U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

95–041 PDF 2015

CHINA IN 1989 AND 2015: TIANANMEN, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND DEMOCRACY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE 

COMMISSION ON CHINA 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China 

( 

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

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

House Senate 

CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

TED LIEU, California 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor 

SARAH SEWALL, Department of State 

STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce 

DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State 

TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State 

PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director 

ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

CO N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

Page 

Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative from 

New Jersey; Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China ....... 1 

Teng, Biao, a Well-known Chinese Human Rights Lawyer; a Harvard University Law School Visiting Scholar; and Co-founder, the Open Constitution 

Initiative ............................................................................................................... 5 

Peng, Lisa, Daughter of Chinese Democracy Activist Peng Ming; Freshman, 

Harvard University; and TEDx Speaker ............................................................ 7 

Ho, Pin, President and CEO, Mirror Media Group .............................................. 9 

Horowitz, Michael, CEO, 21st Century Initiative, a Washington, DC Think 

Tank ...................................................................................................................... 14 

Yang, Jianli, President, Initiatives for China/Citizen Power for China .............. 18 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

Teng, Biao ................................................................................................................ 38 

Peng, Lisa ................................................................................................................. 40 

Ho, Pin ...................................................................................................................... 41 

Yang, Jianli .............................................................................................................. 46 

Smith, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Chairman, 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China ................................................ 56 

Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator From Florida; Cochairman, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 57 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Witness Biographies ................................................................................................ 59 

(1) 

CHINA IN 1989 AND 2015: TIANANMEN, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND DEMOCRACY 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2015 

CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

room HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Representative Christopher 

Smith, Chairman, presiding. 

Also present: Representatives Randy Hultgren and Trent Franks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Chairman SMITH. The meeting of the Commission will come to 

order, and good morning to everybody. Thank you for being here. 

Twenty-six years ago, the world watched as millions of Chinese 

gathered to peacefully demand political reform and democratic 

openness. The hopes and promises of those heady days ended with 

wanton violence, tears, bloodshed, arrests, and exile. Mothers lost 

sons, fathers lost daughters, and China lost an idealistic generation 

to the tanks that rolled down Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. 

Tiananmen Square has come to symbolize the persistent and 

brutal lengths the Chinese Communist Party will go to remain in 

power. This event has done more to negatively shape global perceptions of China than any other in recent history. 

We remember the Tiananmen Square massacre here in Congress 

because of its enduring impact on U.S.-China relations. We remember it also because an unknown number of people died, were arrested, and exiled simply for seeking universally recognized human 

rights and freedoms. 

We also remember Tiananmen Square because so many people 

were arrested last year for trying to commemorate the anniversary 

in China. We remember this date each year because it is too important to forget and because it is too dangerous to commemorate in 

the People’s Republic of China. 

The Chinese Government should allow open discussion on the 

Tiananmen protests and end the enforced amnesia surrounding the 

events of 1989, and more importantly, the Chinese Government 

should take responsibility for this needless national tragedy that 

occurred on June 3 and 4, and continued as people were hunted 

down. Those who had fax machines were followed, arrested, and incarcerated. 

2 

Sadly, it seems that a China led by President Xi Jinping will not 

take such responsibility. President Xi and top Communist Party 

leaders regularly unleash bellicose attacks on universal values, 

Western ideals, and revisionism of the Party’s history. 

The domestic screws on dissent have tightened considerably since 

Xi Jinping assumed the presidency. Over 230 people have been detained for their human rights advocacy and peaceful efforts at political reform. A number of rights groups are calling this the largest 

crackdown in two decades. 

The Chinese Government rounds up not only reformers, but 

those who defend them. It views most Uyghurs as security threats 

and then jails Uyghur intellectuals peacefully seeking ethnic reconciliation. It not only smothers Internet freedom and its domestic 

media, but threatens foreign journalists and spurs self-censorship 

from Harvard Square to Hollywood. 

The Chinese Government also threatens foreign citizens or foreign institutions who speak out for greater human rights. The family members of Canada’s Miss Universe, for example, were threatened for her outspokenness about human rights. 

