i look at south america and i see south america and many other businesses. i look at what they do in africa, the way they use in africa. i don't know, we just don't seem to get it. and i was just wondering, doctor, you've been a spokesman for human rights and the abuses that have gone on in china, do you still fear for your life or your family's life back home? >> yes. >> you still do. after all, these years. and some of the members that are here today, from so many other

groups, i assume they also fear for their families. as they speak up against this, you know, this monster, that is developing before our eyes. i just wonder if you can comment on that. >> the chinese -- >> do your families still get threats back on? >> yes. my family members in china need to report to the authorities on the database is. >> they have to report to the authorities on a regular basis? >> yet. that's why minimize my correspondence to them to minimize the trouble. for mike? may not be the worst. i think that many of my colleagues and family members are being -- i want to emphasize, the chinese, china has the largest department system in the whole world, and it is still able to put anybody in prison, disappear anybody, if they determined to do so. so they come, if not

responsible, responsive to its own people, treat its own people harshly. so i was wondering, these kind will do any good in the rest of the world. so we have to keep asking this question once and once again. so when we come to the foreign policy to all of china, we cannot forget these component. and i often hear many people in this country talking about mentality, so whatever you hear the word war, they will fear. so i don't understand. but my comment is we just cannot simply explained away component which can be described as cold war in the relationship between u.s. and the china.

japan, south korea, taiwan. these countries are democratic, and these two countries, i mean u.s. and china, have fundamentally conflict in values, which you just cannot explain away. it will -- so there's a component that can be called cold war. and the only difference is that u.s. and china have economic interest, dependence, that is cold war have not. u.s. has no such close economic relationship with former soviet union, eastern europe. but that's the only different element. but i ago what he says. china always has and in economic

relationships with u.s. -- >> the gentleman sun has expired. thank you. i recognize mr. manzullo. >> thank you, madam chair. as i mentioned in my opening statement, manufacturing is the backbone of our economy in northern illinois. this question is for mr. chang, but others on the panel are welcome to enter. i spent much of my time working with numerous small and medium-sized manufacturers that have been harmed in one way or another in china. most of the time the issue is stuff of intellectual property and piracy, which is the case of the wastewater treatment, in my district called aqua aerobics. we engage the chinese amnesty and asked them to anything and actually got a favorable ruling in the chinese courts on that issue. at times, but how many companies

can pick up the phone and go to their congressmen to get a direct intervention on an obvious ip violation? other times it probably is more competent such as the case of the office of shorter maker, fellows. i think the number one paper shredder maker in this country. they are fighting a fierce battle in china, a joint venture where they were locked out. inventory stolen, machine tools, business practices and ip. and if you are big you can succeed. but the small guys, the medium-sized manufacturers are having an extraordinary difficult time. and so, how do we encourage the national prevention local government in china to force the law and beyond rhetoric and grand themes, there's got to be a better way of dealing with china. i guess that's an easy question. >> right. i think the important thing that

we have to do is start, as i said, let's diplomacy and away. but i also think we need to follow the approach of h.r. 2378 which is really to impose penalties whenever we see that there are violations of china's trade obligations. because this gives us immediate relief. if you talk about the province of small manufacturers, they can't wait for the three or four years that it takes to get through a dispute resolution mechanism of the world trade organization. that is just not practical remedy for them. and that's why i think we need legislation which is tough, because when we do that the chinese will understand. they had reacted to pressure, and this is really about the only way i think we can do it in terms of saving small manufacturers. because their plight is not only important, it's also urgent. >> but sometimes it's kind of like whack a mole. i have testified twice before the itc on tires, recreation

vehicle tires and automobile tires. once was on a surge in the other two were on dumping, illegal subsidies. and you get the remedies and they come right back again and all of a sudden someone does the same thing under a different name. it's over and over and over and over again, and these companies spend fortunes on attorney fees trying to protect their property. can't there be a mechanism that our government can have, for lack of a better word, an 800 number, for people who are the options of piracy, that simply can't afford attorneys to go into battle for then? >> well, we certainly could do that in many ways. that would basically involve beefing up the commercial section of our embassy in beijing and consulates around china, but also in the department of commerce. this needs to be put at a higher

priority that we have. normally what happens in trade disputes as you point out is you have this enormous litigation, and the united states really relies on injured parties to bring their case and to prosecuted. i think that your suggestion is an excellent one, which is that the government be much more proactive and to bring all sorts of proceedings, both internally in the united states and through the wto because that's about the only way we can do it. we need to speed up the process because time i think is critical. >> i would look forward to meeting you in my office and put our heads together to try to come up with some type of remedy. >> i will be there. >> thank you very much. i yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you very much, mr. manzullo. proud to recognize the member from rhode island. welcome to our committee. >> a.q. madam chairwoman. i appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. my questions also relate to the impact of our relationship with china on american manufacturing.

and i know i think it's been pretty clear to most of us that the chinese have really been willfully weak in addressing the theft of property and it's been present promise for american businesses but i would like to hear your thoughts on what actions we might take to rid protect american businesses from the theft of intellectual property, the seizing of aspects and joint ventures and the refusal to meet contractual obligations. and related to that, i'm particularly interested in your thoughts on what mechanisms we have come up her ticket to the opportunities that exist for production development of renewable energy. i know there was a recent complaint wild against the chinese subsidy policy which the administration contends favor chinese producers of wind, wind equipment, and that have been examples where those kinds of concepts have been resolved at the u.s.-china joint commission of commerce and trade.

so ensure that unwanted what you think those are an effective place or solution, if there are changes we need to make that really will help american manufacturers to be sure we are enforcing in every way policies that protect american manufacturers and the jobs connected to those manufacturers. >> we really have to problems. one of them is china's internal role such as the new indigenous innovation product rules that president hu jintao has been pushing. those would basically force a transfer of american intellectual property to joint venture companies for anyone who wants to sell to government or state enterprises. and that is really an issue where the united states itself in its discussions with china. the obama administration has put us up at a higher priority because it is so important. and i think it's a question of these need to be discussed all the time. the other point which as you raise, is the outright theft. this is extremely difficult

because you can't litigate in a chinese court because the courts are controlled by the party. and often controlled by local interest that have been really the culprit. and so the only way to united states can deal with this issue really is that the commercial section in the embassy and in the various consulates, make it known to both national and provincial authorities that this is a case which is of importance to the united states which oftentimes is sending the ambassador or the consulate general to a court case to show the presence of washington and it's important to us. but this is extremely very difficult. >> mr. sutter, do you have anything? >> i would agree. i think you need to keep the pressure on. it has to cost of the chinese i think you are advocating an approach, you're pushing on an open door with the obama administration, it seems to me. listening to the secretary of commerce and the usgr, they very much want to do this kind of thing. maybe they need more people.

maybe they need some funding from the congress to help in this regard, but i think there's a broad sentiment in the obama government that they should be done, just what mr. chang was saying. unique case by case, you need to work these issues. you need to pressure in a way that is credible. and i think that a high level of attention to it with officials is a way to go, and i think that's, as i say, win some support from the usgr and the commerce department. >> make you very much. i yield back the bounce of my time. >> mr. cicilline gets back. thanks for that. recognize mr. rivera of florida for five minutes. >> a key very much madam chair and. i'm going to ask about to either nations, cuba and taiwan. one, an island prison and the other a bastion of democracy surrounded by a fortress of journey. and we will start with cuba.

given china's involvement, and this question we will throw out for doctor wartsilla. given china's involvement in cuba, i wonder if you could, it was -- give us your thoughts as to china's geopolitical intentions in cuba, perhaps as establishing another beachhead in latin america, generally you can specifically what you believe china is up to with regard to oil drilling given information that has been published regarding the companies involved in drilling also have a a a nexus. so generally speaking, china's geopolitical interest in cuba, and specifically with regard to oil drilling. >> thanks for the question. first of all, china has taken over, as i understand it, the

entire signals computer complex that the soviet union had in cuba. so there is, without question, a military and intelligence purpose for their relationship. i think part of it is also support for another socialist state. and i think you can link chinese activities with venezuela and support there. there's support in cuba and for cuba. with respect to resources, i think they would be very happy to extract resources any way they could get it. but if you look at the this is a chinese military leaders and political leaders, i always ask myself why the head of china's

strategic rocket forces, second artillery, is visiting cuba. we are not going to be in another cuban missile crisis, but there's certainly something to military relationship going on there, and the same goes with venezuela. in some cases, their relationships in central america and latin america are related to diplomatic relations with taiwan. and they have managed to wean a couple of countries away from recognition of taiwan toward recognition to china. and that's part of it. i think it's fair to say that, and i sum it up, that they should recognize the monroe doctrine. >> thank you very much. with respect to taiwan, i will correct this question to mr. chang, and the issue of the f-16s, and this administration's

decision, or decisions, previous decisions on prolonging shipment of f-16's to want and what you believe is your perspective on how this affects the taiwan relations act and fulfillment of the taiwan relations act. >> i would love to talk about this topic, but sitting next to the world's expert. so perhaps -- >> thank you. >> taiwan's air force really needs modernize aircraft. the debate is f-16s which has a longer range and could be used for deeper strikes inside china if the military chose to do that, versus modernizing the ap. when i talk to aviation engineers they think you could take the ab, put in brand-new radar, targeting equipment, it needs no refrigeration to be able to handle that, and they would then have a very, very capable aircraft.

