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

68–446PDF 2011

CHINA’S ONE–CHILD POLICY: THE GOVERNMENT’S

MASSIVE CRIME AGAINST WOMEN AND

UNBORN BABIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

Serial No. 112–105

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Ji Yequig, victim of forced abortion ................................................................ 5

Ms. Liu Ping, victim of forced abortion .................................................................. 11

Valerie Hudson, Ph.D, professor, Department of Political Science, Brigham 

Young University ................................................................................................. 18

Ms. Chai Ling, founder, All Girls Allowed ............................................................ 35

Ms. Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers ....................................................................................................................... 42

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Ji Yequig: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 8

Ms. Liu Ping: Prepared statement ......................................................................... 15

Valerie Hudson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ......................................................... 22

Ms. Chai Ling: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 39

Ms. Reggie Littlejohn: Prepared statement ........................................................... 46

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 68

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 69

Ms. Reggie Littlejohn: Women’s Rights Without Frontiers report ...................... 70

(1)

CHINA’S ONE–CHILD POLICY: THE GOVERNMENT’S MASSIVE CRIME AGAINST WOMEN 

AND UNBORN BABIES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. And we are 

awaiting the arrival of my distinguished colleague Don Payne, who 

will be here shortly, as well as our other members, who will be 

here shortly as well. 

I want to thank you for coming to this extremely important hearing as we examine the consequences of some 33 years of China’s 

implementation of this one-child-per-couple policy. China’s onechild policy is state-sponsored cruelty and constitutes massive 

crimes against humanity. Indeed, the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes 

tribunal properly construed forced abortion as a crime against humanity. 

Nothing in human history compares to the magnitude of China’s 

33-year assault on women and children. Today in China, rather 

than being given maternal care, pregnant women, without birth-allowed permits, are hunted down and forcibly aborted. They are 

mocked, belittled, and humiliated. There are no single moms in 

China, except those who somehow evade the family planning cadres and conceal their pregnancy. For over three decades, brothers 

and sisters have been illegal; a mother has absolutely no right to 

protect her unborn baby from state-sponsored violence. 

Over the years, I have chaired 29 congressional human rights 

hearings focused in whole or in part on China’s one-child-per-couple policy. At one, the principal witness, Wuijan, a Chinese student 

attending a U.S. university, testified how her child was forcibly 

murdered by the government. She said, and I quote, in part, ‘‘The 

room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some 

moms were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with 

unbearable pain.’’ Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through 

her tears she described what she called her ‘‘journey in hell.’’

2

We will be hearing the testimony of other victims of forced abortion today, and we are extremely grateful to them for joining us. 

Not only does it take a great deal of courage to share what must 

be one of the most painful experiences of their lives, but they are 

also speaking truth to power, a Chinese Government that may well 

retaliate not only against them, if given the opportunity, but also 

against family members who may still be in China. Again, we 

thank them for sharing their very, very sad and tragic stories. 

Women bear the major brunt of the one-child policy not only as 

mothers. Due to male preference in China’s society and the limitation on the family size to one child, the policy has directly contributed to what is accurately described as gendercide, the deliberate 

extermination of a girl, born or unborn, simply because she happens to be female. 

As a result of the Chinese Government’s barbaric attack on 

mothers and their children, the U.S. State Department estimated 

a full 10 years ago that there may be 100 million more males than 

females in China today. It has been noted that the three most dangerous words in China are ‘‘It’s a girl.’’

In July, I offered an amendment demanding the release and an 

end to the torture of the Chinese defense attorney Chen 

Guangcheng, who bravely defended forced abortion victims in 

China. Both Chen and his wife Yuan Weijing are at risk of dying 

from repeated beatings by the Chinese secret police and refused access to critically needed medical care. 

In the latter part of August when Vice President Joe Biden visited China, he stated that he ‘‘fully understood’’ the one-child policy, and that he is not ‘‘second-guessing’’ it. His words. Can you 

imagine what the public reaction would be if the Vice President of 

the United States said that he fully understands and is not secondguessing copyright infringement or gross violations of intellectual 

property rights? When it comes to things, when it comes to products, there would be a huge cry from the United States if the Vice 

President were to say that he fully understands that kind of violation of rights. Not so when it comes to women who are being degraded and humiliated, and their children destroyed, and their 

lives destroyed. 

It is worth noting that the World Health Organization suggested 

there are some 500 women per day—not per week, per month, but 

per day—who commit suicide. Attributable—we don’t know what to 

extent—but clearly by the anecdotal information—in large part to 

the terrible deprivations that are imposed on them through forced 

abortion, of having their children literally stolen from them and 

then killed by the state. 

The one-child-per-couple policy is the most egregious systematic 

attack on mothers ever. For my Vice President to publicly state 

that he fully understands the one-child policy and then say he 

won’t second-guess it is unconscionable and sells out every mom in 

the PRC who has suffered from this abuse. Instead of defending 

the one-child policy, Vice President Biden should have asked for 

the release of Chen and his wife Yuan, or at least made a formal 

request to see them. 

Although Vice President Biden attempted to backtrack on his extraordinarily callous comment about the policy, his record in the 

3

U.S. Senate shines a spotlight on his long-held disregard for the severity of this human rights violation. On September 13, 2000, he 

joined 52 other Senators in defeating an amendment by then-Senator Jesse Helms condemning the one-child policy. I would note 

parenthetically that 15 years before, I offered a very similar 

amendment. It passed unanimously in the House. It didn’t pass in 

the Senate. And then-Senator Biden reportedly blocked it because 

he was concerned that condemning China on fundamental human 

rights would interfere with the normalization of trade relations. 

I would note parenthetically that when President Clinton linked 

human rights, including the issue of forced abortion, in 1993 as a 

condition of Most Favored Nation status. I was at the lead of the 

pack defending the President, a Democrat President, for listing 

human rights and linking it to our trading policy with the PRC. 

Sadly, on May 26, 1994, he delinked those human rights on a Friday afternoon, and only David Bonior, Nancy Pelosi—not yet 

Speaker—and I held press conferences saying, how could you 

delink human rights and throw the people of China, who aspire to 

freedom and democracy and human rights, under the bus? 

I invited the Vice President to join us at this hearing to explain 

his full understanding of the one-child policy. I have been informed 

that he is not in DC today and could not attend. Given the grave 

importance of this issue and literally millions of lives at stake, I 

extend to the Vice President an open invitation to testify at a hearing at his convenience to share his ‘‘understanding’’ with the subcommittee and what actions, if any, the Obama administration will 

take in ending this barbaric policy. 

I would note that he was the chairman of the Foreign Relations 

Committee—and I have served with him for years. Our careers 

have coincided. I offered the first amendment ever on the forced 

abortion policy back on May 9, 1984, and filled the record with documentation, much of it Chinese documentation, some of it from the 

Frontline and 60 Minutes pieces that were done, some that were 

in the Washington Post. There is no doubt that we knew even then 

how horrific this policy was. Unfortunately, he says that he fully 

understands this and is not going to second-guess it. 

I also asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing on 

March 1 of this year whether or not she or President Obama raised 

the issue of coerced abortion and gendercide in China directly in 

the face-to-face meeting with Hu Jintao when he was here in 

Washington. Chai Ling and Reggie Littlejohn will remember because we held a press conference imploring, pleading with the 

President to raise this issue in his face-to-face meetings and in any 

press conference which he had later on that week with Hu Jintao. 

Not a word, not a word was uttered in a state dinner; instead lavishing praise was heaped upon Hu Jintao, who oversees a gulag 

state. Not a word about any of this. Secretary Clinton said she 

didn’t know; she refused to answer the question, but would get 

back to us. We are still waiting. That was March 1. We still have 

not heard a word about whether or not the President raised this. 

Democrat or Republican, I don’t care who is in the White House, 

we have a duty, I believe, to raise human rights with dictatorship 

and not lose that opportunity. 

4

I read the People’s Daily the day after Hu Jintao was at the 

White House. It was filled with praise from the U.S. President, 

filled with praise from the U.S. Government about Hu Jintao’s dictatorship. So they certainly were not held to account in any way, 

shape, or form. 

Not only is the current administration turning a blind eye to the 

atrocities being committed under the one-child-per-couple policy, 

but it has even contributed financial support, contrary to U.S. law, 

through the UNFPA. As I said 27 years ago, on May 9, 1984, I offered the first foreign aid amendment to deny funding to any organization—I don’t care who it is—that in any way supports or comanages a coercive population-control program. Voluntary, yes, but 

not involuntary, not coercive. And unfortunately we have not seen 

this administration step up to the plate. As a matter of fact, we 

have provided over $50 million per year to the UNFPA and nary 

a concern expressed about the women who are suffering. 

I asked Wei Jingsheng, the father of the democracy movement, 

at a hearing like this, after he got out of prison, what he thought 

about the UNFPA’s complicity in forced abortion in China, and he 

said it was an abomination and went on and on to say that to have 

the U.N. working hand in glove with the state family planning cadres in oppressing women is unthinkable, and yet it is the reality. 

I would point out that in June 2008, Deputy Secretary of State 

John Negroponte notified Congress under the previous administration, that the UNFPA was denied funding because—and he said 

this—because it provided financial and technical resources through 

its sixth cycle China Country Program to the National Population 

and Family Planning Commission and related agencies. He also 

pointed out that the UNFPA and all foreign organizations operating there fully comply, adhere to Chinese law. So they follow 

what is prescribed by the State Family Planning Council and then 

adhere to it and implement that very policy that so injures and 

hurts women. 

On one of my several trips to Beijing, I challenged Peng Peiyun, 

then China’s director of the nation’s population control program, to 

end the coercion, and we had a very robust debate. Madam Peng 

told me that the UNFPA was very supportive of the one-child-percouple policy and repeatedly said that they say there is no coercion. 

So how could I be raising the issue when this organization had so 

whitewashed and presented for all comers and all critics that it is 

a totally voluntary program? As a matter of fact, for 30 years, 

UNFPA has heaped praise on China’s program, again, to the detriment of the women who have suffered so egregiously. 

I also am concerned—and I will conclude with this and then go 

to our very distinguished witnesses who are here today—that the 

program of China is also being exported. There was a group of subSaharan African health ministers invited a couple years ago to 

learn the blessings of child limitation, China style. And even Paul 

Kagame of Rwanda has said he wants a three-child-per-couple policy so that they can reap the economic benefits that China has 

reaped. And unfortunately, you only get there through coercion. 

And I will say to our witnesses—and I am so grateful for them 

all being here—that your witness today—you know, I have read 

Bare Branches. I read it soon after it came out, Dr. Hudson, and 

5

it raised a whole new area that Congress needs and anyone of concern needs to take seriously about the consequences to the fabric 

of society in China, the gangs that are already forming but will 

only get worse as time goes on. Men will not be able to find wives. 

I know we have different estimates, no one knows for sure, but 

Chinese demographers suggests that by 2020, 40 million men will 

not be able to find wives. They have been exterminated through 

this anti-girl policy and anti-woman policy. And the impacts, even 

in a larger context, to nearby countries and really the world, is 

very, very significant in terms of potential war. And I know you 

make that point so clearly in the book. 

I would now turn to our witnesses, beginning first with Ms. Ji 

Yeqing, who was born in 1975, grew up in a small town outside of 

Shanghai. After completing high school, she worked in an automobile assembly plant. She married her husband in 1996 and had 

a daughter the following year. Her peaceful life, however, was shattered after two forced abortions in 2003 and 2006. Along with the 

implementation, involuntarily, of an IUD, these violations took a 

grave toll on her body and on her marriage, which ended in 2008. 

Ms. Ji escaped to the United States in October of last year and has 

since remarried and will tell her story in a moment. 