Also, China’s new and troubling NGO [non-governmental organization] law could bar an American university from China, or even 

detain its representatives in China, if a campus student group 

stages a protest in the United States against the Chinese Government’s treatment of Tibetans, Christians, or Falun Gong, the detention of Liu Xiaobo, or the criminal tragedy of China’s 35-year 

one-child-per-couple policy, with its reliance on forced sterilization 

and forced abortion. 

U.S. policy must support Chinese advocates who promote human 

rights and political reform and stand firm for U.S. interests and 

greater freedom and democracy in China. Our strategic and moral 

interests coincide when we support human rights and democracy in 

China. A more democratic China, one that respects human rights 

and is governed by the rule of law, is more likely to be a productive 

and peaceful partner rather than a strategic and hostile competitor. 

We should remember this fact as we watch China building bases 

and threatening free and open sea lanes in the East and South 

China Seas. The United States must also make strong appeals to 

China’s self-interest; the rule of law, freedom of the press, and 

independent judiciary; a flourishing civil society; and accountable 

officials who would promote all of China’s primary goals: economic 

progress, political stability, reconciliation with Taiwan, good relations with America and the rest of the world, and international 

stature and influence. 

At the same time, the United States must also be willing to use 

political and economic sanctions to respond to gross violations of 

human rights in China, torture, prolonged and arbitrary detention, 

forced abortions, psychiatric experimentation or organ harvesting 

from prisoners. 

That is why I introduced yesterday the China Human Rights 

Protection Act of 2015, H.R. 2621. This bill will deny U.S. entry 

visas and issue financial penalties to any Chinese official who engages in gross violations of human rights. 

3 

I would note parenthetically that in 2000 I authored a Foreign 

Relations Act and it contained a provision that we put in that said 

that anyone who is complicit in forced abortion and forced sterilization can be denied, and must be denied, entry into the United 

States. 

Sadly, the administration has not—and I repeat, not—enforced 

that law. We will continue to ask them to simply follow the rule 

of law here and preclude access to the United States by those who 

abuse women in such a horrific way. 

The United States must show leadership in this regard and it 

must send a very strong message. The worst violators of the rights 

of the Chinese people, those who abuse universal freedom with impunity, should not prosper from access to the United States and 

our economic or political freedoms. Again, this new bill would cover 

all the gross human rights violators and, again, preclude their 

entry to the United States. 

It is tempting to be pessimistic about China’s future and the future of U.S.-China relations. I am not a pessimistic person, but I 

am hopeful. Constant repression has not dimmed the desires of the 

Chinese people for freedom and reform. While the hopes of the 

Tiananmen Square demonstrators have not yet been realized, their 

demands for universal freedoms continue to inspire Chinese people 

today and it has passed on to a new generation. 

We have with us today participants of the Tiananmen protests 

of 1989 and new generations of advocates for democratic openness 

and for human rights. They fight for universal freedoms. They fight 

for the release of their families, their fathers. And they fight for reform and a future China that protects human rights. It is the new 

generation that will inspire change in China. 

I believe that someday China will be free. Someday the people 

of China will be able to enjoy all of their God-given rights, and a 

nation of free Chinese men and women will honor, applaud, and 

celebrate the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all of those who sacrificed so much, for so long, for freedom. 

I would like to now introduce our very distinguished panel to this 

Commission hearing, beginning with, first, Dr. Teng Biao, who is 

a well-known Chinese human rights lawyer, a Harvard University 

Law School Visiting Scholar, and Co-founder of the Open Constitution Initiative. 

Dr. Teng holds a Ph.D. from Peking University Law School. As 

a human rights lawyer, he is a promoter of the Rights Defense 

Movement and a co-initiator of the New Citizens Movement. In 

2003, he was one of the ‘‘Three Doctors of Law’’ who complained 

to the National People’s Congress about unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants, and he has provided counsel in numerous other human rights cases. 

We will then hear from Lisa Peng, who is the daughter of Chinese human rights and pro-democracy activist Mr. Peng Ming, who 

was kidnapped in Burma by Chinese secret police and sentenced to 

life in prison in 2004. Lisa is currently a freshman at Harvard. She 

was born in Beijing and suffered doubly as a second child by being 

denied official legal recognition. As we all know, that is one of the 

ways that they impose sanctions on those who have a second-order 

birth, as they call it. 