it's not one that would necessarily satisfy the taiwan's legislature, and it would still be a fight over the programming for the weapons systems and avionics. they want program codes. we will not transfer them. we never do. so they need it. if you made the decision, i don't think there's any guarantee that they would accept the way we make it. and then there's the political cost of approving a brand-new system that china would object to. they will object no matter what we do, but they need aircraft, and i think they have to have that addressed. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. >> pleased to recognize mr. conley of virginia. welcome back, my friend. >> thank you so much, madam chairman. and thank you for your service. i want to thank the panel, and

particularly box elder. bob, we work together when i was in the senate foreign relations committee. great to see you on the other side of the table. let me ask you, bob, understanding serious, serious human rights issues in china and lots of other issues that we're concerned about that event enumerated here, in your view given the fact that had a level of relations with the head of state of the country notwithstanding, is a mistake for this administration to receive the president of china? >> thank you, congressman. it's great to be here. i think what you find is that with a very complicated and interdependent type of relationship. we have so many priorities. we have to balance them. and as you've indicated, every president that we have had since nixon has done this.

and so people can't object in various ways and had very good reasons for this, but obviously publics -- republicans and democratic presidents, they prioritize these things and they say no, this is the best way to go. we may be at a crossroads now. we may have to change the situation. china may be trying to dominate the world with this type of thing. i don't think so. i think china has too many problems. i think the united states is leading power in the world, and it's going to stay that way for some time so it gives me a lot of confidence in this situation. but i think about my is you have to figure out where to come down on these priorities. and i think as you have indicated, every president of the united states has endorsed this kind of approach. >> thank you. mr. wortzel, you're talking a little earlier about taiwan's defense capability, and you said they're in bad need of an upgrade of the fighter aircraft. is there any reason to believe

that the government of taiwan is not capable of defending itself in the event of a military incursion? >> i don't think that that is the issue. i think that the issue is how capable would they be doing it, and what form might any attack take. they would have a hard time defending against all .. hard-pressed if there were massive special operations insertions into taiwan to disrupt infrastructure. they themselves could do more to harden some of their airfields and storage facilities. i think they have been woefully deficient in the way they tripled in -- dribbled in the command-and-control and data links for their current forces. i mean, if i -- i said this to

their minister of defense. if there's one thing you could do to immediately improve your capabilities, it is take the whole datalink and package and link all your ground and air assets so they could take part in cooperative targeting and >> they are doing things. they are also developing their own launching systems. they use this with precision guided rounds. >> let me ask you another part of that given the limitation of time of one minute. is there one of the things that always concerns somebody about the taiwan straights is there's a misunderstanding about the nature of the united states commit to the security of taiwan. in your view, does the current government of china fully understand the nature of the u.s. commitment to taiwan?

>> i think the government of china does. i think at times some of the political actors in taiwan misinterpret our support as -- i'm i had a legislature from taiwan say, you know, we're glad to get this arms package as far as we're concerned. it's a $16 billion insurance policy that you'll come to our defense. they have to be ready to defend themselves. >> that's right. we have 20 seconds, mr. chairman, did you want to answer that too in >> i think with the policy, there is a danger that beijing does nonet understand our commitment and things that we will not defend taiwan. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. i want to recognize congresswoman elmers of north carolina. i'm so glad you chose our committee. welcome. >> thank you.

i'd like to thank the distinguished panel and also want to reach out to the individuals and family members of all the human rights violations 234 china. -- in china. you are a constant reminder to us that we need to be vigilant around the world and remember how fortunate we are here in the united states. my question is for dr. wortzel. do you want to be referred to as colonel doctor? >> it doesn't matter, room. both are polite. i've been called a lot of other things. >> last september a chinese fishing boat thawpt to be a -- thought to be a spy vessel collided with coast guard vessels in the vicinity of the islands. tensions rose to an unprecedented level before the chinese vote, the captain was

released. how close did the two sides come to military conflict, and in your opinion, what are the implications of the united states given our treaty obligations with japan? >> i don't think in that instance they came close to military conflict, but it was a very serious diplomatic spat, and it's still continues to reverberate there around the countries. i think these things can escalate and could escalate if there's other instances. we have a treaty obligation with japan. it's a very, very important ally, and without question, if japan got into a military conflict with china, we'd be at their side. i think that the pacific commander and secretary of state

have taken very strong principled positions not recognizing the sovereignty of the islands, but at the same time ensuring that the chinese understand that the united states is fully supported of its treaty allies, and i think the japanese understand that. we need to be very close to them. we need to work very closely with them, and even under the democratic party of japan, i know the foreign minister will. they have got a strong leadership that understands the threats from china. >> i could say something about this. it's part of a pattern we've seen over the last two years of china being very assertive of the maritime area of the south south china sea, yellow sea, that type of thing. this damaged china's position in the asia pacific region. china is weaker today than a year ago because of this p

3w45*eu6r. the u.s. is stronger. this just feeds into. what you're doing is reenforcing stature and strength in asia and weakening china. if i was the calculating person in china, i'd say this is a dumb policy. we have to stop doing this. the thing to watch is if they stop.cc -- stop doing this thing because it is dumb. it costs them. you make it hurt them, and then they stop, and i think the obama government is doing a good job of very quietly intervenes in various ways saying we're not going to allow this, this will not happen, and i think it's been quite effective, and so let's watch. let's see what happens. if we have a situation with the military out of control in china, if it's being remilitarized, then it could be more dangerous situation.

at this point, i have to agree that the civilians leaders have ultimate control, and when they look at the cost of benefits, this behavior hurts them. i think they have to combat that. >> thank you, i yield back my time. >> thank you so much. she yields back, and i'm pleased to welcome the ranking member designate on the subcommittee on middle east and south asia. >> thank you, madam chair. the chinese have always been dead actors. they were the national focus of attention almost exclusively being the number one recluse until richard nixon had an intervention and decided it was a better policy to try to engage the chinese rather than to continue with china bashing

which to some seemed counterproductive to reaching a particular policy and behavior change end. now we've noticed there's a small club of recluse nations and the chinese and the north koreans have found each other and have formed recluse anonymous with china being a recovering recluse trying sometimes very unsuccessfully to effect the behavior of the north koreans. both seem to be engaging in very provocative activities on and off especially of late. can the chinese really affect the behavior of the north koreans? they seem to be looking like they're trying, sometimes

looking like they are not. is that something that is a dialup, dialdown depending on china's needs kind of control, or do they lack any influence in the end? >> i don't think it's a can they. the question is will they, congressman. >> you think they can? >> well, they provide somewhere between 70%-90% of north korea's energy needs, somewhere around 40-50% of foreign investment, so yes, they can. they fear that if they cut some of that, it would lead to instability in north korea, and they would up with what south korea, japan, and united states on their border. that's one thing. second, my view is that they absolutely enjoy the fact that the united states is pretty heavily dependent on them at

least perceptually to interact with north korea, and that certainly restrains in my view a lot of the state departments diplomacy against china or toward china. >> i think china could help with north korea too. i think their interest is very much on stability. that's what they want, and they worry that pressure on north korea not only leads to the effects pointed out, but north korea could see them as an enemy. north koreans spoke how hostile their feelings are towards china, but the as a matter of fact is what will the chinese do? i think they will seek their interest in stability. if the situation in north korea is looking like it's very unstable, they will intervene, and i think they did intervene in the case of the artillery that killed several south koreans last year, and the u.s.

