    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2121

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 2, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-65

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    71-055 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                            COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                          LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia                  Virginia
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  MAXINE WATERS, California
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                  Georgia
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    TED POE, Texas                       JUDY CHU, California
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             [Vacant]
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
    DENNIS ROSS, Florida
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida
    BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
    MARK AMODEI, Nevada

          Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
           Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement

                      ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman

                        STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman

    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        ZOE LOFGREN, California
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    TED POE, Texas                       MAXINE WATERS, California
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    DENNIS ROSS, Florida

                         George Fishman, Chief Counsel

                       David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                NOVEMBER 2, 2011

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 2121, the ``China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011''.........     2

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............................     1
    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Immigration Policy and Enforcement.............................     5
    The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.......     5

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Christopher Smith, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey
      Oral Testimony.................................................     7
      Prepared Statement.............................................   123
    Chai Ling, Founder, All Girls Allowed
      Oral Testimony.................................................   126
      Prepared Statement.............................................   129
    Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Congressional Research Service, The
      Library of Congress, Washington, DC
      Oral Testimony.................................................   199
      Prepared Statement.............................................   202

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Christopher Smith, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey........     8

                     CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Immigration
                                Policy and Enforcement,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in
    room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton
    Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Gowdy, and
    Lofgren.
        Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian
    White, Clerk; and (Minority) Hunter Hammill, USCIS Detailee.
        Mr. Gallegly. I call the Subcommittee to order.
        The relationship between the United States and China has
    been characterized by Vice President Biden as the most
    important in the world. In many respects, that is true.
    However, it seems to me that the relationship between the U.S.
    and China can be characterized as increasingly complex and, at
    times, even conflicted since the establishment of the People's
    Republic of China on October 1, 1949.
        Initially, the relationship between the United States and
    China was hostile. In fact, our two countries faced off in
    Korea from 1950 to 1954. Throughout much of the cold war, our
    relationship with China was tense. Slowly, our relationship has
    improved since then, especially in terms of our economic ties.
        Although our relationship has improved, important
    differences remain. Currently and in the foreseeable future,
    China will represent a key focus of U.S. foreign and
    international economic policy. Some say that economic
    development in China will inevitably lead to democracy.
    However, the reality is that while economic growth in China
    continues, the United States justifiably remains critical of
    the slow pace of democratic reforms in China.
        As a result, it has been U.S. policy, under both Republican
    and Democratic administrations, to encourage political change
    and human rights improvements in China. Those in the Chinese
    government who commit or sanction abuses should be forewarned
    that their actions will not be tolerated by the United States.
    H.R. 2121, introduced by my colleague, or our colleague, Chris
    Smith, does just that. It informs human rights abusers in China
    that the United States does not stand by as atrocities are
    committed. It lets them know they are not welcome in the United
    States. Hence, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
        [The bill, H.R. 2121, follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. And, with that, I would yield to the
    gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me begin by welcoming the bill's author,
    Congressman Chris Smith, to our Committee. It is a pleasure to
    have you here, along with your co-witnesses.
        The bill that you have introduced raises important
    questions about U.S.-China relations. And while the bill falls
    within our Subcommittee's jurisdiction because it authorizes
    denial of visas to certain Chinese nationals, its main focus
    falls in the foreign affairs realm and the Chinese government's
    dismal human rights record.
        Mr. Smith and I have worked together on human rights issues
    in the past, particularly as they relate to the treatment of
    trafficking victims and refugees. And I share Mr. Smith's grave
    concerns about China's human rights record, and I understand
    his reasons for introducing the bill.
        China's human rights record reads like a laundry list of
    abuse: the country's infamous one-child policy, which includes
    forced abortions and sterilizations; the oppression of
    Tibetans; the treatment of ethnic minorities like Uyghurs and
    Mongolians; the crackdowns on democracy and labor rights
    activists; and the persecution of certain religious groups,
