[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHINESE MEDIA RECIPROCITY 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
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 2899
__________
JUNE 20, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-110
__________
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
74-643 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 JARED POLIS, Colorado
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
MARK AMODEI, Nevada
Richard Hertling, Staff Director and Chief 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
----------
JUNE 20, 2012
Page
THE BILL
H.R. 2899, the ``Chinese Media Reciprocity Act of 2011''......... 3
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............................. 8
WITNESSES
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
John Lenczowski, Ph.D., President, The Institute of World
Politics, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Nick Zahn, Asia Communications Fellow, Director of the Washington
Roundtable for the Asia Pacific Press, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Robert L. Daly, Director, Maryland China Initiative, The
University of Maryland
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............. 8
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Addendum to Response of John Lenczowski, Ph.D., President, The
Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC, to Question from
the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy
and Enforcement................................................ 46
CHINESE MEDIA RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Elton
Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, and Lofgren.
Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian
White, Clerk; and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Gallegly. I call the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy
and Enforcement to order.
Before we do our opening statements, I just want to let
everyone know, we are probably going to have the bells going
off around 1:35 for a series of votes. We are going to try to
get the opening statements and as much of the testimony taken
as possible. So maybe we can make it before the votes start.
Today, the hearing is focusing on the Chinese Media
Reciprocity Act of 2011, introduced by our colleague, U.S.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher. It amends the Immigration and
Nationality Act to ensure open and free access by American
journalists in the People's Republic of China.
The bill establishes a reciprocal relationship between the
number of visas issued to state-controlled media workers in
China and in the United States. The bill builds upon already
existing law contained within the Immigration and Nationality
Act. Visas granted to officials and employees who have been
accredited by the foreign government are issued ``upon a basis
of reciprocity.''
However, the system has been anything but reciprocal. In
the fiscal year of 2010, 650 Chinese citizens entered the U.S.
with ``I'' foreign media visas. And so far in fiscal year 2011,
811 Chinese nationals entered the U.S.
These reporters are agents of the Chinese Government and
work for a news organization under the control of the Chinese
Government Communist Party. In contrast, the Broadcasting Board
of Governors of the United States Government International
Broadcasting Agency is allowed only two reporters to be
stationed in Beijing.
Let us not forget that while the Chinese press has grown,
it has also remained a tool of the Communist Party. According
to State Department reports, the United States has let the
Chinese Communist Party establish a wide network and diverse
media platform to disseminate their message directly in the
U.S. At least 14 Chinese state-owned media organizations have a
presence in the United States, and their operations in the
United States are subject to many fewer restrictions than the
operations of American media organizations in China.
The state-controlled Chinese news agencies are not subject
to censorship or blockage in America. They can cover any news
story or express their opinion, any opinion they desire. In
contrast, Representative Rohrabacher reports that the BBG's two
correspondents in China, one from Radio Free Asia and the other
from Voice of America, are harassed by the Chinese police. They
have been assaulted, detained by the Chinese officials seeking
to block their work.
Further, the BBG has its transmissions in China blocked and
censored. Their website cannot be accessed by China. In
contrast, every edition of China Daily is available anywhere in
the United States.
H.R. 2899 will assist in rectifying the disparity in
treatment of state-controlled journalists in both China and the
United States by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act
to the state I-visas, so that they may only be issued to state-
controlled media workers from Communist China on the basis of
reciprocity with visas issued to U.S. citizens who are employed
by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and who seek to enter
China.
At this point, I will yield to my colleague from
California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren.
[The bill, H.R. 2899, follows:]
__________
Ms. Lofgren. In the interests of time, I would ask
unanimous consent to put my full statement in the record, and
will just make a few comments.
Clearly, there is no doubt that the Chinese Government
regularly imposes severe restrictions on freedom of the press,
that the Communist government oppresses its own citizens in
many, many ways that we find highly objectionable and wrong.
I understand Mr. Rohrabacher's concern about the disparity,
and I certainly do not question his motives in proposing this
measure. I think I disagree, however, with the approach. I
think if we kick 99 percent of China's journalists out of this
country, I don't think that is going to make the situation
better, honestly.
I think to respond to their oppression of the free press
with the curtailment of the press strikes me as probably the
wrong approach. And I think that will not make China better. It
might make us a little worse.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, because of the impending
votes, I will, again, put the rest of my statement in the
record and look forward to hearing this distinguished panel,
including our friend and colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Gallegly. And without objection, the gentlelady's
comments and entire testimony will be made a part of the record
of the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Immigration Policy and Enforcement
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the relationship
between the U.S. and China. Late last year, this Subcommittee held a
hearing on a bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith that gave us the
opportunity to examine the Chinese government's dismal human rights
record.
That bill, H.R. 2121, authorized the denial of visas to certain
Chinese nationals in an effort to promote democracy and hold human
rights violators accountable. I noted at the time that the State
Department believed it already possessed the visa denial authority
provided in the bill and that the bill posed foreign policy concerns.