maintained to the north koreans that north korea's provocation and development of nuclear weapons is a direct threat to the united states. the u.s. put very good pressure on chinese to get them off the dime, to move the north koreans into their tactics. >> you're saying that the chinese have an actual 12-step plan? >> no. this is -- they don't have -- i think this is the idea of china rising and being in control. they are not in control. they are riding the tiger on this one. they don't control north korea. they have a lot of influence over it, but this is -- >> same can be said with their very different but also dangerous relationship with iran. >> iran is much further away, and their influence in iran is lower than in a place like north korea. they are fundamental in north korea, right on the boarder. >> they are dealing with a nuclear power and nuclear want-to-be. >> exactly. >> they are farsighted, but do

they see this as a threat to themselves and the u.s. in >> the near term is more danger. it's the geopolitical element of south korea on the border of china. it's the full idea of instability. >> economic instability? >> exactly. it's bad for business. >> they are threatened more by that than nuclear stability? >> yes, sir, i think so. >> i recognize mr. burrton, chairman designate of the subcommittee on europe and euroasia. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i was referred to earlier as your exrens. [laughter] >> thank you for having this hearing. i'm going to ask a couple questions and yield my time to my good friend mr. smith. first of all, you may have answered this question, mr. yang, but do you have any idea how many people, how many million people are in communist

goologs? >> it's really difficult to get a number. i talk about a prison system. i talk to two prison systems. one is official. you know, through the court you can yet the record on how many people they con send, but there is another system that a is black jail, hundreds of them ran by governments of various levels. we cannot find out how many people are being detained, and on ton top of that, many people are made amazing and many people are being put under house arrest. we just don't know how many people. >> we've been told its in the millions, and i presume you agree with that? >> i don't have the specific number, and i would say many. i would say china has the most prisoners of conscious in the

world. >> okay. one of the things that i gather from listening to these people is that i believe china is not dumb. i believe they are very smart. i think that they are playing chess and they are doing it over a long period of time. they are moving as they can into the caribbean and into south america. they are making friends who are supporting tie rannists and putting us into a trick bag because of the economic things they are doing to us. right now, we have a $270 billion trade deficit with them. i think we're well over $1 trillion in hot to them as far as what we owe them, and if they started pulling those strings, which i think they probably will at some point, they can make us

at least to some degree dance to their tune, and so i'd like to get from you gentlemen your perception on the long term goals of china and whether or not they are doing what i think they are doing both economically and militarily. they are building their military up dramatically, and so they got us by the throat as far as our debt to them, and that would threaten our economy long term, and if they are building up their military and making connections around the world, does that pose as a real long term threat to the united states and our security? i yield to mr. chang and mr. -- [inaudible] >> let me say this. in my view there's a long term historical and cultural -- >> can you sum up quickly? >> long term cultural affinity for the accrual of dominance and

power in china and that creates a sense of who is reigning where they can almost dictate to other independent states how they should behave. that's how i read a lot of their behavior. >> i believe they want to be a pure competitor to the united states. they want to drive the u.s. out of asia which i think is very clear. they would like the rmb, their currency, to be the world's reserve currency, and certainly they want to dominate nations. this is clear from what the commie these have been doing, and as we've seen in the past year, it's been very concerning about their relations with japan, south korea, india, where we see military moves against the countries which are after all, our allies. china is an adversary and one to be careful about. they play chess, but the one thing though is they often make strategic errors.

they are good on tactics, but long term strategic moves not so good as we saw in the past year and as dr. sutter talked about. >> mr. smith is recognized. >> thank you. let me make a point. the question was asked about receiving, you know, a chinese president like hu jintao. it's not that you don't meet or receive, it's how you do it. the concern many of us have is a state dinner that when bush had a working lunch in 2006, it sends a message especially when he is the jailer of -- >> thank you, mr. smith. thank you. we welcome congresswoman bass of california to our committee. thank you, and i'm pleased to recognize mr. schsvtz of ohio. we're pleased to have you returned to serve with us. >> thank you very much, madam chair.

i have a couple questions first. i was for quite a few years one of the co-chairman of the congressional taiwan caucus and have been very interested in those issues and have been there many times over the years, and relative to their defense yows mentioned the fighter planes in particular. could you discuss at the time there was a move for submarines as well, and that ultimately didn't go anywhere. i see you frowning. what are your thoughts about that? >> it's a very difficult problem. it's a problem for the united states navy because they really don't want to have to work on or produce diesel submarines. >> in france or europe or someplace? >> the french got away with bribing enough chinese to get some destroyers there. everybody involved in that had an accident, falling off aal building, i don't think that will work a second time.

they need the submarines. i mean, if the united states could get costa rica to buy a dozen submarines from germany and transfer them, it doesn't hurt anybody. if the germans look the other way on the retransfer license. if we bought them and retransfer them, they need them, but i don't think it's viable to think that they're going to begin to produce them from nothing and fill out the rest of their defense budget. >> relative to the missiles when we first organized the caucus 12-14 years ago it was 500 missiles and kept going up. now it's 1100 and i mean, clearly china is threatening taiwan and bullying them into a considerable degree. relative to the missiles, is

there antimissile technology that would be helpful? there was talk of that at the time. you mentioned some missile system. can you elaborate on that slightly? >> well, we have sold them ballistic missile defense technology. they bought a limited amount. it could help them and protect specific areas. that's a lot of missiles. my personal view, and this is really united states defense need, we need to be working on lasers. we don't want to shoot two or three missiles at another missiles, we need to melt them out of the sky quickly. >> okay. slightly off topic, but not that much. president chin has been in prison now for some time and, you know, certainly he's been punished for his alleged transgression. isn't enough enough? isn't it about time if they

reached the point where perhaps the criminalization of politics here, mr. chang, i see you nodding. if you want to jump in, you're welcome to do so. >> i think the real issue with former president chin is the procedures under which he was convicted, and at this point, there needs to be a thorough review of the way that the current government has been prosecuting and persecuting members of the democratic progressive party. this is really a very bad story. the united states needs to pay attention. freedom house talked a lot about the erosion of human rights in taiwan, and it is going to be a big story in taiwan for the next two or three years. >> okay. thank you. >> if i could say something? >> yes, go ahead. >> your comments on taiwan. one thing about the -- first on the government side, yes, there have been problems perhaps with the due process, but the charges

against him that have been prune are very damning. the fact he's in jail makes sense to someone like me. >> how long has he been in prison? >> two years maybe? little less. >> family as well? >> yes. i don't know where the wife is. she's been convicted. this is big corruption, sir, and so i think the charges are worth looking at carefully. on the military side, just keep in mind for the one reservation i have is taiwan willing to buy? taiwan, their gdp and military budget is less than 3% of their gdp. it's not a country that wants to build up militarily. >> that's one of the frustrating parts. we pushed them to buy the weapons system and the legislature couldn't find a way to do it. >> thank you, and we thank

ms. bass of california for yielding her time and recognize mr. marino who is yielding his time to mr. smith. >> i yield my time to mr. smith. thank you. >> thank you. you're recognized. >> thank you for that curtesy and good friend and colleague and new member. just a couple questions in follow-up. i ran out of time about the issue of how you receive a person who with his past and present raised a serious issue about what we are actually doing especially to the disdense who know throughout all of china including he and his wife under house arrest that the jailer is getting a state dinner. these are not nuances. these are profound issues that are raised here, so if you could perhaps some of you might want

to speak to that issue. let me also say and the distinguished chair lady mentioned a moment ago in the audience are some the greatest human rights defenders and their loved ones. he was adducted in vietnam right as the president took over in 2002. they have not seen their father. they tried to get into see him. he was abducted out of vietnam, back to china where he is now spending a horrific and enduring horrific or deals. hao who is gao's wife who is here today made a 2,000 mile trek with her two children after her older daughter was so disrespondent, perhaps suicidal because she was so mistreated, but we forget it's not just the disdense, but their families who share in the cruelty handed out by the chinese dictatorship.

she made it thankfully and her children, but, again, it raises the question about how can a man who is responsible and i would say directly responsible, he gets a state dinner. when frank wolf and i made trips to the prc, we met with the premier. i believe you have meetings like that. we have lists of prisoners, forced abortions, religious persecution. we laid it out. he was happy to receive that, but it was a very real conversation. i wonder if, you know, when the toasts are made later on tonight and there's all of this hoopla around a state dinner, that all of that simmers into background and what message have we sent? also, if you could speak to this, and i'll yield to you. the bad governing model. you know, when i chaired the african subcommittee years ago, three hearings on what china is

doing in africa and people in the countries there and so many others who are dictators love the chinese model of control and secret police and i'm very worried about the influence that their bad governing and human rights model is having unless we really speak loud and clear, and i again make my appeal to the president and press corp.. be public. don't walk on egg shells. speak boldly about, especially president obama about his fellow peace prize winner because he won it last year, and this year the winner is in prison and his wife under house arrest. >> congressman, i'm personally upset about the honor that hu jintao is receiving. it's not a matter of whether to meet or receive hu jintao, it's how to do it.

giving hu jintao this honor will send two messages to china. one is to the people. the comments can be described as we can get away. this people putting nobel peace prize winner in jail. we can get away with any human rights violation. the message to the people that is u.s. may not be that sincere about human rights issues in china, and i want to emphasize that china is a very practical player. china's governments legitimacy is performance based and for this regime to continue its rule in china is the economic growth, so we have too much imposed the

fear on ourself thinking that if we take a stronger position on human rights issues that will jeopardize our economic relationship with china. why should i fear of? it is them that should fear, you know, any jeopardizes of economic relation between the u.s. and the rest of the world because the slow economic growth will lead all the problems we have been accumulating in the past years that will cost the government to collapse. thank you. >> thank you very much for yielding the time to mr. smith. now batting clean up, one of the committee super stars, chairman designate of the chairman subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair.