4 

In 2000, her family fled the government persecution and was accepted by the United States as UN refugees in 2001. Lisa continues 

to work with the ChinaAid Association, the State Department, and 

Members of Congress to advocate for the release of her father and 

other prisoners of conscience. 

We will then hear from Ho Pin, a journalist and director of the 

News Department at Shenzhen News, who is originally from 

Hunan and participated in the 1989 movement. Ho left China for 

Canada after Chinese authorities started investigating him because 

of his writings and analysis of political events in China. 

Ho Pin established the Mirror Media Group in Canada in 1991 

and the Chinese news website Duowei News in 1999. Mirror Media 

currently includes five independent publishing houses, five magazines, three websites, a bookstore, and an online bookstore. Ho Pin 

has worked in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan with news 

as a reporter, editor, and executive. 

We will then hear and welcome back for a return trip, a man 

who has been a great staunch defender of human rights and a 

great thinker, strategic thinker, Michael Horowitz, CEO of the 21st 

Century Initiative, who has led a broad range of human rights coalitions and has played major roles in the passage of such human 

rights legislation as the International Religious Freedom Act, the 

North Korea Human Rights Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act, and the Sudan Peace Act, just to name a few. 

Mr. Horowitz has been especially active on behalf of Tibetan 

Buddhists, Christians, Falun Gong believers, and Uyghur Muslims. 

He has also provided vital assistance to the organizations dedicated 

to fighting Internet censorship and penetrating China’s Great Firewall. 

He served as general counsel of the Office of Management and 

Budget during the Reagan administration and again has provided 

this Commission and the Human Rights subcommittees in both the 

House and the Senate with tremendous insight and counsel over 

the many years. 

We will then hear from Dr. Yang Jianli, who is a scholar and 

democracy activist internationally recognized for his efforts to promote democracy in China. He has been involved in the pro-democracy movement in China since the 1980s and was forced to flee 

China in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In 2002, Dr. 

Yang returned to China to support the labor movement and was 

imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for alleged espionage and illegal entry. 

Following his release in 2007 and his subsequent return to the 

United States, Dr. Yang founded Initiatives for China, also known 

as Citizen Power for China, a non-governmental organization that 

promises China’s peaceful transition to democracy. Again, he, too, 

has provided tremendous insights over the years to this Commission, as well as to the Human Rights committees in the House and 

the Senate. 

I would like to now ask Dr. Teng Biao if he would proceed. 

5 

STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO, A WELL-KNOWN CHINESE HUMAN 

RIGHTS LAWYER; HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL VISITING SCHOLAR; AND CO–FOUNDER, THE OPEN CONSTITUTION INITIATIVE 

Mr. TENG. Thank you very much. Twenty-six years have passed, 

but the killing did not end in 1989. Many interested citizens labeled ‘‘Tiananmen thugs’’ have been executed in custody and repatriation centers, detention centers, prisons, reeducation through 

labor camps, and various black jails; countless deaths have been 

due to state violence. 

Citizens die at the scenes of forced demolitions or enter the iron 

face of civil city management. Since 1999, at least 3,860 Falun 

Gong practitioners have been clearly tortured to death. Since 2009, 

at least 140 Tibetans have self-immolated in protest of the authorities’ brutal domination. 

As the activists are captured and tortured, the gunfire of 

Tiananmen is echoing in the background. The Tiananmen massacre 

sustained the Party system, since the Party showed its two faces 

in 1989, and its rough treatment of the Chinese people has become 

even more brazen. 

Partly because of not having unions and not having the freedom 

to assemble and go on strike, there is the advantage of the lack of 

human rights through government collusion and extreme eco-redistribution, China has achieved rapid economic rise. But many social 

and political problems are behind this economic growth: pollution, 

ecological crises, and widespread unsafe food products, corruption, 

and clashes between citizens and authorities. 

The Chinese Government has never stopped its crackdown on 

people’s resistance. Since Xi Jinping came to power, he has issued 

a harsh, comprehensive crackdown. More than 1,500 human rights 

defenders have been arrested and detained. Some of them were 

brave enough to promote political activities, but many focus only on 

rural libraries, LGBT rights, and so on. 

Internet censorship is increasingly strict. Document No. 9 reflects the severe control over ideology in universities, the Internet, 

and the media. Gao Yu, a 70-year-old renowned journalist, was 

sentenced to seven years, accused of leaking state secrets. 

