U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

71–055 PDF 2012

CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2121 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Serial No. 112–65 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

[Vacant] 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 2121, the ‘‘China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011’’ .................................. 2 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 5 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher Smith, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 123 

Chai Ling, Founder, All Girls Allowed 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 126 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 129 

Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Congressional Research Service, The Library of 

Congress, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 199 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 202 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Christopher Smith, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Jersey ......................................................... 8 

(1) 

CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Gowdy, and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Hunter Hammill, USCIS Detailee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call the Subcommittee to order. 

The relationship between the United States and China has been 

characterized by Vice President Biden as the most important in the 

world. In many respects, that is true. However, it seems to me that 

the relationship between the U.S. and China can be characterized 

as increasingly complex and, at times, even conflicted since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949. 

Initially, the relationship between the United States and China 

was hostile. In fact, our two countries faced off in Korea from 1950 

to 1954. Throughout much of the cold war, our relationship with 

China was tense. Slowly, our relationship has improved since then, 

especially in terms of our economic ties. 

Although our relationship has improved, important differences 

remain. Currently and in the foreseeable future, China will represent a key focus of U.S. foreign and international economic policy. Some say that economic development in China will inevitably 

lead to democracy. However, the reality is that while economic 

growth in China continues, the United States justifiably remains 

critical of the slow pace of democratic reforms in China. 

As a result, it has been U.S. policy, under both Republican and 

Democratic administrations, to encourage political change and 

human rights improvements in China. Those in the Chinese government who commit or sanction abuses should be forewarned that 

their actions will not be tolerated by the United States. H.R. 2121, 

introduced by my colleague, or our colleague, Chris Smith, does 

just that. It informs human rights abusers in China that the 

United States does not stand by as atrocities are committed. It lets 

them know they are not welcome in the United States. Hence, I 

urge my colleagues to support the bill. 

[The bill, H.R. 2121, follows:] 

2 


HR2121-1.eps
3 


HR2121-2.eps
4 


HR2121-3.eps
5 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And, with that, I would yield to the gentlelady 

from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me begin by welcoming the bill’s author, Congressman 

Chris Smith, to our Committee. It is a pleasure to have you here, 

along with your co-witnesses. 

The bill that you have introduced raises important questions 

about U.S.-China relations. And while the bill falls within our Subcommittee’s jurisdiction because it authorizes denial of visas to certain Chinese nationals, its main focus falls in the foreign affairs 

realm and the Chinese government’s dismal human rights record. 

Mr. Smith and I have worked together on human rights issues 

in the past, particularly as they relate to the treatment of trafficking victims and refugees. And I share Mr. Smith’s grave concerns about China’s human rights record, and I understand his reasons for introducing the bill. 

China’s human rights record reads like a laundry list of abuse: 

the country’s infamous one-child policy, which includes forced abortions and sterilizations; the oppression of Tibetans; the treatment 

of ethnic minorities like Uyghurs and Mongolians; the crackdowns 

on democracy and labor rights activists; and the persecution of certain religious groups, including Protestants, Catholics, and the 

Falun Gong. Our witness, Ms. Chai Ling, saw these abuses firsthand in Tiananmen Square and has since become an outspoken advocate against the one-child policy. 

The bill highlights one tool at the government’s disposal for holding human rights abusers accountable: denial of visas under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I understand 

the State Department believes it already has this authority under 

current law. They also seem to have foreign policy concerns with 

this bill. I suspect their concerns about this bill center on the need 

to balance the various foreign policy goals our country has with 

China. 

The U.S. has significant ties with China, particularly economically, and a strong diplomatic relationship is necessary. But I agree 

that we also cannot ignore China’s human rights record. I look forward to learning today why the additional authority provided in 

the bill is needed and how it can address the serious ongoing 

human rights crisis in China while balancing the government’s foreign policy goals. 

And, again, I want to thank Mr. Smith for his work on this important issue and thank him and our other witnesses for appearing 

today. And I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlelady. 

And, with that, I will yield to the other Mr. Smith, the Chairman 

of our full Committee, the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Human rights abuses in the People’s Republic of China remain 

common and widespread. As the Chinese government continues to 

suppress dissenting opinions and maintains political control over 

the legal system, the will of the people and individual rights are 

consistently undermined. The end result is arbitrary and abusive 

treatment of the Chinese people. 

6 

The bill we will discuss today, which was introduced by our colleague Chris Smith from New Jersey, assists in combating human 

rights abuses in China. While I support the bill, some of language 

might be clarified so the sanction on senior leaders in the Chinese 

government is tied directly to the human rights abuses defined in 

the bill. 

Human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, torture, and 

severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association, are 

rampant in China. And violations specific to women and abuses related to the national Family-Planning Policy are also rampant. 

As to the Family-Planning Policy, the Chinese government requires couples to practice family planning. The cornerstone of this 

policy is the offensive one child per couple policy. 

To enforce this law, local authorities use the carrot of subsidized 

medical care, education, and housing. But they also employ a harsh 

stick—punishments including fines, confiscation of property, salary 

cuts, and even dismissal from work. 

Some of the most disturbing methods used to enforce the familyplanning laws have included the forced use of contraceptives and 

forced abortions for pregnant women who already have one child. 

