[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2087-E2089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF SHARING AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY WITH CHINA
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share testimony that I gave
earlier this month to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's
subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations regarding the economic,
security and moral consequences of sharing advanced technology with
China.
House Foreign Affairs Committee--``Efforts to Transfer America's
Leading Edge Science to China''--Testimony of Congressman Frank R. Wolf
(R-VA), Wednesday, November 2, 2010
Thank you Chairman Rohrabacher for calling this important
hearing on China's espionage and the violation of the law by
the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP).
I have been very troubled by this administration's apparent
eagerness to work with China on its space program and
willingness to share other sensitive technologies. I want to
be clear: the United States has no business cooperating with
the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to help develop its space
program. We should also be wary of any agreements that
involve the transfer of technology or sensitive information
to Chinese institutions or companies--many of which are
controlled by the government and the PLA.
Space is the ultimate ``high ground'' that has provided the
U.S. with countless security and economic advantages over the
last 40 years. As the victor of the Cold War ``space race''
with the Soviet Union, the U.S. has held an enormous
advantage in space technology, defense capabilities, and
advanced sciences--generating entirely new sectors of our
economy and creating thousands of private sector jobs.
China has developed its own space program at a surprising
pace, having gone from launching their first manned
spacecraft to launching components for an advanced space
station in just ten years.
But the Chinese space program is being led by the People's
Liberation Army (PLA)--and to state the obvious, the PLA is
not our friend as evidenced by their recent military posture
and aggressive espionage against U.S. agencies and firms.
That is why I was troubled to learn from the press last
fall about NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden's imminent
departure for a weeklong visit to China to discuss areas of
cooperation between NASA and the PLA space program. I was
equally concerned to learn that Dr. John Holdren, head of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
had spent 21 days in China on 3 separate trips in one year--
more than any other country. Very little information about
these cooperative agreements with China were being provided
to Congress and the American people.
So, I included language in section 1340 of the Fiscal Year
2011 Continuing Resolution preventing NASA and OSTP from
using federal funds ``to develop, design, plan, promulgate,
implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or
contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or
coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-
owned company.''
The provision in the omnibus appropriations bill was agreed
to by Republican and Democrat conferees. It passed both
houses with bipartisan support and was signed into law by
President Obama in April. The provision was clear,
unambiguous and noncontroversial.
However, less than one month after its enactment, I learned
that Dr. Holdren and OSTP had defied the provision. Even more
troubling is that he withheld information about his intention
to do so during his appearance before the House Commerce-
Justice Science Appropriations Subcommittee when we
discussed, among other things, the implementation of section
1340, and Dr. Holdren's participation in the U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, from May 6-10.
That is why I asked the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to investigate this violation and issue an opinion. I
also asked GAO to determine whether the Office of Legal
Counsel opinion provided by the Justice Department to justify
this violation was legitimate.
In its October 11 opinion, GAO found, ``The plain meaning
of section 1340 is clear. OSTP may not use its appropriations
to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any
way with China or any Chinese-owned companies.''
Further, GAO found that, ``OSTP's participation in the
Innovation Dialogue and S&ED contravened the appropriations
restriction,'' and added that, ``OSTP does not deny that it
engaged in activities prohibited by section 1340.''
The GAO finding also rebuts a September 19 memorandum
prepared by the Justice Department's OLC on the
constitutionality of the provision. GAO stated, ``In our
view, legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by
the President, thereby satisfying the Constitution's
bicameralism and presentment requirements, is entitled to a
heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.'' GAO
continued, ``Determining the constitutionality of legislation
is a province of the courts,''--not, I would add, the White
House counsel's office or the Department of Justice.
Finally, the GAO finding clearly notes, ``As a consequence
of using its appropriations in violation of section 1340,
OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. . . By using its fiscal
year 2011 appropriation in a manner specifically prohibited,
OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act. Accordingly, OSTP
should report the violation as required by the act.''
I also wrote Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to
hold Dr. Holdren to full account for his violation of the
Anti-Deficiency Act by ensuring that he complies with all
reporting requirements and other provisions of that law.
I take the GAO findings very seriously. Following the law
is not voluntary for Administration officials. That is why
Dr. Holdren should commit today to full compliance with
section 1340 and publicly acknowledge his error in
participating in the bilateral conference with the Chinese
government.
Now I'd like to take a few minutes to put the
administration's posture toward China in the broader context
of the Chinese government's grave human rights abuses,
espionage efforts and detrimental economic policies.
In June 1989 peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators gathered
in Tiananmen Square. They were met with a brutal crackdown.
As events unfolded, the world was captivated with the now
famous image of the ``Tank Man'' . . . a lone student
protestor who stood his ground in the face of an advancing
Chinese tank. To this day his fate is unknown.
During my first trip to China in 1991, with Congressman
Chris Smith, we visited Beijing Prison Number One where
authorities informed us that approximately 40 Tiananmen
Square protestors were behind bars. We left with a pair of
socks, made by the prisoners, for export to the West.
Tellingly, the image of the ``Tank Man'', while famous
around the globe, is virtually unknown within China thanks to
the Great Firewall which censors so-called ``offensive''
speech. It is estimated that China employs between 30,000 and
50,000 special Internet police.
