 Thank you very much, everyone, for coming this morning, despite the weather challenges. I'm Chris Johnson. I'm the Freeman Chair in China Studies here at CSIS, and we're very pleased this morning to have two of the most distinguished congressmen who work on the China problem with us today to have a discussion about the congressional viewpoint on U.S.-China relations, and obviously with a particular emphasis on what's been happening over the last week or so with the recent summit between presidents Xi and Obama. Let me introduce first Congressman Bustani, Charles Bustani, Dr. Charles Bustani, also Congressman Bustani, was first elected to Congress in December of 2004. He represents Louisiana's third congressional district, which covers southern Louisiana. He's a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and serves as chair of the subcommittee on oversight, and additionally he sits on the Ways and Means Subcommittees for Trade and Human Resources. Representative Bustani has been a member of the Bipartisan U.S.-China Working Group since 2005 and has served as its Republican co-chair since 2010. The working group educates members of Congress on U.S.-China issues through meetings and briefings with academic, business, and political leaders from the U.S. and China. And Congressman Richard Rick Larson also is a co-chair of the working group. He is serving his seventh term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He represents the second congressional district of Washington State, which includes portions of—you're going to have to help me on this one—Snowmish, okay, Skaggett and Watcom counties and Olive Island and San Juan counties. Representative Larson serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and these committees enable him to focus on the local needs of Northwest Washington. So with that, I think what we're going to do today is just have a little bit of a conversation up here with me asking the congressman a few opening questions, and then we'll come out to the audience for a few questions later on. I think let's start with the Fishi and Obama Summit, and I'll start with you, Congressman Bustani, if that's all right. They finally had their shirt sleeves summit over the weekend, and I just welcome your assessment of the major takeaways from the meeting, and aside from allowing the two of them to kind of build this personal rapport, do you think that the meeting helped advance the discussion on critical issues in the bilateral relationship? Well, I do think it did, and I think, first of all, there were no mistakes on either side, which was a good thing, and so that allowed everything to flow very smoothly. That's the first point I would make, because there have been missteps in previous first encounters between leaders of the two countries. It was designed to be low-key shirt sleeves, which I think was appropriate, given how quickly it was put together, coming on the heels of the new Chinese leadership just taking seat and getting started. I think it was an opportunity to not set very, very high expectations, but to sort of allow the two leaders to become acquainted, put some things on the table that will be open for discussion going forward. One thing that I think we need to, we both have questions about here in the U.S. and I think in China as well, is what will the U.S.-China dialogue look like going forward? There seems to be discussion, certainly on our side, we're having discussions about the utility of the SNED and what should it, what could be done to improve it, to update it, to invigorate it, and I think on the Chinese side, there are similar questions. Right, right. Well, yeah, thanks, Chris. I think, could you imagine if this is an actual traditional summit? First off, it wouldn't have happened this June. They probably wouldn't have gone around it until next June. Good point. First off. Second, the number of people, and both governments would have to shut down in order to staff this thing, a traditional summit, and the long list of what folks call deliverables would be just one more long list of deliverables. So I think the format for this first meeting was very helpful. The only quote-unquote deliverable was the picture of the two of them walking without ties and shirts. That was the image, I think probably both President Obama and President Xi wanted to deliver, that this had more of a feeling of, hey, I'm home for the weekend, let's get together and talk. Because this relationship has to, if we're going to be successful, I'm moving forward on military and military relations, on climate change, on helping China implement its own internal reforms. These two leaders have to have a relationship that doesn't start across a table with a bunch of staff sitting next to them. The issues are way too big for that, and it needed to start at a more personal level so that you can get to these other issues. Great. President Xi reportedly spent some time on the first day kind of describing for President Obama the domestic context in China, and in particular some of the economic reforms that they're considering trying to adopt at the third plenum this fall. And of course President Obama reportedly did the same thing, kind of explaining the domestic economic primarily context here in the United States. I know that the whole issue of reform in China and the way forward was a focus of your guys' trip when you went in January. Where do you think they're going to come out on this fall? And are you encouraged or very optimistic or not? My personal view is I'm relatively optimistic. I have some caveats. We've done a report from that trip in January. I know you have it here at CSIS. I know it's driving all the conversation you have at CSIS. But I think that three main points about reform in China. One is governance reform and how successful President Xi and Premier Li are in implementing what they see as necessary to root out corruption in the Communist Party. Wang Qishan, who we met with, we met