The one-child policy, with the traditional preference for male 

children, has led to practices such as female infanticide—the practice of killing female babies—concealing female births, and abandoning female infants. 

The one-child policy has also contributed to the practice of prenatal sex identification, resulting in the abortion of female fetuses. 

Although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines for this purpose, the practice continues. 

By denying visas to certain Chinese nationals in the government 

who promote human rights abuses, we might as well assist Chinese 

patriots who work to end the lack of accountability for government 

officials who are part of the Chinese Communist Party. This legislation will send a message that abuses by these officials that go unchecked within China will not be ignored by the international community. 

Now, once again, I want to thank our colleague from New Jersey 

for sponsoring this legislation. I look forward to a good hearing 

today and then to giving this bill its process. And I will have some 

questions for the gentleman from New Jersey in just a minute. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

We have three very distinguished witnesses today. Each of the 

witnesses’ written statement will be made a part of the record in 

its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less so that we can get on with the questioning, recognizing that your entire statement will be made a part 

of the record of the hearing. And we have provided lights there to 

kind of help you along those lines. 

Our first witness today is our colleague and friend, Congressman 

Chris Smith, who represents New Jersey’s Fourth District and is 

currently serving his 16th term in the House of Representatives. 

He is a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Chairman of its Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee. 

In addition, he serves on the Congressional-Executive Commission 

7 

on China. He is the author of America’s three landmark antihuman-trafficking laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Congressman Smith received his bachelor’s degree 

from Trenton State College, now The College of New Jersey. 

Our second witness is Ms. Chai Ling. Ms. Chai was a key student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement in China. 

She is now president and chief operating officer of Jenzabar, Inc., 

and founder of All Girls Allowed, whose mission focuses on revealing the injustice of China’s one-child policy. Prior to Jenzabar, Chai 

Ling worked as a consultant at Bain & Company, a leading global 

business and strategy consulting firm. She holds an MBA from 

Harvard Business School, an MLA in public affairs at Princeton 

University, and a B.A. From Beijing University. 

Our third witness today is Dr. Ruth Wasem. She is a specialist 

in immigration policy with the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. In that capacity, she has written reports for 

Congress that provide research and policy analysis on a range of 

immigration subjects. Since 2000, she has led the team of CRS policy analysts, attorneys, and information researchers who work in 

immigration, and she has previously testified before this Subcommittee in June of 2007. Dr. Wasem completed her doctorate 

and M.A. From the University of Michigan. She received a B.A. 

From Muskegon College. 

Welcome. 

We will start with our colleague, Mr. Smith. Welcome, Chris. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate deeply your calling this hearing. Ranking Member Lofgren, my good friend and colleague Chairman Smith, and all 

the Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, in 2000, I wrote a law known as the Admiral 

James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal 

Years 2000 and 2001. That bill, H.R. 3427, was signed into law in 

its entirety by reference—Division B of Public Law 106-113. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