i was going to ask larry a question here. i think this is an issue who maybe everybody who is representative of the business community to does business in china should be thinking about. there was an article on extortion in the "harvard business review" in december, and the subject is china versus the world, whose technology is it? an exhaustive study of the actual consequences for u.s. businesses in china. let me just read you, larry, one of the conclusions the authors wrote. chinese officials learned to tackle multinational companies including u.s. companies, often forcing them to form joint ventures with its national champions and transfer the latest technology in exchange for current and future business opportunities. companies that resist are simply excluded from projects.

they use restrictions and they induce each of them to transfer the technologies that state-owned enterprises need to catch up. it is extortion, and we all know numerous examples. we've heard witnesses two years ago we heard from nancy weinstein and only to have a business stolen from under her. that was a shanghai example, but since that hearing, i've probably heard from half dozen businesses that said we don't want to go public, but this is their modus op renne dumb. now it appears in laying out the case that this is the modus operandi. can i have your thoughts on that

? >> mr. royce, it is the modus operandi. the companies that are forced to do that of their own because they hope it produces money. some do, some don't. >> larry, larry, the next chapter is once the technology is stolen, that company had better be prepared for a pretty quick exit out of china because its contracts are about to change. it's work force doesn't show up the next morning. it's in violation of any number of new rules. it's leases are terminated. we've heard the stories over and over again. >> well, i would only suggest a legislative strategy to remedy it. >> yes. >> and that's if companies can

legitimately demonstrate its products or technology was stolen. >> yeah. >> then prohibit the sale of that stuff in the united states. >> well, that's a good remedy. that's a good remedy, but from the experience that we've had going to bat with our constituents out in california and nancy would be an example, we have not been able through the court systems in china to have any success and to my knowledge, i don't know of any success. i wondered if you would agree with one of the points made in this report and the authors concluded it might be useful for the u.s. to dispense with the premise that it can have an economically compatible relationship with china. in other words, knowing going in that these are two radically different systems and china has failed to bring their system

into compliance with any of the international norms for commercial activity or for rule of law. >> i don't know why you would choose to do business with a documented thief. >> well, my hope -- >> documented thief? >> yeah. my hope would be that there are many other countryings in asia that have an interest in closer relations with the u.s.. we see this in the polling all the time, and i think a key aspect of managing china's rise will be our alliances with china's neighbors across east asia and south asia, and i think that giving reassurance to our friends and placing a check on maybe china's regional ambitions is going to be necessary, but what more should we be doing with these countries to encourage trade investment, and what more should we do to let

the business community know that their return on investment is a negative one in terms of china? that gets out occasionally in the journal, but not often enough. >> thank you, the gentleman's time expired, and now truly the last question and answer five minutes is mr. portenberry. >> thank you for appearing to us today. i have a lofty senate in front of me that says i want to stress the importance of managing china in a manner that honors the prince. s that define our national purpose and identity. i'll stop there. looking into the audience, i see a number of young people. it's important to get your mind around this. many of you are perhaps newly married or want to be married in the future. let's suppose you were in china and the authorities ask how many

children you have? we have one. we have one on the way. well, that's one too many. come with #us. can you imagine that in the united states? we can't get our mind around the concepts, and yet this is president hu jintao's china of today. i hope as the president meets -- as president obama meets with president hu that human rights will figure most prominently in the discussions and the white house indicated some direction in that regard. since i've been serving in congress, members of both sides of the aisle challenge beijing on the ruthless treatment of democracy activists and their families, internal treatment activists, religious minorities, and families victimized by forced abortions. turn to economics. we owe $2 trillion to china and we have a bilateral trade

deficit approaching $300 billion and this poses weighted concerns. we must challenge china to abandoned its unbridled mechanisms practices that contribute to this staggering imblaps. i think we have to look ourselves in the eye in the united states and take action to get our fiscal house in order to revive our stag inapt manufacturing industries and take responsibility for our economic future. the reality is we buy their stuff and they buy our debt, and this is a truly dysfunctional marriage. i think we have an obligation to forthrightly address the sources of tension in this relationship with china in our commitment to mutual respect should never entice us to ignore the very

serious concerns, and i hope that the administration will echo these concerns in their meetings today with chinese leadership. my question to the panel is this. the chinese give cover to the north koreans. the chinese do business with iran. the chinese do not respect human rights. what type of world does china envision? what is their end game? a nationalistic surge underwritten by a new capitalistic communist model never foreseen in the world? can you comment on that please? >> i'd be happy to comment. i think the chinese objective is focused on the here and now. mr. yang emphasized they have a legitimacy deficit and that rests on economic performance. to do that, they need stability, and to do that they have to interagent with the world on a lot of different ways with

economic development being primary. to confront the united states in a major way is something that i think is not fundamental to what they are about right now. their long term plans are very vague. they've got a very big agenda for the short term, and it's going to keep them busy for a long time >> does raising the concerns i raised as well as many others today help address or give rise to more concerns as they further distant themselves from what we consider to be the international community of responsible nations? >> the idea that we should -- the idea that we should address all the issues that you mentioned in a forthright way is very, very clear. we should do that, no question. i think your idea that somehow the chinese have this plan for domination and control of the world, i think a better image is that china is a bit scrambling, trying to keep legitimacy,

trying to keep control over a very vibrant economic and social situation. it's not under good control. >> does raising the issues i raiseed hinder their quest? >> it could. >> economics trumps everything. >> it does not. prestige is important as well, and their position is important as well. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman's time expired and it's a testament to the great interest that this topic has that members keep coming and coming back. pleased to recognize mr. deutch. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the leaders of this committee. i'd like to spend a couple minutes talking about the way in which the chinese government has been weakened in forcing intellectual property rights. the creativity, the imagination,

the innovation of american workers, their intellect is being stolen on a regular basis in china. it's stolen by illegal down loads, pirated by illegal dvds, but seizing, again, the intellectual property of our nation. what can we do to increase the pressure on the chinese government to be more serious in forcing and protecting the intellectual property rights of our citizens? >> i think the one thing that we can do if we really are serious about it is start adding tariffs for goods of countries that do engage in willful theft of intellectual property. this is really important thing for us to do. i think it's probably about the only way to do it. there are a number of other strategies, and one thing the obama administration has done is it has gone after these

indigenous up no vaition rules that president hu jintao really sponsored and really does put american companies at serious disadvantage if they want to do business in china, so that's one thing, but when it comes to the actual theft which is another issue i believe that the only way to do with this is sanctions of some sort, penalties of some sort, and probably follow the general trajectory of hr2378. >> you're nodding your head. >> i agree with mr. chang. we have to rid ourselves of the available world trade organization remedies. we're not always doing that. they are more limited than we might like, but we must avail ourselves of them, and we have to work particularly with our european allies and friends so that when a case it brought, it's not just brought by one country. i think that helps. countervailing duties is another

potential remedy that i think would be useful. >> i'd like to broaden the discussion for the implications of the theft of intellectual property to the links between steeling intellectual property and funding terrorist organizations like he has hez. they line up in places in south america where millions of dollars of direct contributions were vied to he has hezbollah. they contributed $3.5 million to hezbollah. is there a way moving beyond the important nature of intellectual prosecute rights on its own to helping to reenforcing this severe implications of these violations in our own -- >> i think we just pointed the

way toward a response to that, and that would be to take a look at the iron sanctions act -- iran sanctions act, and with the terrorism an ex yous, the legislation could be modeled along the iran sanctions act that was specifically sanctioned with the chinese violaters who are engaged in that activity. >> along those lines under the iran sanctions act we passed last year, by all accounts there are chinese firms that ought to be sanctioned. they have not been. do you have thoughts on the actions taken by these chinese companies, state-owned, in iran to helping them overcome the sanctions imposed on other companies? >> you know, the here you really have to get the oversight administration enforcement. if they are not doing the job, they are not doing the job.

>> we sanctioned chinese enterprises, but essentially they are all controlled by the state. essentially what we should be doing is thinking about sanctions that go beyond the individual enterprise because essentially what we are doing is going after the pinky when we should be going after the head. >> in the remaining seconds, how on that specific issue, how do we go after the head? >> it would be basically putting sanctions on goods on countries that do involve in prohibitive behavior. this is difficult for the united states to do. up until now we have not had the will to do it. when it comes to selling arms to the taliban or somebody else ring we have to think about our priorities. >> thank you very much, thank you to the panelists for the excellent testimony and the members who participated. thank you to the audience and the briefing is now adjourned. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> chinese president hu jintao is on a four-day visit to the united states. his first since 2006. learn more about him and watch c-span coverage of his other appearances over the years online at the c-span video library with all videos since 1987 all viewable and all free. it's washington your way. >> in a few moments the defense department briefing on suicides in the army. in a little less than an hour, head of the afl-cio on the state of the labor movement.