Three important laws have been drafted and will pass soon. The 

State Security Law, Ccounterterrorism Law, and Foreign NGO 

Management Law. This law legitimizes human rights violations. 

Foreign NGOs will be seriously affected and many will have to 

leave China. 

Public security bureaus inside of the civil affairs bureaus will be 

given the power to ratify and supervise foreign NGOs. The counterterrorism law requires Western IT companies to provide encryption 

keys and source codes. 

More recently, a Uyghur Muslim was sentenced to six years in 

Kashgar for refusing to shave off his beard and his wife was imprisoned for two years for wearing a burqa. 

The Panchen Lama has been disappeared for 20 years. Some relatives and friends of Tibetan self-immolators were detained and 

sentenced for assisting in the self-immolation. 

Christian churches were destroyed and some pastors were jailed. 

Falun Gong and other religious group members were detained and 

6 

tortured, imprisoned in legal education centers and other black 

jails. Many lawyers were harassed when challenging the legal education centers, with at least four of them suffering broken ribs from 

beatings. More forced demolitions have happened and petitioners 

are facing harsher punishments than before. 

In general, the current comprehensive crackdown is seen as the 

worst since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. I do not deny 

that there are some improvements and reforms, but the major driving force for these changes and reforms has been the people, as a 

result of probing, pressure, and prices paid by the rights lawyers, 

democracy activists, and other human rights defenders. 

There must be something wrong with the petitioners and business people. So as to not inflame the Chinese Communist Party, 

they do not dare to meet with the Dalai Lama. To gain Chinese 

markets, they disregard violations of human rights. To receive 

large orders for goods, they, one after another, adopt appeasement 

policies toward the Communist autocratic regime. Democratic countries join in the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank]. 

Beijing watchers and the researchers self-censor, even to the 

point that they defend despotism. But now is the time for the West 

to re-think and adjust its policies toward China. A strong, repressive political power is threatening not just the Chinese people, but 

the entire world. Only promoting a truly free China comports with 

the long-term interests of humanity. 

The Chinese Communist Party [CCP] will not last forever, but 

the Chinese people will continue to live on that soil. The day will 

come when the United States must deal with today’s Chinese prisoners of conscience locked away and filled with suffering, Liu 

Xiaobo, Xu Zhiyong, Ilham Tohti, Pu Zhiqiang, and others. 

Last, some recommendations. First, pass an act to prohibit Chinese perpetrators who are responsible for human rights violations 

from entering the United States and other democratic countries. 

Support Chinese human rights defenders, political prisoners, and 

real NGOs. Give a voice to permanent activists, just as the West 

has done with the Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo, and Hu Jia. 

Stop the cooperation with the Chinese Government’s organized 

NGOs, or GONGOs, which are helping the Chinese Government to 

suppress human rights and freedom, for example, the All China 

Lawyers Association and the Chinese Human Rights Association. 

Make sure that the Confucius Institute, scholars and students, 

federations and other government-sponsored programs do not violate academic freedom and human rights. Punish the American 

companies and individuals who have cooperated with the CCP to 

suppress freedom and human rights. Help to develop technology to 

circumvent Internet censorship. 

After 26 years, the symbolism and meaning inherent in that 

world-famous picture still needs understanding. A young person, 

solitary, standing in front of a tank has communicated the terror 

and blackness of tyranny and communicated the Chinese people’s 

brave resistance to tyranny. History will require us to answer one 

question: Do we stand on the side of the tank man or on the side 

of the tank? Thank you very much for hearing me. Your ideas, your 

voices, and your votes will influence China and bring more freedom 

and human rights to this planet. 

7 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Teng, thank you very much for your testimony, for your very specific recommendations, and again, we deeply appreciate, on the Commission, your input, especially as we prepare the next iteration of our report, which hopefully will bear 

truth to power and speak truth to power in Beijing and anywhere 

else where there is a willing listener. So, thank you so very much. 

I would like to now ask Lisa Peng if she would provide her testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teng appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF LISA PENG, DAUGHTER OF CHINESE DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST PENG MING, FRESHMAN AT HARVARD, AND 

TEDx SPEAKER 

Ms. PENG. Honorable Chairman and members of the Commission, thank you for inviting me to testify at today’s hearing on Chinese authorities’ treatment of democracy and human rights. These 

are the values all of us here have the freedom to discuss today, but 

the same values for which my father, Peng Ming, is serving a life 

sentence in China. 