8 


71055A-1.eps
9 


71055A-2.eps
10 


71055A-3.eps
11 


71055A-4.eps
12 


71055A-5.eps
13 


71055A-6.eps
14 


71055A-7.eps
15 


71055A-8.eps
16 


71055A-9.eps
17 


71055A-10.eps
18 


71055A-11.eps
19 


71055A-12.eps
20 


71055A-13.eps
21 


71055A-14.eps
22 


71055A-15.eps
23 


71055A-16.eps
24 


71055A-17.eps
25 


71055A-18.eps
26 


71055A-19.eps
27 


71055A-20.eps
28 


71055A-21.eps
29 


71055A-22.eps
30 


71055A-23.eps
31 


71055A-24.eps
32 


71055A-25.eps
33 


71055A-26.eps
34 


71055A-27.eps
35 


71055A-28.eps
36 


71055A-29.eps
37 


71055A-30.eps
38 


71055A-31.eps
39 


71055A-32.eps
40 


71055A-33.eps
41 


71055A-34.eps
42 


71055A-35.eps
43 


71055A-36.eps
44 


71055A-37.eps
45 


71055A-38.eps
46 


71055A-39.eps
47 


71055A-40.eps
48 


71055A-41.eps
49 


71055A-42.eps
50 


71055A-43.eps
51 


71055A-44.eps
52 


71055A-45.eps
53 


71055A-46.eps
54 


71055A-47.eps
55 


71055A-48.eps
56 


71055A-49.eps
57 


71055A-50.eps
58 


71055A-51.eps
59 


71055A-52.eps
60 


71055A-53.eps
61 


71055A-54.eps
62 


71055A-55.eps
63 


71055A-56.eps
64 


71055A-57.eps
65 


71055A-58.eps
66 


71055A-59.eps
67 


71055A-60.eps
68 


71055A-61.eps
69 


71055A-62.eps
70 


71055A-63.eps
71 


71055A-64.eps
72 


71055A-65.eps
73 


71055A-66.eps
74 


71055A-67.eps
75 


71055A-68.eps
76 


71055A-69.eps
77 


71055A-70.eps
78 


71055A-71.eps
79 


71055A-72.eps
80 


71055A-73.eps
81 


71055A-74.eps
82 


71055A-75.eps
83 


71055A-76.eps
84 


71055A-77.eps
85 


71055A-78.eps
86 


71055A-79.eps
87 


71055A-80.eps
88 


71055A-81.eps
89 


71055A-82.eps
90 


71055A-83.eps
91 


71055A-84.eps
92 


71055A-85.eps
93 


71055A-86.eps
94 


71055A-87.eps
95 


71055A-88.eps
96 


71055A-89.eps
97 


71055A-90.eps
98 


71055A-91.eps
99 


71055A-92.eps
100 


71055A-93.eps
101 


71055A-94.eps
102 


71055A-95.eps
103 


71055A-96.eps
104 


71055A-97.eps
105 


71055A-98.eps
106 


71055A-99.eps
107 


71055A-100.eps
108 


71055A-101.eps
109 


71055A-102.eps
110 


71055A-103.eps
111 


71055A-104.eps
112 


71055A-105.eps
113 


71055A-106.eps
114 


71055A-107.eps
115 


71055A-108.eps
116 


71055A-109.eps
117 


71055A-110.eps
118 


71055A-111.eps
119 


71055A-112.eps
120 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Section 801 of Title VIII of that act 

requires the Secretary of State not to issue any visa to, and the Attorney General not to admit to the United States, any foreign national whom the Secretary finds, based on credible and specific information, to have been directly involved in the establishment or 

enforcement of forced abortion or forced sterilization. 

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, both under 

Presidents Bush and Obama, no one has been rendered inadmissible, owing to a glaring lack of implementation. 


71055A-113.eps
121 

The China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011 doesn’t seek to replace and, with one line of change in the bill text, would substantially strengthen U.S. law in this regard and get this issue once 

again front and center. 

The bill seeks to deny entry to the U.S. senior government leadership, their immediate family members—and that is new; that 

wasn’t in the act that I did in 2000—and anyone else who has committed human rights abuses in the PRC or anyone who has derived 

significant financial benefit from those policies—that, too, is new; 

we didn’t put that in the 2000 act—including participation in China’s cruel, coercive birth limitation policy, also known as the onechild-per-couple policy, which relies on forced abortion and involuntary sterilization to achieve its goals; the violent repression or persecution of Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongolians or other ethnic minorities; trafficking of North Korean refugees or their forcible return to North Korea. 

I have held several hearings on that egregious practice by the 

Chinese government to not only turn women and men, but mostly 

women, who make their way across the border into sexual slaves 

who are bought and sold like commodities, but they also, when 

they are done with them, send them back to North Korea, where 

they are immediately incarcerated in gross violation of the Refugee 

Act, to which China is a signatory. 

It also would include violent repression, imprisonment, torture, 

or any other form of persecution of religious believers, democracy 

adherents, workers’ rights advocates—we all know there are no 

trade unions like those championed by Lech Walesa in China. 

There is one trade union, run by the government. Anyone outside 

of its purview, outside of the parameters very carefully set by the 

government, goes to prison. 

And I, too, have held hearings on that, as you know, Mr. Chairman, where we have heard from these activists who bravely stand 

up to the government while there are government officials who are 

implementing that repression on these people who simply want collective bargaining and a decent wage for their work. 

Independent media, journalists, and Internet users. I have held 

three hearings, Mr. Chairman, on the gross abuse of the Internet, 

including the infamous one, or infamous in terms of their testimony, when we heard from some of the big giants, including 

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco, who, under oath, said, we 

can’t tell what you we are censoring, and we can’t tell you this or 

that. But, meanwhile, 35,000 to 40,000—nobody knows the exact 

number—of cyber police comb the Internet looking to find users 

who say prohibited things like the ‘‘Dalai Lama’’ or ‘‘freedom of religion’’ or anything else or even something favorable about the 

United States. 

As the recently released annual human rights report for 2011 by 

the Congressional-Executive Commission on China notes—and I do 

chair that commission—quote, ‘‘China’s leaders have grown more 

assertive in their violation of rights, disregarding the very laws and 

international standards that they claim to uphold and tightening 

their grip on Chinese society.’’ 

They have done a head-fake. They are now citing human rights 

laws, signing on to U.N. documents, including the International 

122 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and then they use the language of rights and they totally co-opt it while they repress their 

own society. 

Liu Xiaobo, who was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his 

long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in 

China, continues to remain incarcerated, having served 11 years in 

prison, for simply signing a document calling for democracy in 

China. 

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I chaired a hearing on the plight of 

Chinese activist lawyer Chen Guancheng and his wife Yuan 

Weijing, who since 2005 have been subjected to beatings. Their 6- 

year-old daughter is in their house under house arrest. And they 

pummel this man and his wife. We don’t even know if he is dead 

or alive. And this man stood up for the women in Linyi city 

through a class action lawsuit—unbelievable bravery—who had 

been forced into abortion. 