>> the army says there were nearly 350 suicides among soldiers, civilian employees, and family members last year. suicides decreased for the first time in six years, but there was an increase in nonactive duty suicides. this briefing is a little less than an hour. >> well, good morning, and thank you all for being here today. i'm joined as you can see by lieutenant chief of the army reserve and ray carpenter. i'd like to make a brief opening statement, and then we'll field questions you might have. in counter year 2010, the army had 343 suicides of soldiers,

department of the army civilians, and family members. 69 more than calendar year 2009. we achieved modest success in reducing the number of suicides of soldiers serving on active duty. however, we saw significant increase in the number of suicides of soldiers not serving on active duty to include a doubling in the army national guard. now, for those of you who don't track this, when we say the active component force, we mean the 569,000 folks currently part of the active component force plus all soldiers during that calendar year that we mobilize, so that includes soldiers from the guard and reserve, and that total number in any year at least for the last 8-10 years has run anywhere between 725-750,000 folks. when i say active component, i

also include members of the army reserve and the army national guard who are mobilized during that year. our challenge in the year ahead is to keep building upon the initial progress made in the active component. we'll continue our efforts to rep kate that progress in the reserve component. primarily by expanding the reach and accessibility of the programs and services that are positively impacting the lives of soldiers serving on active duty. we attribute the modest decrease in suicides by soldiers serving last year to the program and policy changes implemented since the establishment of the health prize winner motion risk reduction and counsel of 2009. among our efforts to date, we are in the midst of implementing army wide the chief because he was the genesis for it, focused

on improving soldiers' resiliency. we have a pain management task force to manage the use of pain medications and adopt best practices and initiated face-to-face post deployment health screening for all returning brigades to better identify at-risk soldiers and be sure they receive appropriate treatment. looking ahead, we believe these and other efforts will take us from a leveling off of active duet suicides to are reduction in suicide attempts and other high risk behavior. the reality is we are able to more effectively influence those soldiers serving on active duty and help mitigate the stressors affecting them. conversely, it's much more difficult to do so in the case of individuals not serving on active duty because they are often geographicically separated, removed from the support network provided by military up stalllations, they look the ready camaraderie of

fellow soldiers in oversight and hands on stance from the members of chain of command, and in many cases, these soldiers have limited or reduced access to care and services. meanwhile, they are more vulnerable to the challenges of an adverse economy and a troubled labor market especially for our young people. we learned a tremendous amount in taking a.q.s to support the -- actions to support the soldier over the years. we have to be more aggressive in determining how the programs and efforts working effectively in support of our soldiers on active duty may be modified or expanded to better support soldiers not serving on active duty, department of army civilians, and family members. we must continue to find ways to replicate that progress and leverage army, veterans,

administration, community, and services in order to deliver a similar effective level of care and support to individuals not living and working near a military operation. i can assure you this is a top priority, and we're work very, very hard to get at this unique challenge by working with employers of garden reserve soldiers and the private sector to mitigate economic stress on soldiers by educating soldiers and the public about the overuse and abuse of prescription drugs, by improving family awareness to training and resources, and by enhancing the quality and access to medical care, and medicine options and services. we are encouraging communities to get involved recognizing that particularly for citizen soldiers not serving on active duty, family, peers, and employers remit the bed -- represent the bedrock of their

support network. this is a significant issue and there's much to be done, but much of the best and brighter men and women from academia, industry, the medical community, dod, and government as a whole are working tire lessly in this area. i assure you we remain committed to finding further ways to promote resiliency, reduce high-risk behavior, improve family and soldier support programs, and eliminate the stigma of receiving help. across our force of 1.1 million and beyond to include the department of army civilians and family members. again, thank you for coming, and now jack, ray, and i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> on the decrease in active duty. can you give us an example of a program or policy change that you think made a difference in

some details that we can understand why it seems to be working now? >> i can name a couple. i think the institution of comprehensive soldier fitness had an effect an will have a greater effect will rolling out that program, not only on active force, but in the guard and reserve. we know that resilient soldiers are less likely to try to commit suicide. we just know that, and we've got some real data now from comprehensive soldier fitness that compared and identified data collected on soldiers who later completed suicide, a group randomly selected and the researchers found that broadly speaking that resilient soldiers don't complete suicide. we can teach solders through

that program to be more resilient. this is exciting. we have online modules, master resilience trainers down in units working to teach soldiers to be more resilient. i think the confidential alcohol and drug treatment program where it's an individual, currently eight installations, feels that they have a problem, they can suffer through themself or counsel, and that's not reported in their chain of command, and although we've received some resistance from the field when implemented in all eight locations where it's implemented, commanders really, really appreciate the program because people come forward and seek help but because the stigma would not normally do that. the final thick i'll tell you is i think the increase in marriage and family life counselors is a huge one. i invite you to go out and talk to families in post camps and

stations. not only are they in units, but pushing them into schools and communities, and they are just an unbelievable resource that's highly thought of by the field. >> the fitness is a year old, the drug program -- >> we've been rolling that out for the last year. if i could, it would be in every post camp and station, but what i can't get enough of is substance abuse counselors. there's not enough of them. they are pulled out of that particular labor market because there's needs for behavioral health counselors. many of them have the same credentials that allow them to fleet up because we have a shortage there too which is seems like every time i hire ten, i lose ten, and it's not that they go someplace else, but they are behavioral health counselors or work their way

into that field. >> the marriage and family field? >> that's the same program, but a lot more of it, a lot more of it. >> general, the task force report that you issued in july made a big deal about how the army wasn't doing a good job of reporting and tracking high-risk behavior. i'm wondering first whether you had any success in improving that, and second, how do you do it with reserve component soldiers? how do you track -- how do you keep an eye on their risk behavior? >> we've almost turned that around. for us in the acting component force rs that was easy to do. when a soldier commits a high-risk event that gets him put on the blotter, okay, there's a form that goes to a commander that a commander fills out in 30 days that says what action have you taken? it doesn't enforce action, but closes the case and forces

something to occur. we -- prior to the publication of the report in some installations there was less than 60% compliance in returning the report back. now we're over 90 and some places 100% in getting that back to authorities within the 30 day mark and taking the necessary action. all that form does is it ensures that we have a record of what occurred so those commanders command. i will let jack and ray answer how they do it, but i can only imagine theirs is more difficult because they work in individual communities. ray, do you want to start? >> yes, sir. i'd give you an example of how we managed to identify the problem and improve upon that. one of the high risk behaviors we see out there across the national guard is riding motorcycles. that is a high-risk behavior.

to mitigate that risk; the requirement is to wear the proper protective equipment and clothing, a helmet, leathers, those kinds of things, and so from a policy stand point, we have put out a policy to the states that says motorcycle riders will, if they are in the national guard, will take the appropriate training and will wear the proper protective clothing and equipment if they ride a motorcycle. we have seen a significant reduction in casualties in motorcycles in 2010. we implemented this program in 2008 and worked it in 2009 and 2010. with regard to the discussion we have right now with suicide and health issues, we have a program out there. it's an online kind of tool where it's a self-assessment for the soldier to fill out what he or she does, identify the risk behavior, and in conjunction

with his or her leader, develop a process for how to mitigate that. .. part of what we've done this here it is but a real emphasis on the first widely great that he's got to maintain contact with his soldiers throughout the

month so he knows what is going on in their life, not just on the one weekend and they come into a joke, but with going on the other three weeks when they are out there. they are looking at some types of devices, obviously iphone somethings out there, but some systems where we can maintain contact even better. i think another key piece of it is we've got to make the suicide prevention plan a family plan. is it that the family with the soldiers the other 28 days of the month and they're the ones who start to see those signs that high-risk behavior and other things. when we talk about reducing the stigma, too often we focus only on the soldiers it's okay to ask for help. we've got to reduce the stigma and the family member that says if i see my son, daughter, has been, wife, doing something high risk, doing something dangerous that they may endanger

themselves, it's okay for me to call their commander or first sergeant were someone in the unit and say anything help. so are putting a big emphasis on her suicide prevention training them and not just the soldier, but treating the family of flow. as we've got to figure out how to maintain contact and awareness of what's going on in the soldiers like the other 28 days we don't see them. >> you know, when i first joined 22 years ago we started this whole process, we were only focus on one of 140 and talking active component. many of your questions and articles and what you did is we've expanded to include all the classes that we look at five different groups of individuals. look at the component soldiers, card, reserve, army civilians and family members. so the numbers, you know, any of you who know things about military this is quibbling, we have only focused on this group,

both the army reserve and the army national guard collect data for about five years. whether or not that's good anything to do with the numbers we see today, i don't know. but we know it's got a problem we probably didn't recognize we have before we've got to figure out innovative ways to try and get the kinds of things that seem now to be working out to guard and reserve. not only the cup would they are a trilogy month, but in their communities and environments they live. >> how is the government concerned. is it something homesick or lowly? and also, i'm sure the suicide killings and not murder like the people who are killed in the name of religion and they put