Two years ago, I debated at the City Club of Cleveland’s High 

School Debate Championship on the topic of whether the United 

States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes 

of other countries to stop human rights abuses. 

Each year, the City Club of Cleveland provides two high school 

debaters the opportunity to debate in a room historically renowned 

for celebrating the freedom of speech. As I researched the topic of 

human rights abuses in preparation for the debate, I learned about 

the moral obligation of countries to protect human rights and the 

fundamental role human rights ought to play in foreign relations. 

I realized that despite such a moral obligation, it is easy to stand 

by as human rights are abused; it is easy to passively accept 

human suffering. This topic was personal for me because my father 

is serving a life sentence in a Chinese prison, branded a criminal 

by the Chinese Government because of his work advocating for 

human rights. 

My journey to advocate for the release of my father and for 

human rights in China began two years ago with a debate topic 

that piqued my interest in learning about those rights and about 

my own father. I had always known that I am his mirror image 

and that we both share a love for the art of debate, but beyond that 

I did not know much else; after all, my last memory of him is from 

11 years ago. Thus, I began to piece together a timeline of my father’s life and my family’s journey of escape to America. 

My father is an environmentalist, an economist, and a human 

rights activist. He is the author of ‘‘The Fourth Landmark,’’ a book 

on China’s economic and political growth that was sponsored by the 

Ford Foundation. He was also the founder of China Development 

Union, a think tank established to address the censored topics of 

rule of law and human rights. 

However, in 1999, the Chinese Government shut down his think 

tank and sentenced him to 18 months of labor camp. His crime? 

Passionately advocating for human rights and freedom in China. 

Upon his release, the government wire tapped our house, began 

following our car, and even threatened my father with a second arVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
8 

rest. It became too dangerous to continue living in China and so 

my family decided to flee political persecution. 

We eventually made it to Thailand, where we were granted UN 

refugee status. On August 29, 2001, we landed in the United 

States, the land that stood for us as a beacon of freedom, human 

rights, and rule of law. For the first time, we experienced freedom 

of expression and justice, not as values confined to an underground 

think tank, but rather as values championed by a nation. 

In the United States, my father continued his human rights 

work. In 2004, he went to Thailand to establish a safe haven for 

political refugees. However, he was lured to Myanmar, kidnapped 

by Chinese secret police, and quickly sentenced to life in prison. 

The UN Working Group for Arbitrary Detention has determined 

that the deprivation of my father’s liberty is in contravention to the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, my father is 

a U.S.-based dissident with UN refugee status who escaped political persecution in China, therefore, his kidnapping is in violation 

of non-refoulement which forbids the return of a victim of persecution to his persecutor. 

My father has also been deprived of his right to due process, as 

he was denied access to a lawyer and a jury of his peers, rights we 

take for granted here in the United States. 

That debate resolution two years ago prompted my journey to 

discover who my father is and the values for which he stands. 

While I had the privilege to debate in a room that celebrates the 

freedom of speech, my father remains locked in a room built to silence and punish prisoners of conscience. 

It has been a decade during which I have been privileged to receive an American education and learn about freedom, democracy, 

and justice, but a decade during which my father has remained in 

prison with no medical care for fighting to secure those very same 

values. 

As an American citizen, I cannot merely stand by and passively 

accept the denial of these fundamental freedoms. In the past two 

years, I have worked with Members of Congress to advocate for my 

father’s freedom and for the freedom of thousands of other political 

prisoners in China. 

Although the support from U.S. Congressmen has given me great 

hope for my father’s release, I know that his case is only the tip 

of the iceberg. There remain thousands of prisoners of conscience 

and innocent Chinese civilians who suffer the same denial of basic 

freedoms. If we do not speak up, there will remain no hope for 

human rights in China and activists like my father will continue 

to suffer. 

Sadly, the human rights issue is one that is easily ignored in 

light of pressing economic and political concerns. China has become 

the world’s second-largest economy and a major trading partner of 

the United States. Powerful economic interests want us to turn a 

blind eye to China’s human rights record. 

