[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 76 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3331-H3337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, May 3, was World Press 
Freedom Day. Two years ago, in conjunction with World Press Freedom 
Day, Congressman Mike Pence, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Dick Lugar and 
I established the Congressional Caucus for Freedom of the Press. Since 
then, this bipartisan, bicameral caucus has sought to highlight the 
importance of free expression around the world. The caucus is a forum 
where Members of Congress can work to combat and condemn media 
censorship and the persecution of journalists worldwide.
  Our caucus works to send a strong message that Congress will defend 
democratic values and human rights wherever they're threatened. We work 
to highlight abuses of press freedom and foster reforms in support of 
press freedom around the world. We have hosted panel discussions with 
press freedom experts, journalists and victims of press freedom crimes. 
We have written to the leaders of countries which jail journalists, 
impose censorship, and allow harassment, attacks and threats to occur 
with impunity. And we've spoken out here on the House floor and in the 
media to call for reforms in countries that seek to censor freedom of 
speech and expression.
  The caucus enjoys the support of a wide range of organizations, 
including Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, the Committee to 
Protect Journalists, the National Endowment for Democracy's Center for 
International Media Assistance, as well as the legendary Walter 
Cronkite.
  World Press Freedom Day was first designated by the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1993 as an 
occasion to pay tribute to repressed journalists and to reflect upon 
the role of the media in general in advancing fundamental human rights 
as codified in international law, regional conventions, and national 
constitutions. In keeping with that tradition, we have hosted a Special 
Order hour in honor of World Press Freedom Day each year since the 
inception of the caucus.
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a foundation of 
the postwar human rights movement, guarantees freedom of expression in 
article 19. ``Everyone has the right to freedom

[[Page H3332]]

of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions 
without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and 
ideas through any media and regardless of any frontiers.'' It may not 
be as elegant as our first amendment, but its effect and its desire and 
goal are the same.
  For Americans, this day should spur us to consider the role that 
journalists play in our society and to ponder what our Nation would be 
like if this cornerstone of liberty were to be curtailed. Many 
Americans take the concept of a free press for granted and don't 
realize that an unfettered press is vital to America's national 
security and to our democracy here at home.
  Freedom of the press is so central to our democracy that the Framers 
enshrined it in the very first amendment to our Constitution. Thomas 
Jefferson so valued the principle of press freedom that he said, given 
the choice between a free government or a free press, he would choose a 
free press. He said, ``The basis of our governments being the opinion 
of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and 
were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government 
without newspapers or newspaper without a government, I should not 
hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.''
  Journalists have jealously guarded their rights and American courts 
have, in the main, carved out broad protections for the press. In the 
United States, the press operates almost as a fourth branch of 
government, the Fourth Estate, independent of the other three, and 
positioned as an agent of the free people.
  Winston Churchill agreed with the idea that a free press was almost 
another independent branch of government saying, ``A free press is the 
unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the 
most dangerous foe of tyranny. Under dictatorship the press is bound to 
languish, and the loudspeaker and the film to become more important. 
But where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the 
habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the 
vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.''
  From the pioneering work of journalists during the Civil War, to the 
``muckrakers'' who were committed to exposing the social, economic and 
political ills of industrial life in the early 20th century, to the 
work of the Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein 
in uncovering the Watergate scandal a year later, journalists have 
performed a crucial role as watchdogs of American freedom.
  But in order for the press to do its work properly, it must be free, 
and journalists must be able to do their work without fear of 
retribution. Information is power, which is precisely why many 
governments attempt to control the press to suppress opposition and 
preempt dissent.
  Far too often, the reporters and editors who demand reform, 
accountability and greater transparency find themselves at risk. The 
censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, and murder of these journalists 
are not only crimes against these individuals, they also impact those 
who are denied access to their ideas and information.
  Freedom of expression and a free press is not just a cornerstone of 
democracy, it has also proven to play an important role in economic and 
social development. James Wolfensohn, former President of the World 
Bank, has long argued that ``a free press is not a luxury, it is at the 
core of equitable development.''
  The media exposes corruption, helps build a public consensus to bring 
about change, and facilitates the transmission of innovative ideas and 
valuable information that empowers people to share and shape their own 
destinies. There is an emerging consensus among development 
institutions that a skilled and a viable media sector is a society's 
most promising tool for motivating government reform and poverty 
reduction.