Shockingly, the country has a thriving business of
harvesting and selling for transplant kidneys, corneas and
other human organs from executed prisoners. An August 27,
2009 Los Angeles Times article reported, ``In a rare
acknowledgment of a practice that has until recently been
shrouded in secrecy, the state-run newspaper said 65% of
organ donors were executed prisoners . . .'' The image here,
from a 1994 BBC story, is of PLA officers preparing to
execute prisoners--China leads the world in executions. Later
footage from the same story captures an unmarked van driving
toward the prison to harvest the organs from the executed
prisoners and transport them to a local hospital.
Like many repressive regimes throughout history, the
Chinese government maintains a brutal system of labor camps.
The State Department's annual human rights report found that,
``Forced labor remained a serious problem . . .''
Famed Chinese dissident Harry Wu spent nearly 20 years in
Chinese gulags. In Congressional testimony earlier this year,
Wu said, ``When I finally came to the U.S. in 1985, although
I was already 48 years old, that was the first time in my
life that I felt truly free.'' He concluded by urging
``President Obama and the U.S. Congress to be bold and take a
firm stand against China's human rights abuses.''
[[Page E2088]]
But boldness is hardly the order of the day when it comes
to U.S. policy. The same could be said of some U.S.
companies.
In 2006, Congressman Chris Smith and the late Congressman
Tom Lantos, himself a Holocaust survivor, convened a hearing
in which they publicly challenged the Internet giant Yahoo!
to look beyond the bottom line, and consider the moral
implications of their complicity in imprisoning Chinese
dissidents.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof authored a piece
after the hearing writing, ``Suppose that Anne Frank had
maintained an e-mail account while in hiding in 1944, and
that the Nazis had asked Yahoo for cooperation in tracking
her down. It seems, based on Yahoo's behavior in China,
that it might have complied.''
Yahoo isn't the only U.S. company to come under fire for
pursuing business interests at the expense of human rights. A
May 22 New York Times article, reported that Cisco,
``customized its technology to help China track members of
the Falun Gong spiritual movement . . .'' There are multiple
suits pending against Cisco.
These allegations reflect a worrying trend. American
companies ought to represent American values. Instead, it
seems that time and again major U.S. corporations are
embracing Chinese government policies that are completely at
odds with what America represents.
China, in turn, exports its repressive technologies to
likeminded governments. An October 27, Wall Street Journal
piece reported that the Chinese telecom giant Huawei ``now
dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry
. . . , it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security
network.''
It seems that not only is the U.S. failing to change China,
but rather, China is changing us.
Is it any surprise considering what China is spending on
high-powered lobbying firms in this town?
According to a January 9 Washington Post story, in recent
years China has, ``tripled the amount it spends on lobbying
firms . . .'' But well-heeled lobbyists can't explain away
China's abysmal human rights record.
Thousands of political and religious prisoners languish in
prison.
According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, currently every
one of the approximately 25 underground bishops of the
Catholic Church is either in jail, under house arrest, under
strict surveillance, or in hiding.
Protestant house church pastors are routinely intimidated
and imprisoned. The recently released annual report of the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China found the
government placed 500 members of the Shouwang Church under
``soft detention'' between the fall of 2010 and the fall of
2011.
David Aikman, former Beijing bureau chief for TIME
magazine, authored a piece noting: ``The crackdown on
Christians is part of a rising tide of repression against
dissent that's often accompanied by interrogations and
torture.''
Since March, 10 Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns have set
themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses suffered by
their people. One such nun is pictured here. Recently
cameramen smuggled out video footage, still frame shot here,
of Chinese police in full riot gear carrying automatic rifles
and iron bars outside of the monastery where several of the
self-immolations occurred.
Rebiya Kadeer--a fearless advocate for the Uyghur Muslims
in China--spent two years in solitary confinement before
being exiled to the U.S. in 2005. Following her release, two
of her sons were unjustly arrested and subsequently sentenced
to lengthy prison terms. Chinese authorities continue to use
Rebiya's children and grandchildren as pawns in an effort to
silence her.
We have seen that the Chinese government is unmoved and in
fact emboldened in its ongoing repression while at the same
time experiencing explosive economic growth.
We have seen our own short-sightedness in making the
protection of basic liberties and the advancement of rule of
law secondary to unfettered market access and normal trade
relations.
These flawed policies have strengthened the oppressors and
enabled China to advance economically at our expense. Every
Member here represents constituents whose very livelihood has
been negatively affected by China's blatant economic
espionage and predatory, protectionist and illegal practices.
Meanwhile, U.S. companies are increasingly sending American
jobs to China. General Electric's health-care unit recently
announced it was moving the headquarters of 115-year-old X-
ray business to Beijing. Ironically, the head of President
Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is GE Chairman
Jeffrey Immelt.
According to a March 24 New York Times article, GE paid
zero taxes in the U.S. in 2010. Meanwhile, the Congressional
Research Service found that the Chinese State Tax
Administration and China Tax magazine jointly released a
number of lists of the top taxpayers in 2007 and GE featured
prominently. The Beijing subsidiary of GE was number 32 on
the top 100 taxpaying firms in the commercial services
sector. It is noteworthy that GE, which pays no federal taxes
in its home country, is honored for being a significant
source of tax revenue to China.