bombs on the body, is this also an impact on a merger? >> are you talking about specific suicide to take place in afghanistan? we haven't seen any increase in those numbers. they have basically remained. i've given you a broad -- one third of our soldiers are deployed. one third of our soldiers have deployment history and one third have never deployed. those numbers over the years have changed a little. we have not seen anything that is an alarming increase in afghanistan. every suicide takes place somewhere where it is is a tragedy. i can't really point to anything that's going on in theater, other than normal structures you can only imagine from relationship issues to multiple deployments and with very little time at home to the kinds of things we've talked about in the

past. it would be coming in now, causing that i could point to as the cause for suicides in theater. >> you didn't mention the fact that your -- the drawdown in iraq, your people are going less often. you're getting more dwell time. do you think that's a factor at all in helping reduce? >> is import to understand because were going to projects and will be home two years. they haven't been home two years until they been home two years. and if you go back and look at the iraq drawdown, no one is feeling the effect of the iraq drawdown right now if you understand what i'm saying. they're dwell time is what it is. i really believe when we put more time between deployments that is going to be a huge fat during helping us get a lot of

these problems. i really believe that dwell is one of the things we've got to look at and has an impact on all kinds of problems, not just suicides, but all the things that fall short of suicide from relationship issues to drug and alcohol abuse, to all those things are the more time to get deployment, the better off were going to be. but you don't experience them until you've experienced it, not just on the calendar says okay you're going to be home for two years. [inaudible] >> we hope by the end of this year across the board is the total number will be closed to one to two. we're still going to have mos, military occupational specialties such as aviation and aviation right now is your deployed 1.4 at home. they are really, really moving out.

>> are you noticing anything in the numbers in terms of women in suicides or ptsd or all the 343 man, is there anything notable about stress on women and forced? if i could ask you a recent report should not be allowed to serve an online combat positions. how do you feel about that? >> i check if a because there's an article that came out in december and one of the very prominent journals of psychiatry to talk about a particular report about women veterans had a higher suicide rate than their male counterparts. i have not had an opportunity to look into that in dig into it, but i did look into our numbers for 2010 and women, women who committed suicide by the numbers

are very small. edward somewhere in the vicinity of 70%. 93% are in fact males. so we're not seeing anything in those numbers that would indicate. the brazilian fee of women will be at a school state that seems to be higher for whatever reason and i'm sure you can explain. that may be why we have ill or resilient to you, lower suicide rate in women based on the number we have employed. [inaudible] >> we haven't in combat today. >> to think it's time for that -- >> that make it through other questions and then we can talk about that. >> one third, one third deployed, what is the breakdown for the curtain raisers if you know it right now? of the suicide in the primary

server in 2010, how many of those have deployed -- it never deployed click >> great question. one third, one third, one third. that is 66% are between 66% and 70% have deployment history or are deployed, but that's not the same in the guard and reserve. >> for us in the army national guard, we had 112 suicide reported in fy 10. understanding 11 of those as general crowley mentioned. >> of my 156 a report as active component, 11 of those are guard. soldiers are in active duty. believe it's five -- >> six. >> six. the 17 of the 156 guard and reserve soldiers who were active duty at the time committed suicide. >> so as we look at the dramatic

increase in 2010, we've got two obvious questions we have to answer. first of all, what happened in 2010? second of all, we have to be able to respond and tell people what we're doing about it. the analysis for 2010 shows that it's not a deployment problem because over 50% of the people in the army national guard in 2010 have never deployed. it is not a problem of employment because only 15% of the people who committed suicide in fact are without a job. if you look at it, part of it is a significant relationship problems because over 50% of those who committed suicide have had some sort of a partner problem they were dealing with, whether with marriage, divorce, girlfriend, boyfriend, that kind of thing. we know it is a young white male problem. to the earlier question, 103 of

those were in the national guard. the traditional national guard problem and that 100 of them does soldiers were going to school. were not full-time in the army national guard. and we do know we have seen and improved reporting over the past four years since we started keeping data in 2007 through 2010, which we think is a good team because now we've got the problem out there and we can deal with it. anecdotally, we know that society at large is seen an increased trend in suicide. and as you look at the center for disease control statistics, the last of which are readily available in 2007 and here we are in 2010 and i think general chiarelli would point out she was in a significant change in everything from economic to societal issues. and so we are really kind of, as

he puts it, canary in the mineshaft come especially for us in the national guard because we recruit communities and reflection of those communities. and so we think the suicide rate were experiencing right now is part of a national trend. in our effort is to build resilience which i can talk about more. the bottom line is every doing analysis not a single thing. it is a combination of a group of things that come together. >> we are same in line. our suicides are not an employment issue. half of our personality and is not a stress on the floors. it is something else going on in their lives. it's very interesting as we do

what we call the psychological autopsy, looking at individual afterwards. and most of the cases, one of the most positive things they have going in their life is their military career. a lot of times as they do the psychological autopsy and we talked to family and friends, they will talk about this individual was so proud of being a member of the army reserve and felt so good about going to his drill and being part of his unit. it was something else in his life that was missing. unless we've got to find out and that sort of talked about earlier, being aware of what's going on the rest of their life. it is a mere society and we need to understand that when they're with us on the military said can we take care and protect them and the soldiers feel they are taken care of. >> just to put this in contrast were talking about 343 suicides. some of the numbers i've seen in the country last year, the numbers could be as high as 35,000. so we're talking about less than

1% of the whole number. and it'll be interesting when the cdc finally does catch up if they ever catch up to then go back and look at what's happening in the military as we report these numbers do you after the end of the year as we go back and compared to what was really going on in the country at the time when we get the numbers up to date. >> what do you mean by someone who learns to be more resilient? >> you know, this is my definition. but it has were pillars. the key to me as an individual can be put and a tough situation and comes at the same or better for it rather than an individual who's been in a tough situation and deteriorates or have a negative impact by whatever that situation is.

and some people are able to be putting in some very difficult situations that come out stronger for it, learn from the situation and move on where others can't. and i would only add to what ray and and jack said here is i've been looking at this for two years like they have for two years and they are our underlying message is if you think you know the one thing that causes people to commit suicide, please let us know because we don't. it gets very, very -- you want to say its relationship issues because between 72% and 74% of your soldiers have relationship issues. the relationship issue or what caused the relationship issue? i don't think any of us in relationships decide i'm going to have an issue. there's a series that occur that can be anything from high-risk behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, anger management issues, whatever they might be. and then the relationship issue

happens. so i think were standing in front of you to tell you. now i will tell you were hoping that army stars are in partnership with the national institute mental-health is going to provide us some opportunities here to understand a heckuva lot better. as luck would have it in his doctors would provide it, and researchers provided i got back last night at least a couple hundred pages of analysis on the data we've given the we've got to work our way through the next couple of weeks. we should be able to understand a little bit more from the historical data we were able to provide them and start to put that to use here in the next month or so. yes, ma'am. >> general, last july he said, as i recall, 45% of suicides by active-duty soldiers would never

been deployed and now there's regards and reserve said they were not active-duty when they committed suicide. how much of an issue is that in terms of mental-health screening, when you're recruiting new soldiers since so many seem to be happening against those who've never deployed early in the career. >> well, we're going to look at everything we possibly can. what is it really looks the imh help us with this delectable return for screening. they indicated we were doing about as good as we could given some of the limitations we all have. if you want to join the united dates are may, i look you in the face and asked if the affair had been mental-health albums. if you say no, that's basically it. i do not have access to your medical records. you do not have to provide them to me. and even if he did provide me with that of medical records, there's no guarantee their complete. their screen we can do and we've been told as much as we know right now, our screening is

pretty good. but will be looking at all the ways we possibly can to try to get at this. >> is mental-health screening the same across the board from those in the active-duty army and the guards and reserves? [inaudible] >> do you mind giving off a couple examples of how private industry is helping? >> well, employers in the guard and reserve is an area we know we've got to get at. we're not pointing at the economy as a reason, but it's one of those factors we have to look at and ensuring when our soldiers cut back -- and i don't want to point to any single industry, there really can understand with the job job status is. i've had in it donald reports of being demobilized in as many as 30% of coming home and not having a job. that is something commanders need to know about, we need to

know about and we need to look hard at what we can do to help them through that period. you know, we could not have done what we've done in the last almost 10 years if it hadn't been for the two gentlemen and the forces they command on my right and my left. their contributions have been absolutely amazing. when you go to the demobilization station of reserve guard soldiers, you're not running a bunch of soldiers on first deployment. her running into soldiers that have been on three and four deployment. i'm sure there's a little bit of employer fatigue that occurs. what they're looking for a think is predictability. we've had a rough time getting that to them in every single case before. so we've got to look at that, in my opinion, as one of the ways the kind of information that those of us in the component would normally think of trying to collect soldiers good week to be more conscious and do

everything we can to get them back and having jobs. >> we started a program a couple years ago, partnering with players in the army reserve family because what general chiarelli said heretofore going to maintain the up-tempo we've got, got to families, we've got to have employers. and what we have turned that into is actually in bed going to the employers and talking about taking soldiers away from them but we need them, we're turning the tables in saint tell us what you need because we've got this wealth of talent. you know, when you read statistics about only one out of three and now i'm hearing one out of four individuals in america qualify to join the army because they've got to be drug-free, physically fit, morally fit. the employers have the same

challenge. we've got this wealth of talent that is trained, that is drug-free, that is morally fit. the we've started approaching the health systems of america because we have 60% of the medical structure of the army. the transportation system because we at 80% of the assets from the army between reagan myself. what we're finding out if there is a lot of employers out there that are viewing the reserve and guard in a much more positive manner of this human capital that's out there if we just partnered together. and at six we birdie instilled in them. as general chiarelli said, give them some predictability so we can plan around when we need that soldier and uniform and when they can use them in a civilian aspect. today we started out with just a couple of employers. today we've got over 1000 employers who signed up with us as employer partners.