  Regrettably, censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, and even murder 
of journalists are far too common in countries all around the world. 
The map to my right provides a visual representation of press freedom 
rights by country. This map was provided by Freedom House, which 
releases an annual index called Freedom of the Press: A Global Survey 
of Media Independence. The countries that are highlighted in green are 
listed as having a ``free'' press. The countries in yellow represent 
countries that are ``partly free.'' And the countries colored purple 
are countries they describe as ``not free'' in terms of press freedom 
rights. And as you can see, in addition to problems here, we have vast 
expanses in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East, and in South Asia.
  To break it down a little more, when taking population into account, 
42 percent of the world's people live in countries that have a press 
that is ``not free.'' Forty percent of the world's population live in 
countries that have only a ``partly free'' press. That is exhibited 
here in yellow. And in green we see that only 18 percent of the world's 
citizens enjoy a ``free press.'' Quite remarkable; 18 percent ``free,'' 
42 percent ``not free,'' and the additional 40 percent only ``partly 
free.''
  More than 80 percent of the world's people, therefore, are denied 
full access to information. This is not for economic reasons, as you 
might expect, such as printing costs, lack of Internet connections or 
illiteracy, all of which are problems in their own right. Eighty-two 
percent of the world's population, 82 percent of the world is being 
denied access to information because their governments don't want them 
to have that access.
  It's also important to note that even as the world continues to 
globalize, tragically press freedom continues to slip. This was the 
sixth consecutive year that Freedom House's index showed a reduction in 
global press freedom, a worrisome trend.
  As I mentioned, this is the third Special Order hour we have held in 
recognition of World Press Freedom Day. The first year we launched our 
caucus, we outlined the intention of our caucus and press freedom 
abuses around the entire world. Last year, we decided that each year we 
would focus on a particular hot spot and highlight a single country 
where press freedom rights are particularly limited.
  Last year, we focused on Russia. We profiled 18 journalists murdered 
in Russia during the administration of outgoing President Vladimir 
Putin. All of these journalists were believed to be killed due to their 
work. Most of these murders remain unsolved to this day.
  Tonight, I will focus on the lack of press freedom in China leading 
up to the 2008 Summer Olympic games in Beijing this August. I have 
chosen to highlight press freedom in China for a number of reasons, 
including its failure to implement promised press freedom reforms 
before the Olympics, its incarceration of more journalists than any 
other country, its lack of independent media, and its censorship of the 
Internet, all of which I will be discussing tonight.
  As the world's most populous country, China denies more citizens 
access to a free press than any other country. It is also tied for 
181st place out of 195 countries in press freedom rights in Freedom 
House's survey. To give you a bit of perspective, China ranks between 
Syria and Iran in the survey. And Russia, which as I just mentioned 
lost 18 journalists, murdered journalists, during one president's 
administration, that country is ranked ahead of China on the survey.
  As I speak here tonight, the Chinese Government limits more than 1 
billion people's access to an open Internet and an independent media, 
despite the fact that article 35 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees 
freedom of speech, assembly, association and publication. 
Unfortunately, other articles in its Constitution subordinate these 
rights to what is called the ``national interest.'' This allows the 
ruling communist party to maintain direct control over the news media 
through the Central Propaganda Department, the CPD.
  The Chinese Government has even proposed fines for domestic and 
foreign news organizations that report ``sudden events,'' such as 
protests, disease outbreaks, or national disasters without government 
authorization. Some of these are public health emergencies, epidemics 
that the Chinese government wants to have the ability to hide. These 
are just a few of the examples that I've chosen to highlight China 
tonight.
  China is an enormously important country. China has emerged in a big 
way on the world stage. And China is a

[[Page H3333]]

country of immense promise. It is important both to the Chinese 
Government and to the Chinese people, as well as to the rest of the 
world, that we help to promote press freedom in our largest neighbor in 
the world, and one that will take a position of increasing importance 
in the years to come.