Our engagement with China has not only empowered the
government, failed to change their political system and
undermined our economic security it has fueled China's
military apparatus. Again, the president's ``jobs czar,''
Jeffrey Immelt, is at the center of these concerns.
An October 28 Defense News piece reported that, ``U.S.
aerospace companies may unknowingly be helping China's
military, according to a rough draft of the annual report on
China's military modernization by the U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission, to be released in November.''
Specifically the article pointed to, ``last January's
announcement by General Electric and the Aviation Industry
Corporation of China (AVIC) that they would launch a joint
venture for integrated avionics'' and cited the Commission's
soon to be released report which indicated that China, ``has
a robust, largely military space program..'' with all but 13
of its roughly 70 satellites in orbit controlled by the
military.
A May 17 article in Wired.com reported that Chinese troops
have begun using a first-person-shooter video game,
``Glorious Mission,'' backed by the PLA, which stimulates
basic training in which the enemy is apparently the U.S.
military.
An April 11, Aviation Week article reported, ``The PLA has
made great strides toward implementing a strategy . . . to
deter or defeat U.S. forces in the Western Pacific.''
The 2010 annual Pentagon report cited earlier, found `` . .
. In the case of key national security technologies,
controlled equipment, and other materials not readily
obtainable through commercial means or academia, the PRC
resorts to more focused efforts, including the use of its
intelligence services and other-than legal means, in
violation of U.S. laws and export controls.''
Let's be perfectly clear about how China is advancing
militarily: they are utilizing ``other than legal means.''
The report also highlighted China's cyber-espionage
efforts. The U.S. intelligence community notes that China's
attempts to penetrate U.S. agencies are the most aggressive
of all foreign intelligence organizations. According to a
2008 FBI statement, Chinese intelligence services ``pose a
significant threat both to the national security and to the
compromise of U.S. critical national assets.''
Their espionage isn't limited to government agencies. In an
October 4 Washington Post article, Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, remarked, ``When you
talk to these companies behind closed doors . . . they
describe attacks that originate in China, and have a level of
sophistication and are clearly supported by a level of
resources that can only be a nation-state entity.''
These breaches in our national security infrastructure are
rampant and pose a very real threat. A May 14 Reuters story
indicated that, ``North Korea and Iran appear to have been
regularly exchanging ballistic missile technology in
violation of U.N. sanctions, according to a confidential U.N.
report . . . The report said the illicit technology transfers
had `trans-shipment through a neighboring third country.'
That country was China, several diplomats told Reuters on
condition of anonymity.''
China is also a major arms supplier and source of economic
strength to the regime in Khartoum. According to Human Rights
First, during the years of the worst violence in Darfur ``. .
. China sold over $55 million worth of small arms to
Khartoum.'' I was part of the first Congressional delegation
to Darfur. I heard the stories of rape, killing and
displacement. America provided humanitarian supplies to the
victims, while China provided arms to the perpetrators.
Meanwhile, Beijing rolled out the red carpet this year for
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, an internationally
indicted war criminal. Bashir's crimes are not just a thing
of the past. The current assault by northern Sudanese forces
in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states has displaced
thousands. There are credible news reports of targeted ethnic
killings and satellite images of what appear to be mass
graves.
Speaking of red carpet, President Obama, the 2009 Nobel
Peace Prize winner, welcomed Chinese President Hu Jintao with
a State Dinner in January at the same time that 2010 Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, languished
behind bars. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama was initially denied a
meeting with President Obama and then in February 2010 was
made to leave the White House through the back door to avoid
press.
In closing, there will come a day when the Chinese
communist government will fall--repressive, totalitarian
regimes always do. And when that day comes, books will be
written about who helped sustain this government in their
final days. Will U.S. companies feature in that narrative?
Will the U.S. government?
In 2001, a book was published titled, ``IBM and the
Holocaust.'' A New York Times book review describes how IBM
had ``global control of a technology that was enormously
helpful, indeed indispensable, to the Nazi machinery of war
and annihilation.'' The Times review quotes the author of the
book as saying that many companies did what IBM did. They
``refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits
obtainable from trading with a pariah state . . .''
Arguably that assessment rings true today. Only the pariah
state has changed.
Those in positions of leadership, be they in the private
sector or in government, do our country a disservice when
they gloss over or ignore the actions of the Chinese
government. They put us squarely on the wrong side of
history.
The Chinese government brutally represses its own people.
It persecutes people of faith. It censors the Internet. It
maintains labor camps.
[[Page E2089]]
The Chinese government actively engages in cyber-espionage.
It steals state secrets. It aligns itself with countries
directly at odds with U.S. interests. It supports genocidal
governments and buttresses rogue regimes.
There's a legal term, ``willful blindness,'' that aptly
described our dealings to date with China. Faced with these
painful truths, blindness is no longer an option.
In the words of British abolitionist, William Wilberforce,
``Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other
way, but you can never again say that you did not know.''
____________________