I approach today's hearing in much the same way that I approached
that previous hearing. There can be no doubt that the Chinese
government regularly imposes severe restrictions on the freedom of the
press. The State Department's country report on China makes it clear
that virtually all media in China is state-sponsored media. Foreign
journalists who live and work in China must overcome serious obstacles
to collect and report the news. According to a survey conducted by the
Foreign Correspondents Club in China, many foreign journalists and
their sources face harassment, detention, and intimidation.
Such journalists also experience visa threats and visa delays,
which are frequently tied to official concerns about the content of
their reporting. It is therefore little wonder that American
journalists affiliated with the Voice of America find it difficult both
to gain access to China and to perform their duties in China without
spending an inordinate amount of time and money trying to get around
government efforts to clamp down on their reporting and broadcasting.
Still, the purpose of this hearing is to examine H.R. 2899, the
``Chinese Media Reciprocity Act of 2011.'' The bill compares the
hundreds of visas granted by the U.S. to Chinese state-sponsored media
workers with the two visas made available by China to American state-
sponsored media workers. The bill's response to this disparity is to
revoke visas for hundreds of Chinese journalists and to limit future
visas for such journalists to the number of similar visas provided by
China to employees of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).
I understand Mr. Rohrabacher's concern that while we grant entry to
some 800 Chinese state-sponsored journalists, China allows entry to
only 2 BBG journalists. But this comparison does not include the
several hundred American journalists reporting from China at any given
time who do not work for the BBG. It also fails to take into account
the fact that the BBG is seeking 6 to 8 additional visas for American
nationals in China. Under this bill, even if China were to provide all
of the visas sought by the BBG, the U.S. would still be required to
revoke the visas of 99% of the Chinese journalists who currently have
permission to work in the U.S.
I am concerned that despite the best intentions of the bill's
sponsor, this bill would lead to greater restrictions by China on
foreign journalists, whether state-sponsored or not. If we kick 99
percent of China's journalists out of the country, even if they fully
comply with our requests for state-sponsored journalists, how can we
expect China not to do the same to our journalists?
I am also wary of responding to China's free press restrictions by
erecting our own restrictions on the free press. One of the most
important and effective ways that America spreads its core values to
the world is by welcoming people to this country and living by those
values.
Essentially, I am concerned that this bill won't make China any
better, but that it will make America just a little bit worse.
We have a distinguished panel of experts here today and I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
__________
Mr. Gallegly. We have four distinguished panel witnesses
today. Each of the witnesses' written statements will be
entered into the record in their entirety.
I ask that each of you summarize within 5 minutes. As you
know, we are on a tight schedule today, but your entire
testimony will be made a part of the record of the hearing. We
have provided you lights down there that will help facilitate
accomplishing that 5-minute rule.
Our first witness is our colleague from California, U.S.
Representative Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. He represents
California's 46th District and is currently serving his 12th
term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
He serves as Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
serves on the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Prior to serving in Congress, the Congressmen served as
special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He received his
master's degree from USC.
And with that, welcome, Dana.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman
Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren.
I appreciate you calling this hearing on the aggressive
nature of the perception management campaign by the Chinese
Communist Party as we see it here in the United States of
America.
The Chinese Communist Party is attempting to diminish the
United States as the world's leader. The military arm of the
CCP, the People's Liberation Army, has been undergoing a rapid
and alarming buildup and modernization.
Thanks in large part to an unparallel level of economic
espionage, enormous investment by U.S. corporations, and having
been granted most favored nation trading status, the Chinese
economy has grown at an expansive rate year after year. This
transfer of wealth and power has been due to the Chinese
Communist Party's successful use of perception management,
especially here in the United States.
This is how they continue to get away with stealing our
trade secrets, manipulating the currency, receiving millions of
dollars in foreign aid from the United States. Millions of
American jobs have been lost due to their successful efforts.
On the other hand, our Government has had little influence
within China. While we embrace the free exchange of
information, in China, the Chinese Communist Party lacks
legitimacy and maintains its grip on power by organized
violence and through intimidation.
The CCP must control information to stay in power, which
means their power both inside China and their power outside
China. The Communist Party of China is also afraid of the
Chinese people learning the truth that it goes to great--and
they are afraid of the truth, that they go to great ends to jam
radio broadcasts, censor the Internet, deny visas to Voice of
America reporters, and interfere with the work of the two Voice
of America reporters that they do allow to operate in Beijing.
In contrast, the United States has issued hundreds of I-
visas to Chinese journalists; 811 Chinese entered the United
States with I-visas in fiscal year 2011 alone. We allow the CCP
to freely distribute their insidious propaganda without
interference, including delivering the China Daily right to the
doors of this building. The CCP would never permit Voice of
America material to be distributed to the offices of the
rubberstamp parliament in Beijing.