with him in his old capacity because it was not yet March, it was still January. And so he really couldn't talk too much about his new job, but he did actually end up talking quite a bit about his new job as it turns out. And invited us back when we go back to meet him in his new capacity as well and get an update on things. But I think that governance reform is an important goal that they have to meet. If the Chinese Communist Party is not credible to the people, that is going to be a problem for the Chinese Communist Party, not for the people. Second, economic reforms. We met with Li Wei who helped write the World Bank report. And he seemed very clear, and it sure seems clear from President Xi's comments that they're going to move forward on economic reforms, taking on SOEs, doing some things on interest rate reform, a variety of other things. And then finally the environment, the report talks about the environment and the obligatory pictures of smog are in our report in Beijing. But I want to hand to the State Department on this, because it was about a year and a half ago when the Chinese government was constantly complaining that the embassy was publishing the air index in Beijing. The real number. The real number. So we're having lunch with General Jing, who's a former PLA Navy admiral. And now he's with the National People's Congress Foreign Affairs Defense Committee. During lunch we're talking about the environment. He takes out his smartphone and punches up, and he has the U.S. Embassy app on his own smartphone. And he goes, oh yeah, it's 475 today. So clearly headway has been made with the Chinese government and getting to recognize that this environmental issue is a problem and it's a public problem. Yeah, I agree. Well, Rick outlined the broad areas. And on economic reform, I'm sure everybody here is aware of the type of shift that China is trying to make to a more consumption-driven economy moving away from purely an export-driven economy. And there are going to be serious challenges in trying to do that, which means that China has to open up on a broad range of services for this growing middle class and meet the expectations of a growing middle class, as well as address the issues of wage disparity in their economy, as well as rigidity in the labor market because of the Hukou system. So I think there are a number of issues that they're going to be faced with. And also I think the issues with political reform, as you mentioned, Rick, especially the corruption issue, is really important. We were very interested in furthering dialogue with Wang Qishan as he takes on this portfolio and we'll see how those things develop. One of the things that we found in our dealings with Beijing is that a lot of times there will be laws changed, but then the follow-through and the implementation is always a challenge. And so as the U.S.-China working group, we will continue to probe and ask these questions as we interact with Chinese leaders and others in China to gauge on how pervasive the reforms, what's the timing of these reforms, how pervasive are they, and so forth. So many challenges, but we look forward to continuing those dialogues. Great. Let's talk about another sort of sensitive issue in the bilateral relationship and that's Chinese investment in the United States and some of the controversies that have happened there. The Chinese clearly feel like their companies are being sort of held to a different standard or an unreasonable standard, perhaps of scrutiny, as witnessed with some of the controversy we saw with the proposed deal to acquire Smithfield by a Chinese company. But at the same time, it seems that there is sort of a much more welcoming attitude from governors in the U.S. states. They're often going on these trade delegations to China and very welcoming of investment. How do you view this issue from your seat in Congress, first of all, and then how do your constituents back at home feel about that idea? Important question. First of all, let me point out that the U.S.-China working group, when it was formed in 2005, was basically the impetus for this was the uproar about the scenook-unicow deal that was on the table. And when that all kind of fell apart, it obviously created an uproar in Congress. And Congressman Larsen, Mark Kirk at the time, and I joined in as well as one of the first members to join the U.S.-China working group, we were concerned about the fact that Congress needs good information about what's going on in China. We need to independently assess what's going on. And so this type of environment is what stimulated the formation of the U.S.-China working group to begin with. And as we've gone forward, we're continuing to try to probe all these questions. I think you're very correct in that governors, mayors seem to have a very strong interest in attracting Chinese investment. We still have issues that we have to face up here in Washington, obviously, and it's complicated by the fact that we have a lot of new members in Congress. We've had massive turnover in the last two cycles. So educating members of Congress about the real nature of this relationship, this economic relationship is really important. One of the things that Rick and I oftentimes do when we have these conversations is, you know, when the Chinese approach us about more direct investment into the U.S., we oftentimes will throw back that, well, we need better intellectual property protections on your part, because this creates the suspicion, obviously. And so I think if we can break through that barrier and see some gains, then I think you'll see more of an open door and a long run to Chinese direct investment into the U.S. Anything to add Rick? Yeah, I just think that the role that states are playing now in attracting investment into their states is important. And you are going to see, and you do see, and you are going to see states regardless of which party a governor belongs to, going anywhere in the world to attract investment