And then we will be hearing secondly, testifying under a pseudonym behind a closed area, and that will be Ms. Liu Ping, who 

was born in Tianjin, China, in 1958. Because of the Cultural Revolution, she was unable to finish school. She and her husband married in 1981, just after the one-child-per-couple policy began. As a 

worker in a textile factory, she was forced by the Family Planning 

Commission to undergo five abortions. She came to the U.S. in 

1999 and lives with her husband in New England. Ms. Liu has one 

son and also lives in the United States. Her dream is to finish her 

education and return to school. She is behind that barrier to prevent retaliation against her family in China. 

Ms. Ji, and then I will go to our other witnesses momentarily. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JI YEQUIG, VICTIM OF FORCED ABORTION 

[The statement and answers of Ms. Ji were delivered through an 

interpreter.] 

Ms. JI. Mr. Chairman Smith and honorable Members of Congress, my name is Ji Yeqing. I was born December 2, 1975, in 

Jiading, Shanghai. I married Liu Bin in Shanghai in October 1996. 

My daughter Liu Yiyang was born on September 7, 1997. After she 

was born, the family planning agencies ordered me to go to the hospital and have an IUD inserted into my uterus after I was done 

nursing my child. At that time, my husband and I both wanted another child. My in-laws also had a very strong bias against girls 

and urged us to have a son. As a result, I did not go to the hospital 

for the IUD. 

My husband and I decided then we would wait to have a second 

child until our daughter was old enough to attend kindergarten. I 

would then have time and energy to take care of the children. So 

I bought pills every month from the pharmacy for contraception. 

When the child was 4 and in kindergarten, we stopped the contraception. 

6

In June 2003, I discovered that I was pregnant again after a 

checkup at the only gynecologist clinic nearby, the Jiading District 

Women and Children’s Clinic. Both my husband and I were very 

happy. However, the clinic was in close cooperation with the Family Planning Commission of Xiaomiao Village, Jiading District of 

Shanghai, and reported my pregnancy. The day after my checkup 

at the clinic, Li Chunping of the Family Planning Commission and 

three other agents came to our home and told me that, according 

to China’s one-child policy, we could not have a second child. I was 

pregnant again. I had no choice but to undergo an abortion; otherwise, we would be sabotaging the family planning policy and breaking the law. Not only would we be fined 200,000 yuan, equivalent 

to $31,300, which was more than three times our combined annual 

income, but also, we would be fired from our jobs. We were very 

afraid at the time of losing our jobs. We could never acquire 

enough money to pay the exorbitant fines. 

Li then brought me to the same clinic to force an abortion. After 

that operation, they made me promise that I would have the IUD 

put in. I told them I would do it after my body recovered. Only 

then did they release me. 

But I never did get the IUD implemented because I was still very 

hesitant about the IUD procedure. I had heard it was very painful, 

and it could produce serious physical complications. So I continued 

taking contraceptive pills. My in-laws insisted that we try for another pregnancy. They also promised to give us money to pay for 

the fines. They wanted a grandson, even if it would cost 200,000 

yuan. 

My husband persuaded me to stop taking the pills in February 

2006. I was pregnant again in September of the same year. We 

were determined to have another child and prepared for the fines. 

After my checkup at the hospital, like the previous time, the Family Planning Commission learned of it the very next day. We had 

known of the close cooperation between the clinic and the local 

birth-planning agencies, so we expected this. But there was only 

one licensed hospital in that area, so we had no choice but to go 

there for checkups. 

Two days after my visit to the hospital, Li Chunping and five 

other agents came to our home to ask why I had not had the IUD 

inserted and why I had decided to get pregnant again. I told them 

that I wanted another child, and we were prepared to pay for the 

fine. Li stated that Chinese law decreed that the second child was 

forbidden. Even after it was born, the child could not be registered 

and would not be able to attend school. More than the fines, we 

would be fired from our jobs with a child that would never be registered by the census. But by this time, we were not afraid. We 

were willing to take the punishment of fines and losing our jobs. 

It wasn’t as important as for us to have our child again. 

Li then ordered the other agents to bring me to the hospital for 

a forced abortion. They surrounded us. Li and two others grabbed 

me by the arm and dragged me outside. Two others stopped my 

husband Liu Bin from rescuing me and started beating him. I 

begged them to spare us. We only wanted another baby. I never 

wanted to do anything evil. Why did they keep such a close watch 

over us? I also said we were willing and prepared to pay the fine. 

7

I kept begging them in tears, but it was no use. Then I threatened to take legal action, but Li replied that my pregnancy with 

the second child was illegal already, so reporting the case to the 

court would be useless. 

I could not free myself, although I struggled all the way. They 

dragged me down from the fourth floor into a waiting car and then 

drove me into Jiading Women and Children’s Clinic and pulled me 

directly into the operating room. Li held me down in the bed and 

sedated me. The abortion was performed while I was unconscious. 

When I came to, I was already in the recovery room outside the operating room. Doctors told me that they had inserted the IUD immediately after the abortion, and that I was responsible for the cost 

of the IUD procedure. So the IUD was installed inside me against 

my will while I was laying unconscious, completely unaware and 

unable to defend myself. 

After the abortion I felt empty, as if something was scooped out 

of me. My husband and I had been so excited for our new baby. 

Now suddenly all that hope and joy and excitement disappeared, 

all disappeared in one instant. I was very depressed and despondent. For a long time, whenever I thought about my lost child, I 

would cry. 

After the IUD insertion, my body continued to feel discomfort, 

frequently with back pain. I wanted the IUD taken out, but the 

hospital never allowed it. Removal of the IUD required a stamped 

permission from the Family Planning Commission. When I went to 

the Family Planning Commission, Li Chunping was very determined in her refusal. She said that physical reactions to the IUD 

were normal, and there was no need to panic. Removal of the IUD 

was impossible for me. 

After 2 years of living with that pain, my in-laws gave up hopes 

that they would have a grandson through me. They began pressuring my husband to divorce me. At that time my husband had 

also started to change. He frequently stayed away from home for 

several nights. When I tried to reason with him, he said that since 

I had not given him a son, he would find someone else who would. 

I felt desperate. I lost all hope and confidence in my marriage. At 

the end of 2008, in tears, I signed the divorce agreement Liu Bin 

handed to me. And so my first marriage ended after a great deal 

of suffering. 

I met my current husband Gong Xiaolin in 2009, married him in 

October 2010, and then came with him to the United States. We 

would love to have another child together. Upon arrival in the U.S., 

I went to a clinic to remove my IUD and to receive a gynecological 

exam. The doctor told me that I had cervical erosion, likely due to 

the poor medical conditions of my forced abortions. 

We realize how lucky we are to be in America where there is no 

fear of the Family Planning Commission, and women have the 

choice to keep their babies. Today I am able to tell my story for 

the first time. It is my prayer that the one-child policy will come 

to an end soon and set the Chinese people free from this awful oppression. Thank you very much for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ji follows:]

8


68446d-1.eps
9


68446d-2.eps
10


68446d-3.eps
11

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Ji, thank you very much for your very brave testimony to the subcommittee today. I wish everyone in America 

could hear what you just said. So thank you so very, very much. 

Mr. Fortenberry. Our vice chairman, Jeff Fortenberry, is here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ji, let me echo the sentiments of our chairman in expressing 

our heartfelt horror as to what has happened to you, but also a 

heartfelt embrace that you are now welcome in a country that is 

trying to struggle with this issue of respecting unborn human life. 

But at least we haven’t slipped into this barbaric practice of having 

families subjected to the strong arm of the government coming in 

and asking them how many children that they have; if they have 

more than one, saying that is more than one too many. 

I am deeply grieved by your story, and yet at the same time 

touched by your willingness to come here and share this with us. 

And I agree with the chairman. If you would indulge us further 

with your courage and continue to speak out boldly, you will greatly assist those of us who are trying to join in solidarity as a human 

family and say this type of barbaric practice must be stopped, it 

cannot exist in a world that is going to call itself civilized, and recognize the reality of the pain and difficulty it has caused on people 

like you. 

So I want to personally thank you for coming and saying this in 

a most courageous way, for your forthrightness, but also to give 

you a warm embrace as a new American in a country where we 

have the chance to stop this type of pernicious activity because of 

our beliefs in the rights and dignity of all. We are still living that 

out imperfectly in our own laws, yet at the same time we haven’t 

slipped this far. 

As I was listening to you, I turned my tie over just to see if it 

was made in China or not. And fortunately, it wasn’t. But I would 

recommend to all of you, the next time you pick something up to 

buy, look at where it is made. How are we indirectly perhaps cooperating in propping up a system that does this to its own people 

in the name of economic progress? Economic progress is about persons, not about regimes who are going to do this to the citizens of 

their own country. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interject what is more like an 

opening statement. And I am sorry to take away your time, the 

rest of the witnesses. But I was just simply compelled by Ms. Ji’s 

story and wanted to publicly thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chairman. 

We will now recognize Ms. Liu, who I said at the outset was compelled, was forced, was coerced into having five abortions. And for 

reasons of protecting her extended family in China, she is behind 

that barrier. 

Ms. Liu. 

STATEMENT OF MS. LIU PING, VICTIM OF FORCED ABORTION 

Ms. LIU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Congressman Fortenberry. I am really honored to be here to have the opportunity to testify today before Congress to expose to America and 

12

the world how the one-child policy in China destroys lives and the 

rights of women. 

My name is Liu Ping. I was born in 1958 in Tianjin, China, and 

arrived in the United States in 1999. Before coming to America, I 

worked in a state-owned textile factory in Tianjin. The majority of 

the workers in the factory were women, many of whom were also 

of reproductive age, so the family planning policy was implemented 

especially strictly. I am just one of those many, many women 

whose lives were destroyed by this policy. 

I married my husband in 1981. In September 1983, we gave 

birth to a boy. According to the policy at that time, a woman who 

gave birth was required to implement an IUD, or one of the 

spouses was required to undergo a sterilization operation. At that 

time I had swelling in my right kidney for undiagnosed reasons, so 

doctors refused to implement the IUD in me and recommended instead I use other methods for contraception. Without the IUD, I became a prime target for surveillance by the factory’s Family Planning Commission. 

From 1983 to 1990, because of the one-child policy, I had to undergo five forced abortions on the following dates: September 28, 

1984; December 17, 1985; March 20, 1986; May 5, 1989; and December 14, 1990. All the operations were recorded in my medical 

history. I suffered greatly at the hands of the inhumane one-child 

policy. 

In the 1980s, shortly after implementation of the one-child policy 

in China, there were many severe methods of surveillance and punishment to prevent unplanned pregnancies and above-quota births. 

My factory’s Family Planning Commission used three levels of control: At the factory level, in the factory clinic, and on the factory 

floor. There was a system of collective punishment. If one worker 

violated the rules, all workers would be punished. Workers monitored each other. Women of reproductive age can account for 60 

percent of my factory floor. Colleagues were suspicious and hostile 

to each other because of the one-child policy. Two of my pregnancies were reported by my colleagues to the Family Planning 

Commission. 

When discovered, pregnant women would be dragged to undergo 

forced abortions. There was simply no other choice. We had no dignity as potential child-bearers. By order of the factory’s Family 

Planning Commission, every month during our menstrual period, 

women had to undress in front of the birth-planning doctor for examination. If anyone escaped the examination, she would be forced 

to take a pregnancy test at the hospital. We were only allowed to 

collect a salary after it was confirmed that we were not pregnant. 

The day of my fifth and last abortion, December 14, 1990, was 

the saddest day of my life. Because I was not able to prove that 

I wasn’t pregnant within the 10- to 15-day period, the birth-planning doctor in the factory clinic found out about my pregnancy. 

That day officials from the factory’s Family Planning Commission 

forced me to be driven to the City Police Hospital and forced me 

to have an abortion in the birth-planning department. It was my 

first operation in that hospital. All my previous abortions took 

place in the Central City Hospital. 