    including Protestants, Catholics, and the Falun Gong. Our
    witness, Ms. Chai Ling, saw these abuses firsthand in Tiananmen
    Square and has since become an outspoken advocate against the
    one-child policy.
        The bill highlights one tool at the government's disposal
    for holding human rights abusers accountable: denial of visas
    under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I
    understand the State Department believes it already has this
    authority under current law. They also seem to have foreign
    policy concerns with this bill. I suspect their concerns about
    this bill center on the need to balance the various foreign
    policy goals our country has with China.
        The U.S. has significant ties with China, particularly
    economically, and a strong diplomatic relationship is
    necessary. But I agree that we also cannot ignore China's human
    rights record. I look forward to learning today why the
    additional authority provided in the bill is needed and how it
    can address the serious ongoing human rights crisis in China
    while balancing the government's foreign policy goals.
        And, again, I want to thank Mr. Smith for his work on this
    important issue and thank him and our other witnesses for
    appearing today. And I look forward to hearing the testimony.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady.
        And, with that, I will yield to the other Mr. Smith, the
    Chairman of our full Committee, the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China
    remain common and widespread. As the Chinese government
    continues to suppress dissenting opinions and maintains
    political control over the legal system, the will of the people
    and individual rights are consistently undermined. The end
    result is arbitrary and abusive treatment of the Chinese
    people.
        The bill we will discuss today, which was introduced by our
    colleague Chris Smith from New Jersey, assists in combating
    human rights abuses in China. While I support the bill, some of
    language might be clarified so the sanction on senior leaders
    in the Chinese government is tied directly to the human rights
    abuses defined in the bill.
        Human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention,
    torture, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression and
    association, are rampant in China. And violations specific to
    women and abuses related to the national Family-Planning Policy
    are also rampant.
        As to the Family-Planning Policy, the Chinese government
    requires couples to practice family planning. The cornerstone
    of this policy is the offensive one child per couple policy.
        To enforce this law, local authorities use the carrot of
    subsidized medical care, education, and housing. But they also
    employ a harsh stick--punishments including fines, confiscation
    of property, salary cuts, and even dismissal from work.
        Some of the most disturbing methods used to enforce the
    family-planning laws have included the forced use of
    contraceptives and forced abortions for pregnant women who
    already have one child.
        The one-child policy, with the traditional preference for
    male children, has led to practices such as female
    infanticide--the practice of killing female babies--concealing
    female births, and abandoning female infants.
        The one-child policy has also contributed to the practice
    of prenatal sex identification, resulting in the abortion of
    female fetuses. Although the government has outlawed the use of
    ultrasound machines for this purpose, the practice continues.
        By denying visas to certain Chinese nationals in the
    government who promote human rights abuses, we might as well
    assist Chinese patriots who work to end the lack of
    accountability for government officials who are part of the
    Chinese Communist Party. This legislation will send a message
    that abuses by these officials that go unchecked within China
    will not be ignored by the international community.
        Now, once again, I want to thank our colleague from New
    Jersey for sponsoring this legislation. I look forward to a
    good hearing today and then to giving this bill its process.
    And I will have some questions for the gentleman from New
    Jersey in just a minute.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        We have three very distinguished witnesses today. Each of
    the witnesses' written statement will be made a part of the
    record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his
    or her testimony in 5 minutes or less so that we can get on
    with the questioning, recognizing that your entire statement
    will be made a part of the record of the hearing. And we have
    provided lights there to kind of help you along those lines.
        Our first witness today is our colleague and friend,
    Congressman Chris Smith, who represents New Jersey's Fourth
    District and is currently serving his 16th term in the House of
    Representatives. He is a senior member of the Foreign Affairs
    Committee and Chairman of its Africa, Global Health, and Human
    Rights Subcommittee. In addition, he serves on the
    Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He is the author
    of America's three landmark anti-human-trafficking laws,
    including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
    Congressman Smith received his bachelor's degree from Trenton
    State College, now The College of New Jersey.
        Our second witness is Ms. Chai Ling. Ms. Chai was a key
    student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement in China.
    She is now president and chief operating officer of Jenzabar,
    Inc., and founder of All Girls Allowed, whose mission focuses
    on revealing the injustice of China's one-child policy. Prior
    to Jenzabar, Chai Ling worked as a consultant at Bain &
    Company, a leading global business and strategy consulting
    firm. She holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an MLA in
    public affairs at Princeton University, and a B.A. From Beijing
    University.
        Our third witness today is Dr. Ruth Wasem. She is a
    specialist in immigration policy with the Congressional
    Research Service, Library of Congress. In that capacity, she
    has written reports for Congress that provide research and
    policy analysis on a range of immigration subjects. Since 2000,
    she has led the team of CRS policy analysts, attorneys, and
    information researchers who work in immigration, and she has
    previously testified before this Subcommittee in June of 2007.
    Dr. Wasem completed her doctorate and M.A. From the University
    of Michigan. She received a B.A. From Muskegon College.
        Welcome.