in their states in order to create jobs. That is one of the fundamental roles of a governor, and that is helping the economy of their state, getting people to work. And so in a state like Washington State, it's probably a little easier to look to Asia for that kind of investment, but it certainly would apply to any other state. With regards to congressional perspective, for good reasons on very few cases there is concern from members of Congress about large Chinese investment in the U.S. But for the most part, very few cases go to SIFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Very few cases go to SIFIUS. And very few of those cases have been cases involving Chinese companies. So there has to be a perspective here, and so when I hear from my Chinese friends that it's so tough to invest in the U.S., it could be this much SIFIUS and this much you're bad investors. Or another reason. But it's not SIFIUS that is preventing that investment. There may be people who believe they can't do it because there have been these big cases, but there's been plenty of growth in Chinese investment in the U.S. It's still a very small percentage of total foreign investment in the U.S., but it is growing at a much faster rate than foreign investment in the U.S., and there's plenty more room for it in the future. Chris, if I can inject, please do one point on that too. When one of the Chinese oil companies, oil and gas companies, took a one-third stake in Chesapeake, there was nary a cry about it in Congress, and so that's an indication of a general change in attitude. Great. Just as a brief follow-up for both of you on that, you mentioned the SIFIUS process. Obviously I think you're right. The Chinese have to have a more realistic attitude or focus on what they're doing and improve the quality of their investors. Do you think that the USG side on the executive branch should also be doing a better job of sort of publicizing that a lot of this Chinese investment does go through without SIFIUS review? And in fact, even the ones that do go through with SIFIUS review often do come out the other side. Maybe, I don't know if it's the U.S. government's job to publicize that or not publicize that, possibly that they could, but I think more importantly, it'd be helpful if we all did a better job in the U.S. government of showing the numbers and showing the facts to the Chinese directly. Sorry, my bad. You mentioned the Mill-Mill cooperation and I know this is an issue that you pay a lot of attention to and I think both presidents seem to show kind of a renewed emphasis and a sense of optimism. I think it's fair to say about deepening that contact and I think we would all acknowledge that it is lagged behind the political and economic elements of the relationship. When you go on your trips, I know you always make a point of seeing PLA to the degree you're able to do so. What signs would you say you're looking for that the relationship is deepening and becoming more real and then how would you see that relationship nesting into the administration's overall rebalancing policy? Well, first off, in regards to the military-to-military relationship, I do get... my assessment is that President Xi is sending a message to the PLA for whatever reason but he's sending a message to the PLA that it needs to do a better job with his relationship with the U.S. military and it's probably have their own interests in mind. I wouldn't expect any country to do anything but in their own interests but having said that, it sure seems that she has sent that message out to the PLA and so you hear much less, I mean just much less rhetoric about Taiwan, for instance, when you talk to the Chinese PLA, much more openness about concerns of North Korea and we met with PLA Deputy General Chief of Staff, Xi, he had some very, very harsh words about North Korea and the leadership and the new leadership in North Korea and this is in January and so I think that possibly President Xi is himself assessing that this relationship as well needs to have a more robust military-military relationship to go along with all these other the economic, the diplomatic and cultural and various other aspects of the relationship. I would agree that the military-military relationship is lagged behind the others and it's a really important piece that takes concerted effort. We've seen a lot of ups and downs. I remember when Secretary Gates was denied an opportunity to visit China Rick and I had actually traveled during that time frame and met with General Chun Bingda and others at the PLA and the U.S.-China working group actually played I think an important role in trying to break down some of these barriers, you know, helping thaw the frost that had occurred and subsequently we saw some improved contact but at the same time I think the metrics are you know, we see these starts and stops with high-level contact and then it sort of goes dark and the real metrics will be as we see more communication going down into the lower ranks with some areas where we can define cooperation and we saw some improvement dealing with piracy in the Gulf of Aden that was an opportunity but I think as Chinese develop their naval capacity we're going to have to really continue to engage I think it would be useful if there might be an operational direct line between Paycom and the Chinese military to avoid accidents or mishaps so I think there's an opportunity at the operational level to have more communication and those might be metrics that we need to gauge as we go forward. Let me just drill down on that point a little bit there was some controversy at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore when it sort of the Chinese revealed that they are now operating in the U.S. EEZ in both Guam and off of Hawaii what's your take on that in terms of how that impacts the need for that kind of communication and the relationship between the two navies? Right, I think that clearly indicates that we have to have better