13

I did not know what officials in my factory told the doctors. After 

the abortion, the doctors, without my knowledge, implanted a 

metal IUD in my body. When I learned of the procedure, I protested that I had a kidney disease and could not keep the IUD, but 

they completely ignored me. The doctor just gave the bill to my 

husband and told him to pay. While my husband argued with the 

doctors, I was recovering in the hospital bed. When I left the operating room, still weak, I could not find my husband. I was told that 

he was arrested. I collapsed crying from the physical toll of the two 

operations and the emotional shock. A kind nurse tried to comfort 

me somewhat, but she was shooed away by a man who also threatened to have me arrested by the police. 

By this time, the family planning officials who dragged me to the 

hospital were nowhere to be found. I felt alone, sick, and weak. 

Afterwards, I learned that my husband had been sentenced to 

criminal detention without a trial for violating and obstructing the 

one-child policy, disturbing the normal operations of the hospital, 

and disturbing social peace. Fifteen days later, my husband was finally released and returned home. 

I was in great pain from the medical IUD and the weakness of 

the abortion and almost did not want to live. The arrest of my husband deprived me of the care of my family. My young child did not 

know what was happening and kept crying for his father. I did not 

know what to do and could only hold my son and cry with him. 

Even now, when I think of all this, my heart still breaks, and 

I feel the pain all over again. Those painful 15 days of separation 

became the catalyst of my eventual failed marriage. My body suffered great damage from all those five forced abortions. I gradually 

grew afraid of family life with my husband. I tried to find excuses 

to refuse any intimacy demands from my husband. I grew to hate 

him after the IUD was inserted because I blamed my sufferings on 

him, on his unwillingness to be surgically sterilized. He had known 

of my kidney disease, but would not make any sacrifice for me, 

and, therefore, he didn’t love me. 

After the fifth abortion and the IUD insertion, my factory also 

gave me a serious administrative warning and fined me 6 months 

wages. Afterwards I had to go to the factory clinic every month for 

exams to make certain that I had not privately taken out the IUD 

nor became pregnant again. I carried this IUD in my body for over 

a decade before I finally came to America. 

My husband’s detention accelerated the demise of our marriage. 

He was suspended from his job and forced to write letters of regret, 

and then eventually fired from his job in 1991. Our family immediately sunk into financial difficulties. Arguments and fights became a common thing every day. I was laid off at the end of 1995. 

As I was still considered of reproductive age, the Family Planning Commission of my neighborhood committee took up the job of 

monitoring me. In early 1997, I spent 40 days taking care of my 

terminally ill and dying mother and missed the monthly pregnancy 

check. Agents from the Family Planning Commission waited at my 

home to drag me to the exam. When they pushed me to the ground, 

I fell and hurt my neck vertebrae. My spirit completely collapsed 

after this one. I attempted suicide, but was stopped by my family 

from jumping. 

14

With the help of old friends, in 1999, I escaped the country that 

humiliated me and tormented me and came to the free soil of 

America. My husband came to the U.S. a year later. We were unable to mend our past grievances and divorced in 2001. I became 

extremely depressed and suffered severe depression after the divorce, but at the suggestion of my friends, I started attending 

church, where I felt the warmth of Christ’s body. The Lord Jesus 

led me to give up the bitterness in my heart piece by piece. 

In 2009, my neck injury flared up again. My ex-husband came 

to take care of me and eventually joined with me. After I was baptized last year, our marriage was able to be reconciled again. Now 

I live in the great family of Christ in the free land of America. I 

feel happiness and joyful. But I know in my homeland, China, 

there are millions of women who are suffering, as I did. Each day 

thousands of young lives are being destroyed. I beg everyone to 

save them. I invite all to join with me in prayers for them. 

Let the love of our Heavenly Father, the grace of our Lord Jesus 

and the Holy Spirit fill their hearts and free them from the hell 

they are living on earth. In the name of our Lord Jesus, we pray. 

Amen. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Liu follows:]

15


68446e-1.eps
16


68446e-2.eps
17


68446e-3.eps
18

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much as well for your very courageous testimony and for the reconciliation and peace you have 

found with God. Unfortunately, that peace evades a huge majority 

of women in China, and the victims’ toll obviously continues by the 

hour, not just by the day. 

I would like to ask our three additional and very distinguished 

witnesses if they would present their testimony, beginning first 

with Dr. Valerie Hudson, who is a professor of political science at 

Brigham Young University, having previously taught at Northwestern and Rutgers. 

Her research includes foreign policy analysis, maturity studies, 

gender and international relations, and methodology. She is the author or editor of several books and coauthored ‘‘Bare Branches: The 

Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population.’’

Dr. Hudson was named to the list of Foreign Policy Magazine’s 

top 100 global thinkers for 2009, and Dr. Hudson is one of the principal investigators of WomenStats Project, which includes the largest compilation of data on the status of women in the world today. 

We will then hear from Ms. Chai Ling, who is the founder of All 

Girls Allowed, an organization dedicated to restoring life, value and 

dignity to girls and mothers, and revealing the injustice of China’s 

one-child-per-couple policy. 

Ms. Chai Ling has established the Jenzabar Foundation and 

serves on its board of directors. The foundation supports the most 

inspirational and influential humanitarian efforts of students 

through grant opportunities. We all remember her as the key student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement. She was one 

of the most wanted by the Chinese dictatorship. She was subsequently named Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year and nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, and has just published a 

very incisive book that I hope members will read, as well as the 

general public. 

Finally, we will hear from Ms. Reggie Littlejohn, the president 

and founder of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an international 

coalition that opposes forced abortion, gendercide and sex slavery 

in China. She has legally represented Chinese refugees in their political asylum cases in the United States. Ms. Littlejohn has briefed 

the White House, testified before the European and British Parliaments as well as Congress on China’s one-child-per-couple policy. 

She serves as an expert on the policy for the China AIDS Foundation and Human Rights Without Frontiers. She has issued several groundbreaking reports about the incalculable suffering caused 

by coercive enforcement of the one-child policy, including a report 

that she releases today. 

Dr. Hudson, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF VALERIE HUDSON, PH.D, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 

Ms. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize my remarks and 

ask that my complete written statement be included in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fortenberry and other members of the subcommittee, I am grateful that you are holding this 

19

hearing. I think this is a crucially important topic and one that 

should receive greater attention from U.S. policymakers. So I applaud your efforts in this regard. 

I have been very moved by the two testimonies that have preceded mine, and I feel honored to sit next to Reggie Littlejohn and 

Chai Ling, knowing of their great efforts in this area. 

China’s one-child policy, the policy was first announced in 1978, 

that was 33 years ago, and Chinese authorities claim it has prevented approximately 400 million births from 1979 to 2011. While 

the official position of the Chinese Government is that the policy 

will remain in place until at least 2016, there are rumors that fines 

and punishments for having a second child for those couples who 

are not entitled to a second child may in the future no longer be 

enforced. We will see. 

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the Chinese Government may 

be rethinking the wisdom of the one-child policy in light of current 

national security concerns. As a security studies specialist, my remarks will focus on the effects of China’s one-child policy on the 

national security of that nation. My argument will be that the onechild policy has not enhanced China’s security, but demonstrably 

weakened it. 

As Nick Eberstadt has famously phrased it, what are the consequences for a society that has chosen to become simultaneously 

both more gray and more male, for that is indisputably what the 

Chinese Government has chosen by implementing the one-child 

policy. 

The ratio of elderly persons to current workers is plummeting 

from 5.4 in 2009 to a projected 2.5 in 2030 and 1.6 in 2050, according to CSIS, at the same time that the birth sex ratio has risen 

officially to over 118 boy babies born for every 100 girl babies in 

China today, and may, in fact, be as high as 122 or more. We know 

indeed that in certain areas of China, the birth sex ratio is approaching 140 boy babies for every 100 girl babies. It is time to ask 

whether the one-child policy has undermined China’s ability to sustain itself as a stable and prospering society. 

Now, I am sure you are aware that some have argued that the 

altered sex ratios we have seen are merely an artifact of underreporting of girls, while others have suggested that factors like 

hepatitis B antigens are playing a role. However, I believe these 

views are either naive or erroneous. I think the two testimonies 

that we have already heard tell us something about what is going 

on, especially as related to the sex of fetuses. 

I think it is also interesting, for example, to note the experience 

of the municipality of Shenzhen in southern China. Alarmed at 

their rising birth sex ratio, which reached 118 9 years ago, local officials instituted a strict crackdown on black market ultrasound 

clinics to detect the presence of female fetuses. Offering 200 yuan 

for tips as to where these clinics could be found, officials then vigorously prosecuted owners of the machines and technicians using 

them with prison terms affixed. Two years later, the birth sex ratio 

had fallen to 108, near normal. 

So I think it is fair to say that accounts such as these provide 

support for the thesis that the modern gender imbalance in China 

is largely man-made. Girls are being culled from the population, 

20

rather through prenatal sex identification and female sex selective 

abortion, or through relative neglect compared to male offspring in 

early childhood, or through desperate life circumstances that might 

result in suicide, as the chairman has noted. The gender imbalance 

in Asia is primarily the result of son preference and the profound 

devaluation of female life. 

Now, the other face of the coin for the missing daughters of 

China are the excess sons of China. For every daughter culled from 

the population, a son will become surplus, or, in colloquial Chinese, 

a bare branch on the family tree. Our own estimates were that by 

2020, the number of young adult bare branches would number in 

excess of 30 million. As noted by the chairman, the Chinese Government’s estimates are between 40-, and now I have heard 50 million, in 2020, looking at close to 1 in 5 young adult Chinese men. 

No society has ever had to cope with the sheer numbers being 

produced by the Chinese one-child policy of bare branches. And the 

percentage of boys that are surplus within their population increases in lockstep according to the year in which they were born. 

That is, there is a higher percentage of surplus sons in the 1986 

birth population than there was in 1985, and more in 1987 than 

1986, and so forth and so on. That is, the birth sex ratio has continued to climb despite efforts by the Chinese Government. 

It is important to understand which young men become the bare 

branches who will have little chance of marrying in their society 

and establishing a family. Well-off young men with education, 

skills, money, looks or some combination thereof will marry. It is 

the young men without advantages, those who are poor, unskilled, 

illiterate, who will find themselves without the ability to form families. The men at these lower socioeconomic levels already feel 

disenfranchised from established society. Their inability to form a 

family will deepen their aggrievement with the existing social 

order. 

The foremost repercussions that we have found in our study are 

increased societal instability marked by increases in crime, violent 

crime, crimes against women, substance abuse, and, as noted by 

the chairman, the formation of gangs that are involved in profiting 

from all of these behaviors. Unattached young adult males are several times more likely to engage in these types of behavior than attached young adult males. And they tend to congregate, and when 

they do, their behavior as a group is more antisocial than the behavior of each individual would be by himself. 

These empirical findings toll not just for China, but across nationally. We have detailed numerous historical cases in both China, 

in India and in other lands in Asia where abnormal sex ratios lead 

to domestic instability and conflict between national and regionally 

based coalitions of bare branches. 

What I would like now to look at is the broader ramifications of 

these trends. I suggest that when we step back and take a larger 

perspective, when we look at the phenomenon of global aging, as 

well as China’s aging, the likely economic effect of aging, and we 

combine that with the analysis of the effects of abnormal sex ratios 

on a society, the synergistic effects of these trends are likely to be 

quite dangerous for the Chinese Government. 

21

In addition to the current economic woes that we are all experiencing, economists predict there will also come an economic slowdown in the coming decades due to the aging of the most advanced 

economies. This global slow down is likely to amplify the economic 

storm clouds already looming for China. A society with a 

masculinized young adult population such as China’s is likely to respond to their coming significant economic hardship, which makes 

the pale effects of the current economic recession on China very dilute by comparison. I believe that China is likely to respond—this 

society will likely respond with severe domestic instability and 

crime. 

The Chinese regime will be hard-pressed to maintain its usual 

control over society as a result and will likely become more authoritarian as time goes on to meet this internal security challenge. 