A year ago, the largest Chinese Communist Party controlled
news organization moved their North American headquarters to
Times Square in New York and introduced an English television
broadcast service that runs 24 hours a day.
Additionally, they placed a 60-foot tall advertisement at
the north end of Times Square, which is estimated to rent at,
just for that sign alone, $300,000 to $400,000 a month. That
means, in 1 year, the CCP spends the equivalent of a quarter of
the VOA's China budget, but just on one sign.
I am also really concerned that the CCP has over 70
Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms here in the
United States. They put teachers and party-approved content
masquerading as innocent cultural material on U.S. campuses.
And of course, just a few weeks ago, a Chinese investor,
using an undisclosed sum of Chinese state funds, bought the AMC
entertainment movie theater chain. Due to this, the CCP will
now influence the content of U.S. movies as well.
So finally, let me just say that the CCP is clearly using
disinformation to advance nationalistic and hegemonic ends.
America should not concede this valuable ground to the
Communist Party. And it is not us trying to accept the idea
that we are limiting. Let them, if there is going to be
reciprocity, let them increase the number of people on our side
that are permitted to come in.
So the central argument against this, by saying it would
lead to a suppression of information here, actually, they would
then be making that determination. We are just simply saying
reciprocity and just assume have it go up rather than down.
So I thank you for calling this hearing. And I hope for
markup as well of H.R. 2899, so that we can have this vote come
to the floor, and we can alert the American people to how we're
getting snookered by the Communist Chinese.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank
you for joining us today, Congressman Rohrabacher.
Now we'll move to the second witness, Dr. John Lenczowski.
He serves as the founder and president of the Institute of
World Politics, an independent graduate school of national
security and international affairs here in Washington, D.C.
Prior to this, he served in the State Department in the
Bureau of European Affairs as a special advisor to the
Undersecretary for Political Affairs.
Dr. Lenczowski received his master's degree and Ph.D. from
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Studies.
Welcome, Doctor.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN LENCZOWSKI, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
THE INSTITUTE OF WORLD POLITICS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Lenczowski. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and
Congresswoman Lofgren.
I'm honored to share some thoughts about the legislation at
hand. My concern with the principles underlying this issue
dates back to the Cold War, and it's a very similar situation.
Today, we're concerned that China has severely restricted
visas for our official broadcasters, as we have discussed. This
last year, in contrast to the only two official correspondents
we have in Beijing, the State Department granted 868 visas to
Chinese media representatives.
The diplomatic principle here, reciprocity, is playing out
today just as it did in the Cold War. For example, during the
Cold War, the State Department had more KGB personnel working
in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow then it had Americans. The
Soviets had the run of our Embassy and could easily identify
our intelligence officers and our vulnerabilities.
In contrast, we had exactly zero Americans working in the
Soviet Embassy here.
The State Department's rational for hiring all these KGB
operatives? It was hard to find housing in Moscow for any more
Americans.
In response to this, we created the Office of Foreign
Missions to enforce reciprocity. If the Soviets gave us trouble
in securing housing in Moscow, then they would encounter
similar difficulties here. All of a sudden, housing in Moscow
became mysteriously available.
Today, we see Beijing being given lopsided advantages in
almost every sphere. Just like the Soviets, the Chinese require
our Embassy and consulates in China to use the Chinese
diplomatic service bureau with their intelligence service
assistance, of course, to hire local Chinese solely through
them.
The lack of reciprocity extends to numbers of students
studying in both countries, the number of scientists to do
research in our national laboratories, the numbers of national
centers involved in public diplomacy, the numbers of
intelligence collectors, and other categories.
Who exactly are China's media representatives? None are
true professional journalists. The number who even pretend to
be reporters is a tiny percentage. Some are Communist Party
propagandists. Most are intelligence operatives with the
Ministry of State Security, the MSS.
Most of those officers, under media cover, are agents of
influence and political counterintelligence officers who work
in cooperation with the massive Chinese propaganda presence
here.
Just part of that presence are the aforementioned 81
Confucius Institutes in American universities that both conduct
propaganda and stifle criticism of Chinese policies. In
contrast, we have only five American centers in China that are
not independently operated but come under the control of
Chinese university officials.
Chinese political counterintelligence officers penetrate
and harass American organizations that represent groups that
pose a threat to the Chinese Communist Party. Beijing calls
these groups the ``Five Poisons.'' They include the Uighurs in
Xinjing province, the Tibetans, the Taiwanese, the Falun Gong,
and pro-democracy groups.
These agents identify critics of the Beijing regime,
attempt to manipulate their perceptions, and discredit their
views.
Here Beijing uses the visa weapon. If you write for a
publication of any of the ``Five Poisons,'' you are likely to
be denied a visa to enter China. If your business advertises in
one of their publications, you will be blacklisted and denied
business opportunities in China.