operational communication and so I think President Xi and President Obama probably need to address that at the highest level to give the directive certainly on the Chinese side so that a process could be put in place and I know we have an ongoing dialogue drawing the blank on the title of it at this stage military consultative talks military maritime consultative talks we need to look at that arena and expand what comes out of that into some operational communication to avoid, you know, mishaps I was going to note these are this is an important approach and I imagine someone is going to ask well what about South China Sea and the point I think we are trying to make is that what about the South China Sea you can't even begin to talk as a U.S. and China unless you have some level of relationship first otherwise you are just playing whack-a-mole on every issue we have to have some structure to this conversation between our militaries if we are going to address an issue like the South China Sea or anything else that comes up because tomorrow will be something else so I am not trying to discount that there are flash points because there are flash points but we have a a venue, a structure to be able to talk about these otherwise again you are just going from one thing to the next crisis after crisis with nothing in mind between the two countries and then who knows where that ends up and of course we can't talk about the bilateral relationship these days without touching on the issue of cyber obviously featured quite prominently at the summit it appeared to me that the administration quite rightly was working pretty hard with this discussion pretty tightly focused in the narrow lane of U.S. concerns about intellectual property theft and economic espionage primarily do you think that is the right tack to take or should it be a broader discussion and then based on it seemed to me the Chinese largely are pushing on this issue and we are perhaps even a bit dismissive do you think this is something we can make progress with them on and what are the benchmarks from your perspective of how we will be making progress I think the issue of economic espionage and cyber theft is of all the cyber issues is the one that is most workable most easily workable initial tangible benefits to both countries economically as a result I think it is in our interest and it is in China's interest and China will be able to see that interest very well to move beyond that right now I think is the we don't have some how do I put this countries can't even agree what other countries are doing right now in terms on the cyber security side but on espionage cyber espionage cyber theft again a little easier to define and clear interest can be shown for both countries to move forward on it I would agree with that and there is an element of disbelief and denial that we picked up on obviously in conversations with the Chinese about this and building the relationship to get to a point where we can talk about this is going to take time and some patience but on the commercial side of this intellectual property theft there is clearly an alignment of Chinese and US interest in this especially as China moves up the value chain with research and development and the development of intellectual property but on a broader note as we are working in Asia in the realm of trade with trans-pacific partnership and other efforts intellectual property issues are critically important and will be a big part of the TPP agreement and so as we walk through this we want to do it in a way that creates a strong agreement that entices that basically sets up rule of law in the Asian sphere for trade but at the same time doesn't push the Chinese away or convinces them that we are looking for containment of some sort we want them to be a part of this but it is clearly an alignment of interest if we can get the Chinese to work with us on the commercial sphere and dealing with the intellectual property theft let's talk a little bit about TPP it was interesting about a week before the summit the commerce ministry decided to suggest that they were studying the issue and looking at it Chinese commerce minister was part of the small group discussions obviously what's your take on what might be motivating that and how would you foresee us helping them be part of the process I think early on as we were sort of stagnant in the trade arena we were having difficulty in this commercial relationship with the Chinese and I think as we first got the South Korean free trade agreement now moving forward with TPP and a European agreement right behind that this is creating leverage and especially with Japan's entry into TPP negotiations along with Mexico and Canada this has created I think more leverage for the United States and continuing and momentum to get this thing done but also at the same time creating more enticement for the Chinese to be a part of it time that out with the new leadership in China which wants to get off on a different footing I think that also is a factor in this I think it's an opportunity to take all these things going on in the trade world and hopefully start to bring them together to get us back to the multilateral rules based system the other tidbit of information I picked up on is that the Chinese seem to be showing interest in the trade and services agreement which if they were to move forward with that that I believe would be a big jump start to getting us back to more activity at the WTO so I welcome the opportunities I think this is something we have to continue to push and at the same time as we go through the negotiations on TPP walk that tightrope to ensure that to give assurances to the Chinese government that we're not trying to exclude them we want them in but we want a strong agreement knock me over with a feather if the Chinese government changes their policy on bilateral trade agreements and it goes for a multilateral it's certainly a reason to be skeptical one thing