I finally say, because I know my time is running out, that in 

2004 and again in 2006, Mr. Chairman, I authored the Belarus Democracy Act, which this language very closely parallels. And while 

it didn’t say absolutely, ‘‘Create a list, Mr. President,’’ President 

Bush did faithfully, as a result of the language in the bill which 

calls for denial of entry in the U.S. of senior leadership of the Government of Belarus, a list of about 200 people, egregious violators 

of human rights. And it has been paralleled by our friends in the 

European Union, who now have a list just like ours, almost identical names. And that has very much targeted and, in a calibrated 

way, said, let’s target the abusers. And we won’t allow them to 

come to the United States, and we will hold them to account in any 

way we can. This is but one more tool in that effort. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full statement be 

made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

123 


Smith-1.eps
124 


Smith-2.eps
125 


Smith-3.eps
126 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman has expired. And, yes, 

as I said earlier, your entire statement will be made a part of the 

record of the hearing. 

Ms. Chai? 

TESTIMONY OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED 

Ms. CHAI. Well, thank you, Chairman and Chairman Lamar 

Smith and Congresswoman Lofgren. And I thank you for all the 

other Members of the Committee and for giving us this great opportunity to testify in front of you to really push forward H.R. 

2121, the ‘‘China Democracy Promotion Act.’’ 


Smith-4.eps
127 

I believe the reason why I am standing here supporting this bill 

is, first of all, this is a historical step to reverse the previous 22- 

year-long U.S.-China relationship that had led China’s human 

rights conditions to continue deteriorating and to massive crimes, 

which I will explain later. And the second reason why I am supporting this bill is because it can work. The third thing I believe 

is because this is the right thing to do to both help China and also 

defend the value and liberty of the United States. 

I am especially honored to be testifying alongside with Chairman 

Smith, for he is our hero and the true force of America. And he has 

been fighting against China’s cruel and inhumane one-child policy 

since it was first put into action in 1980—before many of us, the 

native Chinese, have ever realized how gruesome and brutal this 

policy has been for women and mothers. 

I look forward for the day, Chairman Smith, Chris Smith and 

Lamar Smith, and Chairman—I hope I can pronounce your name— 

Gallegly and Congresswoman Lofgren, that we can all, together, 

put this really dark and bloody period of China’s history into the 

history book so it may never happen again. 

Twenty-two years ago, I was at Tiananmen Square on June 4th 

morning when the tanks and troops moved in. I remember at that 

time we stayed until 6 a.m., because rumor was telling us if we 

stayed there until the last hour—that is, 6 a.m.—somehow the 

United States leadership would come intervene to stop China’s 

leadership’s brutality. But it did not happen. 

I came to America. Finally, I met with Ambassador Lilly, who 

passed away I think last year. And I asked him why; was that 

rumor true? And he said, no, it was not true at all. I said, why 

don’t they do something? He said, because they don’t care. And I 

was very disappointed. 

Later on, I read his memoir, a really moving memoir, ‘‘China 

Hand.’’ I realized in 1988 when South Korea was facing the same 

kind of confrontation between the dictatorship versus, you know, 

dissidents, President Reagan sent a very stern letter to warn the 

leaders and dictators of South Korean leaders, and Ambassador 

Lilly was able to hand-deliver that letter. That action changed the 

history of South Korea, and it led to the dictator to give amnesty 

to all the dissidents and eventually led to South Koreas’ freedom 

and democracy. 

I believe had the United States leadership acted that day, on the 

night of June 4th, and we would have a different China, different 

U.S. relationship today. But it is not too late to act, 22 years later. 

However, after 22 years, now we are looking back, the massive 

crime that has been committed under the current U.S.-China, you 

know, ‘‘tolerate policy’’ of putting profit, business security above the 

basic human rights. And it allows China’s government to repeat 

the Tiananmen massacre every hour. Under the one-child policy, 

every day there are 35,000 forced and coerced abortions taking 

place. Every day there are 500 women committing suicide. For 

every sixth girl that is scheduled to be born, the number-six girl 

will be killed, the number-six boy will never find a wife. So, all together, in the past 30 years, more than 400 million lives have been 

taken. 

128 

Later, I would like to show the real examples of all the faces and 

the cries of these victims in PowerPoint. 

And I believe why this bill can work is because it worked before. 

In the past, in Burma, when in 2008 Congress passed the Tom 

Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s Anti-Democratic Efforts) to 

close a loophole in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. Together, that act calls for accountability for those who are responsible for human rights violations and it enforces visa bans for certain junta leaders. This extends to the immediate family members, 

as well. 

According to reliable resources, when entering negotiations, a 

visa ban may become a powerful bargaining chip. The first thing 

the leaders requested when asked to release the Nobel Peace Prize 

winner Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, for the visa ban to 

be lifted. That is what they really care about. So does the same 

thing, and the Chinese leader will care. Today, in 2010, there are 

over 128,000 Chinese students studying in America. Every single 

Chinese leader and bureaucrat wants their children to be in America, and they want their assets to be stored and preserved and invested in America. And they cannot enjoy this privilege if they continue to brutalize their very own people. 

And I believe this is the right thing to do for America because 

in many buildings they state, you know, ‘‘In God We Trust.’’ And 

I remember, I was so struck when I first came to America in 1990 

to testify in Congress. And it took me many years in America to 

try to understand what they really mean, until I finally came to 

Jesus one day 2 years ago. And now I know what it means. 