It may well be that the Chinese Government could play upon nationalist themes to maintain power in the context of an aging yet 

more masculine society experiencing a profound economic slowdown. The government could use, say, anti-Japanese or anti-Taiwan independence themes to galvanize not only the elderly generation, but, more importantly, the young adult generation which is 

highly masculinized. 

Masculine societies are very susceptible to political campaigns 

stressing national pride vis-a`-vis a competing nation. But masculine societies are a double-edged sword in this also, for if the government is perceived as weak or as unsuccessful in these contests 

of national pride, it will be very vulnerable to internal dissension 

that would bring a stronger government to power. 

In sum then, from all that we have analyzed to this point, the 

abnormal sex ratios of China as well as its increased aging, both 

due to the one-child policy, does not bode well for its future. Even 

if the sex ratios were somehow magically rectified today, which 

they certainly will not be, young adult sex ratios in China will result in a significant percentage of bare branches for at least the 

next 30 years. And economists tell us it is around the year 2020 

that China will enter a crucial period. 

In 2020, China will still be adding workers to its population before the downturn in its working population hits around 2030, 

while the richest nations of the world fade from global dominion 

due to aging. A lingering economic slowdown plus the opportunities 

afforded by the fading of the West and Japan, will create a unique 

crucible for a possible dramatic change in China’s security situation. 

Now, while it is true that the demographic die has been cast for 

the next few decades in China, it is also true that relinquishing the 

one-child policy would positively affect China’s future prospects for 

stability, security and prosperity. That the Chinese Government is 

now pondering whether to turn to a de facto two-child policy is an 

interesting development, indicating that the government now sees 

more clearly the security issues the one-child policy has raised. 

Even so, steering the ship of culture to a new heading will be a 

very difficult undertaking. In experiments performed by the government in selected areas, institution of a two-child policy did not 

change the fertility rate, and it did not change the sex ratio of the 

births. 

22

On the basis of these experimental findings, we are now forced 

to wonder whether the one-child policy will have significant cultural effects and demographic effects that will long outlast the policy itself. If that is the case, that will be truly a tragedy for China. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hudson follows:]


68446c-1.eps
23


68446c-2.eps
24


68446c-3.eps
25


68446c-4.eps
26


68446c-5.eps
27


68446c-6.eps
28


68446c-7.eps
29


68446c-8.eps
30


68446c-9.eps
31


68446c-10.eps
32


68446c-11.eps
33


68446c-12.eps
34


68446c-13.eps
35

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much for your testimony and for flying 

from Salt Lake City to be here. I know you are going right back 

today. We deeply appreciate that inconvenience to your schedule. 

Ms. HUDSON. It was an honor to be here. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, and for the issues you 

raised that, frankly, have not been raised by many people anywhere, and certainly not with the analysis and the scholarship that 

you and your colleague have brought to this issue. And I hope the 

Pentagon, I hope the Commerce Department, the State Department—and I will ask you questions later whether or not they have 

reacted to any of this, because the way I look at it, they seem to 

be tone deaf to the information that you have raised. So thank you 

so very, very much. 

I would now like to ask Chai Ling, Ms. Chai, if she would 

present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS 

ALLOWED 

Ms. CHAI. Chairman Smith, Congressman Fortenberry and members of the committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to 

testify about this massive problem in hope and determination that 

one day it will come to an end. I am honored to be here with you, 

with Reggie, and Valerie I just got to know, and the other two distinguished witnesses. 

Without, Chairman Smith, your persistent effort to battle on behalf of women and children in China, a hearing in November 2009, 

and the bold witness of Reggie, I would not be here to be able to 

continue this work. So thank you. I am very grateful. 

As we are here to report and mourn for the loss of 400-plus million lives that have been taken from China since 1980 under China’s one-child policy, it only came to full realization recently to me 

as I was finishing my memoir that three of those babies were mine. 

And the reason why the one-child policy killed millions of infants 

and unborn children annually is because it is a one-child-per-couple 

policy. It is, in effect, an ‘‘all the other children must die’’ policy. 

That means most married couples are not allowed to have more 

than one child, and, of course, unmarried women in China are not 

allowed to have babies at all. 

There are 16 million forced and coerced abortions a year in 

China, but when counting on the numbers of abortion pills sold, 

possibly close to 23 million. According to the Chinese Government’s 

own statement, more than 70 percent of these women are by those 

who are unmarried. That means more than 10 million young 

women suffer this fate every year, up to 27,000 every day, 19 every 

minute. I want to call your attention to that—to the poster of the 

young lady who is hiding her face in the IV. In seeing her face, I 

saw myself many, many years ago. 

The tragic equation for millions of unmarried women, especially 

those too young to wed, is no marriage certificate, no birth permit; 

no birth permit, no baby. 

The first time I became pregnant, I was 18 years old, a sophomore at Peking University. I was terrified and deeply ashamed. All 

I could think was a scene I saw. A young couple when I first arrived at Peking University was being expelled in front of all of us 

36

freshman because she was found to be in love and pregnant. The 

thought of being taken out of school, which represented life, future, 

jobs and positions in society, was unthinkable. 

My father, who was an army doctor himself, took me in secret 

to the neighboring city clinic to end that pregnancy. The surgery 

was performed on a cold operating table with no anesthesia. It was 

extremely painful. We both took the bus back home without saying 

a word to each other. We never talked about it until very recently 

when he read my book. 

In my book I tell at length how my forced abortion experiences 

were the combination of the law requiring an abortion if you are 

not married and the pressure of the never-told part of the culture 

and the society, and the value of the family, and the shame—all 

these gave a young woman like myself no choice. 

The second time I became pregnant, it was my boyfriend’s father 

who took me to the clinic. But by the third time I was pregnant, 

I was in graduate school with my soon-to-be husband. But even if 

you were married, you must abort unless you had a birth permit, 

and we couldn’t get married until we had a combined age of 48. 

Our combined age was 44. 

This time I walked in with him to a clinic in Beijing without 

help, nor informing any of our parents. Only after that surgery we 

realized that we could have actually faked our age to get a marriage certificate. We regret that we did not think of that earlier. 

We did get married shortly, but the baby was gone, and this was 

the way it worked in China. 

Similarly, in my life I now see it was all threaded together, starting with Deng Xiaoping in 1978, who decided to order the one-child 

policy. In addition to all of these forced abortions, forced gendercide 

against baby girls, the policy led to the university to expel young 

couples who were in love and pregnant, and it led to my father and 

my boyfriend’s father taking me to end my pregnancies, and then 

led to the third time I was pregnant, I knew what to do and where 

to go. 

But it did not stop there. Now, worse yet, by the fourth time 

when I was pregnant, I already became the most wanted criminal 

of China and came to Paris in 1990. I came to the land of freedom, 

but I was alone and in a very bad place in my marriage. With the 

advice of a Chinese couple who loved very much their own child, 

I still did what I was taught to do: End that pregnancy, too. 

So when I came to America in 1990 to testify about China’s 

human rights abuses, Chairman Smith, you asked me during the 

hearing whether I knew of China’s forced abortion one-child policy 

or not. I assumed the world knew and asked in return, ‘‘Doesn’t everybody know about it?’’ Even at that time I did not make the connection between my own experience and whether it had anything 

to do with that policy. But, in fact, it is an insidious policy that 

causes society to immediately demand an abortion for any woman 

without a birth permit, married or not. To refuse would be illegal. 

But most unmarried women like me did not even dare to ask. I certainly did not tell anybody about it, but simply silently suffered the 

shame and tried to hide the secret. That is why in my country 

there is such a high female suicide rate, 500 women a day. 

37

Until December 2010, when I was speaking to an American 

teacher about his visit to Beijing to teach the development of pregnancies, I first saw the small, but well-formed, tiny babies at 8 

weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks. Tears started streaming down my face. 

It was at that moment I realized four of my little babies, not just 

pregnancies, were sent to the grinding tubes and turned into these 

pink foams; four little lives snuffed out by the government and the 

society that did not value life and did not think twice about all 

these abortions every year. In the capital city of Beijing, there are 

more abortions than live births to this very day, according to a report by the Chinese Academy of Social Science. 

As much as I thought all along I was a freedom fighter trying 

to bring freedom to China and trying to save lives, I did not realize 

how much I was turned into the same sinful being as Chinese leaders like Deng Xiaoping and those who are enforcing the one-child 

policy today. And how blind I was. Even when I reached Paris, 

even though I was no longer under the threat of being thrown out 

of my school after I was already thrown out of my country, even 

though I was married and no longer had to hide the pregnancy in 

shame, I still did the only thing I knew what to do: Terminate that 

pregnancy. But by then I was long trained to think and act as if 

abortion were the way of life. There were no other choices. 

To be completely truthful about the situation, you hope to bring 

light on what must be done to change for the future. I want to 

share that at that time, there was never any discussion that might 

have offered us another choice. There was not a movie like Juno 

playing in China, teaching us we could give the baby away. There 

were no examples like the young couple I met at Harvard Business 

School, who got pregnant at an American university and simply 

took a year off, got married, gave birth to the baby, and came back 

to graduate and still are having a great career. There was never 

anyone to inform me or pray with me on my way to the forced and 

coerced abortion clinics, whether in Shandong or in Beijing or in 

Paris, to tell us that we could save the baby’s life, we could turn 

our spirit of despair into hope. And this is why, to this day, China 

is where the majority of the world’s abortions are taking place 

every year. 

Now I see how that one idea, one-child-per-family, was born to 

our leader, unchallenged and unstopped in a totalitarian system. 

Overnight it created more than 400,000 paid and brutal enforcers, 

helped by millions of parents of these unmarried women, volunteers—I mean, the parents are volunteers—and the tough in-laws 

who demand the mother to try to give birth to a baby boy at the 

expense of baby girls. That led to a society with the problems Dr. 

Hudson mentioned and this massive gender imbalance, this massive sex trafficking. 

And it is not only just one person’s sin, but a whole army’s sin, 

everybody in that society, including those who try to overcome it. 

And that violence does not just end on the forced abortion table, 

it extends to the sex slave trafficked for sex slavery or child-trafficking families. It continues in every single family. 

And it is a shock to me when I read the other two testimonies 

how each one of us all ended up with a broken marriage. And 

today, according to China’s All Women’s Federation and their surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:28 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\092211\68446 HFA PsN: SHIRL
38

vey, one-third of families suffer domestic abuse every single day. 

That is a glimpse of a picture of what China is becoming, its killing 

and violence every single day in every part and corner of the society. 

So that leads to the question of what we must do now to end the 

killing and restore peace. It is for this reason I choose to support 

the bill, H.R. 2121. Once passed, the bill would give the President 

of the United States authority to deny entry into the U.S. for any 

Chinese officials enforcing forced abortions and sterilizations on 

unwilling women in China, an act that would be a clear crime in 

this country. Today these criminals would be given visas here in 

the United States and enjoy this great country. H.R. 2121 would 

also apply to family members of these officials. 

This is no small matter. Just as I shared a very personal story 

today, this bill would become very personal to the leaders of China. 

One hundred thirty thousand Chinese students studied in America 

last year, up 30 percent compared to the year before. A majority 

of them came from well-to-do families, sons and daughters of officials of China. It is as if they are sensing the coming of the inevitable days of consequences and judgment. It is very likely they 

won’t like it, and they will oppose it and possibly even threaten retaliation. But how else could we get their attention to listen? 

If we do have their attention to listen, I would like them to know 

the truth, the truth I came to know, which is how much God loves 

us, for He loves the leaders of China and the people of China and 

the nation of China so much, He gave His one and only son, so 

whoever comes to know Jesus will be saved and be given eternal 

life, but those who refuse to know him will perish. 