that's interesting or one angle that I think might be interesting on that is perhaps I wonder if the interest in TPP doesn't somewhat mirror and it's too early I think to tell but of course in the late 1990s they used the requirements of joining the WTO to help push through some very difficult reforms that they were facing internally and having difficulties pushing through internally and I wonder if they're not at least thinking about this as an idea for once again having an external cudgel if you will that will allow them to do they'll just have to watch and see how that develops but that would be interesting to see what would you say just maybe you can give us a sense maybe at the sort of 50,000 foot level of the broad legislative agenda that relates to China and your guys' views on that and what you think the key priority pieces of legislation would be as much as President Xi is focused internally on Chinese people on their economic health and his reforms I think Congress is focused internally there are a lot of things we haven't got done and won't get done and there are some things we will get done but if we do anything on China specifically it'll be three lines in some obscure section of the Foreign Operations Bill and there may be a few things like the Defense Authorization Bill as well maybe some reporting requirements for the Department of Defense on China but I just think that most of what's going to happen from a U.S.-China perspective will happen out of the executive branch largely because our focus is internally and I don't just mean internally like domestic we're looking at ourselves so can we get some things done here and Charles is one of those guys trying to do it I would agree that legislatively we are focused on trying to get the bare necessities done but at the same time the U.S.-China working group is very much engaged with conversations with the Department of State USTR Department of Defense and others on constructive engagement how what other things, what other elements could be added into constructive engagement we send letters, we have conversations and we'll continue to do that as we go forward and as we pick up on other things perhaps there may be some legislative things that could happen the only other area that might be of interest from a legislative standpoint would be the cybersecurity area where there are a number of bills that have been proposed a number of reports some have received a lot of attention such as the mandate report and looking at what can the U.S. as a whole of government do in the cybersecurity area which likely would take some legislative they'll likely require some legislation to deal with it so this could be something that comes up legislatively in this Congress or perhaps the legislation could be written and we'll see follow-up in the future Congress on it but I think this is an area that Congress will have to pay attention to and I would note that something like that would would sort of vacuum in the issues that China would bring up or other countries would bring up it wouldn't be necessarily targeted at one country but it's just the fact that we need to have stronger cybersecurity legislation than we currently have one other point I would make too and I mentioned earlier and Rick's talked about it also is the S&ED and what shape will it take next I don't know if there's a legislative role in that but that's an area that the U.S.-China working group is going to be very actively engaged in as we seek input from the Chinese as well as from our executive branch on what should this look like we'll be actively engaged in providing our input as a U.S.-China working group and also educating other members in the House on the necessity for these types of changes great, great questions from the audience as always per standard CSIS policy please wait for the microphone to come to you and identify yourself when you ask your question right up front here Hi, Chen Weihua, China Daily ask what's the average knowledge you would describe every congressman about China I mean is it possible to educate them about China what kind of resources you have how much have changed since the group you know set up after senior case you know I'm not American foreigner so it's but really sounds foreign to me listening to Harry talk about Olympic uniform should be made in USA and China the other day some I think a woman congressman talk about national flag should be made in U.S. and not China you know I don't know is that the debate in the congress thank you I would argue the average knowledge member congress about China is equal to the average knowledge of a national people's congressman about the United States Fair point the U.S. China Working Group has 60 members and we hold briefings we travel we meet with Chinese leaders as they come through Washington but it's as I mentioned earlier with the rapid turnover extensive turnover we've seen in the House of Representatives in the last two cycles we have a lot of members don't know much about China and there's a lot of work to do and that's one of the prime goals of the U.S. China Working Group in the middle here good morning congressman Mr. Johnson ladies and gentlemen my name is Rosemary Sekiro I'm the president of Sekiro's International Group USA based organization here in the U.S. and I'm from Kenya Africa while you are talking about China USA-China relationship at the congress how do you look at clope especially now that Chinese are all over and going to Africa America is trying to do business with Africa Chinese now have taken advantage of Africa doing good work in Africa how do you as USA-China Working Group how can you comment on trade looking at your own the policies and relationship between U.S., China, Africa and other countries how do you look at that and how would you turn that into actual trade into business relationship thank you well thank you for your question I was in Brazil in April saw plenty of signs of Chinese investment in Brazil I've