Respecting America’s values and standing up for human rights 

has never been easy and it is not easy now, but is that not what 

the promise of America is really about? Though I am no politician 

or expert in this field, I have learned through debate that human 

rights are the foundation from which meaningful and effective disVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
9 

cussions of economics and politics must proceed. The values and interests are so often not just parallel, but the same. 

In fact, these are the same values and fundamental freedoms on 

which our great nation was founded. As someone who was rescued, 

raised, and educated by this country, I feel that I owe the United 

States my utmost gratitude. 

However, gratitude for one’s country is not demonstrated by passive acceptance of our country’s actions, but in active scrutiny. We 

show our love and gratitude for our nation by holding it to the 

highest of standards, the standards on which it was founded. 

In doing so, I have realized that the issue of human rights is not 

only political, it is personal. It is a personal commitment to speak 

up, it is a refusal to remain silent, it is acting on the principles 

that we read about, write about, and talk about at hearings like 

these. 

It is the efforts of the Congressional-Executive Commission on 

China, Congressman Smith and Senator Rubio, who speak up and 

take a stand on human rights that give me hope for the future. 

They give me hope for the possibility of telling my father in person 

how much we have all cared about him and his dream for China’s 

future. They give me hope for the possibility of securing human 

rights in China and for paying the utmost respect to the values on 

which our own great country was founded, the values for which I 

hope it will always stand. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Ms. Peng, thank you so very much. I can only 

say, as a father of two daughters just a little bit older than you, 

your father has to be so very proud of you. Thank you for, as you 

said, your refusal to remain silent. You have not remained silent. 

Frankly, I would never want to debate you. You really are very articulate and very persuasive. Thank you so much. 

We now will turn to Mr. Ho Pin for his testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Peng appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF HO PIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MIRROR MEDIA 

GROUP 

Mr. HO. Representative Smith and Senator Rubio, thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to stand here today and to give voice to 

a brave Chinese journalist, Ms. Gao Yu, who has recently been imprisoned on fictitious charges for the third time. The 71-year-old 

Gao Yu merely fulfilled her duty as a journalist and shared the 

truth that she knew with the public. Gao Yu’s case is not isolated. 

More and more writers, thinkers, and human rights lawyers are 

being illegally detained or imprisoned. This includes the Nobel 

Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, economist Ilham Tohti, writer Xu 

Zhiyong, lawyer Pu Zhiqiang. The list goes on. 

Over the years, many people have stood in this very spot, urging 

the world to pay attention to China’s human rights abuses. But, 

this solitary light in the darkness has not been able to illuminate 

China’s blatant violations or pierce through the smog shrouding all 

the injustices. Therefore, I do not want to take that route again 

and focus solely on China’s human rights issues or to condemn the 

Chinese Government like others have done before. I want to raise 

some questions instead. 

10 

With its deteriorating human rights records, why is China getting stronger by the day? Why are Chinese leaders getting more 

popular in the international community? Is China building its national strength for the sole purpose of jockeying for the number one 

position with the United States? Will China engage in a war with 

the United States and its Asian neighbors such as Japan and the 

Philippines? Will the world return to a cold war? 

These are not new questions. American experts have already provided some answers. Some scholars believe that there is a secret 

‘‘bamboozling’’ department within the Communist Party. It has designed strategies that have successfully deceived the world and 

gained China several decades of time to develop. 

Some say the rule of the Chinese Communist Party is already 

approaching its end and the regime is on the verge of collapsing. 

Others claim that U.S.-China relations have deteriorated to a critical point and that the United States should throw China some 

candies to lure it back to the right track. 

So what are my views? 

First, I believe that China has risen, and it has, as advertised, 

risen peacefully. China is the world’s No. 2 economy and has 

splashed huge amounts of investment across the globe. Millions of 

wealthy Chinese travelers flock to every famous tourist site and 

the most expensive department stores. It would be impossible to 

close your eyes and ignore China’s rise. The only thing China has 

yet to achieve is the No. 1 position in the world. 

At the same time, China’s rise has not led to any wars. Even 

though the Chinese Army has been acting like a belligerent hormone-raging teenager in the South and East China Seas over the 

last few years, I don’t think the Chinese leadership has plans or 

the desire to start a war in Asia. Especially when they are not psychologically prepared to lose a war. The most arrogant and bold 

military commanders can merely strike a pose through minor incursions or the intimidation of the militarily weak Philippines. 