So I want to quote a story from the Bible from the Old Testament. When Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, God said in 

Numbers, Chapter 12, ‘‘My servant Moses, of all my houses, he is 

the one I trust. So why were you free to criticize my servant 

Moses?’’ Then God punished Miriam and Aaron for their transgressions against God’s chosen servant. 

What I meant to say in that story is if you truly trust God, if 

we truly trust his promise, the surprising answer, what is the cost 

of the consequence for the U.S. Stand up against the human rights 

abuses in China? The answer is, the cost of doing nothing, the cost 

of repeating what we have been doing in the past 28 years will be 

much higher than standing up to doing the right thing, the Godly 

thing, and the righteous thing. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I am going to have to stop you there. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. I thank you for the time. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The full statement will be a part of the record of 

the hearing, and I thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. CHAI. I would also like to include—this is the 350 names, 

and addresses of the forced-abortion one-child policy policymakers 

and enforcers. We would like this to be the beginning of those—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection—— 

Ms. CHAI [continuing]. Names to be entered into the record—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY [continuing]. That will be added to the record of 

the hearing. 

Ms. CHAI [continuing]. And also the pictures of the stories of all 

these, you know, one-child policy victims entered into the record, 

too. 

129 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That document will be added to the record, without objection. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai follows:] 


Ling-1.eps
130 


Ling-2.eps
131 


Ling-3.eps
132 


Ling-4.eps
133 


Ling-5.eps
134 


Ling-6.eps
135 

ATTACHMENT 1 


71055B-1.eps
136 


71055B-2.eps
137 


71055B-3.eps
138 


71055B-4.eps
139 


71055B-5.eps
140 


71055B-6.eps
141 


71055B-7.eps
142 


71055B-8.eps
143 


71055B-9.eps
144 


71055B-10.eps
145 


71055B-11.eps
146 


71055B-12.eps
147 


71055B-13.eps
148 


71055B-14.eps
149 


71055B-15.eps
150 


71055B-16.eps
151 


71055B-17.eps
152 


71055B-18.eps
153 


71055B-19.eps
154 


71055B-20.eps
155 


71055B-21.eps
156 


71055B-22.eps
157 


71055B-23.eps
158 


71055B-24.eps
159 


71055B-25.eps
160 


71055B-26.eps
161 


71055B-27.eps
162 


71055B-28.eps
163 


71055B-29.eps
164 


71055B-30.eps
165 


71055B-31.eps
166 


71055B-32.eps
167 

ATTACHMENT 2 


71055C-1.eps
168 


71055C-2.eps
169 


71055C-3.eps
170 


71055C-4.eps
171 


71055C-5.eps
172 


71055C-6.eps
173 


71055C-7.eps
174 


71055C-8.eps
175 


71055C-9.eps
176 


71055C-10.eps
177 


71055C-11.eps
178 


71055C-12.eps
179 


71055C-13.eps
180 


71055C-14.eps
181 


71055C-15.eps
182 


71055C-16.eps
183 


71055C-17.eps
184 


71055C-18.eps
185 


71055C-19.eps
186 


71055C-20.eps
187 


71055C-21.eps
188 


71055C-22.eps
189 


71055C-23.eps
190 


71055C-24.eps
191 


71055C-25.eps
192 


71055C-26.eps
193 


71055C-27.eps
194 


71055C-28.eps
195 


71055C-29.eps
196 


71055C-30.eps
197 


71055C-31.eps
198 


71055C-32.eps
199 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Wasem? 

TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, Ph.D., CONGRESSIONAL 

RESEARCH SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. WASEM. Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to 

be testifying before you this afternoon on behalf of the Congressional Research Service. 

As a backdrop to this afternoon’s discussion of China Democracy 

Promotion Act, my testimony provides summaries of two subVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Jan 04, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\110211\71055.000 HJUD1 PsN: 71055

71055C-33.eps
200 

sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act: section 212(a) on 

the grounds of inadmissibility; and section 212(f), which authorizes 

the President to bar the entry of foreign nationals he deems detrimental to the United States. 

These subsections of current law may be considered comparable 

to provisions in H.R. 2121. This legislation states, as we have already heard, that the President may exercise the authority under 

212(f) to deny the entry into the United States of foreign nationals 

from the People’s Republic of China who engage in human rights 

violations and other specific acts. 

To gain admission to the United States, foreign nationals must 

first meet a set of criteria specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act that determine whether they are eligible. Conversely, foreign nationals also must not be deemed inadmissible according to 

other specified grounds in the Immigration Act. The Bureau of 

Consular Affairs in the Department of State is the agency responsible for issuing visas. All foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo inadmissibility reviews performed by the Department of 

State consular offices. 

Section 212(a), now, that is where the grounds of inadmissibility 

are spelled out in the Immigration Act. These criteria include 

health-related grounds, criminal history, national security violations. The provisions that discuss the criminal and national security grounds are particularly germane to today’s hearing. 

Among those foreign nationals who are deemed inadmissible 

under current law are: foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom; foreign 

nationals who have committed, conspired to commit, or aided in 

human trafficking; foreign nationals who ordered, incited, assisted, 

or otherwise participated in genocide; and foreign nationals who 

have committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing. 