        We will start with our colleague, Mr. Smith. Welcome,
    Chris.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate deeply your calling this hearing. Ranking Member
    Lofgren, my good friend and colleague Chairman Smith, and all
    the Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity.
        Mr. Chairman, in 2000, I wrote a law known as the Admiral
    James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal
    Years 2000 and 2001. That bill, H.R. 3427, was signed into law
    in its entirety by reference--Division B of Public Law 106-113.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Section 801 of Title VIII of that
    act requires the Secretary of State not to issue any visa to,
    and the Attorney General not to admit to the United States, any
    foreign national whom the Secretary finds, based on credible
    and specific information, to have been directly involved in the
    establishment or enforcement of forced abortion or forced
    sterilization.
        Sadly, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, both
    under Presidents Bush and Obama, no one has been rendered
    inadmissible, owing to a glaring lack of implementation.
        The China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011 doesn't seek to
    replace and, with one line of change in the bill text, would
    substantially strengthen U.S. law in this regard and get this
    issue once again front and center.
        The bill seeks to deny entry to the U.S. senior government
    leadership, their immediate family members--and that is new;
    that wasn't in the act that I did in 2000--and anyone else who
    has committed human rights abuses in the PRC or anyone who has
    derived significant financial benefit from those policies--
    that, too, is new; we didn't put that in the 2000 act--
    including participation in China's cruel, coercive birth
    limitation policy, also known as the one-child-per-couple
    policy, which relies on forced abortion and involuntary
    sterilization to achieve its goals; the violent repression or
    persecution of Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongolians or other
    ethnic minorities; trafficking of North Korean refugees or
    their forcible return to North Korea.
        I have held several hearings on that egregious practice by
    the Chinese government to not only turn women and men, but
    mostly women, who make their way across the border into sexual
    slaves who are bought and sold like commodities, but they also,
    when they are done with them, send them back to North Korea,
    where they are immediately incarcerated in gross violation of
    the Refugee Act, to which China is a signatory.
        It also would include violent repression, imprisonment,
    torture, or any other form of persecution of religious
    believers, democracy adherents, workers' rights advocates--we
    all know there are no trade unions like those championed by
    Lech Walesa in China. There is one trade union, run by the
    government. Anyone outside of its purview, outside of the
    parameters very carefully set by the government, goes to
    prison.
        And I, too, have held hearings on that, as you know, Mr.
    Chairman, where we have heard from these activists who bravely
    stand up to the government while there are government officials
    who are implementing that repression on these people who simply
    want collective bargaining and a decent wage for their work.
        Independent media, journalists, and Internet users. I have
    held three hearings, Mr. Chairman, on the gross abuse of the
    Internet, including the infamous one, or infamous in terms of
    their testimony, when we heard from some of the big giants,
    including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco, who, under oath,
    said, we can't tell what you we are censoring, and we can't
    tell you this or that. But, meanwhile, 35,000 to 40,000--nobody
    knows the exact number--of cyber police comb the Internet
    looking to find users who say prohibited things like the
    ``Dalai Lama'' or ``freedom of religion'' or anything else or
    even something favorable about the United States.
        As the recently released annual human rights report for
    2011 by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China notes--
    and I do chair that commission--quote, ``China's leaders have
    grown more assertive in their violation of rights, disregarding
    the very laws and international standards that they claim to
    uphold and tightening their grip on Chinese society.''
        They have done a head-fake. They are now citing human
    rights laws, signing on to U.N. documents, including the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and then
    they use the language of rights and they totally co-opt it
    while they repress their own society.
        Liu Xiaobo, who was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for
    his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights
    in China, continues to remain incarcerated, having served 11
    years in prison, for simply signing a document calling for
    democracy in China.
        Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I chaired a hearing on the plight
    of Chinese activist lawyer Chen Guancheng and his wife Yuan
    Weijing, who since 2005 have been subjected to beatings. Their
    6-year-old daughter is in their house under house arrest. And
    they pummel this man and his wife. We don't even know if he is
    dead or alive. And this man stood up for the women in Linyi
    city through a class action lawsuit--unbelievable bravery--who
    had been forced into abortion.
        I finally say, because I know my time is running out, that
    in 2004 and again in 2006, Mr. Chairman, I authored the Belarus
    Democracy Act, which this language very closely parallels. And
    while it didn't say absolutely, ``Create a list, Mr.
    President,'' President Bush did faithfully, as a result of the
    language in the bill which calls for denial of entry in the
    U.S. of senior leadership of the Government of Belarus, a list
    of about 200 people, egregious violators of human rights. And
    it has been paralleled by our friends in the European Union,
    who now have a list just like ours, almost identical names. And
    that has very much targeted and, in a calibrated way, said,
    let's target the abusers. And we won't allow them to come to
    the United States, and we will hold them to account in any way
    we can. This is but one more tool in that effort.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full statement be
    made a part of the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. And,
    yes, as I said earlier, your entire statement will be made a
    part of the record of the hearing.
        Ms. Chai?