                              {time}  2045

  Before I continue, I want to thank all the press freedom advocacy 
organizations that helped provide this information for tonight's 
discussion: The Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without 
Borders, the National Endowment For Democracy, and Freedom House have 
all been chronicling press freedom abuses in China, and much of what I 
will share with you tonight is a product of these groups' research, 
investigation, and reporting. I want to thank them not just for their 
efforts in helping us here tonight but, more importantly, for all of 
their work to defend journalists and journalism around the world. And I 
also want to take a moment to thank Sean Oblack of my staff for all of 
his effort and leadership in helping to put this caucus together and 
the presentation tonight.
  During the Olympic bidding process, as international opposition grew 
to rewarding the Olympics to China, the Chinese Government promised to 
strengthen human rights in China. This included a commitment to press 
freedom. In the days leading up to the Olympic vote, Wang Wei, 
Secretary General of the Beijing Olympic Bidding Committee, said, ``We 
will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to 
China.''
  Regrettably, though, China has not delivered ``complete freedom'' to 
its own reporters. In September, 2007 Teng Biao and Hu Jia, two of 
China's most celebrated human rights activists, in an open letter to 
the international community, detailed China's failure to live up to its 
Olympic commitments, including press freedom. Teng and Hu wrote:
  ``As of this writing, 35 Chinese journalists and 51 writers are still 
in prison. Over 90 percent were arrested or tried after Bejing's 
successful bid for the Olympics in July of 2001. For example, Dr. Xu 
Zerong, a scholar from Oxford University who researched the Korean War, 
was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment for `illegally providing 
information abroad.' Qingshuijun, Huang Jinqiu, a freelance writer, was 
sentenced to a 12-year term of imprisonment for his online 
publications. Some writers and dissidents are prohibited from going 
abroad; others from returning to China.''
  Due to this letter, due to this letter, Hu Jia now sits in jail. I 
will be profiling his case later in the hour.
  Human Rights Watch reports that Chinese journalists remain closely 
observed by state security agencies to ensure that their reporting 
reflects the official government position. The government's Publicity 
Department heavily influences the weekly editorial content for print, 
radio, and television platforms by preventing the reporting of 
sensitive topics that fall under the vague metric of issues affecting 
``social stability.'' Journalists that stray from the government line, 
as Teng and Hu noted, face imprisonment, travel restrictions, or are 
effectively deported.
  Foreign correspondents do not experience ``complete freedom'' either 
when reporting in China. On January 1, 2007, the Chinese Government 
introduced a temporary measure that was intended to increase foreign 
reporters' freedom in China before, during, and after the Olympic 
games. This measure was set to expire in October, 2008. While some 
foreign correspondents have experienced increased journalistic freedom 
since the measure went into effect, most have not.
  A Foreign Correspondents Club in China's survey showed that 40 
percent of foreign correspondents have experienced harassment, 
detention, or an official warning during the news gathering in Beijing 
and other areas.
  One foreign reporter in China that Human Rights Watch interviewed 
experienced harassment and had difficulty renewing her work visa after 
covering political dissidents and the highly publicized murder of 
Chinese journalist Lan Chengzhang. She told Human Rights Watch, ``I 
know the stories we have done have angered the Chinese Government, and 
my visa renewal problems began after,'' after those reports.
  Other foreign correspondents have been detained for legal reporting 
activities. The New York Times Shanghai-based correspondent David 
Barboza, his Chinese assistant, and a photographer were detained for 
more than 10 hours by staff at a factory in Guangdong province while 
doing a story about toxic lead paint discovered in the factory's 
exports to the United States. Barboza was eventually let go after 
writing a statement explaining the reason for his factory visit and 
stating that he hadn't obtained permission to take the photographs.
  At particular risk are the assistants and sources of foreign 
reporters as they're helping on stories that domestic reporters cannot 
cover. One local assistant of a foreign press correspondent was told by 
security agents that it was his responsibility to notify the agents if 
the reporter was uncovering anything sensitive and warned him and his 
family of possible legal action if he did not. Sipa Press photographer 
Natalie Behring described to Human Rights Watch the obstacles foreign 
reporters face in finding a cooperative source: ``In light of the new 
rules, the Chinese Government can't stop us from talking to anyone; so 
they intimidate the subjects of our reporting rather than intimidating 
the reporters.''
  In the fall of last year, I, along with my Congressional Caucus For 
Freedom of the Press co-Chair Mike Pence, wrote a letter to Liu Qin, 
president of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic games, 
expressing our deep disappointment in the government's failure to live 
up to the promises that it made before the Olympic vote in 2001. The 
letter expressed our frustration that Chinese journalists face 
imprisonment for reporting stories unfavorable to the state, are forced 
to toe the government line, and the ever-increasing restrictions on 
accessible material on the Internet.
  In the past the Olympic games have helped establish freedoms in 
countries struggling to emerge from authoritarian rule. Most notably, 
the 1988 summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea played a critical role in 
helping to bring democracy to that country. It's my hope that China 
begins to live up to its promise of complete freedom for journalists, 
that it will cease the harassment and imprisonment of journalists, and 
allow the Chinese people to experience the full communicative and 
economic powers of the Internet and that the games will usher in a 
newer, freer era in Chinese public life.
  I'm now going to spend a few minutes talking about one of the extreme 
measures that governments take to censor the media, and that is arrest 
and detention. Unfortunately, it's become commonplace for some 
governments to silence journalists simply by jailing them. And, 
regrettably, there is no bigger offender in this regard than China. 
And, again, this is one of the main reasons we have chosen to highlight 
China here tonight.
  Before I discus China's imprisonment of journalists, I would like to 
give a brief overview of this problem around the world. And in fairness 
and in completeness, while we are focusing on China because of the 
magnitude of the problem there and because of the promises that were 
made in advance of the Olympics, it's important to recognize this is by 
no means a problem confined to China. Tragically, as we've seen in the 
diagrams we had up earlier, press freedom is very limited in many 
places around the world and under great assault in many places around 
the world. So China is not unique in this respect. It is unique in its 
size. It's unique in some of the technological instruments it has used 
to effectuate censorship in this era of Internet journalism, but it is 
not unique around the world for this problem.