Unfortunately, our foreign policy systematically ignores
such influence operations and their ability to distort our
perceptions of reality.
Chinese propaganda is designed to create a false
conventional wisdom, influencing not only our media but our
academic community from which come our future intelligence
analysts, military officers, and policymakers.
Here, the Chinese play the visa game. If an American writes
about China's military, intelligence, or its Laogai slave labor
system, or other sensitive subjects, they are routinely denied
visas.
Once denied a visa, scholars can no longer do fieldwork and
bolster their credentials by traveling to China. So they censor
themselves, and the fruit of this self-censorship is ever
greater lack of knowledge or concern about subjects central to
U.S. national security policymaking. We saw the identical
phenomenon in the Cold War.
Beijing corrupts us in other ways. It contributes to the
campaigns of American politicians. It uses commercial leverage
to influence our businesses, and even to blackmail our
congressional representatives who vote for legislation like
this, with the threat of the withdrawal of business in their
districts. They hire former Cabinet members and military
officers to stifle any criticism.
I can only scratch the surface of this major national
security challenge. I entreat this Committee and the Congress
at large to take this challenge seriously and enforce greater
reciprocity in the use of visas, so that Chinese influence
operations can be minimized and U.S. national security can be
protected. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lenczowski follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Dr. Lenczowski.
And as you know, your testimony, all of your written
testimony, will be part of the record of the hearing.
Our next witness is Mr. Nick Zahn. Mr. Zahn serves as the
Asian communications fellow and director of the Washington
Roundtable for the Asia Pacific Press at the Heritage
Foundation. He manages the largest organization of Asia and
Pacific news media in the United States from his office in
Heritage's Asian Studies Center.
Mr. Zahn's responsibility is to advance American leadership
and national security by promoting the organization's policy
agenda through relationships with international media.
Mr. Zahn received his bachelor's degree from the University
of Wisconsin.
Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF NICK ZAHN, ASIA COMMUNICATIONS FELLOW, DIRECTOR OF
THE WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE FOR THE ASIA PACIFIC PRESS, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Zahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The views I express in this testimony are my own and should
not be construed as representing any official position of the
Heritage Foundation.
The Washington Roundtable for the Asian Pacific Press at
the Heritage Foundation is quite unique among this town's think
tanks. It is my duty to get to know the Asian media market and
press corps for purposes of promoting Heritage's work and
ideas.
This responsibility has given me a first-hand understanding
of how these reporters, including China's reporters, operate.
In preparing my testimony, I've drawn from this daily
interaction as well as some of Heritage's broader work on
public diplomacy. And as I look at any comparison between the
way the U.S. and China handle one another's government-
sponsored press, the single most striking inequity that jumps
out at me is the number of visas issued. The current imbalance
is simply unacceptable.
In 2011, the U.S. Department of State approved 868 visas
for Chinese state journalists. The Chinese continued the
abysmal precedent of allowing the Voice of America only two
visas to work in the People's Republic of China. And as
mentioned previously, that's 868 to 2.
China's government has consistently rejected visa
applications for Radio Free Asia staff since President Bill
Clinton's 1998 trip when three personnel were denied travel
into the PRC.
Compounding the disparity, journalists in China are heavily
censored. Both at home and abroad, decisions made by the
Chinese Communist Party about desired coverage or censorship of
particularly sensitive subjects are issued via the central
propaganda department or the state council information offices.
Censorship, of course, is a key concern for the party. The
party's primary mission for press is to help maintain social
and political control, especially during sensitive events such
as the 1989 Tiananmen protests or, more recently, the 2008
Beijing Olympics, when public opinion guidance was reviewed by
Chinese president and party general secretary Hu Jintao.
So last year, in February 2011, when activists in China
inspired by the Arab Spring called for pro-democracy protests,
authorities moved security forces quickly to quash protesters
and the corresponding press coverage to go along with it in
about a dozen major cities in China.
For instance, as a Jasmine Revolution protest got underway
on Sunday, February 27, 2011, our two VOA correspondents in
Beijing, Stephanie Ho and Ming Zhang, went to downtown Beijing
to an event site to investigate. Both were detained,
manhandled, seriously threatened, and humiliated by uniformed
and plain-clothes Chinese police.
Ho was pushed and shoved into a small store and hustled
away in a police van. And although this was his first time
being detained in Beijing, Zhang had been detained eight times
outside Beijing since arriving at the bureau in China in 2007.
So this must change. The U.S. needs to be taken seriously
as an advocate for liberty and, therefore, must actively
support the development of an open and objective press corps
that works to hold governments accountable.
It has long been hoped that the example of our openness
would be reciprocated in China, but that has not come to pass.
There should be reciprocity between the numbers of China's
state-sponsored media allowed U.S. visas and China's visas
granted to U.S. Government employee counterparts.