           TESTIMONY OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED

        Ms. Chai. Well, thank you, Chairman and Chairman Lamar
    Smith and Congresswoman Lofgren. And I thank you for all the
    other Members of the Committee and for giving us this great
    opportunity to testify in front of you to really push forward
    H.R. 2121, the ``China Democracy Promotion Act.''
        I believe the reason why I am standing here supporting this
    bill is, first of all, this is a historical step to reverse the
    previous 22-year-long U.S.-China relationship that had led
    China's human rights conditions to continue deteriorating and
    to massive crimes, which I will explain later. And the second
    reason why I am supporting this bill is because it can work.
    The third thing I believe is because this is the right thing to
    do to both help China and also defend the value and liberty of
    the United States.
        I am especially honored to be testifying alongside with
    Chairman Smith, for he is our hero and the true force of
    America. And he has been fighting against China's cruel and
    inhumane one-child policy since it was first put into action in
    1980--before many of us, the native Chinese, have ever realized
    how gruesome and brutal this policy has been for women and
    mothers.
        I look forward for the day, Chairman Smith, Chris Smith and
    Lamar Smith, and Chairman--I hope I can pronounce your name--
    Gallegly and Congresswoman Lofgren, that we can all, together,
    put this really dark and bloody period of China's history into
    the history book so it may never happen again.
        Twenty-two years ago, I was at Tiananmen Square on June 4th
    morning when the tanks and troops moved in. I remember at that
    time we stayed until 6 a.m., because rumor was telling us if we
    stayed there until the last hour--that is, 6 a.m.--somehow the
    United States leadership would come intervene to stop China's
    leadership's brutality. But it did not happen.
        I came to America. Finally, I met with Ambassador Lilly,
    who passed away I think last year. And I asked him why; was
    that rumor true? And he said, no, it was not true at all. I
    said, why don't they do something? He said, because they don't
    care. And I was very disappointed.
        Later on, I read his memoir, a really moving memoir,
    ``China Hand.'' I realized in 1988 when South Korea was facing
    the same kind of confrontation between the dictatorship versus,
    you know, dissidents, President Reagan sent a very stern letter
    to warn the leaders and dictators of South Korean leaders, and
    Ambassador Lilly was able to hand-deliver that letter. That
    action changed the history of South Korea, and it led to the
    dictator to give amnesty to all the dissidents and eventually
    led to South Koreas' freedom and democracy.
        I believe had the United States leadership acted that day,
    on the night of June 4th, and we would have a different China,
    different U.S. relationship today. But it is not too late to
    act, 22 years later.
        However, after 22 years, now we are looking back, the
    massive crime that has been committed under the current U.S.-
    China, you know, ``tolerate policy'' of putting profit,
    business security above the basic human rights. And it allows
    China's government to repeat the Tiananmen massacre every hour.
    Under the one-child policy, every day there are 35,000 forced
    and coerced abortions taking place. Every day there are 500
    women committing suicide. For every sixth girl that is
    scheduled to be born, the number-six girl will be killed, the
    number-six boy will never find a wife. So, all together, in the
    past 30 years, more than 400 million lives have been taken.
        Later, I would like to show the real examples of all the
    faces and the cries of these victims in PowerPoint.
        And I believe why this bill can work is because it worked
    before. In the past, in Burma, when in 2008 Congress passed the
    Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts)
    to close a loophole in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.
    Together, that act calls for accountability for those who are
    responsible for human rights violations and it enforces visa
    bans for certain junta leaders. This extends to the immediate
    family members, as well.
        According to reliable resources, when entering
    negotiations, a visa ban may become a powerful bargaining chip.
    The first thing the leaders requested when asked to release the
    Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest,
    for the visa ban to be lifted. That is what they really care
    about. So does the same thing, and the Chinese leader will
    care. Today, in 2010, there are over 128,000 Chinese students
    studying in America. Every single Chinese leader and bureaucrat
    wants their children to be in America, and they want their
    assets to be stored and preserved and invested in America. And
    they cannot enjoy this privilege if they continue to brutalize
    their very own people.
        And I believe this is the right thing to do for America
    because in many buildings they state, you know, ``In God We
    Trust.'' And I remember, I was so struck when I first came to
    America in 1990 to testify in Congress. And it took me many
    years in America to try to understand what they really mean,
    until I finally came to Jesus one day 2 years ago. And now I
    know what it means.
        So I want to quote a story from the Bible from the Old
    Testament. When Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, God said
    in Numbers, Chapter 12, ``My servant Moses, of all my houses,
    he is the one I trust. So why were you free to criticize my
    servant Moses?'' Then God punished Miriam and Aaron for their
    transgressions against God's chosen servant.
        What I meant to say in that story is if you truly trust
    God, if we truly trust his promise, the surprising answer, what
    is the cost of the consequence for the U.S. Stand up against
    the human rights abuses in China? The answer is, the cost of
    doing nothing, the cost of repeating what we have been doing in
    the past 28 years will be much higher than standing up to doing
    the right thing, the Godly thing, and the righteous thing.
        Mr. Gallegly. I am going to have to stop you there.
        Ms. Chai. Yes. I thank you for the time.
        Mr. Gallegly. The full statement will be a part of the
    record of the hearing, and I thank you for your testimony.
        Ms. Chai. I would also like to include--this is the 350
    names, and addresses of the forced-abortion one-child policy
    policymakers and enforcers. We would like this to be the
    beginning of those----
        Mr. Gallegly. Without objection----
        Ms. Chai [continuing]. Names to be entered into the
    record----
        Mr. Gallegly [continuing]. That will be added to the record
    of the hearing.
        Ms. Chai [continuing]. And also the pictures of the stories
    of all these, you know, one-child policy victims entered into
    the record, too.
        Mr. Gallegly. That document will be added to the record,
    without objection.
        Ms. Chai. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Chai follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Wasem?

     TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, Ph.D., CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
            SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Wasem. Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Smith, Ranking
    Member Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to
    be testifying before you this afternoon on behalf of the
    Congressional Research Service.
        As a backdrop to this afternoon's discussion of China
    Democracy Promotion Act, my testimony provides summaries of two
    subsections of the Immigration and Nationality Act: section
    212(a) on the grounds of inadmissibility; and section 212(f),
    which authorizes the President to bar the entry of foreign
    nationals he deems detrimental to the United States.
        These subsections of current law may be considered
    comparable to provisions in H.R. 2121. This legislation states,
    as we have already heard, that the President may exercise the
    authority under 212(f) to deny the entry into the United States
    of foreign nationals from the People's Republic of China who
    engage in human rights violations and other specific acts.
        To gain admission to the United States, foreign nationals
    must first meet a set of criteria specified in the Immigration
    and Nationality Act that determine whether they are eligible.
    Conversely, foreign nationals also must not be deemed
    inadmissible according to other specified grounds in the
    Immigration Act. The Bureau of Consular Affairs in the
    Department of State is the agency responsible for issuing
    visas. All foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo
    inadmissibility reviews performed by the Department of State
    consular offices.
        Section 212(a), now, that is where the grounds of
    inadmissibility are spelled out in the Immigration Act. These
    criteria include health-related grounds, criminal history,
    national security violations. The provisions that discuss the
    criminal and national security grounds are particularly germane
    to today's hearing.
        Among those foreign nationals who are deemed inadmissible
    under current law are: foreign government officials who have
    committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom;
    foreign nationals who have committed, conspired to commit, or
    aided in human trafficking; foreign nationals who ordered,
    incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide; and
    foreign nationals who have committed, ordered, incited,
    assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of any
    act of torture or extrajudicial killing.
        Furthermore, the 2002 Consolidated Appropriations Act
    included a provision that deems inadmissible any foreign
    national that has been directly involved in the enforcement of
    population-control policies, forcing a woman to undergo an
    abortion against her free choice, or forcing a man to undergo
    sterilization against his--or a woman to undergo sterilization
    against his or her freewill.
        The law does provide exceptions for foreign nationals who
    are heads of state or cabinet-level ministers and is subject to
    a waiver if the Secretary of State determines that it is
    important to national interest. The Secretary of State would
    provide a written notification to the appropriate congressional
    Committees.
        Secondly, I am going to talk about 212(f), and that is the
    suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions. In addition
    to 212(a), which we just discussed, the Immigration Act gives
    the President authority to bar the entry of foreign nationals
    he deems detrimental to the United States. This broad authority
    states, ``Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
    aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be
    detrimental to the United States, he may, by proclamation and
    for such period as shall be deemed necessary, suspend the entry
    of all aliens of any class of aliens as immigrants or
    nonimmigrants or impose upon the entry of aliens any
    restrictions he may deem appropriate.''
        In August of this year, the President issued Proclamation
    8697, which bars the admission of any foreign national who
    planned, order, assisted, committed, or otherwise participated
    in widespread or systematic violence, war crimes, crimes
    against humanity, or other serious violations of human rights
    against a civilian population.
        Of the 212(f) proclamations currently in effect, most are
    directed at foreign nationals from specific countries or
    regions. These countries currently in effect include Belarus,
    Bosnia, Burma, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Serbia and Montenegro,
    Sierra Leone, the Sudan, the Western Balkans, and Zimbabwe.
        This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Dr. Wasem.
        Chris, how successful is the visa restrictions with regard
    to Burma?
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. It has been successful, although
    Burma is very, very heavily isolated by the junta itself. But
    it has been part of a multifaceted set of sanctions imposed
    upon it by succeeding Administrations, Republican and Democrat.
    So there aren't many Burmese officials from Rangoon or anywhere
    else in Burma seeking to come here. That is precisely the
    opposite situation with regards to China and, as was proven,
    with Belarus.
        I met with Alexander Lukashenko 2 years ago with 10 other
    Members of Congress and 1 Senator. Lukashenko looked at me and
    said--he is the dictator in Belarus, of course--and said, ``You
    are public enemy number one,'' because of the Belarus Democracy
    Act and because he and his senior leadership are precluded
    visas to come here. And it has had an impact. And the fact that
    our European partners joined in and, likewise, promulgated a
    list to prevent, you know, the issuance of a visa has further
    isolated that last dictatorship in Europe.
        If you look at the language of the Belarus Democracy Act,