I am not testifying today against all the people, the leaders of 

China, as Chai Ling, the human rights fighter, but rather as an 

equal sinner with you. I can tell you with peace and in confidence 

that the same spiritual transformation that led me to know Jesus 

and to gain the freedom he has given to me through his own suffering is also available to all the people in China. I know through 

us we cannot make it come to an end, but we know that through 

the most almighty God all things are possible. 

So I am concluding my testimony in peace and in hope and belief 

that China and its people will be set free, and will be set free soon. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chai follows:]

39


68446a-1.eps
40


68446a-2.eps
41


68446a-3.eps
42

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Chai. To love and to wish 

well and reconciliation on those who have so abused you and the 

women of China is truly miraculous. So thank you for that witness. 

Ms. CHAI. You are very welcome. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Littlejohn. 

STATEMENT OF MS. REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, FOUNDER AND 

PRESIDENT, WOMEN’S RIGHTS WITHOUT FRONTIERS 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Mr. Chairman, Representative Fortenberry, 

honorable members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for this opportunity to testify and for the fact that we can even talk about 

these things in the United States. Basically every single thing that 

has been said so far in this hearing would be considered to be a 

state secret in China, and all of us would be detained. And so I am 

grateful to this committee and this Nation that we can speak out. 

And, in fact, people like Chen Guangcheng, when they try to speak 

out, end up in the deplorable conditions which I will describe later 

on, but because we have the ability to speak out, I feel that we 

have the moral obligation to speak out. 

I have been asked to brief the subcommittee on the findings of 

our new report, to testify regarding the impact of coercive enforcement of China’s one-child policy on human rights, and to comment 

on the case of Chen Guangcheng. 

So, this is our new report on the one-child policy. It is released 

today. It is called ‘‘China’s One-Child Policy: New Evidence of Coercion—Forced Abortion, Sterilization, Contraception, and the Practice of Implication,’’ which is something I learned about in researching this report. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your report will be made part of 

the record. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. I hope it will be. I heard is it is a little long 

to be made. But I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In this report are 13 new documented cases that are just as 

grievous as the cases that we have heard today. In this report we 

have cases of forced abortion, one woman at 8 months, another 

woman forcibly aborted with twins at 81⁄2 months; forced sterilization; forced contraception. And these forced contraceptions are not 

simply the installation of IUDs, which can be very painful, and 

even, as the witnesses have said today, these IUDs can be installed 

even though there are medical complications that contraindicate 

such an installation. But people—the lack of an IUD is used as an 

excuse for family planning cadres to come in and maim people. I 

have got a case in here where somebody’s mother-in-law literally 

had her hand almost broken in half because her daughter-in-law 

supposedly didn’t have an IUD. 

We have got pictures of family planning police. It looks like a 

military regiment; family planning jail cells; the demolition of 

homes, even by relatives. There is a woman here who missed a 

pregnancy check, and her own relatives were forced to demolish 

her home. We have pictures of that. 

This report also contains accounts of a couple who were brutally 

tortured because the woman missed a pregnancy check by one day. 

She was one day late. A man whose head was smashed open and 

who is now permanently disabled because his wife had a second 

43

child. I will show this briefly. But this report is filled with photographs like this. And a father who was beaten to death because his 

son was suspected of having a second child. 

Now, we went back and forth on this, and finally we did choose 

to release the names of the perpetrators of these crimes. So this report has at least several dozen names of the actual human beings 

who perpetrated these crimes, what they did, what their position 

was at that time. They are identifiable. And I did this in consultation with China Aid. I want to thank China Aid for their substantial contribution to this report. But basically these people need to 

be held accountable. 

Again, Representative Smith, you have sponsored the China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011, which, if passed, people such as 

these people who have gone around doing heinous crimes against 

humanity will not be allowed free access to American soil. 

Human rights violations. In addition to forced abortion, 

gendercide and female suicide, China’s one-child policy gives rise to 

several other serious human rights violations. Number one, human 

trafficking and sexual slavery. Because of the abortion, abandonment and infanticide of baby girls, there are an estimated 37 million more Chinese men than there are women. This gender imbalance caused by gendercide is perhaps the driving force behind 

human trafficking and sexual slavery in China. And according to 

the 2011 TIP Report, the Trafficking in Persons Report, women 

and children from neighboring countries, including Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia, Russia and North Korea, and from locations 

as far as Romania and Zimbabwe, are reportedly trafficked into 

China for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor. 

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers has a petition against forced 

abortion and sexual slavery in China, and we have printed out the 

signatories here. We have more than 9,000 from 80 countries. So 

this is a genuinely international outcry. 

Infanticide. Last year, crematorium workers in Guangdong Province found an infant crying in a medical waste receptacle on the 

way to the crematorium. When they opened it, they found a little 

baby boy who had cotton stuffed down his throat. Horrified, they 

sent that baby boy back to the hospital, perfectly healthy, and then 

that boy was returned to them later that day without any explanation of the cause of death. 

In a separate incident, Xinhua reported that 21 bodies of fetuses 

and babies were found discarded in a river in east China last year. 

Xinhua News stated, ‘‘The bodies may have been dumped by cleaners from local hospitals after abortions and induced labor. Such 

dead bodies are treated as medical waste by hospitals.’’

Forced sterilization. The first case in my new report is of a 

woman who was literally running away from a forced sterilization 

and was grabbed and dragged back to the hospital. These forced 

sterilizations are not done by highly trained gynecological surgeons. They are done under horrible conditions. Women frequently 

get massive infections, and it ruins their health for the rest their 

lives. 

So I asked organizations like UNFPA and International Planned 

Parenthood, if they truly stand for choice, if they truly stand for 

women’s reproductive rights and women’s reproductive health, how 

44

come they aren’t jumping up and down about forced sterilization in 

China? 

For example, there was a 20-day campaign launched April 7th of 

2010 in Puning City, Guandong Province, aimed to sterilize 9,559 

people, and they detained 1,300 people in that forced sterilization 

campaign. That campaign was publicized in the London Times. Everybody knew about it. Where was UNFPA? Where was IPPF when 

this was going on, if they truly are promoting voluntarism in 

China? 

Implication. Now, that is something new that I learned in researching this report. The practice of implication means if one person is a violator of the one-child policy, then their entire extended 

family is implicated or punished. So, for example, if I were illegally 

pregnant, my husband, my parents, his parents, our grandparents, 

our aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, the entire extended family can 

have their homes destroyed. In this one incident, case 12 in Fujian 

Province, family planning officials beat a father to death on the 

suspicion that his son might have a second child. That is implication. 

Then in another case, the extended family were all dragged in to 

something called the Family Planning Learning Center, and they 

were tortured for days on end, and then they were charged tuition, 

which also brings up the issue of corruption, which I think is a 

major driving force behind keeping the one-child policy in place. 

People are making a lot of money off of this. 

Another thing that has come to the forefront to me, we all know 

that China’s one-child policy causes more violence toward women 

and girls than any other official policy on Earth or any other official policy in the world. But you know what? China’s one-child policy also causes tremendous violence against men, and that comes 

out in this report. It is through the implication that this occurs. 

Recently, just this year in Linyi County, there was a man who 

was murdered by family planning police. They had come to seize 

his sister for a forced abortion. She wasn’t home, so they started 

beating his father. So when he tried to defend his father, one of the 

family planning officials just took a knife and stabbed him in the 

chest, and he died. And these things happen with impunity. People 

are not prosecuted. They are not held accountable. I would say that 

really the spirit of the Red Guard lives on in the family planning 

police. 

Chen Guangcheng. Blind activist Chen Guangcheng was arrested 

in 2006 for exposing the fact that there were 130,000 forced abortions and forced sterilizations in just one county, Linyi County, and 

Ji Yeqing, who just testified, was just 1 of those 130,000. So the 

suffering that was caused by this is just incalculable. He was 

named by Time Magazine as one of 2006’s top 100 people who 

shape our world, and was also nominated for the Nobel Peace 

Prize. 

As you know, for his activism against forced abortion in China, 

he then was imprisoned 4 years, 3 months, jailed, tortured, denied 

medical treatment, and also got an intestinal condition in the jail. 

And when he was released in September 2010, he and his wife 

were again beaten and tortured and denied medical treatment 

45

when they got a video out about the conditions of their house arrest. 

Now, the latest on him is, as you know, they turned basically not 

only his home, but the entire village into a prison. So around his 

home there are 22 cadres every 8 hours, 66 cadres every 24 hours, 

just watching him, making sure nobody goes in, nobody comes out. 

He is completely sealed off from the world. But according to several 

Radio Free Asia reports, number one, they built like a separate 

prison for him that they are going to move him to; number two, his 

6-year-old daughter has been denied an education; and, number 

three, his brother has been detained as well, and there is a group 

of activists who tried to visit him just this past week who were 

beaten and detained. 

So Bob Fu of the China Aid Association and Women’s Rights 

Without Frontiers are spearheading an effort to free Chen 

Guangcheng. We already have over 5,000 signatures from a couple 

dozen countries to free him. And he is being starved; he is sick; he 

is beaten, tortured, denied medical treatment. His wife was able to 

get a letter out a couple months ago about his condition, saying 

that she was worried he wasn’t going to survive. We haven’t heard 

anything from them since then, other than the fact they are going 

to be put into their own personal prison. But it is absolutely urgent 

that Chen Guangcheng be freed. 

Now, I just want to make one comment about China possibly 

moving to a two-child policy. I have heard people—nobody here, but 

people say, well, wouldn’t it be okay if they had a two-child policy? 

My answer is no, for several reasons. 

Number one, already much of the country can have a second 

child. In the countryside, if your first child is a girl, you can try 

for a boy on your second child. And what that has done is it has 

given rise to gendercide. The worst gender imbalances happen 

when the couple has a girl as the first child, and then they try for 

a boy on the second child. There are many areas of China where 

that ratio is 160 boys born to 100 girls born. So I don’t think that 

saying, oh, everything will be solved if they have a second child. 

Secondly, for me, the cornerstone of the one-child policy is not 

how many children are allowed, is it one child, is it two children. 

It is, number one, the fact that the government is imposing its will 

on something that should be a family decision; and, number two, 

the coercion with which it is enforced. 

In China, a woman’s body is not her own. It is in the domain of 

the state. And until the Chinese family planning officials stop functioning as womb police, the nation of China will not be free. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Littlejohn follows:]

46


68446b-1.eps
47


68446b-2.eps
48


68446b-3.eps
49


68446b-4.eps
50


68446b-5.eps
51


68446b-6.eps
52

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Littlejohn, thank you so much. Thank you for 

your report, and for the accuracy and the detail and the earnestness that you bring to this, and for your legal representation of 

those women who have been so cruelly mistreated by the Chinese 

Government. 

I have so many questions, but let me just begin with a few. 

When the U.S. Department of State under John Negroponte, who 

was then the point person for the Bush administration, made its 

finding, there were a number of very important aspects to that 

finding with regards to international complicity in these crimes 

against women and children. And one of those was that programming by NGOs and by regional groups out of the UNFPA in China 

is always in the context of Chinese law. They follow Chinese law. 

When we hear about the so-called choice offered to women in 

those areas, those counties where the UNFPA has a presence, the 

only choice is what method may be adopted, what type of contraceptive, IUD or some other means. But with resoluteness, to use 

the word of the Chinese system, women are still held to one child, 

they are coerced to abort, and they are coerced to have—whether 

it be an IUD or some other means. 

I am amazed to this day how even the Washington Post, when 

it did a big story about how the UNFPA and China itself is offering 

more choice, failed to see that the coercive elements are as harsh 

and as brutal as ever, just choose your poison. There is no choice 

for the individual woman. 

They also point out, and I think this is important, the 2000 

law—this is the finding that was done pursuant to the Kemp-Kasten language—is not just about harsh controlling of the size of the 

population, but to improve its quality. And when that law went 

into effect, I asked the Holocaust Museum their view and analysis 

of this eugenics policy, and they said it comported with what the 

Nazis did, trying to make a better Chinese man and woman by 

weeding out the undesirables. Unfortunately, the UNFPA and others are completely complicit in ensuring that those who might have 

some disability do not see the light of day and are not born. 