Furthermore, the 2002 Consolidated Appropriations Act included 

a provision that deems inadmissible any foreign national that has 

been directly involved in the enforcement of population-control policies, forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free 

choice, or forcing a man to undergo sterilization against his—or a 

woman to undergo sterilization against his or her freewill. 

The law does provide exceptions for foreign nationals who are 

heads of state or cabinet-level ministers and is subject to a waiver 

if the Secretary of State determines that it is important to national 

interest. The Secretary of State would provide a written notification to the appropriate congressional Committees. 

Secondly, I am going to talk about 212(f), and that is the suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions. In addition to 212(a), 

which we just discussed, the Immigration Act gives the President 

authority to bar the entry of foreign nationals he deems detrimental to the United States. This broad authority states, ‘‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class 

of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the United 

States, he may, by proclamation and for such period as shall be 

deemed necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens of any class of 

201 

aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose upon the entry 

of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.’’ 

In August of this year, the President issued Proclamation 8697, 

which bars the admission of any foreign national who planned, 

order, assisted, committed, or otherwise participated in widespread 

or systematic violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or 

other serious violations of human rights against a civilian population. 

Of the 212(f) proclamations currently in effect, most are directed 

at foreign nationals from specific countries or regions. These countries currently in effect include Belarus, Bosnia, Burma, Cuba, 

Haiti, Nicaragua, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, 

the Western Balkans, and Zimbabwe. 

This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:] 

202 


Wasem-1.eps
203 


Wasem-2.eps
204 


Wasem-3.eps
205 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Wasem. 

Chris, how successful is the visa restrictions with regard to 

Burma? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. It has been successful, although 

Burma is very, very heavily isolated by the junta itself. But it has 


Wasem-4.eps
206 

been part of a multifaceted set of sanctions imposed upon it by succeeding Administrations, Republican and Democrat. So there aren’t 

many Burmese officials from Rangoon or anywhere else in Burma 

seeking to come here. That is precisely the opposite situation with 

regards to China and, as was proven, with Belarus. 

I met with Alexander Lukashenko 2 years ago with 10 other 

Members of Congress and 1 Senator. Lukashenko looked at me and 

said—he is the dictator in Belarus, of course—and said, ‘‘You are 

public enemy number one,’’ because of the Belarus Democracy Act 

and because he and his senior leadership are precluded visas to 

come here. And it has had an impact. And the fact that our European partners joined in and, likewise, promulgated a list to prevent, you know, the issuance of a visa has further isolated that last 

dictatorship in Europe. 

If you look at the language of the Belarus Democracy Act, it mirrors what we put into this bill. This bill is a blueprint. I even cite 

in the Belarus Democracy Act section 212(f), as my good friend Dr. 

Wasem pointed out. I mean, these authorities exist, but they are 

dormant, they are on a shelf. And what we found with the Belarus 

Democracy Act, President Bush took that, and it animated what 

our policy became—some of it mandatory, some of it not. And this 

is a blueprint for action; that is what we have before the Committee. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I have a very limited amount of time, so if everybody could make an effort to give me succinct answers, I would appreciate it. 

In relating to H.R. 2121, the current law, of course, already provides the authority to deny visas on human rights abusers and specifically with the issue of forced abortions. Can you explain why 

there is a need for 2121 if, in fact, what I have said is correct? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Excellent question, Mr. Chairman. 

We add additional provisions that, again, we derived from the 

Belarus Democracy Act: immediate family members; we added a 

new ‘‘derived significant financial benefits from’’ human rights 

abuse. 

I held a series of hearings, 31 to date, on human rights in China 

as Chairman of the Human Rights Committee for Foreign Affairs 

over the course of many years. At one of those hearings, we had 

members, Harry Wu and many others, who had been tortured in 

the Laogai; Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk; a woman, Catherine 

Ho, very courageous woman. And they brought in the implements 

used to torture. Well, this law would say and underscore that, at 

a minimum, people who manufacture those kinds of implements, 

made indigenously in China, should not be given visas. So it will 

require, or, at least, we hope it will inspire—better word—a list. 

Right now, 10 years later—and, again, Mr. Chairman, as I said 

in my testimony, I wrote section 801, denial of entry. And, unfortunately, under President Bush and under Obama, nothing, nada, not 

a single person that I know of. And part of the reason might be 

we said ‘‘directly involved.’’ The Chinese government goes into overdrive to deny, as does the U.N. Population Fund and all the cheerleaders for that horrific program, to say there is no coercion. And 

then our government says, ‘‘Well, we asked, and they said they 

weren’t involved.’’ 

207 

We need to be much more focused on a human rights policy that 

says, we are going to look at the facts on the ground. If you are 

involved with this, if you are censoring the Internet, if you are 

doing this or that, you can’t get a visa to come to the United 

States. So this is a blueprint for action. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks. 

My time is getting short, so I would just like to ask Ms. Chai, 

what is your assessment of how the Chinese government would respond to us enacting H.R. 2121? How would you define and what 

would you expect for us to be prepared to deal with from the Chinese government? 

Ms. CHAI. The Chinese government, to me, would be very upset. 

This is something that goes into their heart because every one of 

them want their children and their grandchildren and their relatives to be here. And the senior leaders might be already taken 

care of; they may already become U.S. citizens. It is the middle 

level. 