If it requires revoking or limiting visas of state
journalists to encourage progress on China's end, that is
something the U.S. should do. After all, the United States and
the PRC are in a contest of ideas. We believe in the idea that
governments exist to protect the rights of the people. Opposing
that idea is the notion of a government striving to protect
itself from the people.
The disparity between the courses our two countries are
taking must be addressed, and the United States must adjust and
use all means of diplomacy at its disposal to counter the
current trend in the imbalance of state-funded press between
the U.S. and China.
Elsewise, over time, the prestige of the United States will
be made to suffer and our influence as a force for good will be
diminished. And of course, we must not let that happen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zahn follows:]
__________
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Zahn.
While I welcome Mr. Daly here today, I am going to yield to
the gentlelady from California, at her request, to make the
formal introduction.
Ms. Lofgren. First, actually, I am surprised by that,
because I didn't know I was making the formal introduction. But
I did wish to recognize someone who is in our audience here
today, and that is Isaac, who is Mr. Daly's son, who is 12
years old and getting a little government lesson here, I hope,
in the House Judiciary Committee.
So, we welcome you, Isaac, and I know that your dad is
going to make you very proud today.
I would also like to introduce Mr. Daly. I'll be very
quick.
He has been the director of the Maryland China Initiative
at the University of Maryland since 2007. Prior to that, he
was, for 6 years, the American director of Johns Hopkins
University and Nanjing University Center for Chinese and
American Studies.
He began work on U.S.-China relations as a diplomat for the
USIA. After leaving the Foreign Service, he taught Chinese at
Cornell University. And for the next 9 years, he worked on
television projects in China. He has numerous awards and has
been recognized and taught at various institutions.
In the interest of time, I'll simply say welcome, Mr. Daly
and Isaac, and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Gallegly. Before we go to your testimony, Mr. Daly, I'm
going to yield myself 30 seconds to introduce a special guest
of mine today who is also a 12-year-old. His grandmother and
grandfather are with me. His grandmother has worked for me for
42 years and is retiring this year, and that's her grandson
Jake.
I know she looks like she must've started when she was 6
years old. But they are both original Washingtonians, but have
been in California for 50-some years. And the grandfather, Tom
Shields, is a dear friend who worked for 31 years in the FBI.
And Jake is here, as Mr. Daly's 12-year-old, learning about
government here in Washington, DC.
So we welcome you, and with that, Mr. Daly, welcome
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. DALY, DIRECTOR, MARYLAND CHINA
INITIATIVE, THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Daly. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly, and thank you,
Ranking Member Lofgren, for convening this hearing on media
reciprocity with the People's Republic of China.
I am sympathetic with what I take to be the impetus for
this legislation. There is, in fact, much that is galling, as
all of you have already recounted, in China's conduct of its
public diplomacy and in the limitations it places on our
journalists working in China.
China's unblinking disregard for reciprocity should be of
concern to the Congress and should be the subject of
representations by members of the legislative and executive
branches who conduct our relations with China.
Still, the retaliatory approach that H.R. 2899 takes to
these issues, I believe, is counterproductive. Its enactment
would exasperate problems it seeks to correct and would cast
doubt on America's commitment to the free flow of ideas.
The proposal we are considering today is that U.S. expel
all or all but two Chinese journalists within 30 days of the
bill's enactment. ``America expels China's journalists'' will
be the headline in China and around the world if this bill
becomes law.
This retaliatory approach would cast the United States not
as the defender of reciprocity and press freedom, but as
fearful, shortsighted, and cynical about values this law
exemplified.
The most striking difficulty with the retaliatory approach
is that it considers only the activities of Chinese and
American journalists employed by their respective states,
ignoring the work of the 200 or so Americans employed by
commercial media in China. Because the label of ``government
journalist'' can be rightly applied to all Chinese journalists
in America, their numbers should be compared to those of all
American journalists working in the PRC and not just to the
number dispatched by the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
But even comparing the total number of government and
commercial journalists in each country misses the point. Our
goal need not be numerical parity. What we seek is an
international regime in which all countries may send as many
journalists as they desire and can afford to other nations, and
in which those journalists may report freely.
Beijing accredits only two BBG journalists, but even if an
unlimited number were allowed to work in the PRC, VOA would
only wish to send six to 10 reporters to China. That doesn't
solve the reciprocity issue.
Not only does the proposed legislation ignore the work of
American commercial journalists. It ignores the complexity of
modern information networks that shape the public perceptions
that we are concerned with here today.
Americans learn about China from professional journalists
stationed there, but also from nonaccredited stringers,
writers, and travelers; from corporate reports and academic
research; from analyses by government agencies, NGOs, think
tanks, and multilateral organizations; and from a growing body
of material from China itself and from third countries.
American and foreign bloggers and websites that cover China
round out what is now a dynamic array of information sources
whose output already exceeds the assimilating capacity of any
one reader or any one government.