  According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, as of December 1, 
2007, 127 journalists were in prison around the world as a consequence 
of their work. Of these more than 80 were being held by only five 
countries, however: China, Cuba, Eritrea, Azerbaijan, and Burma.
  This statistic only includes journalists that the Committee to 
Protect Journalists can account for and that CPJ has confirmed are 
being jailed. It does not include another alarming category that the 
organization tracks, and that is journalists who have either 
disappeared or have been abducted by

[[Page H3334]]

nonstate entities, including criminal groups and gangs, rebels, and 
militant groups.
  CPJ's research has found that nearly 17 percent of journalists jailed 
worldwide in 2007 were held without any publicly disclosed charge. Many 
for months, some for years, and some in secret locations.
  The majority of journalists being imprisoned are being held on 
spurious antistate allegations such as subversion or divulging state 
secrets or acting against some undefined national interests. CPJ has 
found out that about 57 percent of journalists in their survey are 
jailed under these charges, and of those many are being held, 
regrettably, by the Chinese Government.
  These statistics demonstrate that China is not the only offender in 
this practice but clearly one of the worst. As we have stated, we have 
set aside this time tonight to highlight China. But while we are on the 
subject of jailing journalists nationwide, I would like to take a brief 
moment to discuss one particular case in Eritrea that was brought to my 
attention by a constituent of mine who works with Amnesty International 
Group 22 in Pasadena.
  Eritrea is a country of only 4.6 million people; yet it imprisons the 
third-most journalists of any country: 14. What's worse, the Government 
of Eritrea will not even confirm whether the journalists in its custody 
are alive or dead, and it also holds the most journalists in secret 
locations.
  One such journalist being held in a secret location in Eritrea is 
Seyoum Tsehaye, a freelance reporter. His arrest and jailing was 
believed to be part of the government's crackdown to eliminate 
political dissent ahead of elections scheduled for December of 2001, 
which were later cancelled. He was arrested on the street in September 
of that year, the first day of a major round-up and imprisonment of 
reformers in Eritrea. There are concerns about his health, but the 
government has refused to provide details about his well-being. He has 
never been allowed a family visit or a lawyer. He has never been 
charged or appeared before any court. Last year Reporters Without 
Borders honored him as their ``2007 Journalist of the Year.'' And 
tonight we take a moment to think about Seyoum Tsehaye, freelance 
reporter in Eritrea, held in custody in a secret location since 
September of 2001.
  So it's clear this is a problem not only associated with China. It is 
also clear there are more cases of imprisoned journalists around the 
world than we have time to discuss tonight or, for that matter, over 
the course of a great many nights.
  It's important, though, to cast a spotlight tonight on China because 
of the significant role it plays on the international stage. It's one 
thing to talk about Eritrea and the role it plays; it's another to talk 
about one of the world's superpowers with all of its promise, with all 
of its future, and with a current policy extremely inhibiting of a free 
press.
  In addition to hosting the summer's Olympic games, China's the world 
most populous nation, permanent member of the United Nations Security 
Council, and as I mentioned, an emerging superpower. Rightly or 
wrongly, many countries look to China to set an example that others can 
follow. In this case that is a great concern to the well-being of 
global citizenry.
  As I mentioned here tonight, China promised the world community to 
improve press freedom in advance of the Olympics. For 9 years, however, 
it has held the distinction of being the world's largest jailer of 
journalists.
  As the Internet continues to grow and more and more people around the 
world have access to the Internet, more people are getting their news 
online. Nowhere is this truer than in China. This is a fact that the 
Chinese Government has not overlooked. And that is why 18 of the 29 
jailed journalists worked online, according to CPJ. Reporters Without 
Borders lists China as jailing an additional 50 ``cyber-dissidents.''
  China's list includes imprisoned Internet journalist Shi Tao, an 
award-winning journalist who is serving a 10-year sentence for e-
mailing details of a government propaganda directive to an overseas Web 
site. We'll talk more about Shi Tao later tonight.
  But the list of China's unenviable distinctions when it comes to 
press freedom and the jailing of journalists includes one other 
significant fact: CPA lists China as having the longest-serving 
journalists in jail. Chen Renjie and Lin Youping were jailed in China 
in July, 1983, for publishing a pamphlet titled Ziyou Bao Freedom 
Report.