And, for example, there might be between 350,000 to 850,000, 

one-child policy family-planning committee people. Those people 

will continue to attempt to send their children to America, their 

wives to America. They will not like it. This mess would get into 

their attention, will give them pause of what are they doing, and 

realize we are watching, and they must stop what they are doing. 

I think this message if it gets into China would inspire many 

people to come over, volunteer to help. When the criminals list is 

put forth on the Internet in a central place, I think it will be very 

effective. 

And I think the United States should stand firm. When you do 

act righteous and act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with the 

Lord our God, that God will be our protector and our shield. And 

just stand firm. We will be okay. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Dr. Wasem, if I am hearing you correctly, the only 

substantive change this would make to existing law would be to include senior government officials and their families whether or not 

you could prove up that they actively did the human rights abuse 

themselves. 

Ms. WASEM. I wouldn’t necessarily say the ‘‘only,’’ but that is the 

major—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The major issue. 

Ms. WASEM [continuing]. Broadening of it, yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Now, have we included the families of individuals in the past when we have utilized barring, you know, visas 

as a diplomatic tool? 

Ms. WASEM. I know, in current law, some of the bars, if you have 

already—if you have gained financially from the activities, particularly if you look at the human trafficking and some of the drug—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Ms. WASEM [continuing]. Provisions, that if you are an adult 

child or a spouse, you are included if it appears that you have 

gained. That is the main thing I am aware of. But in the broader 

sense—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. What if you were a minor child? What if you are, 

you know, the 14-year-old of a—— 

208 

Ms. WASEM. That I am not aware. But I could get back to you 

on it if you want me to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just be interested. 

And, Chris, listening to you—I am sorry, Congressman Smith— 

it seems that, if I am hearing you correctly, one of the major benefits of this legislation would be to really incent the Administration 

to create a list. Because they have a lot of this authority already 

in existing law, but it hasn’t been used by two Administrations of 

different parties. Is that about right? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Part of it is out of frustration, Zoe— 

Ms. Lofgren—to the fact that, you know, we have had this for 10 

years, we have had other existing authorities—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [continuing]. And there has been—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. And they are never used. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. They haven’t done a thing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yeah. Yeah. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And I raise issues of this kind. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. There are other issues, like the 

memorandum of understanding on Gulag labor. It is Swiss cheese; 

it is not implemented. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. This is one area where we could 

make a huge difference. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yeah, because it will force them to make the list. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Belarus Democracy Act specifically had the family members included, as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have another question, which—you referenced 

the Burma situation and the fact that we had gotten collaboration 

from our European allies. I don’t think we are going to get that 

kind of collaboration with China because—well, maybe I would be 

wrong, but my guess is not. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You know, I actually was one of the 

few who voted for sanctions against South Africa in the early 

1980’s. And part of the argument there was, the Europeans are 

doing it, why aren’t we doing it? And, of course, I think it was the 

right policy. But just because some other nation refuses to go 

along, I mean—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, no, I am not suggesting that it should keep 

us from doing what we think is right. I am just asking about how 

effective it will be. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I think that it would be very effective 

because we are a prime destination for high officials in the Chinese 

government. And there are many middle officials, there are many 

people in the security apparatus, which we referenced, who are torturers. 

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special rapporteur for torture, did a 

scathing report on torture in the PRC, which is now blocked, by the 

way, on their Internet. You can get all of the alleged abuses in 

Guantanamo but nothing about what is going—he wrote one about 

there, too, and he wrote one about the People’s Republic of China. 

I read his report. Very, very good U.N. diplomat. People do those 

209 

tortures, and they hop on a plane, they come to New York, they 

come to Washington. 

This would hopefully incentivize the Administration to begin 

chronicling, putting together a list, who are the abusers. And, as 

Chai Ling said, she already has a number of abusers that would 

be a good starting point for the Administration. Right now, there 

is nothing of this kind, to the best of my knowledge, going on. If 

anything, we are enabling those people, ‘‘Come on over.’’ Well, you 

know, any modest sanction we can impose on a gross abuser of 

human rights, we ought do it. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you for answering my questions. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Gowdy? 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Chai, I want to use my time to give you the opportunity to 

give voice to the women and girls of China whose voices we haven’t 

heard, or if we have heard—we have sent messages from this government—and I will allow that sometimes people commit verbal 

non sequiturs or verbal gaffes, but to say that we are not going to 

second-judge China’s one-child policy or to say that we fully understand it, I don’t understand it at all. 

So I want you to give voice to the women and girls of China who 

have suffered under this policy. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you, Congressman Gowdy. Your voice and your 

support almost brought me to tears. So I would love to take the opportunity you give to me and the honor you give to me to speak 

of those women and the mothers and fathers who cannot be here. 

With your permission, I would like to be able to show the 

PowerPoint—you showed it earlier? Okay, they are going to drive 

it, control it. 

I just want to answer, Congresswoman Lofgren, your message 

earlier. Just imagine, the incoming Chinese President in 2012—his 

daughter is studying at Harvard. And imagine the impact if the 

next Chinese President will continue to tolerate this one-child policy. What might be the impact if this bill, H.R. 2121, is able to pass 

before that time? What might be the implication? 