traveled in some of the African countries and clearly the Chinese are engaged all over the world right now largely buying natural resources to fuel their economy this just makes the case for more American engagement in my opinion and I did not like the fact that we were sort of stagnant in building our trade agenda for a while and now we are starting to see the beginnings of a good trade strategy going forward it makes the case for U.S. engagement in all these areas South America, Central America Africa, Asia and I don't like the idea or the use of the term pivot toward Asia U.S. needs to be engaged everywhere and we need to have a comprehensive trade strategy that allows us to do so pivot is a great word for basketball a rebalancing is a much more appropriate term because it's not just a rebalance to Asia as we have withdrawn from Iraq as we withdraw major combat troops from Afghanistan at the end of next year we do need to just rebalance our engagement throughout the world and I'm hopeful that we will I think what we won't find and Charles hit on this point talking trade trade we're not going to engage with a lot of countries as we did in the 30's 40's and 50's and as China is doing today with dollar diplomacy we're not going to go in and build things for folks directly it's going to be largely a trade driven engagement agenda if it's anything there are reasons for that there are budget reasons for that but there are also reasons having to do with are we building the right would we be building the right things and so I would just caution folks the lower expectations not about US engagement but about whether that engagement is going to take the form of just foreign aid to build stuff we are not in that business and shouldn't be we didn't do it very well in the early part of the last century and I won't do it very well in the future how about in the back over to the side there pass it down hi my name is Douglas Conn I have a quick question with regards to TPP in terms of TPP do you think China is trending towards the standards and regulations that are required for China to be involved in TPP or do you think it's due to status quo or do you think they're not really doing what they have to do to meet those standards and regulations I think we have a long way to go China has a long way to go to meet the standards that we are laying out but TPP I think there have been what 17 rounds now negotiations we still have to get through some very difficult issues with the countries that are currently involved in this dealing with state owned intellectual property trade facilitation this is going to be a far reaching aggressive agreement but a lot of work remains but we're going to vigorously pursue it because this has to be a top priority I think this is a key part of US engagement in the Asia Pacific region and so the point I made earlier was let's get a really strong agreement let's set a standard for what trade agreements should look like in the 21st century with regard to these issues and invite China in and we'll see how it plays out but it's not going to be easy but it's got to be a priority Mustn't they out there how about right up here in the front Hi my name is Newpura I'm a graduate student at Seton Hall University about the military and military contacts China's made no China's publicly said that they're trying to build a blue water navy I was wondering if the US-China working group or either of you have any worries or thoughts about how that might impact future US-China relations I guess I'll start the first thing I'd say is if they're going to do it they're going to do it and there's little the United States can do to stop them from doing it so the our attitude should be well if China is going to have a navy that is beyond its coast what advantage can that bring to the global commons and then is China willing to participate in exercises like RIMPAC and can we even invite them are there limitations that we have in our own laws prevent us from even inviting them to participate in naval exercises with other countries but if they're going to do that there are advantages and benefits that that can bring to the global commons on humanitarian assistance on disaster relief on piracy operations so that's one box another box though is why else what other reasons would China want a navy and I think it's very clear you can literally look at lines on a map depending on or dash and make fairly accurate assumptions about why China wants a navy that goes beyond the coastline in blue water we think blue water that's a term we say in the US when we say that we think every bit of blue water in the world I don't think China thinks every bit of blue water in the world they probably think enough of it that bumps up to our interests but given that it does then we need to explain to Chinese we don't need to be bumping up against interests on accident so are you to their advantage to talk and our advantage to talk the other thing I'd say in closing on this question is that we're years back we got to visit we were in Qingdao we got to go on a song class submarine first members of congress to do that Charles was actually the first member of congress to buy two feet but I have an agreement with Rick that when we get on their aircraft carrier I'm gonna let him go for it or go to get it so in that sense we're trying to break through some of the barriers and open a hole for others to walk in if you will and we are making a request to visit China again to try to get on the Liaoning the aircraft carrier which largely uses the training carrier but the question on carriers has to do with how many and I've had this conversation with the PLA about how many and we have 11 and you guys have one so how many are you gonna have somewhere between one and 11 just to follow up briefly on that you talked about the need to talk and to avoid bumping into each other do you foresee something like an incident that's the agreement being a fruitful I do that it's fruitful