While the Communist Party does strive, as you've heard
today, to limit the Chinese people's access to information, the
Chinese people, in fact, have a wide range of news sources,
accurate and inaccurate, censored and uncensored. Tech-savvy
Chinese, especially those who can read English, can gain
access, although with some difficulty, to the same array of
information that we enjoy.
So when we consider the full range of international
information sources and, very importantly, when we take account
of the fact that America, despite being grossly overspent by
the Chinese Government, America, in fact, has vastly more
influence on Chinese perceptions and culture than the Chinese
Communist Party has on American views and tastes, it is not
clear to me which problem H.R. 2899 seeks to solve. Nor is it
clear how expelling China's journalists would advance the cause
of press freedom.
Expelling China's journalists would provoke a protracted
and ugly series of reciprocal expulsions. In the unlikely event
that Beijing declined to expel our journalists, its restraint
would allow it to seize the moral high ground while portraying
the United States as fearful of scrutiny by Chinese media.
And we should bear in mind that Chinese journalists are the
primary source of information on the United States for most
Chinese readers and viewers. Many of their reports, in fact,
are comprehensive and fair. This is in fact because many of the
reports are simply translations from American media, which are
republished in Chinese.
It is in our interests that the Chinese receive the
information that these reporters provide, even though some of
it is biased and inaccurate.
Many Chinese writers and editors here in America, impressed
by their experience in the United States, push for greater
scope and objectivity in Chinese reporting. As advocates for
greater press freedom in China, they're more effective than
American activists and more effective than they could be if
they were not allowed to work here. Expelling them would cut
off one of our best channels for promoting press freedom in
China.
But what is most worrisome in the retaliatory approach is
its suggestion that America conduct its public diplomacy on
China's terms, competing to see which nation is more willing to
restrict media rather than on the American model of promoting
an unfettered exchange of ideas.
If we trade the American paradigm for the Chinese approach,
we abandon the openness that is the key source of our global
influence. If we retain our confidence in the American model,
then we can continue to inspire the Chinese people to push for
greater freedom.
That is what our media and our public diplomacy have done
successfully, although not to our complete satisfaction, for
the last 30 years.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:]
Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Daly, your time has--okay, I appreciate
you summarizing.
With that, I would like to open the questioning. We are
going to be voting in less than 10 minutes, so I'm going to try
to get at least one question of each Member, so we won't have
to call you all back, since there is a series of votes.
Mr. Lenczowski, in your testimony you cite historical
examples of how absence of reciprocity between the U.S. and
Russia was a national security concern. Do you think that the
lack of reciprocity between the U.S. and China poses a similar
national security concern? And if so, could you give us, in a
very summarized way, how you would address that issue?
Mr. Lenczowski. Thank you, sir.
I think this is all about national security. That is what
this is all about. This is about the problems of perceptions
management and the corruption of American accurate perceptions
of what is going on in China. There are very few Sinologists in
the United States compared to the number of Sovietologists
during the Cold War. The few that are able to talk about
sensitive subjects are extremely limited in number. And one of
the problems is that they are even corrupted in other ways in
this entire process.
For example, there is a major think tank in this town that
had a prominent China military analyst. A big donor to that
think tank, who had major China business interests, didn't like
the accurate and clinical analysis that was coming out of that
China military analyst and arranged to have him fired, because
he didn't want Americans to become alarmed by China's military
buildup, and which might rock the boat in U.S.-China relations
and harm his business interests.
So the guy was fired, was given hush money, and went on to
other another think tank, where two trustees, who were major
donors of that think tank, threatened to resign and withhold
their financial support if that analyst was kept on there.
This type of corruption is just unbelievable. And it is
going on. And the problem is the general principle of lack of
reciprocity on all of these different matters has a huge effect
on self-censorship, as I mentioned, by academics and
journalists.
And so there is a fundamental perceptions management
problem here, which seriously affects our ability as a Nation
to hear the truth about what China is doing, not only in its
human rights practices internally but its aggressive activities
abroad, its military buildup, and its massive intelligence
presence in this country.
There are probably tens of thousands of Chinese
intelligence operatives in this country, because of the style
of intelligence collection.
I don't disagree with Dr. Daly when he talks about the
desire of enhancing public diplomacy and representing the free
flow of information. My problem here is that most of these
people are not real journalists.
They are political counterintelligence officers. They are
engaged in influence operations here in this country. And what
we are talking about here, to a large extent, is reciprocity
when it comes not just to journalists but to intelligence
officers.
The number of Chinese media representatives in this country
who are actually writing and editing stories is miniscule.
There are very, very few stories and broadcasts coming out of
these people. What are the rest of them doing here? They are
engaging in activities that exceed the proper bounds of their
media representation or of diplomatic representation.