Any comments you might have on that, I would appreciate that. 

The two women, Ms. Ji and Ms. Liu, who spoke, the idea that 

the factory—and anyone who would like to comment on this—actually as far as back as Michael Weiskopf’s incisive three-part series 

in the mid-1980s in the Washington Post, the former bureau chief 

for the Washington Post, he wrote those articles as he was leaving, 

talked about how this is implemented at the factory level; that 

women are subjected to very degrading inspections, their menstrual cycles are monitored, and if they are found to be pregnant 

without a birth allowed certificate, they are then forcibly aborted. 

If you could speak to factories and whether or not U.S. companies, which have a huge factory presence in China, might be involved in this as well. Are they part of the factory clinic or on the 

factory floor? 

Ms. Liu talked about how she was reported by her coworkers to 

be pregnant. We have U.S. factories there. Are reportings going on 

about illegal children, and are they forcibly aborted? 

Dr. Hudson, you talked about the coming economic hardship in 

China. Dr. Eberstadt did testify recently at a hearing I chaired, 

53

and he talked about this huge disproportionality of not just missing 

girls and women, as you call it the missing daughters, but also 

about this heavily skewed senior population. I have never seen this 

on CNBC; I have never seen any analysis by the Fed or anyone 

else about this sinkhole of economic progress coming to a grinding 

halt in China. And yet, as I think you have indicated, it is right 

around the corner. 

Dr. Hudson, could you answer the question, has our Pentagon—

has there been any interest shown anywhere, the Army War College, about the grave implications for potential war? As you said 

in your testimony, and you said it so eloquently, if I can just find 

it, on the last page, and that is, might a situation develop where 

the government sees a way to kill two birds with one stone, seizing 

a greater share of international power through successful international use of force, while also thinning the ranks of the bare 

branches through attrition or warfare? 

That is a profound statement. Who is listening to that at the 

Pentagon, at the United Nations, for example, or anywhere else? I 

am going to ask the Armed Services Committee to hold a hearing 

on these implications. This is something that is present today, but 

only gets exacerbated as the days move forward. 

So, Dr. Hudson, maybe you could speak to that. I have many 

other questions, but as some opening questions.

Before you do, I would like to also just get on the record, I do 

believe that population control has turned out to be a weapon of 

mass destruction. More children, more women, more persons have 

died as a direct result of that, and it could happen here. 

Ted Turner recently said that we need in America, the United 

States, to adopt a one-child-per-couple policy. A man from Planned 

Parenthood wrote—and I have a copy of what he said, where he 

said, let me just get it—a couple of weeks ago, Executive Vice 

President Norman Fleishman: ‘‘China’s ‘one child’ policy . . . is a 

start . . . the world is doomed to strangle among the coils of pitiless exponential growth.’’ Ted Turner has said it and said it repeatedly. And on the IPPF Web site, the International Planned Parenthood Web site, the Kenyan Planning Permanent Secretary Edward 

Sambili said, ‘‘We might be forced to halt the free primary education programme because some parents are exploiting it by getting 

many children . . .’’. Then he even says maybe we ought to look 

at food as well as something that might be deprived. All coming out 

of China. 

So, Dr. Hudson. 

Ms. HUDSON. Wow, I find that very interesting. There are some 

cultural winds blowing through the West that do bear some uncanny echoes with this notion that the government has a role in 

limiting birth, and so I am not going to dismiss that in the least. 

For example, I remember once at an academic conference asking 

whether it would be possible for the United States to outlaw sexselective abortion. There is a bit of a problem, yes, but there isn’t 

a huge problem at this point, so why not harvest the low-hanging 

fruit and go on the record as a nation that bans sex-selective abortion? I was laughed at as being politically naive; that it would be 

impossible in the United States or any advanced country to place 

any infringements whatsoever on a woman’s right to choose. 

54

But it is not just an issue of choice. Whenever we talk about 

women’s choices, we have to look at the context in which those 

choices are taking place. And I think the one-child policy is a perfect example of how we have heard that a woman’s choice was not 

actually a choice at all. So I worry that we can’t even have this 

conversation in the United States of America; that it is somehow 

politically incorrect to raise these issues, even though I believe 

these are terribly important issues. 

You asked, did the Pentagon? No, not really. There was a few 

years ago DTRA, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, did ask for 

sort of a think paper from me and my colleague, and that pretty 

much has been it. So I would be happy to be involved in any future 

endeavors that you might have to bring this to the attention of 

those whose job it is to think about security trends in the world. 

I know it seems somehow anachronistic to somehow suggest that 

demographic forces may play a role in future security scenarios. I 

myself don’t see it as anachronistic. I see it as realistic to think 

about demographic trends and their intersection with security and 

with economic trends as well. So please keep me apprised of any 

opportunities to bring these issues to the attention of those who 

need to know. I would be grateful for that. 

Mr. SMITH. On that issue I will ask for a classified briefing to 

find out what, if anything, is being done, and will also ask Buck 

McKeon, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, if 

his committee could look into this as well and start asking some 

questions. 

Ms. HUDSON. I want to just apologize in advance if I have to run. 

Mr. SMITH. I know you have a plane to catch. Thank you. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. I just wanted to follow up on Dr. Hudson’s remark about sex-selective abortion and the conversation that she 

had with those who say that is part of a woman’s right to choose. 

Because of sex-selective abortion, or gendercide, there is one U.N. 

expert who actually estimated there are 200 million women missing, and most of those women are missing from Asia, that have this 

extremely oppressive son preference. And these women are not 

choosing to abort their daughters. They are being—I would argue 

that sex-selective abortion in Asia, which is where most of it happens, is a species of forced abortion. These women do not have a 

choice. If they already have a girl, or even if they don’t already 

have a girl, they are under tremendous pressure from sometimes 

their husbands, their in-laws, their own parents, whatever. So for 

people to abandon those women for the rare woman who will 

choose to have a sex-selective abortion, say this is a woman’s 

choice, and meanwhile abandoning the 99 percent that are being 

forced to do this, I think, is not a helpful approach to the issue. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Chai? 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. Actually I was—maybe I am naive. I saw in June 

when five U.N. organizations who tend to be prochoice organizations, you know, the World Health Organization, UNFPA, U.N. 

Women, Human Rights, I think there is one more, they all jointly 

come together to make a declaration against gendercide, including 

gender-based selective abortions. I felt that was a great encouragement and gives hope that maybe the U.N. organizations are starting to wake up to this massive problem the world has created. 

55

Mr. SMITH. With respect, though, I read that report very carefully, and it was written in a way that, in my opinion, paid lip 

service to genocide. But if the child in utero is completely expendable, as Dr. Hudson said, it is so politically incorrect to suggest 

that killing an unborn baby because she happens to be a girl. 

There is a bill which has been introduced by Trent Franks of, 

which I and my colleagues here are cosponsors of, that would outlaw it. And Obama would veto it—no doubt about it, if we get it 

passed. The Senate probably wouldn’t even take it up. But in reading that report—and I take great fault with the U.N. agencies, including the UNFPA that signed it, they offer several times that 

this, in no way, should encumber the unfettered right to choose an 

abortion for whatever reason. 

Hillary Clinton, and I hope the next time she testifies, I will certainly ask her this, she has changed her rhetoric, not that it was 

ever clear or precise—when it comes to condemning what goes on 

in China. But she made it very clear that she is against gendercide 

when it deals with infanticide; in other words, the born young girl. 

So don’t kill the baby at birth; don’t smother her, which we all absolutely agree with, but not before birth. She will not take a stand. 

And I hope she hears this and changes her opinion about the girl 

who was selected for extermination who is in utero, simply because 

she is a girl. Very, very disturbing. 

Even Senator Feinstein, when she made statements during a gubernatorial race years ago, made a comment which, at first encouraged all of us that sex selection abortion was cruelty and wrong, 

and the pro-abortion NGOs and her opponent, who was trying to 

be more pro-abortion than thou, got on her case and she backtracked and became very, very quiet, if you will, and worse, no 

longer supporting the outlawing of sex selection abortions. It is an 

American problem too. The diaspora are coming in from some countries, are increasingly using sex selection abortions as a means to 

choose the gender of their newborn, by killing the others. So it is 

a very, very disturbing trend. I have other questions. But as a 

courtesy to my colleagues—we are joined by Ann Marie Buerkle, 

who is both a nurse and a lawyer, so she brings both of those professions in terms of her experience. But I would like to yield to my 

good friend and colleague, the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, let me reiterate my sincere thanks for your willingness to testify today. Those 

of us who have been on the subcommittee that looks at global 

human rights issues frankly are barraged constantly with such an 

array of assaults on human dignity, it can almost dull the conscience. But I have to share with you that today’s hearing has, you 

know, in such a laser-like fashion, affected me and informed me 

and hurt me as to the difficulties and pain that you all have gone 

through and that millions of people who are under this repression 

are continuing to suffer that it stands out as one of the most grotesque abuses against humanity today. 

Perhaps it is because we are talking about something that is conceived in love and should bring about joy. But then is this force to 

be ripped out by an authoritarian cause greater than that indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:28 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\092211\68446 HFA PsN: SHIRL
56

vidual life, greater than that love between the couple and perhaps 

that is why it is so deeply disturbing. 

So again, let me say thank you for your courage and your leadership in this regard. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be pointed out 

that, here we are in America. But Ms. Liu is still behind a closed 

area here because she fears reprisals potentially taken against 

those she loves back in China. This is simply an outrage and the 

most grievous assault on human dignity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to probe this more deeply. 

How can we sit by idly and not look at this in the face and not 

got our minds around this horror and not act? And in that regard, 

I want to follow up with your question, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t 

think was sufficiently unpacked. But I want to hear any thoughts 

that you may have in terms of U.S. companies who may be 

complicit inadvertently, I assume—perhaps not, in this forced factory model of monitoring the privacy of women’s own intimate relations as well as the status of them as mothers. Can you provide 

more information or thoughts on that? Yes. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. I can provide more thoughts. I cannot provide 

more information. I think we need more information. I think that 

this is a very, very fruitful avenue to pursue. I believe that the onechild policy is a crime against humanity. It falls within the definition. The legal definition of a crime against humanity, as defined 

by The Hague and the International Criminal Court is, it has to 

be a serious human rights violation; and forced sterilization and 

forced pregnancy are already in the list. So forced abortion, there 

is no legal reason to exclude it. 

So it is a serious human rights violation perpetrated or tolerated 

by a regime against a civilian population. So even if the Chinese 

Communist Party says, well, we aren’t doing this. It is just the people in the hinterlands. Well, they are tolerating it because, for example, in that whole thing with the Puning forced sterilization 

campaign that went on for 20 days, China did nothing to stop it. 

Okay. So let’s say that this is a crime against humanity and let’s 

say that American corporations are doing business and have factories in China that are complicit with it. Okay. I could see lawsuits against American corporations charging them criminally with 

crimes against humanity, number one. And number two——

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Do you think that American companies have 

very close proximity in terms of ownership or even entanglements 

with management where there are fertility hall monitors on a factory floor? 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. That is what we need to find out. See, this is 

something that is going to take investigation and it is probably 

going to take undercover investigation, you know? I think it would 

be great if there could be teams inside of China. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Can you imagine this going on in America? 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. No. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. We can’t even imagine that this could happen 

in this country. It is inconceivable. We can’t get our minds around 

it, that you would have a company that monitors a woman’s fertility and forces, as you said, undignified exposure on a factory 

floor. That is not work. That is not employment. That is a form of 

slavery. 

57

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I am sorry to interrupt you but I think you 

are right. I mean, to continue to explore this possibility I think 

would highlight the larger problem in the society and put all of us 

on notice in America, that if we are going to do something about 

this, this is the place to start. We cannot directly cooperate in this. 