it's a low hanging fruit again if you're going to be out on the water you want to know who's out there too and you want to know what the rules are and something happens the other thing I think a few years ago when Mark Kirk was with the China Working Group here in the US House we went out to Gobi Desert to the Space Launch Facility as well and again the first members of Congress to be invited and to go actually the first Americans since pre-TNMN to go to the Space Launch Facility again it was an effort for them, for the Chinese to show some transparency show us what they were doing and I made this point yesterday you know we've got we have language and law that prevents the NASA and it prevents the Office of Science Technology Policy from doing any exchange, any conversation anything with the China National Space Agency because somehow that's going to stop the Shanzhou 10 from being launched two days ago to the to the Chinese International Space Station I mean our steps Congress have taken to stop China from doing things has not stopped China from doing things but it sure as hell but it sure as hell has prevented the United States from finding out more about what China is doing Good point Back to the point of looking at China's build out of its navy this is something that Rick and I have a very intense interest in and it's a natural for China, I mean China is a trading nation they're all over the place now and any nation that's engaged in trade to that extent is going to want to build out their maritime capacity and so that comes as no surprise I think the key is you know getting this dialogue down from the very top to the operational level in some form so that we know what each other is doing and we prevent mistakes Very back back there I'll call up the ICCI Since the late 70's early 80's when a number of us worked on the hill about 25 to 30% of members of Congress didn't even have passports as we look at the debates now on China some of us who have paid a lot of attention to this issue and been visiting China for a very long time wonder if even some of the newer members of Congress perhaps particularly some of the newer members of Congress have the knowledge as you facetiously alluded to earlier that would allow them to play a constructive role in the interest of the United States by learning or understanding more about China's motivation, China's history and how being as you have said invited to join organizations or clubs where the major Western powers made the rules they may have a strong interest in seeing those rules change they may have a strong interest in trying to align interests in ways that are mutually beneficial do you think that particularly the newer members of the House have the intellectual capacity or political will to understand China sufficiently to recognize what's in the United States interests in dealing with China's past and current thinking This is where it's good to be the moderator but anyway I may not usually have the rights to insult your club members but if you're not, you probably ought not to do that but I would suggest that folks who are elected to Congress bring their interests from their districts and it's not intellectual capacity or political will as much as why they get elected what's their district look like what do they have to do every day to get re-elected what legislation do they have to get on what do they need to pay attention to and in your first two, four, six years of Congress that is honestly it's all consuming now if you get past that point and you get that far you get a little more freedom you have a little more time to look at other things to do some other things and and that is in my assessment that's one of the biggest hurdles in trying to get the attention of new members on any issue because for new members, for a lot of folks it's the first time they're dealing with a U.S.-China relationship the first time they're dealing with a budget that's 3.8 trillion dollars right much less first time they're dealing with education policy because they spent their entire time as a land use commissioner it's the first time for a lot of members I'll have differences of opinion with members on the choices they make on policy but you have to have a level of understanding too about where they're coming from because if you don't you don't even get in the door to talk about U.S.-China or anything else I agree with everything Rick just said and I would just simply add that it is vitally important for U.S. national interest for Congress members of Congress to take a strong interest on foreign policy issues I we have to build the luxury the capacity to have that luxury and it takes a couple of elections it takes a lot of work it takes a lot of education of your constituents to do it but it is vitally important because if we're going to have legitimacy in the long run in our foreign policy the people in our constituencies have to accept it and those closest to the people or the members of the House so in particular I would say it's really important for House members to have knowledge of foreign policy issues and that's one of the things that motivates me in this effort I think we've got time for maybe one more young lady right here in the middle Thank you We're with Hong Kong Phoenix TV talking about cybersecurity Edward Snowden in Hong Kong just claimed that U.S. actually hacking China's computer as well do you feel his accusation legitimate and also do you feel this may damage the U.S. image while the U.S. intensively claim China is hacking the U.S. as well thank you First off I'd say I'm glad the U.S. people think that U.S. has enough of an image that can be damaged I'm glad at least that high Second I've got nothing to say about Edward Snowden We have plenty of questions until some of those questions are answered in the public domain we cannot speak about it Okay Well, on that note please join me in thanking Congressmen for their time Thanks a lot Thank you Great answers you guys