This would definitely be the most defining moment in the U.S.- 

China relationship, with this bill. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If the gentleman would yield for a follow-up on 

that point since it was directed to me? 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Here is the question, and it is really not the intention, but, as you are saying that, I am thinking, ‘‘Well, then, does 

she go to Oxford instead?’’ You know, which goes to my question 

to Chris on how do we get kind of a worldwide collaboration on putting the pressure up. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Even the worst abusers of human 

rights in Africa, China, North Korea—maybe not so much in North 

Korea—even people like Joseph Kony and Bashir in Sudan don’t 

want to be on a list, don’t want to be indicted. They seem impervious to any kind of criticism. And it seems to me that this is a 

modest step to say that if you abuse people, we are going to be promulgating lists, we are going to be following who you are, and you 

are not welcomed here. 

210 

You know, Chai Ling, hero of the Tiananmen Square student 

movement, suffered immensely, thankfully got out. She has led an 

effort to say, what about the gendercide? Ten years ago, the U.S. 

Department of State had a report in the Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices that said as many as 100 million girls are 

missing in China. 

I just had a hearing on the one-child-per-couple policy, and Chai 

Ling and several other very distinguished witnesses presented. And 

the point was made that between 40 million and 50 million, now, 

men won’t find wives by 2020 because they have been systematically exterminated through sex-selection abortion. 

This is the worst crime of gender ever, and it is being done by 

people. Well, let’s focus on who those people are, create lists of who 

is doing not just forced abortion and forced sterilization, forced IUD 

insertion and all the other terrible abuses, but let’s also look at the 

other human rights abuses, which we do here, and let’s finally do 

something. Ten years since I got that law passed, not a thing. 

And Chai Ling has been so brave for all these years, raising 

these issues. And it is about time we had—oh, like she has, 300 

people who are intimately involved with this—you know, at the 

Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was construed to 

be a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime against humanity. The Nazis did it, you know, a smaller number, and now we 

have a situation here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t disagree with that. It is a question of efficacy. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. So let’s cease political cover—— 

Ms. CHAI. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. GOWDY. I think we only have about a minute, and I—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given an additional minute since he was—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. There is a conference that was 

just called, so. 

Ms. CHAI. Okay. Thank you very much. 

If could you roll the PowerPoint, I would really appreciate it. 

And so we prepared pictures that could basically share the cases 

of these people. This is Chen Guancheng, the blind attorney. Chairman Smith had held a press conference yesterday. He was exposing 

130,000 cases in 2005 of forced abortion and forced sterilizations in 

Linyi, he was imprisoned for 4 years and 3 months. He has been 

beaten consistently ever since he was released to house arrest in 

September. We listened in detail about how he was beaten for 4 

hours nonstop in front of his child. 

If you can go to the next page, this is a woman, Wan Li Ping, 

and she was 23. She was not married and got pregnant. They 

found her, dragged her into forced-abortion clinic and injected poison into the baby. The baby was killed, and they dumped this baby 

in a plastic bag in front of her bed and asked her to pay the money 

for the operation. She didn’t have the money, and therefore the 

baby was dumped in front of her. They killed both her baby and 

her hope, and they want her to pay for the procedure. 

The next page is—and every day the 70 percent of the women 

who are going through forced and coerced abortions are single 

211 

women because they are not allowed to have children, they don’t 

have marriage certificates, therefore they don’t have a birth permit. 

This woman, Ms. Chen, she is still in fear. She lives in New York 

now. She had two daughters, and the family-planning committee 

went to her home, saying, ‘‘You are over quota. You have two options: be forcibly sterilized or give up one of your babies.’’ And because of gendercide, her family, her in-laws still want her to try to 

give birth to a baby boy. She hesitated, and the baby girl was kidnapped. We don’t know where that is. And her husband had a mental breakdown after that incident. 

Mr. GOWDY. Ms. Chai, the Chairman has been very, very gracious to me, and I don’t want to take advantage of his generosity. 

But it is unimpeachable that the suicide rate among women in 

China is higher, that the ratio of females to males is completely out 

of balance, that the orphanages are full of girls—not boys, but girls. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren, for giving me extra time. 

And I thank you for being here as the face of those who don’t 

have a voice in China, because it is a travesty and it is immoral. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would just like to say to Ms. Chai that the fact 

that we don’t have a large group of folks here today is not an indication of their lack of sensitivity or a lack of concern for this travesty that most of us are aware of, certainly not to the degree that 

you are or Chris is, but you can be assured that your testimony 

today is not taken lightly as a result of the fact of lack of participation. But there are so many things going on here. 

I want to make sure that you are aware that, again, all the testimony that you have, whether you have formally presented it or you 

have it there in writing, will be made a part of record of the hearing so that we will all have an ability to look at that and also the 

pictures that you have brought along. For those that are not here, 

they will be available to them as well as us. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you very much. I am grateful. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But because of time constraints that we have, I 

am going to have to call the time on the hearing. 

And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward to you for your response, and hope 

that we will have a timely response to the questions that will be 

made a part of the record of the hearing. 

And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And, with that, I thank you for being here today. 

And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