                              {time}  2100

  And their co-defendant, Chen Biling was executed. We will profile 
these journalists later tonight as well.
  Journalists in China are also held in appalling conditions. Prison is 
never pleasant no matter what country you are in, but Reporters Without 
Borders reports that journalists in jail in China frequently experience 
the harshest of conditions. They are placed in overcrowded cells, 
subjected to forced labor and regularly beaten by their guards and 
fellow prisoners. This ill treatment is at its worst in the first weeks 
in custody when police try to extract confessions. Many of the charges 
weighed against journalists in China are trumped up. For Americans, 
these charges are pretty unimaginable. To give you some perspective on 
why some of the journalists are sitting in jail right now, I am going 
to briefly mention a few of their cases.
  These cases are examples of journalists being jailed for what we in 
the West would consider responsible journalism. I wouldn't even get 
into some of the other journalism we see here, as well the rest of the 
world, but for laudable journalism, for journalism we would applaud in 
this country, these journalists are being jailed. Zhang Jianhong, for 
example, the former editor of the now closed news website Aegean Sea, 
was arrested in 2006 and charged with ``inciting subversion'' for 
posting an essay criticizing China's human rights record and the poor 
treatment of journalists, ironically ahead of the Olympic games.
  Lawyer Yan Maodong, who also calls himself Guo Feixiong, and his 
picture is here as well in the upper right-hand corner, was arrested in 
September of 2006 because of his critical writings and human rights 
activism. He was officially accused of selling a book using a false 
publishing reference, but he says the book's content was what the 
government objected to. But imagine being jailed since September of 
2006 on the charges of using a false publishing reference.
  According to the New York Times, Guo had repeatedly called on China's 
Communist party leadership to liberalize the political system. His wife 
and supporters in the international human rights community have said 
that Guo has been tortured in custody and that the police coerced him 
to confess to a nonpolitical crime. He was sentenced to 5 years in 
prison in November of 2007 for ``illegal commercial activity.''
  The New York Times has also reported that a Tibetan scholar, Dolma 
Kyab, Dolma's picture is here to my far right, has been jailed since 
2005 after writing an unapproved history of Tibet. Reporters Without 
Borders reports that Dolma was sentenced to 10 years in prison at a 
secret trial on September 16, 2005, by the Lhasa People's Intermediate 
Court for ``endangering state security'' and for alleging spying. He 
managed to smuggle a letter out of prison in September 2005 to the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission saying he had been jailed for writing about 
democracy, freedom and the situation in Tibet.
  Zheng Yichun is another illustration of the problem in China. He was 
sentenced to 7 years in prison followed by 3 years of deprivation of 
political rights for writing a series of editorials that directly 
criticized the Communist party and its control of the media.
  Li Changqing, a journalist for the Fuzhou Daily, was sentenced to 3 
years in prison for ``spreading false and alarmist information'' when 
he reported about a 2004 dengue fever outbreak.
  In May 2006, Internet writer Yang Tongyan was sentenced to 12 years 
in prison for posting articles on overseas Web sites in which he simply 
called for the release of Chinese dissidents.
  In July 2006, Li Yuanlong, a reporter for the Bijie Daily, was 
sentenced to 2 years in prison after he posted essays on foreign Web 
sites in which he discussed the harsh living conditions of peasants in 
the Guizhou province.
  Yu Huafeng, I believe we have Yu's picture right here to my immediate

[[Page H3335]]