we've incorporated the card any other servicers into this program. it's everything from small mom-and-pop stores in middle america to places like wal-mart, target, general electric, those types of corporations, snyder trucking coming d.c. police force and novell are here in northern virginia, that are offering jobs to the guard and reserve soldiers as there've first choice for employment. >> anything for the national guard perspective, we are very proud of our partnership with the army reserve and his employer partnership office. but there are other areas in the army national guard. each one of those leaders sponsors initiatives at their level in terms of trying to support various employment issues. i'll give you an example of the 81st brigade, which came back from iraq and cause the state of

washington home. when we came back with the unemployed and trade at 33%. the state of washington put together an employee employer type of counselors. those etcs if you will have sponsors and took those soldiers who did not have jobs, help them fill out their resumes, when a night job search if you will, kind of a headhunter to make sure those individuals on the job and were employed. he was down a 10% of the state of washington, which by the way has got us a higher unemployment rate than the average across the nation. they were huge to say stories out there. >> general chiarelli, high, cnn. i was wondering if he could share your own personal reaction and level of frustration as the numbers came clear over the

course of the year and also identify any particular installation, maybe fort hood for instance has taken particular steps to combat suicide. >> we do this over time. it's going to post more than any other posts. that's how we keep track. ford had with our highest those this year we immediately go back and say wait a second the events of 2009. is there a link to that of what occurred and i could say the 21 suicides we had fort hood. we only know one individual who is even remotely associated with that horrific event. that was an individual who is being seen in the emergency room for something totally different at the time people were being brought into the emergency room. so we watching for it very carefully. we were in every single case trying to see if there is any connection between those two

events or the event of the individual suicide of what happened in november 2009. and there clearly was sent. one of things that have been afforded the theater is far ahead in july 43,000 soldiers that were back at their station. the first time they had 43,000 soldiers in a long time. if i look at the numbers, they found one suicide in september, october, november and december. there's suicides are basically frontloaded on the front end of the year and into the summertime and it's the same phenomena i saw last year in fort campbell. mr. is for campbell's numbers have gone down significantly and hoods have gone up. so i'm frustrated at every single suicide. each one is briefed to me. i received a report within 36 hours on every single one. a few similarities and differences in the trade issue as much information as we can

with the field on how to get out of it. but when you realize for taking a young american in the army today and were put in them, psychologists will tell you, and the sixers in the united states army and the tempura right now, putting them under as much stress in a six-year period as they would have if they live to be 80 years old in seattle, washington and whatever they did in seattle washington. we're putting folks under a lot of stress. and the positive thing i see is i really believe some of our programs, but more important than anything else of their leaders are fully engaged in this problem right now, given that the stigma issue, giving people the help they need to do hope you'll see these numbers go down significantly in the coming years. >> we have time for tumor questions. goodnight brian jordan, military.com. among soldiers who committed suicide in 2010, at any of them taken a comprehensive soldier

fitness test of the information based on? >> i don't look at those numbers because we have guarded the confidentiality of the gap and we continue to guard the confidentially of the gap. however, it would stand to reason that the last time i heard over a hundred 90,000 folks had taken to god that somewhere 189,000 folks who could commit suicide. but that's not something that i'm going to go after because we've promised soldiers confidentiality with that instrument and were bound to determine to maintain it. >> so in fact, he might be a lot >> i just got to tell you, we may look at data plainly, okay, i don't know exactly, but the

confidentiality is of utmost importance to us and we'll occurred that like we do all of our data and make sure people don't believe for use in the treatment other than what we said we were going to use it for. >> do you think they're doing enough in order to help individuals to seek assistance instead of them hide depression and mental illness? >> are we doing enough? >> to think you could be something else to help individuals in the systems? >> well, i think were doing a lot. the new protocol sandridge of a secondary effect we put in place for tbi and posttraumatic stress for having a secondary effect. because i really believe the force now understand the dramatic brain injury and postherpetic status or no kidding injuries and they are seeking help. they have resiliency center's

are those downrange springing up all over afghanistan today. that's a very positive thing. that gets people into be seen when they've got these issues. you know, suicide is this ultimate act at the far end of the spec term. it became clear to me as i started looking into this is there's a whole bunch of folks who would never contemplate nor commit suicide. and we've got to get at those folks. when you get at those folks i think the firing of the spectrum will in fact be lower. because burkett into problems when they are problems before they come to a crescendo, where somebody feels they have to take their life. that is totally unacceptable. so i really believe we are leading an effort to de-stigmatize soldiers, family members, da civilians seeking help when they have these behavioral health issues.

they are injuries that must be taken care of. >> general, you said in the past several occasions to get by you couldn't help but think the suicide increase has track and fighting two wars and you couldn't help but think the two are related. do you still hold onto that what the national guard increase of their lives are minimally impacted by the army and is it possible that's more of a fact or is that comes from the civilian world? >> i've come to the conclusion there is no single fact year. but i also believe the nih and some of their initial data may show us that the deployment and the appointment history of soldiers has the impact of suicide comment that is a factor among many fact years that we have to take into account.

and you know, it's not just the physical act of deploying. it's all the other things that have been. it's the relationship issues. it may be an individual combat that relies on alcohol to a level that he had not or she had not relied on it before and maybe the person who has a rough time handling the prescription drugs. in some instances there all we know prescribed for some of the things that are sent in to visit critical portion of treatments albeit were doing our best to lower them as much as we possibly can i lower the incidence of prescribing a lot of terms. but i think upon those things. and i honestly believe that the numbers are going to show that the up-tempo we've been under as a contributing their two the rate that we've experienced in the last seven years.

>> -- the national guard given their minimal contact with deployments in the army. >> their minimal contacts. for reporting a number geo- batting race case come i think you said over 50% of your soldiers had not deployed. >> that means almost 50% have deployed. so to say there was minimal contact is really not an accurate description of the situation with god. now to general chiarelli's point, understand there's no single cause, but understandably have to get out on those causes, we've tried to focus on the soldiers who have deployed and make sure we meet their needs as they come home. we have a reintegration program that includes families, communities and employers. it's been hugely successful and there's a process for the soldier meets with counselors, meets with various subject

matter experts of the 90. when they come back and even beyond that along with the family to identify how do i reintegrate? what are the problems i'm going to have quite had awaits you with them, those kinds of things. beyond that we have a great partnership with the administration in the medical piece, the post-appointment reintegration assessment. those tools are all out there for us to identify problems soldiers have while they were on that a duty to make sure they get what they are deserving of a few well as they come back. out for the soldiers who have never been deployed, we have a little bit more difficult issue because they are not entitled veterans administration benefits. we encourage them to be part of tri-care reserve select, which is a program that provides health insurance and coverage for soldiers who ran the national guard regardless of

deployment. and for that venue, we can provide medical support and medical care for them. again, they're probably upwards of 100 programs by the time you include with each general is doing out there. we'll return in conjunction with the enemy what we're sponsoring a national level. so this is an all hands after here if you will to solve this program and focus on what we think the problems are and put efforts in each one of those causes. so i think that even though it's a complex problem, we are going to do with it with equal complexity and equal effort. >> jack. [inaudible] >> general, it sounds like the theme you are saying is that on the act aside, given all that you're doing, the numbers would actually be higher than they have been the last three years,

given the numbers of the last three years double what they were five to six years ago. do you think they might even have been higher without your efforts but >> i hate to assign a cause and effect to anything, but i've got to believe that the ivolvement of our leadership and programs we've rolled out has saved soldiers lives. i hear, you know, besides hearing about those suicides we try to denoue and collect the stories were in fact involved leadership has saved a soldier. and i can give you a lot of those stories, where we know that we saved a soldier from, you know, committing or attempting to commit suicide. so yes, i believe unequivocally that there would be higher numbers if we did not have the focus of the leadership in the programs that we've rolled out

to get at this problem. and we will continue to do that in the next year and beyond. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> now, afl-cio president, richard trumka on the state of the labor movement. this is a little less than an hour. >> and stan janowski of firefighter in brooklyn. my company was one of the minute they rush to the world trade center after the first plane hit. as of firefighter pat number of the afl-cio i'm honored to be here. i am honored to introduce richard trumka, a fighter for all working people across the country, which we need more than ever today, thanks to ronald