With the exception of its strategic missile defense systems, which 

aim to deter, rather than invade, the Chinese army does not yet 

have the ability to project its power around the globe. Even in the 

Pacific region, Chinese Navy and Air Forces are not capable of a 

sustaining war against Japan and the United States. 

In other words, China lacks the ability to launch a large-scale 

war in the Pacific theater in the foreseeable future, not to mention 

launching a world war like Nazi Germany did. China does not have 

the capability, nor the guts. It is not their intention. There is no 

Adolf Hitler in China. More importantly, the Chinese leadership 

does not see the necessity. 

In addition, China has no plans to engage in a cold war with the 

West, the United States included. The current political system in 

China cannot be defined in conventional terms. It is neither socialism, nor capitalism. It is not an empire in the traditional sense. It 

is a mongrel. One of the most famous maxims of Deng Xiaoping 

states that ‘‘It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as 

long as it catches mice.’’ Therefore, the end justifies the means. 

While this pragmatic philosophy has contributed to China’s rapid 

economic growth, it also turned the Chinese political system into 

a two-faced monster the likes of which one normally sees only in 

11 

computer games. Like the legendary cat that has nine lives, it is 

adaptable and resilient. 

As a consequence, many incomprehensible things have happened—the ruling Communist Party has defied expectation and 

lived on. The government can blatantly repeat something that is 

universally acknowledged as lies. For example, the Communist 

Party is promoting an anti-West agenda in its internal documents. 

The Communist Party’s propaganda machine distorts truths about 

Western democracies to prevent the pursuit of democratic values by 

its citizens and to threaten its citizens who are trying to demand 

the rights to select their own leaders, criticize their governments, 

and use the law to protect themselves. On the other hand, the 

Communist Party has long abandoned socialist theories. Many 

leaders are big fans of Western democratic societies. They send 

their children to study in the West or secretly help their relatives 

who intend to emigrate. Some view the fact that they can visit the 

West as a badge of honor. I have met and talked with many Chinese officials when they traveled in the United States, and hardly 

anyone was a true opponent of Western values. On the contrary, 

they all agree that a democratic system can guarantee fairness and 

bring stability to the country. 

In other words, the Chinese leaders have no intention of building 

another Berlin Wall. Neither do they plan to start a cold war with 

the West. They have no desire to impose their systems on the West 

because they cannot even define the kind of political system China 

has. There is no Stalin in China and nobody wishes to be his disciple. President Xi Jinping has heaped praise on Putin, but his 

praise has its own purpose. President Xi admires Putin’s personal 

power. It is true that the Chinese president stood side-by-side with 

Putin to inspect the troops in the Red Square a few days ago, but 

that doesn’t mean that China and Russia can establish an alliance 

against the United States. Mistrust of Russia by the Chinese Government and people is deep-seated and hard to dispel. 

Third, the conflicts between China and the West are not about 

ideology or cultures. The mainstream religion, in China has long 

served as a tool to unite all factions of society. Religion, a tamed 

pussycat, is becoming an integral part of the Communist Party. 

The Chinese are not capable of starting a holy war against the 

West. They would not even dare. Nationalism is nothing more than 

lip service. The Chinese leaders use this type of neurotic nationalism to cover up their empty and phony ideology. No leaders 

would want nationalism to become fanatical and get out of control. 

Overheated nationalism could set the house of the Party on fire. 

If the above are true, why are we worried? We should not only 

be concerned but also alarmed. It’s not a matter of which country 

will be the world’s number one. The changes in China will impact 

the world. If China can integrate itself into the civilized world, in 

which people’s rights and self-determination are respected, the 

world will enter a new era. Mankind can truly base their thinking 

and policies on a common destiny. If the Chinese Communist 

Party, with its terrible records on human rights and stellar results 

in economic development, is allowed to continue, it will not only 

bring disaster to the Chinese people, but also destruction to the 

whole world. It is neither an actual war with weapons, nor is it a 

12 

cold war between two ideological camps. It is not a conflict of cultures and value systems. China’s mongrel and pragmatic nature 

has made its system more adaptable and more powerful. Its ability 

to destroy the world’s political and biological environments and to 

spread such destructive power is beyond even its own expectation. 