    it mirrors what we put into this bill. This bill is a
    blueprint. I even cite in the Belarus Democracy Act section
    212(f), as my good friend Dr. Wasem pointed out. I mean, these
    authorities exist, but they are dormant, they are on a shelf.
    And what we found with the Belarus Democracy Act, President
    Bush took that, and it animated what our policy became--some of
    it mandatory, some of it not. And this is a blueprint for
    action; that is what we have before the Committee.
        Mr. Gallegly. I have a very limited amount of time, so if
    everybody could make an effort to give me succinct answers, I
    would appreciate it.
        In relating to H.R. 2121, the current law, of course,
    already provides the authority to deny visas on human rights
    abusers and specifically with the issue of forced abortions.
    Can you explain why there is a need for 2121 if, in fact, what
    I have said is correct?
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Excellent question, Mr. Chairman.
    We add additional provisions that, again, we derived from the
    Belarus Democracy Act: immediate family members; we added a new
    ``derived significant financial benefits from'' human rights
    abuse.
        I held a series of hearings, 31 to date, on human rights in
    China as Chairman of the Human Rights Committee for Foreign
    Affairs over the course of many years. At one of those
    hearings, we had members, Harry Wu and many others, who had
    been tortured in the Laogai; Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk; a
    woman, Catherine Ho, very courageous woman. And they brought in
    the implements used to torture. Well, this law would say and
    underscore that, at a minimum, people who manufacture those
    kinds of implements, made indigenously in China, should not be
    given visas. So it will require, or, at least, we hope it will
    inspire--better word--a list.
        Right now, 10 years later--and, again, Mr. Chairman, as I
    said in my testimony, I wrote section 801, denial of entry.
    And, unfortunately, under President Bush and under Obama,
    nothing, nada, not a single person that I know of. And part of
    the reason might be we said ``directly involved.'' The Chinese
    government goes into overdrive to deny, as does the U.N.
    Population Fund and all the cheerleaders for that horrific
    program, to say there is no coercion. And then our government
    says, ``Well, we asked, and they said they weren't involved.''
        We need to be much more focused on a human rights policy
    that says, we are going to look at the facts on the ground. If
    you are involved with this, if you are censoring the Internet,
    if you are doing this or that, you can't get a visa to come to
    the United States. So this is a blueprint for action.
        Mr. Gallegly. Thanks.
        My time is getting short, so I would just like to ask Ms.
    Chai, what is your assessment of how the Chinese government
    would respond to us enacting H.R. 2121? How would you define
    and what would you expect for us to be prepared to deal with
    from the Chinese government?
        Ms. Chai. The Chinese government, to me, would be very
    upset. This is something that goes into their heart because
    every one of them want their children and their grandchildren
    and their relatives to be here. And the senior leaders might be
    already taken care of; they may already become U.S. citizens.
    It is the middle level.
        And, for example, there might be between 350,000 to
    850,000, one-child policy family-planning committee people.
    Those people will continue to attempt to send their children to
    America, their wives to America. They will not like it. This
    mess would get into their attention, will give them pause of
    what are they doing, and realize we are watching, and they must
    stop what they are doing.
        I think this message if it gets into China would inspire
    many people to come over, volunteer to help. When the criminals
    list is put forth on the Internet in a central place, I think
    it will be very effective.
        And I think the United States should stand firm. When you
    do act righteous and act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with
    the Lord our God, that God will be our protector and our
    shield. And just stand firm. We will be okay.
        Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Wasem, if I am hearing you correctly, the
    only substantive change this would make to existing law would
    be to include senior government officials and their families
    whether or not you could prove up that they actively did the
    human rights abuse themselves.
        Ms. Wasem. I wouldn't necessarily say the ``only,'' but
    that is the major----
        Ms. Lofgren. The major issue.
        Ms. Wasem [continuing]. Broadening of it, yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right. Now, have we included the families of
    individuals in the past when we have utilized barring, you
    know, visas as a diplomatic tool?
        Ms. Wasem. I know, in current law, some of the bars, if you
    have already--if you have gained financially from the
    activities, particularly if you look at the human trafficking
    and some of the drug----
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Ms. Wasem [continuing]. Provisions, that if you are an
    adult child or a spouse, you are included if it appears that
    you have gained. That is the main thing I am aware of. But in
    the broader sense----
        Ms. Lofgren. What if you were a minor child? What if you
    are, you know, the 14-year-old of a----
        Ms. Wasem. That I am not aware. But I could get back to you
    on it if you want me to----
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just be interested.
        And, Chris, listening to you--I am sorry, Congressman
    Smith--it seems that, if I am hearing you correctly, one of the
    major benefits of this legislation would be to really incent
    the Administration to create a list. Because they have a lot of
    this authority already in existing law, but it hasn't been used
    by two Administrations of different parties. Is that about