This is an intelligence problem. It is a perceptions
management problem. It is a fundamental subversion of what
we're trying to do in this country. During the Cold War, we had
some massive expulsions of Soviet intelligence officers. I see
no problem with an analogous expulsion of Chinese intelligence
officers who are not only engaging in perceptions management
and the subversion of our accurate perceptions of reality, but
are also engaging in the massive theft of our intellectual
property, which is completely arranged for their huge military
buildup of asymmetrical capabilities that are becoming a
meaningful potential threat to the United States.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Dr. Lenczowski, and I
certainly concur with the concerns about intellectual property,
among other things.
At this point I yield to the gentlelady and Ranking Member,
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be
brief.
In terms of the reciprocity issue, I'm not sure that that
is the right approach. But if I'm reading the materials
correctly, if we had the approval of every application we made,
it wouldn't be 20. And so really what we're saying is, we would
have to--you know what that is? People get very nervous when
the room shakes. That is actually trash compacting down in the
basement. So don't worry about it.
This bill, if it became law, would simply require the
revocation of hundreds of visas, and I'm not sure, Mr. Daly, as
you've mentioned, that that's the right message we want to
give.
I mean, if, as Mr. Lenczowski has said, there is theft of
intellectual property, we ought to arrest them and prosecute
them. I'm not a supporter of what the Chinese Government does.
They are an oppressive, communist regime, and they are not our
friends. That is not the issue.
The question is how best to deal with this dangerous rival.
And I guess the question I have for you, Mr. Daly, is, if
this bill is not the answer, what are your suggestions about
positive steps we could take to address legitimate concerns
about reciprocity, but also what steps could we take to
increase the flow of free information about freedom into China?
Mr. Daly. Thank you.
First, I think that as anybody who's been to China, has
spent some time there, and who knows the media environment,
will realize, while it remains censored and while it is
restricted, it is, nevertheless, more free all the time, fairly
dynamic. And there are a number of American media outlets that
have a regular presence in China. Sports illustrated is in
Chinese. The Harvard Business Review is in Chinese. It's freely
accessible. More popular magazines, like National Geographic,
things like Cosmopolitan, are available.
There are groups in China that translate every single
article in every edition of the British Economist into Chinese
and make it available. So there is, in fact, a lot of
information out there already.
Nevertheless, I do think that these are serious issues and
that we do need to take some of the steps that have been
recommended.
Reciprocity should be a prominent issue in our China
agenda. The President, members of the Cabinet, Members of
Congress who deal with China, should regularly raise the issues
that have been raised here today--numbers of journalists, the
access that they enjoy--in public and private meetings with the
Chinese. We should call them out on this regularly, as we do on
intellectual property violations and human rights violations.
Elevating reciprocity as an issue would also have the
advantage of reminding Americans that the China Daily
supplements in the Washington Post and the New York Times, and
that the CCTV channels, are, in fact, Chinese Communist Party
organs.
Secondly, if we are concerned, as has been mentioned here
today, with prevailing in a public diplomacy competition with
China, then we have to train a large number of experts in a
range of professions who are fluent in Chinese and
knowledgeable about Chinese history and Chinese culture. So I
think that Congress does have an opportunity to provide
enhanced support for K-12 Chinese language curriculum, for
100,000 Strong, for university programs that train the
personnel we need.
We can also provide enhanced support for VOA's Chinese
language broadcasts. Currently, VOA has limited broadcast
hours. There is a chance to enhance that and to also improve
the style of VOA.
Ms. Lofgren. Can I ask you a question in terms of these
publications that are being translated into Chinese? One of the
concerns that we have about what China does is to try to keep
their citizens from accessing information on the Internet, by
blocking and the like.
To your knowledge, is this information, has it been blocked
by the Chinese Government? And do you think that the more--we
helped fund Tor and other mechanisms for people to avoid the
censorship through good technology. Do you think that would be
a positive step forward?
Mr. Daly. China does block VOA broadcasts. It blocks
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, American commercial media. It could
have an immediate and profound impact.
It blocks these websites because its American-style press
freedom would, in fact, pose an existential threat to the
Chinese Communist Party. That is true.
But the Chinese are also adept at getting around the Great
Firewall. Voice of American programs are posted on the VOA.
They get comments from China by the thousands.
Ms. Lofgren. My time is up. I would just thank the Chairman
for this hearing and suggest that at some point we might want
to actually have a briefing on Tor, because it is something we
helped fund, but it is a way to get around censorship that is
very exciting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlewoman.
I would ask a special request of my good friend from Iowa,
Mr. King. Would you expedite your questions, because we have
three votes, and I don't want to come back?
Mr. King. How much time is left on the clock, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gallegly. Would you like 3 minutes?
Mr. King. Just a point of information, how much time is
left on the vote clock on the floor?
Mr. Gallegly. It's a 15-minute vote.
Mr. King. They just called it now?
Mr. Gallegly. About 2 minutes ago.
Mr. King. So it will be more than 5 minutes, and I think I
can get that done. Thank you.
Now thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for
this hearing. It is interesting testimony that has come before
this panel.