reagan who started his big investing. for the last several years i've been telling my story and that of my colleagues to anyone who'd listen. i'm in and out of hospitals because i exposure weeks and months and i need some help in paying for expensive for associate with my sickness. i was in washington when the 9/11 health care bill finally passed in december. we finally succeeded. the combined hard work of working men and women hate off, especially afl-cio members. but it took far too long and there's so much further to go. my son is a firefighter, make that her teacher, both public workers and those struggling to take care of yourselves and their families, including their old van. the fight for the rights of working men and women is not over. working people need advocates who will fight for things just like the 9/11 health care bill. we need a deploy voice that we need fighters who will stand up

for the powers that be in for some to do the right thing. that's what the afl-cio is doing, led by our president afl-cio. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. good morning and thank you. stan, thank you for the fine introduction. i'm honored to stand beside firefighters who responded to a 9-1-1 call from the world trade center moments after the terrorist attacks in 2011. as america grieved, stan returned to the scene day after day. first in the hopes of rescuing those trapped in the rubble and then to recover the remains of

those who it perished. today he continues to deal with the terrible aftermath of that terrible day. as he deals with the toll of his bravery in his commit and have taken on this. last month, stan and other firefighters in police officers and construction workers who answered the call that they, who ran into the fire and into the dust cloud posed the question to our elected leaders. what kind of country are we? for seven years, they pressed for a law that would do one simple thing. take care of the heroes who got sick because of their selfless acts, who suffered because they said yes without hesitation when america needed them most. but for seven years, our leaders

would not say yes and return. congratulations, stand, for finally succeeding in something that should've been done seven years ago. clap back to the question of how our political system treated our 9/11 here as lake stan resonates though this new year. what kind of country are we? a country of isolated individuals fending for themselves for a country we shared values and a shared vision? a country with cam resources, saving glory and no choices were blessed nation with the potential to do right by his people can be a leader in the

world. the conventional wisdom in washington and in state houses around the nation is that we cannot afford to be the country that we want to be. that cannot be more wrong. we can and should be building up the american middle class, not tearing it down. we should be honoring the heroes of 9/11, not turning them into scapegoat, were a partisan political messaging operation. and we should act to the wealthy, compassionate, imaginative country we are not try to turn ourselves into a third-rate impoverished has been. the labor movement hasn't given up on america and we don't expect our leaders to give up on it either. now last friday in cincinnati,

l. hopkins and a group of her coworkers went out on a frigid night to stand in front of city hall. i was a child care worker and she's here with us today. hello, would you stand up, please? [applause] ella takes care of young children with their parents are at work. she nurtures are you so that they have the support that they need and that they are in a safe environment to learn and to grow. and for doing that, the import job of caring for her children, the state of ohio peyser after taxes about $450 a week. she stood in the cold last friday to ask for new governor, john cusick, to respect her freedom to form a union to improve her life and those of

her coworkers. and here's what he said. he said state workers like her are toast. you see, in the same week that he increased the salaries of his senior staff by nearly 3%, the governor has made cracking down on à la and other home care and child care workers his first priority. now stand and ella are my american euros. the hard-working everyday champions will make america great. in their lives illuminate the choices facing our nation as we enter a fourth year of our economic crisis. the choice between coming together as a nation or turning on each other.

the choice says dr. martin luther king once said between chaos and community. a choice between creed and solidarity. though most of all, stan and ella remind us that while our political leaders wrestle with these questions, america's working people already know the answer to that. we are a nation that still is choices. we don't need to settle for stagnation and ever spiraling inequality. we don't need to hunker down, out back or expect patience and surrender her children hope for a great education where her parents write to a comfortable retirement or around health and economic security, our nation's

aspirations to make things again where human rights to advance their situation by forming a union if we want one. see all of these things are within their reach of this great country. last week in tucson, president obama called upon us to build a future that lives up to our children's expectations. well, we can't does such a future as isolated individuals either morally or economically. working people know that we can build that future, only if we act together to put america back to work, to educate our children , to build a clean energy future, to build a 21st century america. the year at washington we live

in an alice in wonderland political climate. we have a job crisis that after three years is still reaching, still squeezing families, still divesting our poorest for devastating our poorest communities in stunting the future of young adult. yet politicians of both parties tell us that we can and we should do nothing. you see, that's giving up on america. as we meet here today, the republican leaders in the house who campaigned on the promise of jobs are instead using their first days in office to try to take away health care gains from 30 million american families.

see, we want to believe america is a generous and they just country, willing to give everyone here a fair chance. how can that be square with allowing intolerant and fear to slam shut the schoolhouse door on the dream act student? m. so glad some of the dreamers are here with us today. could you please stand up? [applause] see, we have a tax system that have earned this is grossly unfair, allowing private equity billionaires like t. peterson to pay 15% rate while middle-class americans pay 25% rate.

we just agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich, yet washington behaves as if record economic inequality is a force of nature and says we cannot fund the basic functions of government, let alone invest two build infrastructure of the future. see, were still a very, very wealthy nation with per capita income that puts us at the very top tier internationally. within the last 20 years, 56% of all income gains went to the top 1% of americans and more than one third went to the top one 10th of 1%. that is one person out of every

thousand people taking a third of all income gains here in the united states. meanwhile, the bottom 90% made do with only 16% of income gains. that's what we all feel soap were. because too much of our national income went to too few people. in this topsy-turvy world, the same leaders who fought so validly to cut taxes for the wealthy turn right around and lecture us about the imminent bankruptcy of social security and medicare. so let's get this straight. we need to/retirement and health in a fit elderly because we're on the brink of a financial disaster, but we can afford to

squander hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the superrich? only at the mad hatter's tea party does that make sense. the truth is social security is financially one of the healthiest institutions in american life and the most essential to our families economic security. when we reduced to competing to cut spending instead of deciding how to compete in the world economy into secure our future, then my friend, we're having the wrong conversation. outside the looking glass, the american people will never

forgive their leaders for cutting social security or medicare. sadly -- [applause] sadly, the chairs of the president deficit commission urged just that. as part of a pack edge of proposed deep spending cuts and tax changes that would hit middle-class families the hardest. this approach come is so in washington would lock us into a japanese-style lost decade. we've just been through one lost decade, when america's standard of living file, when her wealth shrank, when millions lost their homes and when young people could not find work. see, america cannot afford yet

another lost decade. china is not having a last decade. germany is not having a last decade. because those countries have acted decisively on jobs and public investment. their economies are prosperous. germany with strong unions, a robust public dirt, good wages and strong social protection has an unemployment rate half of hours. now, what should be crystal clear right now is that the united states is falling behind in the global economy. and not because we lack the skills, not because we lack the resources, not because we lack innovative drive with the hatch binaural spirit to succeed.

no, we're falling behind because we are governing as some fear, not from confident. and we've led our trance national business titans convince our politicians that our national strength lies in their profit and not our jobs. we failed to emboss in the good wage growth path that is essential to our survival. see, where he picked country. we're not a niche player. we live in a world in which there are two kinds of successful big countries, big, poor countries with low wages that organize themselves for low-cost exports like china and india in big developed countries with high skilled work forces that invest in their

infrastructure and in their people, that protect their people's rights on the job and have strong social protection like germany and japan. in a country that has combined the best of each category is brazil, which has enjoyed phenomenal growth, increase inequality, growing stature on the world stage under the leadership of my friend and brother, president lula, whose term has just ended. but too many of our politicians are doing the opposite of what works, destroying our public institutions, crushing working people's rights and living standards, failing to invest in education. we know this model that we know

where it leads. it leads to catastrophe. this misguided and shortsighted approach is not just the washington problem. in state after state capital, politicians alike are to take on the jobs crisis are instead attacking the very idea of the american middle class, the idea that in america, economic security and health care and a real pension and a wage that can pay for college is not something for a privileged few, but rather what all of us can earn an exchange for a hard days work. on november's election has unleashed a court needed after to block the path to middle-class with an attack on

workers rights. and when i say an attack on workers rights, i'm not talking about demands for concessions in tough times by employers. because whether that's wise or not, such demands are a normal part of the collective bargaining process. i'm talking about the campaign in state after state, funded by shadowy committees created in the wake of citizens united, and it depriving public and private sector of the basic human rights to form strong unions and bargain collect too late to live their lives. the attack is fueled by the end vsm and the financial support of people like voip play and find

company ceo of goldman sachs and rupert burdock, the billionaire publisher behind fox is. both participate in a committee formed to raise business fun to attack public employees based on the proposition that firefighters and nurses and medical orderlies are overpaid. it's a funny thing when the firefighters arrived at the world trade center on september 11th, and start a dialogue climb up the stairs to rescue the foreign traders trapped on the upper floors, it never occurred to any of them to call up to the bond traders and ask, what's it worth to you for us to come up and