    right?
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Part of it is out of frustration,
    Zoe--Ms. Lofgren--to the fact that, you know, we have had this
    for 10 years, we have had other existing authorities----
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey [continuing]. And there has been--
    --
        Ms. Lofgren. And they are never used.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. They haven't done a thing.
        Ms. Lofgren. Yeah. Yeah.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And I raise issues of this kind.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. There are other issues, like the
    memorandum of understanding on Gulag labor. It is Swiss cheese;
    it is not implemented.
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. This is one area where we could
    make a huge difference.
        Ms. Lofgren. Yeah, because it will force them to make the
    list.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The Belarus Democracy Act
    specifically had the family members included, as well.
        Ms. Lofgren. I have another question, which--you referenced
    the Burma situation and the fact that we had gotten
    collaboration from our European allies. I don't think we are
    going to get that kind of collaboration with China because--
    well, maybe I would be wrong, but my guess is not.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. You know, I actually was one of
    the few who voted for sanctions against South Africa in the
    early 1980's. And part of the argument there was, the Europeans
    are doing it, why aren't we doing it? And, of course, I think
    it was the right policy. But just because some other nation
    refuses to go along, I mean----
        Ms. Lofgren. No, no, I am not suggesting that it should
    keep us from doing what we think is right. I am just asking
    about how effective it will be.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I think that it would be very
    effective because we are a prime destination for high officials
    in the Chinese government. And there are many middle officials,
    there are many people in the security apparatus, which we
    referenced, who are torturers.
        Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special rapporteur for torture, did
    a scathing report on torture in the PRC, which is now blocked,
    by the way, on their Internet. You can get all of the alleged
    abuses in Guantanamo but nothing about what is going--he wrote
    one about there, too, and he wrote one about the People's
    Republic of China. I read his report. Very, very good U.N.
    diplomat. People do those tortures, and they hop on a plane,
    they come to New York, they come to Washington.
        This would hopefully incentivize the Administration to
    begin chronicling, putting together a list, who are the
    abusers. And, as Chai Ling said, she already has a number of
    abusers that would be a good starting point for the
    Administration. Right now, there is nothing of this kind, to
    the best of my knowledge, going on. If anything, we are
    enabling those people, ``Come on over.'' Well, you know, any
    modest sanction we can impose on a gross abuser of human
    rights, we ought do it.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for answering my questions.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Gowdy?
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Chai, I want to use my time to give you the opportunity
    to give voice to the women and girls of China whose voices we
    haven't heard, or if we have heard--we have sent messages from
    this government--and I will allow that sometimes people commit
    verbal non sequiturs or verbal gaffes, but to say that we are
    not going to second-judge China's one-child policy or to say
    that we fully understand it, I don't understand it at all.
        So I want you to give voice to the women and girls of China
    who have suffered under this policy.
        Ms. Chai. Thank you, Congressman Gowdy. Your voice and your
    support almost brought me to tears. So I would love to take the
    opportunity you give to me and the honor you give to me to
    speak of those women and the mothers and fathers who cannot be
    here.
        With your permission, I would like to be able to show the
    PowerPoint--you showed it earlier? Okay, they are going to
    drive it, control it.
        I just want to answer, Congresswoman Lofgren, your message
    earlier. Just imagine, the incoming Chinese President in 2012--
    his daughter is studying at Harvard. And imagine the impact if
    the next Chinese President will continue to tolerate this one-
    child policy. What might be the impact if this bill, H.R. 2121,
    is able to pass before that time? What might be the
    implication?
        This would definitely be the most defining moment in the
    U.S.-China relationship, with this bill.
        Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman would yield for a follow-up
    on that point since it was directed to me?
        Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Lofgren. Here is the question, and it is really not the
    intention, but, as you are saying that, I am thinking, ``Well,
    then, does she go to Oxford instead?'' You know, which goes to
    my question to Chris on how do we get kind of a worldwide
    collaboration on putting the pressure up.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Even the worst abusers of human
    rights in Africa, China, North Korea--maybe not so much in
    North Korea--even people like Joseph Kony and Bashir in Sudan
    don't want to be on a list, don't want to be indicted. They
    seem impervious to any kind of criticism. And it seems to me
    that this is a modest step to say that if you abuse people, we
    are going to be promulgating lists, we are going to be
    following who you are, and you are not welcomed here.
        You know, Chai Ling, hero of the Tiananmen Square student
    movement, suffered immensely, thankfully got out. She has led
    an effort to say, what about the gendercide? Ten years ago, the