Mr. SMITH. If you would yield briefly. In your answer, if you 

could give whether or not you would advise us to work on legislation that would develop a code of conduct, like the Sullivan Principles for South Africa, like the MacBride Principles for Northern 

Ireland, that would get to the heart of the complicity. And I know 

Mr. Fortenberry and I and Ms. Buerkle, I am sure, and others 

could rally around such a code. I asked that question one time on 

a trip to Beijing with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Beijing. 

And all but one person—most of them wouldn’t say anything—and 

then one individual, one of the business reps, the U.S. reps in Beijing said, ‘‘Oh, but we made sure that that was out of what we 

agreed to when we came here.’’ And the others did not say that 

they agreed to take out monitoring women’s menstrual cycles and 

the like. So a code of conduct we could use. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. Thank you. That is a good idea. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. People hear about the reality, the brutal reality 

behind the one-child policy, and it makes us feel outraged and it 

makes us feel like we want to do something. But we feel so impotent because China is a sovereign nation. We can’t really do anything. Well, we can do something, okay? I love the idea of some 

kind of legislation that would require companies doing business in 

China to not be complicit with crimes against humanity, for example. And I think that we could have some kind of a corporate social 

responsibility requirement that, when American companies do business in a foreign nation—you know, it could be even broader than 

China, that they cannot be engaging in crimes against humanity, 

even if those crimes are in conformance with the laws of that country. I mean, there is a direct analogy to Nazi Germany. You know, 

should American corporations be able to go to Nazi Germany and 

be complicit with the holocaust even though it was the law of the 

land? The answer is no. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. CHAI. Mr. Fortenberry, I would like to comment on your brilliant question, which is absolutely right on target. It is something 

that I would have loved to have seen legislation taking place long 

ago. I couldn’t find the right term. I even talked to some experts 

on Capitol Hill—actually, I think I spoke to one of your staff a few 

months ago, saying, what can we do to either modify the 

Anticorruption Act or something for all foreign companies who conduct business in China to require and demand the local working 

conditions to be in compliance to a certain level of humanity standards? And that was driven by an article I think in either The Wall 

Street Journal or New York Times about a factory where they have 

such a high suicide rate, to the point where the factory erected big 

barbed wires and started bringing psychological counselors to come 

in. 

58

We don’t exactly know what are the reasons to force the people 

to jump through the building to kill themselves. But we believe 

forced abortions, this kind of inhumane treatment, abuses toward 

young women through all levels might be a cause or a reason toward that. And that was a company that basically supplied the majority of all the components that go into Apple computers, goes into 

iPads, goes into iPhones. And none of those workers could ever afford a product like that that they were producing or making. The 

suggestion was, if we have a law, none of the U.S. companies can 

go do these kinds of things for a country, that would provide the 

level playing field. And otherwise, individual companies even 

though they want to take a stance, they can’t act. We want legislation, a bill to enforce that effort, to become the voice and become 

the governing body for the people in China who cannot speak right 

now. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Chai, I will commit to you that we will draft a 

code of conduct bill and move it forward—hopefully it can be enacted—that hopefully will be a backdrop, like the—I mentioned the 

Sullivan Principles which were transformational in South Africa as 

to how U.S. corporations that did business in that apartheid land 

could only do it if they were completely separated from that egregious policy of racism. 

Ms. CHAI. If that bill can be drafted sooner, next week. I am coming back for a CEO Forum and they will be very interested to hear 

that. 

Mr. SMITH. Lamar Smith, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was here before and has joined on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2121 which would deny visas to those individuals who 

are complicit in these violations of human rights, including forced 

abortion and involuntary sterilization. I know that you met with 

him, and you persuaded him—he is a very, very fine chairman—

to become a cosponsor, and the bill was referred to his committee. 

So I am very grateful for that, on your behalf. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 

witnesses today. I apologize for being late. I am a nurse and I am 

an attorney, but I am also the mother of six children and four of 

them are daughters. You just get a knot in the pit of your stomach 

as you listen to this. 

I recently was honored with the designation of being the Congressional Delegate to the U.N. So I would like to see how we 

could—not just today but ongoing—take your information and be 

able to work with it through the U.N. Recently, a couple of weeks 

ago, our chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, introduced legislation 

that would reform the U.N., which would look at how we spend 

American taxpayers’ dollars, and we don’t want to spend that 

money if it goes against the principles of the United States of 

America. 

And this flies in the face of the principles of the United States 

of America. So I would like to take that role, along with this legislation that we introduced a couple of weeks ago, and push this further to see what we can accomplish that way, especially getting 

more information, holding China accountable through the U.N. and 

certainly with this piece of legislation. So I would like to talk further. We will get your information so we can do that. 

59

I guess my first question is, where are the feminists? Where are 

the feminists who are so concerned about women’s rights? 

Ms. CHAI. We don’t know. But they still have a chance to do 

something. And I do have a suggestion, Congresswoman Buerkle, 

regarding the UNFPA funding. I see the two sides cannot reach 

agreement right now. Chairman Smith is leading the effort to 

defund the UNFPA and President Obama’s side is going to be potentially vetoing the funding. So we would like to propose a third 

option. I think that might be a great chance of hope to end 

gendercide, particularly in China, is to modify the UNFPA funding 

into funding that would end gendercide. We—at All Girls Allowed—have started a 1-year pilot program. Basically we give 

women who give birth to girls $240 a year, $20 per month for a 

year. To give her dignity, give her respect, let her know how to 

cherish the baby girl she is holding in her arms so she doesn’t have 

to, you know, abandon the baby girl or be forced to give up the 

baby girl. 

We have seen a remarkable response. And the mothers would 

give us letters and feedback saying, it was through this program 

that their heads were lifted up, and they took pride in their baby 

girls in their arms and their husbands started showing respect for 

them, their in-laws started showing respect to them and the entire 

community started taking a different look at women who gave 

birth to girls. Just $20 a month, for those families who earn under 

$2 a day, which is 468 million Chinese people living today in massive level of poverty, that is a significant amount of resource. So 

if that $50 million can be sent to China or India—you know, divide 

it in whatever way they want, and encourage the Chinese Government, we would have so much money to match 10 to 1. Then we 

are talking about $550 million. 

We recently spoke to a diplomat from Japan. They are very sensitive to the rising military expansion of China by the single 

branches, and also the hostility and nationalism toward Japan and 

neighboring countries. So they are interested in joining the U.S. effort, if that three-way can be done. Basically the U.S. would reform 

the UNFPA to stop using that funding to support forced abortions, 

but use that money to give and receive a baby girl’s right to life. 

And you know to have the Chinese Government to join the programs and to give them the chance to do something good. And to 

have the Japanese Government participate in this community and 

effort. 

And if that kind of money can be given to 2–3 million families 

who are going to give birth to baby girls, I believe in 1 year China’s 

gendercide can be ended. Then we would come back and say, what 

can we do with the 37 million single men? I believe something can 

be done. I would appreciate your feedback and your efforts. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. We would be very interested, yes, in 

talking about the program and looking to see what we can do to 

help. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. I spoke to Speaker Boehner’s policy adviser, Katherine Haley this morning, and she encouraged us. She said, you 

know, suggest that in the hearing and see whether we can have a 

breakthrough, a creative way to make good happen. So I thank you 

for your time. 

60

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Representative Buerkle, I wanted to respond to 

your question about the U.N. Two things: Number one, Women’s 

Rights Without Frontiers has submitted an extensive complaint to 

the U.N. several months ago about forced abortion in China. And 

I just got an e-mail from them about a week ago saying that they 

are forwarding it to the nation of China. So we will see what happens with that. Number two, I participated in the U.N. CSW week 

of—the conference that they give every year. But the issue of forced 

abortion in China was nowhere on the agenda, and my presentation was not even a side event. It was like a side-side event. And 

yet it is something that affects one out of every five women in the 

world, and it is the biggest just numerically perpetrator of violence 

against women in the world is this one thing. 

So if there is anything that you could do to raise the visibility 

of the issue so that we could discuss the one-child policy, maybe 

even at a side event or maybe even in the plenary session of the 

U.N. CSW conference, that would just be great. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Very good. We can talk about that and we will 

strategize a little more and we will get your cards and your contact 

information. 

Oftentimes you hear the apologists saying that the vast majority 

of the Chinese agree with this policy. Can you just comment on 

that. And then I don’t want to hold up the chairman, but I will 

yield back. 

Ms. CHAI. During the 1989 movement, right before that, we were 

told, the majority of Chinese people don’t care about politics, don’t 

want freedom, don’t want democracy. And we know what happened. They were willing to give their lives for that freedom. And 

I believe the majority of Chinese are willing to give their lives to 

have the freedom of their body, of their marriage, and of their 

peace back, if they are allowed to. If they are being given the 

chance, they are not fighting alone. And I believe that day will 

come. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. I was interviewed this morning on Voice of 

America which was broadcast into China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. 

And I spoke about the one-child policy. This is the fourth or the 

fifth time that I have spoken on Voice of America directly into the 

nation of China about the one-child policy. And the comments that 

I get back—because people can call in with comments and questions. I would say the vast majority of them are highly critical of 

the policy. I think that it is hard to gauge what the majority believe in China because they are not free to speak. You go over to 

China and as a tourist and say, Well, what do you think about the 

one-child policy? Do you expect that person to actually take the 

risk of getting detained for revealing State secrets by saying, you 

know what I have been a victim of forced abortions three times and 

I think it is the most appalling thing in the world? They can’t talk 

about it. They are not free to voice their dissent. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much. I will look forward to our 

conversation following the hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Buerkle. Let me just conclude with a few final questions. First to Ms. Ji and Ms. Liu and 

61

Chai Ling as well because we have three people on this panel who 

have suffered forced abortions. If you could just briefly speak—we 

know about the 500 women per day who commit suicide in China. 

Ms. Liu mentioned earlier that she almost committed suicide. And 

I am wondering, the mental health, the emotional downside to—or 

the consequences of this horrific policy, how do the women endure 

this? I mean broken marriages, the chemical dependencies of various kinds or just—how do the women endure this? Do they go 

numb? 

Ms. LIU I became very depressed. I just wanted to close up inside 

the home. I didn’t want to go out. 

As a mother, when I became pregnant, I had this motherly instinct to protect and save my children. My baby literally had to be 

yanked out of my body. In addition to the physical pain, I experienced this terrible sense of guilt and shame that I somehow failed 

my child and was not able to protect my child and was not able 

to, you know, give life. I failed at being a mother. I felt so deeply 

guilty, as if I had killed my own children with my own hands. 

Mr. SMITH. Is it commonplace for the women, even though they 

have been coerced into the abortion, to take the guilt onto themselves? 

Ms. LIU Even though I mentally knew in my mind that I was 

forced, somehow I still internalized that guilt and that probably explains why I direct anger and resentment toward my husband. 

In China, for the people who have wealth, have money, have connections to power, they can have a second child and they can have 

more if they want or choose to. 

Mr. SMITH. By paying a bribe? 

Ms. CHAI. They can pay fines, they can pay bribes, and they 

could find ways to have their babies in America. She felt as a worker, a normal average worker, she had no way to protect her own 

children and that further gave her that sense of helplessness in 

that kind of society.

I felt so deeply shamed, as if I—you know, in my culture, I felt 

like I had failed my father, I had failed my family. And I felt that 

I would become a woman to be pointed at on the street, in a public 

corner or square, to be shamed, to display my guilt, whatever 

things I have done that led to the pregnancy. In my book, I write 

about my growing up and how, when I was a young child in grade 

school, I was goofing around with a classmate when we were supposed to study. And the teacher came in, dragged a poor boy to the 

front of the classroom and just beat the heck out of the poor boy. 

I was terrified. I thought, well, next he is going to go after me. 