right, was the deputy editor and general manager of the Nanfang Dushi 
Bao, Southern Metropolitan News. He was detained less than a month 
after the newspaper reported a suspected SARS case in Guangzhou, the 
first case since the epidemic died out in July 2003. Thankfully, Mr. 
Huafeng was released earlier this year when his sentence was reduced.
  Zi Beijia, of Beijing TV, was sentenced by the Beijing Number 2 
Intermediate Court to a year in prison for the unusual crime of 
``infringing on the reputation of a commodity.'' That is really quite 
remarkable. Zi's arrest came amid widespread international reports 
about food and product safety defects in China. After the arrest, CPJ 
research found that domestic news reports about consumer safety were 
noticeably tamer.
  Imagine in this country if you could jail a journalist for infringing 
on the reputation of a commodity, for taking issue with the safety of a 
child's toy, lead paint, the safety of a train or an air bag. Imagine 
if you could be jailed for that. And you can imagine the situation that 
occurs in present day China.
  Wu Lihong, an environmental activist, was jailed after criticizing 
the ongoing polluting of Lake Taihu, the country's third biggest lake 
and a major source of drinking water in the eastern province of 
Jiangsu. He also denounced the uncontrolled dumping of industrial waste 
by privatized city-owned firms. After being hounded by police and local 
organizations, he was arrested in April 2007 and thrown in jail, 
accused of demanding money from the firms. He was tortured during 
interrogations and not allowed any defense witnesses at his trial. He 
was sentenced to 3 years in prison for theft and extortion.
  And again, it is hard to imagine what it would be like in this 
country if reporting about contamination of drinking water or dumping 
of toxics into a lake would end you up in prison for a matter of years 
without any ability to present the defense. And unfortunately, that is 
the situation that Wu Lihong found himself in.
  An outbreak of disease, government corruption, public safety 
concerns, to me these are stories that the press should be reporting. 
Indeed, in terms of the interests of the Chinese people, these are 
stories the Chinese people need to know. These are the stories that the 
public has the right to know about, and the press has an obligation to 
report. Articles like these were exactly what the framers of our 
Constitution had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment. This is 
exactly what Thomas Jefferson said and had in mind when he said that 
``no government ought to be without censors,'' in his case he was 
meaning critics, ``and where the press is free, no one ever will.''
  The Chinese Government is not censoring the press out of national 
security concerns, but instead to shield itself from what a free press 
might uncover about corruption, inefficiency, human rights abuses, 
environmental issues, health problems or any other afflictions that 
might accompany authoritarian rule.
  China's censorship and intimidation of media are not limited to 
Chinese journalists. Freedom House has also highlighted the convictions 
of two Chinese journalists working for the Beijing bureau of the New 
York Times and Ching Cheong, a correspondent for Singapore's Straits 
Times in China. Their convictions may have been intended to intimidate 
foreign correspondents and newspapers. According to Reporters Sans 
Frontieres, there were at least 25 incidents of arrests, threats or 
assaults against members of the foreign press in 2006 alone.
  So not only is the government in China jailing journalists to keep 
information from its own people, but it is also seeking to censor 
information to the rest of the world.
  With this understanding of how and why the Chinese Government has 
sought to jail journalists, I think it is important now to profile some 
of the most egregious cases. The reporters involved here are true 
profiles in courage. These journalists knew the consequences of their 
writings in advance of their publication. And yet these Chinese 
journalists believe so strongly that all citizens deserve access to 
information, that they are willing to put their freedom on the line to 
better inform the public. These journalists ought to be commended for 
their work, not jailed. And that is what we are doing here tonight. We 
are saying ``thank you'' to all the brave Chinese journalists, Eritrean 
journalists, Cuban journalists, and all other journalists around the 
world who have risked their safety and freedom to spread valuable 
information around their countries and around the world, information 
that we benefit from.
  The concept of censorship of the media can be so strange to us here 
in America that we often don't realize that journalism can cost one his 
or her freedom or even their life, as we have seen in Russia and indeed 
in China. So let's go to some of these profiles.
  I would like to start the profiles tonight with the leading activist 
named Hu Jia who called for greater attention to human rights around 
the Olympics and was arrested on January 30 of this year according to 
Human Rights Watch. Press Freedom--and Hu is pictured to my right--and 
human rights organizations are concerned that Hu is being prosecuted 
simply for exercising his rights to freedom of opinion and expression. 
At issue is an open letter that he co-authored calling for the 
international community to look beyond the veneer put in place in 
Beijing for the Olympics and to seriously examine the extent to which 
China had fulfilled the promises it made to improve human rights in 
advance of the games.
  Three months after publication of this letter, Hu was arrested at his 
home. On April 3, 2008, he was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment for 
``incitement to subvert state power,'' a charge regularly leveled 
against activists and dissidents.
  Reporters Without Borders has reported that Chinese authorities have 
prevented Hu from appealing his sentence. One of his lawyers, Li 
Fangping, was refused permission to see him 10 days after the sentence 
was handed down. The authorities said he was undergoing a ``medical 
examination'' prior to entering prison. He was again refused permission 
to see him on a later date on the grounds that the deadline for filing 
the appeal had already expired.
  According to Reporters Without Borders, Li wanted to give him 
official documents related to his appeal which he urgently needed for 
him to sign. But the guards refused without giving any reason. Hu has 
not been allowed to take any telephone calls, and his family is very 
worried about the state of his health. The plight of Hu has been 
recognized by leaders around the world. Earlier this year, it was 
reported then when our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, met with 
President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing, she 
raised human rights issues and voiced concern about the situation of 
political prisoners of Hu and Shi Tao, whom I will speak about next. 
The following day, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao 
insisted that Hu was being detained legally.
  Earlier this year, the Paris City Council named Hu an honorary 
citizen of Paris. This title was bestowed on Hu for his work as an 
activist on behalf of human rights, free expression, the environment, 
and HIV/AIDS sufferers.
  Other people to have been declared honorary citizens of Paris include 
Ingrid Betancourt, a Colombian politician with French citizenship 
currently a hostage of FARC guerillas, and Burmese opposition leader 
Aung San Suu Kyi.
  Next I would like to profile Shi Tao. The Chinese Government often 
uses vaguely worded laws to detain journalists, dissidents and others 
in the peaceful exercise of their right of free expression, including 
those arrested for the legitimate use of the Internet. This is despite 
the fact that the right to freedom of expression is protected in 
China's constitution.
  One of the many unfortunate examples of this practice is the 
continued imprisonment of Shi Tao--his photograph exhibited here--a 
journalist and poet imprisoned solely for exercising his right to 
freedom of expression and his right to seek, receive and impart 
information.
  Shi, the former editorial director at the Changsha-based newspaper 
Dangdai Shang Bao, was detained near his home in Taiyuan in the Shanxi 
province. In April 2004, Mr. Tao sent an e-mail from his Yahoo account 
to a U.S.-based pro-democracy website in which he summarized a 
government order directing

[[Page H3336]]

media organizations in China to downplay the upcoming 15th anniversary 
of the Tiananmen crackdown.
  In the anonymous e-mail sent several months before his arrest, Shi 
transcribed his notes from the local propaganda department instructions 
to the newspaper which included directives on coverage of the Falun 
Gong and the upcoming 15th anniversary of the military crackdown on 
demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. The official Xinhua News Agency 
reported that the National Administration for the Protection of State 
Secrets later certified the contents of the e-mail as classified, later 
certified them as classified.