It causes me to think a little bit about the broader
implications. I'm one who has advocated for a level of
reciprocity in a number of areas. This reciprocity advocated
for the press personnel, this is a great big subject. And when
you think in terms of 1 million visitors from China each year,
which Dr. Lenczowski has testified to, and you think about how
many agents can be needles in that haystack, I think that that
is really interesting testimony.
Then I look back at some of the other things that we have.
Religious workers visa, I actually have a bill that requires
reciprocity for religious workers. And it recognizes not
necessarily that China is a big problem there, since the 5,000
religious workers, but religious workers can come from Saudi
Arabia, but it's very, very difficult, if even possible, to
bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia. I think there should be a
religious workers reciprocity policy as well.
The subject was brought up about the intellectual property
theft, and the broad effort on the part of the Chinese piracy
of intellectual property. And that is patents, trademarks and
copyrights alluded to earlier in this testimony or in the
response. And we had the massive effort to steal American
intellectual property and incorporate it into the national
defense scheme of the Chinese.
Then I think also a bill that passed out of this Committee,
the Chairman of the Committee--excuse me--the sponsor of the
bill was Mr. Chaffetz of Utah. And it eliminated the per
country cap in certain visa categories, which was the diversity
cap, so that we get a representation from multiple countries
across the world. I opposed the bill.
I was one of, maybe the only Republican, to oppose the
bill, because it looked to me like it could all be Chinese
coming in under those visa categories that were changed.
So I am suggesting this, as I listen to this testimony,
that has brought some of this together for me, I support this
bill that Mr. Rohrabacher has brought. I support the
international viewpoint that he brings to the United States
Congress.
And I also would ask if there be consideration, perhaps, to
roll all these reciprocity things together, so that America can
have a reasonable opportunity of competing in the world. The
bill that deals with intellectual property that I have
introduced, what it does is, and I wrote this bill from Beijing
after they had toasted our delegation in multiple cities with
the same talking points each time, which was we're going find
some people that are stealing intellectual property and
eventually we will bring felony charges against them and lock
them up. And I asked who was locked up and who's been fined and
are they state-owned businesses, so if they pay a fine, it
comes out of one pocket into another. That is what happens in
China.
So I wrote a bill that directed the U.S. Trade
Representative to conduct a study to determine the value of the
loss of U.S. intellectual property due to Chinese piracy, and
directed them to apply a duty on all Chinese imports in an
amount equal to recover that loss of value of intellectual
property and an administrative fee in order to distribute those
funds back to the proper holders of that intellectual property.
That is one of those things when you say, go ahead and
steal intellectual property, but we're going to charge you back
for it, so keep stealing and we'll keep the money and send it
to the people that own the copyrights, the patents, and the
trademarks.
I support the issue with the press. I think the United
States should be a lot smarter. We are an open society that
allows access to every aspect of our society.
Al Qaeda has taken advantage of that, as have the Chinese,
as have our enemies continually. It is amazing to me that our
Founding Fathers could have such wisdom and foresight, and we
could have such current day blind sight on this issue.
So I raise again the issue of the per country cap. I
believe to eliminate that per country cap in Chaffetz bill was
a mistake. It opens the door to the Chinese.
And I would ask consideration to put all these reciprocity
things together, so that America can compete on a level playing
field.
Then I would just throw out a question to--since I'm
advised not to ask Representative Rohrabacher a question, but
to Dr. Lenczowski, to just import to this Committee, if you
could, the things that you didn't have an opportunity to say.
And then at that point, I would yield back to the Chairman,
so we can go vote. Thank you.
Mr. Lenczowski. I very much appreciate, Congressman King,
your remarks.
And indeed, this really is an issue which is much larger
than just the media issue. And I am sympathetic to the fact
that perhaps this bill may indeed risk making us look a little
bit like we are afraid of free-flowing information and so on
and so forth.
The problem here is that our foreign-policy authorities
have been incredibly imprudent in how they are managing our
overall relations with China. This is the central problem. It
is just the way it was with the Soviet Union.
It was incredible, the lack of reciprocity in things that
we did with Moscow. We let them cheat on all their arms control
agreements. They had a strategy to cheat on all their arms
control agreements, and we lived by ours. There was no
reciprocity there.
[See Appendix for addendum to the response of Mr.
Lenczowski]:
Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Lenczowski, I apologize for interrupting
you, but the clock is going.
If you would be kind enough to put your full answer, and
make that available to the Committee, I would be grateful. We
will make it a part of the record of the hearing.
And with that, I will thank our witnesses all for being
here.
Without objection, I ask that all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded, and ask
the witnesses to respond in a timely fashion, so we can make
them a part of the record of the hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit any additional materials for infusion in the record.
Ms. Lofgren. And I would just say I am glad that we won the
Cold War.
Mr. Gallegly. That is a good thing.
And with that, I thank you all for being here, and the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record