Then when he stopped, he looked at me and he said, we have three 

classes of people. The first class we teach with eyes. The second 

class people we teach with words. And the third class of people we 

teach with our fist. And it was internalizing that—it was because 

of that experience I promised myself—I prayed to God, even though 

I didn’t know God at that time, I wanted to be an outstanding kid. 

I would never want to be the third class of people that would be 

taught with fists. So when I got pregnant and when I realized I 

had really failed my family, that I was going to bring disgrace to 

my family, it was a fear of being exposed that rushed all of that 

62

to the forced abortion clinics. Even though I came to a free country, 

when I met Reggie—again, as I said in the book. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. You can talk about it. 

Ms. CHAI. Thank you for the permission. I started realizing, oh, 

my gosh, this could be four lives. And I could have four babies. I 

sat down with my American husband and I felt like I had to confess to him. And at that moment, I just felt such a deep sense of 

pain and it was so deep I just couldn’t stop crying. Of course, he 

got up from where I was and went to finish his e-mail. And as I 

was writing, finishing the book—and I still felt so afraid to share 

my own experience—I prayed and it was just miraculous. A sister 

called Wan did not know me, yet God made her hear my prayer 

the next day. She decided to connect with All Girls Allowed and 

she just started telling me her own abortion experience, very similar. She was in college. A similar situation where the boyfriend’s 

father took her to the abortion. When she started to realize what 

was going on, she felt so shamed and she was so afraid to tell anybody. For whatever reason, she decided to tell me. I listened to her 

story. I said thank you very much. And I didn’t tell her my story 

because I was still so under the shame. 

So this is the first time you are hearing about it. And I know a 

few of my friends in the Chinese community read my manuscript 

and they were shocked. So the culture is being so—I don’t want to 

say brainwashed and also saturated with abortion culture, with a 

culture that does not know the Creator, nor cherish the creation. 

It is a culture that values so much the goods and products more 

than humans. And it continues being made through violence to violence, through war to war. 

Mr. SMITH. A culture of death. 

Ms. CHAI. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask two final questions and then any 

final concluding comments you have. Let me just say, it is in China’s own self-interest to abandon this abomination called the onechild-per-couple policy and yet many at the U.N., many in the U.S. 

and now increasingly in Africa we are seeing that there is not only 

support and enabling of it, but there is an embrace of it that maybe 

we need it here. I would point out to the committee that you go 

back to the genesis of child limitation. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, actually wrote a book called ‘‘Child Limitations’’ in which she admonishes the world to adopt a very small 

family. 

And she even wrote in one of her books called ‘‘The Pivot of Civilization,’’ in chapter five, that it is cruel—she called it the cruelty 

of charity to help poor, indigent women have babies because then 

you get more of ‘‘them,’’ whatever ‘‘them’’ is, whether it be someone 

of a certain socioeconomic situation or ethnicity. She didn’t like Africans. She didn’t like Asians. She didn’t like Catholics. She didn’t 

like Italians or Irish. It is all in her books. And we need less of 

them as a direct result. 

That mindset is antithetical to human rights and the respect for 

human rights is now being adopted and is mainstreamed through 

the U.N. through the Obama administration—and I say that with 

enormous sadness because the opportunity to be a beacon of hope 

63

for the people of China has not evaporated, but it has alluded this 

White House. 

So it is in China’s own interest, and I hope they take seriously 

the admonitions of their own demographers and certainly what this 

panel and the work of Dr. Hudson and others have done to bring 

focus to their impending economic implosion directly attributable to 

the one-child-per-couple policy. It may take some years but it is 

going to happen. So I am amazed that as smart as so many people 

are in that government—because you know, it is not monolithic. 

There are people who hopefully see it for what it is. It is not only 

cruel to women and children and to men, but it is also sewing the 

seeds of their own demise economically. 

But let me just ask about sex trafficking. I was chagrinned that 

the administration did not include China as a Tier III, egregious 

violator of sex trafficking. I wrote that law. If ever there was a 

country that ought to be on Tier III and, therefore, subject to sanctions, it is the People’s Republic of China, not only for what they 

do in North Korea where North Korean women are sold into slavery, those lucky ones that make it across the border. But there has 

been an exponential rise of trafficking in China itself because of 

the missing girls. 

It is inevitable, given the fact that this policy has that kind of 

consequence. Your thoughts? Perhaps Reggie, you want to speak to 

it. But China is becoming the biggest magnet for sex traffickers in 

the world today, and it will only get worse. Today Dr. Hudson 

amended our understanding. You know 40 million men won’t be 

able to find wives by 2020 because they have been exterminated. 

She said that the number is now 40 to 50 million men who will not 

be able to find wives. And she made a very good point I think about 

how, you know, the poor, the unskilled, the illiterate, those who 

may not be as attractive as somebody else are the ones likely to 

fall by the wayside and live a life as a ‘‘bare branch.’’ On trafficking, if any of you would like to speak on that. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. I am glad you brought up the issue of the North 

Korean refugees. They are some of the saddest people in the world. 

You have these girls who risk their lives coming across the border, 

thinking they are coming into some kind of freedom. If human 

rights were worse anywhere in the world, it is North Korea. And 

then they get snapped up into this sex trafficking trade and they 

can be raped, they can be beaten. They can be tortured. They can’t 

say anything about it because as soon as they try to appeal to the 

authorities, the authorities will simply say, oh, you are from North 

Korea. You are an economic migrant. We are repatriating you. And 

then to escape North Korea is considered treason, and they can end 

up in one of the North Korean death camps. So these are some of 

the most helpless people in the world. Now in terms of why China 

is a tier-two as opposed to a Tier III, I can’t help wondering whether it has something to do with our debt situation. You know? 

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that the administration would be sophisticated enough to know that a country that exports products to 

the tune of over $250 billion in terms of the balance of trade, is 

as reliant on the United States to send those products as we are 

for the trade. And it is $1 trillion out of a 14-point what, three or 

four publicly owned debt. It is a fraction—a significant one—but it 

64

is a percentage of all of our debt. And so my thought is, on the economic issue, we give too much credence to the idea that they might 

stop buying treasury bills and, frankly, it is all the more reason 

why we should have linked human rights of every stripe, including 

respect for women who are subjected to forced abortion and children as part of our trade policy. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton 

delinked it in 1994. But thank you for those comments. Ms. Chai. 

Ms. CHAI. Last time we were here on June 13, we went with you 

to testify against child trafficking in China. It is such a massive 

problem taking place every day. One parent showed a victim who 

went to pick up his own daughter at the school and was 15 minutes 

late and his daughter was trafficked. And then the same day, I got 

a $50 bill for being late 15 minutes at my kids’ school, and I was 

so grateful. This man’s whole life changed, lost his job, had to sell 

his house and property to find funding to go on this nationwide 

campaign to find his daughter. And this kind of action took place 

every day. And it is being reported that up to 200,000 children and 

girls are being trafficked every year. And through our report in one 

of the cities inside China in Fujian where they have 3 million residents, 100,000 to up to 600,000 may be victims of child trafficking. 

It is child trafficking, as young girls are trafficked at a young 

age, as young as even 3 years old to be sold into a family that 

would raise this girl up to marry their own son because they don’t 

want their son to become one of the 37 million single branches. 

And that is how these families are taking matters into their own 

hands. So yes, we would love to have the U.S. leaders’ attention 

and laws to help mediate those situations. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Is there anything else that any of our distinguished witnesses would like to add? I would just like to add one 

other thing maybe as a question or you might want to comment on. 

Ms. Liu, you mentioned how your husband was incarcerated. In 

the 1990s, I chaired a hearing that Harry Wu helped facilitate 

where we heard from a woman from Fujian province who actually 

ran one of the family planning centers. She was given a pseudonym, Mrs. Gao, because she was fearful of retaliation against her 

family and extended family still in China. And she said, by night, 

she was a wife and mother, and during the day, she was a monster. 

She self-described as a monster. And she told us that the family 

planning cadres and the police in their employ had more power to 

coerce, to arrest, to incarcerate, to beat. And I am wondering, you 

know, one of the other untold stories is the fact that the jails of 

China, and especially the detention centers, are failed with men 

and women, fathers, mothers, when a woman does resist, who are 

trying to get that woman to go into the abortion mill for a ‘‘voluntary abortion.’’ Coercion of every stripe and layer being imposed 

upon her. She told stories that as late as 9 months gestation, babies, very, very late, just about to be born, children, that women 

would be pleading with her, Please let me have my baby. And to 

no avail. And they would hold husbands, fathers until she voluntarily submitted to the abortion. Is that commonplace when a 

woman resists? 

Ms. CHAI. Ms. Liu said, this kind of punishment is very common. 

In the city, mostly its the family members of these kinds of parents 

who refuse to give into the forced abortion. They are defiant, trying 

65

to keep their babies; then these family members end up being incarcerated into a study class where they are not allowed to go 

home. And then they will be detained and tormented and continue 

to go through these kinds of ‘‘studies’’ until they are in compliance 

with government procedures. In the countryside, it is most common 

that they just use a tractor to demolish people’s houses. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. By the way, that is all in my report. I have got 

documentation and photographs of exactly these things. The demolition of houses and the people in the jail cells, the parents and all 

that in the jail cells. It is all documented and I think it is all current. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Littlejohn, thank you for documenting that. I 

look forward to reading your report. Like I said, it will be made a 

part of the record. Anything else anyone would like to add? Let me 

again conclude by asking the administration, the Obama administration to finally cease its silence—and that is at best—and its enabling of this great crime against women and children. The KempKasten language is still the law of the land, that any organization 

that supports or co-manages a coercive population control program 

is denied funding. This administration has misapplied that clear 

nonambiguous law and has provided $50 million a year to the 

UNFPA, the U.N. population fund. And the situation on the fund 

vis-a`-vis UNFPA and its complete following of Chinese law and 

regulation has not changed one bit. 

And I would read very briefly one paragraph from John 

Negroponte’s findings which he did on behalf of the Bush administration previously and that is that China’s birth limitation program 

relies on harshly coercive measures. He points out that there is a 

so-called social maintenance fee or social compensation. There are 

several rewards for couples who adhere to the birth limitation 

laws, including monthly stipends. So they get preferential treatment if they adhere to it. But he also says that couples who do not 

comply are penalized by denial of these benefits. According to provincial regulations, social maintenance fees—in other words, you 

get penalized if you have a child out of the birth allowed regime—

are fined from one-half to 10 times the average worker’s annual 

disposable income. 

Those who violate the child limit policy by having an unapproved 

child or helping another to do so may also face disciplinary measures such as job loss or demotion loss of promotion opportunity and 

other administrative punishments, including as you just said, Ms. 

Littlejohn, the destruction of property, the bulldozing of homes. We 

call on the administration, the State Department to have at least 

some semblance of the human rights policy and stop giving money 

to those groups that have a hand-in-glove relationship with the 

Chinese dictatorship. 

I thank you for bearing witness to the truth. Your testimony has 

been very powerful. Yes? 

Ms. CHAI. I do want to end this session with hope. I want you 

all to look at that woman who is there. Her name is Nie Lina. And 

this past May 2010, we got this call from China that this woman 

was detained and was scheduled to go for a forced abortion. And 

people would ask, if President Obama does not do anything, if the 

U.S. leaders do not do anything, what can we do? And I happened 

66

to—it was at 5:00, 5:30, I was watching my daughter’s soccer practice. I said you know what, we can do something. We can pray. So 

we sent an urgent prayer letter to all our prayer warriors. And we 

prayed. We prayed for God to put his power into these officials’ 

hearts to stop this crime. Forty-eight hours later, that woman was 

released. So I just want to end this by saying that hope and rescue 

are on their way. And with time, women will be set free. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

68

f


68446n.eps
69

f


68446m.eps
70


68446f-1.eps
71


68446f-2.eps
72


68446f-3.eps
73


68446f-4.eps
74


68446f-5.eps
75


68446f-6.eps
76


68446f-7.eps
77

Æ


68446f-8.eps