    U.S. Department of State had a report in the Country Reports on
    Human Rights Practices that said as many as 100 million girls
    are missing in China.
        I just had a hearing on the one-child-per-couple policy,
    and Chai Ling and several other very distinguished witnesses
    presented. And the point was made that between 40 million and
    50 million, now, men won't find wives by 2020 because they have
    been systematically exterminated through sex-selection
    abortion.
        This is the worst crime of gender ever, and it is being
    done by people. Well, let's focus on who those people are,
    create lists of who is doing not just forced abortion and
    forced sterilization, forced IUD insertion and all the other
    terrible abuses, but let's also look at the other human rights
    abuses, which we do here, and let's finally do something. Ten
    years since I got that law passed, not a thing.
        And Chai Ling has been so brave for all these years,
    raising these issues. And it is about time we had--oh, like she
    has, 300 people who are intimately involved with this--you
    know, at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was
    construed to be a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime
    against humanity. The Nazis did it, you know, a smaller number,
    and now we have a situation here.
        Ms. Lofgren. I don't disagree with that. It is a question
    of efficacy.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. So let's cease political cover----
        Ms. Chai. Right. Exactly.
        Mr. Gowdy. I think we only have about a minute, and I----
        Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleman be given an additional minute since he was----
        Mr. Gallegly. Without objection. There is a conference that
    was just called, so.
        Ms. Chai. Okay. Thank you very much.
        If could you roll the PowerPoint, I would really appreciate
    it.
        And so we prepared pictures that could basically share the
    cases of these people. This is Chen Guancheng, the blind
    attorney. Chairman Smith had held a press conference yesterday.
    He was exposing 130,000 cases in 2005 of forced abortion and
    forced sterilizations in Linyi, he was imprisoned for 4 years
    and 3 months. He has been beaten consistently ever since he was
    released to house arrest in September. We listened in detail
    about how he was beaten for 4 hours nonstop in front of his
    child.
        If you can go to the next page, this is a woman, Wan Li
    Ping, and she was 23. She was not married and got pregnant.
    They found her, dragged her into forced-abortion clinic and
    injected poison into the baby. The baby was killed, and they
    dumped this baby in a plastic bag in front of her bed and asked
    her to pay the money for the operation. She didn't have the
    money, and therefore the baby was dumped in front of her. They
    killed both her baby and her hope, and they want her to pay for
    the procedure.
        The next page is--and every day the 70 percent of the women
    who are going through forced and coerced abortions are single
    women because they are not allowed to have children, they don't
    have marriage certificates, therefore they don't have a birth
    permit.
        This woman, Ms. Chen, she is still in fear. She lives in
    New York now. She had two daughters, and the family-planning
    committee went to her home, saying, ``You are over quota. You
    have two options: be forcibly sterilized or give up one of your
    babies.'' And because of gendercide, her family, her in-laws
    still want her to try to give birth to a baby boy. She
    hesitated, and the baby girl was kidnapped. We don't know where
    that is. And her husband had a mental breakdown after that
    incident.
        Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Chai, the Chairman has been very, very
    gracious to me, and I don't want to take advantage of his
    generosity. But it is unimpeachable that the suicide rate among
    women in China is higher, that the ratio of females to males is
    completely out of balance, that the orphanages are full of
    girls--not boys, but girls.
        Ms. Chai. Yes.
        Mr. Gowdy. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Lofgren, for giving me extra time.
        And I thank you for being here as the face of those who
    don't have a voice in China, because it is a travesty and it is
    immoral.
        Ms. Chai. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gallegly. I would just like to say to Ms. Chai that the
    fact that we don't have a large group of folks here today is
    not an indication of their lack of sensitivity or a lack of
    concern for this travesty that most of us are aware of,
    certainly not to the degree that you are or Chris is, but you
    can be assured that your testimony today is not taken lightly
    as a result of the fact of lack of participation. But there are
    so many things going on here.
        I want to make sure that you are aware that, again, all the
    testimony that you have, whether you have formally presented it
    or you have it there in writing, will be made a part of record
    of the hearing so that we will all have an ability to look at
    that and also the pictures that you have brought along. For
    those that are not here, they will be available to them as well
    as us.
        Ms. Chai. Thank you very much. I am grateful.
        Mr. Gallegly. But because of time constraints that we have,
    I am going to have to call the time on the hearing.
        And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
    days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for
    the witnesses, which we will forward to you for your response,
    and hope that we will have a timely response to the questions
    that will be made a part of the record of the hearing.
        And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
    days to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the
    record.
        And, with that, I thank you for being here today.
        And the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]