                              {time}  2115

  On the basis of this e-mail, police arrested Shi 6 months later in 
November of 2004, charging him with ``illegally providing state secrets 
to foreign entities,'' as if Chinese efforts to downplay or fail to 
report on Tiananmen were somehow a state secret. On April 27, 2005 the 
Changsha Intermediate People's Court found Shi guilty and sentenced him 
to a 10-year prison term in June.
  In June, the Hunan Province High People's Court rejected his appeal 
without granting a hearing. Court documents in the case revealed that 
Yahoo had supplied information to Chinese authorities that helped them 
identify Shi as the sender of the e-mail. In November of 2005 CPJ 
honored Shi with its annual Internation Press Freedom Award for his 
courage and defending the ideals of free expression.
  On June 4, 2007 the 18th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, Shi 
received an additional honor, the Golden Pen of Freedom Award. The 
award is the annual press freedom prize from the World Association of 
Newspapers, which is based in Paris and is the global organization for 
the newspaper industry. It has awarded the Golden Pen annually since 
1961.
  Shi also was presented with PEN New England's Vasyl Stus Award in 
2006. The award is presented to a writer who has been persecuted for 
the peaceful expression of his or her views and whose courage in the 
face of censorship and oppression has been exemplary.
  This award is named after the poet, Vasyl Stus, who became a leading 
voice of his generation and who was also the last Ukranian writer to 
die in the Soviet Gulag. Unfortunately, all of these awards are 
presented in absentia due to Mr. Shi's continued incarceration. His 
mother accepted the Golden Pen of Freedom award from WAN on his behalf 
in June of last year.
  At the awards ceremony she expressed what the award meant to both her 
and her son when she stated, ``In China, he was taken as a criminal, 
but today WAN, made up of over 100 newspaper organizations, awards him 
the Golden Pen of Freedom. It is not only an honor but also a huge 
comfort to Shi Tao.
  ``It proves that my son is indeed innocent. He has only done what a 
courageous journalist should do. That is why he has got the support and 
the sympathy from his colleagues all over the world who uphold justice.
  ``Here and now, I am able to stand on the stage on behalf of my 
son.''
  What an arduous journey it has been to tell you the truth. I can't 
believe it is true, and even the best human language in the world 
cannot express the gratitude from the mother and son.
  It's good to know that awards like these help provide at least a 
little comfort for journalists like Shi. But, more importantly, these 
awards should raise awareness surrounding press freedom abuses around 
the world. Mr. Shi is clearly deserving of all these accolades. The 
Chinese people and citizens around the world are thankful for his 
dedication to true journalism.
  Next I am going to speak about two dedicated Chinese journalists who 
have been detained longer than any journalists in the world today, Chen 
Renjie and Lin Youping. Twenty-four years after their imprisonment in 
the early days of China's economic reform, Chen Renjie and Lin Youping 
have been in prison longer than any journalists in CPJ's worldwide 
census.
  The two men, along with Chen Biling, wrote and published a pamphlet 
entitled Ziyou Bao (Freedom Report). They distributed 300 copies of the 
pamphlet in the southern Chinese City of Fuzhou, Fujian province, in 
September, 1982.
  The following July, they were arrested and accused of making contact 
with Taiwanese spy groups and publishing a counterrevolutionary 
pamphlet. According to government official records of the case, the men 
used ``propaganda and incitement to encourage the overthrow of the 
people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist system.''
  In August, 1983, Chen was sentenced to life in prison and Lin was 
sentenced to death with reprieve. Chen Biling was sentenced to death 
and later executed.
  Their case is so old, and with the lack of an independent and open 
media, we have had a hard time finding out more information about Chen 
Renjie and Lin. However, I would be remiss if I did not pay special 
attention to highlight these two reporters who have endured more time 
in jail, due to their effort to share information, than any other 
journalist today.
  The last topic I want to focus on tonight is Internet censorship. 
According to Freedom House, China is the world's second largest 
population of Internet users after the United States, with an estimated 
210 million people online, or just under 16 percent of the country's 
population.
  However, access to China, to the Internet in China, is not the same 
as access to the Internet here in America. Freedom House's 2008 press 
freedom survey reported that last year in China was marked by 
additional Internet restrictions, as well as the jailing of more online 
journalists and bloggers.
  According to their findings in 2007, at least nine additional 
journalists and online writers were detained during the year for 
information they had published on the Internet, particularly on U.S.-
based independent Chinese news Web sites. In China, Web sites that have 
not established or not been established by an official news outlet such 
as a newspaper or broadcaster are forbidden from gathering or editing 
their own news or commentary.
  Legally, they can only reproduce material that has passed through 
sensors at approved media organizations. As we have mentioned tonight, 
all media in China are government controlled.
  China is not the only country to manage public opinion by controlling 
the Internet. As of 2007, CPJ had documented Internet censorship in 22 
countries worldwide, but China was first to launch a comprehensive 
program to censor online speech and to monitor e-mail and text 
messaging. Its censorship program is so expansive and technically 
sophisticated that countries such as Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Thailand 
have adopted its practices.
  This gets back to what I have referred to earlier tonight, the fact 
that because of its prominence China sets an example, for good or for 
bad, in this case, regrettably, for ill. Due to technological 
advancements and the efforts of overseas activists, the Chinese 
government attempt to suppress information has become more difficult, 
but that has not stopped the government's efforts to censor online 
information.
  Many have referred to Internet restrictions in China as the ``Great 
Firewall of China.'' The government employs extensive surveillance and 
filtering systems to prevent Internet users from accessing material 
that the government considers obscene, harmful to national unity or 
politically subversive.
  In May of 2007 Reporters Without Borders launched a Web site in 
Chinese, and it was blocked within hours of going live. Additionally, 
all IP addresses linked to a Web site deemed undesirable are blocked 
without warning.
  As the web has become a new forum to distribute information, the 
Chinese government continues to create new laws to suppress the free 
flow of information on the Internet. In the 5 years after China first 
allowed private Internet accounts in 1995, it has issued more than 60 
sets of regulations to tighten its control of online content.
  These regulations continue today. In 2005 the government introduced 
new regulations that bar Web sites from distributing information that 
violates Chinese constitutional provisions, endangers national 
security, encourages illegal strikes or promotes unrecognized religious 
groups. In March of 2007 the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of 
Information Industries banned the opening of new Internet cafes, 
113,000 were in existence at the time.
  Many times Internet censorship is used as a political tool. Internet 
censorship in China increased prior to and

[[Page H3337]]

during the 17th Party Congress in October of last year, during which 
the party leadership for the next 5 years was endorsed. Between April 
and September, access to over 18,000 Web sites was blocked.
  The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that in September of 
2007, security agencies in several regions ordered Internet data 
centers, which host large numbers of Web sites and blogs, to suspend 
their service, or disable interactive features such as bulletin boards 
and comment sections during the Congress' meeting.
  In an apparent effort to overcome difficulties monitoring audio-
visual content with automated filtering technology, the government 
issued a regulation requiring Web sites with audio visual context to 
apply for permits. I guess that would pretty well put YouTube and other 
like Web sites out of business.
  The regulation, which affects approximately 60,000 sites in China, 
also banned audio-visual content deemed to fall into vaguely defined 
categories such as opposing the principles of the People's Republic of 
China constitution, harming national unity, contributing to ethnic 
divisions or disrupting social harmony.
  So if there were entrepreneurs who wanted to start a Chinese version 
of YouTube, unless they register, unless YouTube registers, that would 
be prohibited. Indeed the content on those sites would be strictly 
scrutinized by the Chinese government. According to Freedom House, in 
some instances restrictions were imposed on a local level, after 
bloggers supported a protest against construction of a chemical 
factory.
  Near the southern City of Xiamen, the local government adopted 
measures requiring Internet users to provide their real names when 
posting material on more than 100,000 Web sites registered in the city. 
The Chinese government demands that individual service providers 
monitor content. These providers filter searches, block Web sites, 
delete content and monitor e-mail traffic.
  The Chinese language search engines of many U.S. firms filter search 
results and restrict access to information about topics deemed 
sensitive by the government. These include searches such as Falun Gong, 
Tibetan independence, and human rights.
  U.S. filters have to adopt certain restrictions. U.S. sites, like 
YouTube and others, are subject to the same scrutiny. In 2007, more 
than 20 companies, some American, were forced to sign a self-
disciplined pact which forces them to censor the content to blogs they 
host in China as bloggers to provide their real identity and to delete 
postings considered illegal and unhealthy.
  Despite all this discouraging news there is a silver lining, though, 
the government's efforts are not foolproof. Brave and determined 
bloggers continually pop up, change addresses, hide behind proxy 
servers, and use a range of tactics to side-step government censorship 
and spread good information to the Chinese public.
  But it's our hope that these bloggers and our journalists someday 
will not have to use these extreme measures. We would like to see China 
reconsider its regulation and censorship of the media. As we mentioned 
at the outset tonight, press freedom provides a valuable, economic and 
social benefit that is in China's best interest to ensure free and 
independent media.
  We in this country have a great admiration for the Chinese people. 
They are extraordinarily talented, gifted, resourceful people with a 
great future ahead of them. It's our sincere view that we do no service 
to our relationship with China not to encourage in the most forceful 
way freedom of the press in that country.
  We hope, many of us, that the Olympic Games would give China that 
opportunity to move forward and make progress, and we are disappointed 
that we have not seen that progress that the Chinese government 
representative would make, and, yet, we push forward.
  Tonight we think about those journalists, some held longer than any 
others in China, and we urge the Chinese government to step forward to 
recognize the benefits to China itself of a free press and free media, 
to free journalists who are imprisoned for doing work important to the 
Chinese people.
  We hope that these efforts will be undertaken soon, that some of the 
journalists that we profiled here tonight will be released back into 
the warmth of their own families and their own homes, whether they are 
in China or Eritrea or in Cuba or in so many parts of the world. That 
is our fond hope and desire and the raison d'etre of our caucus on 
freedom of the press.

                          ____________________