A virus starts with just a few patients. Soon, it spreads to every 

corner, causing a worldwide outbreak. This is what China will do 

to the world—destroy the very foundation of human freedom. 

What I want to emphasize is that this is not what the Chinese 

leadership envisioned 30 years ago. Neither is it the political ambition of the current leadership. The current situation is the consequence of human weakness, the short-sightedness of politicians 

of the West, the insatiable greed of unscrupulous capitalists, and 

the distorted social and political structure in China. Together, they 

have created such a virus, or at the very least, they have provided 

opportunity for it to mutate and spread. 

Two months after the Chinese Government brutally cracked 

down on the student movement in China on June 4, 1989, President George Bush provided prompt support for Deng Xiaoping 

through his secret envoy. The collapse of the former Soviet Union 

and East European Communism made many politicians in the 

West complacent. They forgave and accepted the paranoid and 

humble Chinese leaders. In return, Deng Xiaoping and his successors initiated open door and economic reform policies. These reforms did not bring any political progress. Instead, China took advantage of the technology from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the West 

and the benefits of the WTO to boost its economy at the cost of social equality and its environment. Once the Communist Party 

strengthened its power through its strong economy, it went on to 

undermine Western opposition to China’s human rights practices. 

Now, the Chinese leadership practically does not care at all 

about the pressure from Western public opinion because politicians 

and businessmen from around the world are salivating at China’s 

immense purchasing power, investment, and markets. It is no exaggeration to say that today, Chinese leaders are the most well-received, honored guests in a majority of countries worldwide; China 

is the destination for many of the world’s elite who thirst for gold. 

Beijing tightly controls the freedom of the press. They could cut 

off Google and Yahoo! anytime; they had refused visas for New 

York Times journalists, and blocked access to Twitter and 

Facebook. All without impunity. While at the same time, they can 

set up any media they would like in the United States. They provide free trips to Chinese language media chieftains in the West to 

receive training in China, and they even hire secret hackers to attack independent Chinese media outlets overseas. Ironically, 

China, which screens, censors, and bans any print and electronic 

publication, has been invited to serve as the country of honor at 

book fairs in Frankfurt, London, and New York. 

Hollywood is the epitome of free American culture; filmmakers 

are free to ridicule, mock, and criticize American politicians and 

government officials such as senators, judges, and the president, 

without fear of persecution. But in their pursuit of China’s box office dollars, Hollywood executives have consciously decided to steer 

clear of any criticism of the Chinese Government. Despite this, 

13 

American movies are still censored in China, and some are not allowed at all. 

Given these circumstances, does China’s leadership have to risk 

it all and start a war? Does China have to close its doors once 

again and restart the cold war against the West? They can get everything they need and they can reject everything they do not 

want. 

The problem lies in the fact that the West pursues short-term 

economic interests by ignoring the worsening of Chinese people’s 

rights. Western corporations scrambled to do business with China 

regardless of the record of human rights violations. A desire for 

profit with no social conscience encourages the growth of this new 

style of politics in China. It is tantamount to striking the core of 

every lesson Chinese officials learned about conducting their political business worldwide. Meanwhile, the cash that the Communist 

Party waves in their hands has made it possible for the China 

virus to spread unencumbered in the world, causing the value of 

Western freedom to grow weaker, feebler, and more and more susceptible to illness. 

China was never a threat before. It was the Western world that 

has made the Chinese leadership think the West could easily be 

threatened. 

So what can we conclude? No one can figure it out, because no 

one is consciously aware; to a certain extent, we have all been infected by the virus. Otherwise, we would not feel so confused and 

lost, so powerless. And because of our inaction and complacency, 

Gao Yu, Liu Xiaobo, Ilham Tohti, Wang Bingzhang, Xu Zhiyong, 

and Pu Zhiqiang are languishing in prisons. Chinese citizens who 

died 26 years ago in Tiananmen Square and now lie in the ground 

have turned into lonely ghosts wandering in the wild. Dawn has 

yet to arrive in China. If we continue along this muddy, murky 

road, we will also be swallowed by the darkness. 

The reason that I’m standing here today is that the scene I saw 

26 years ago in Tiananmen Square still has not faded from my 

memory. I share the pain of those who lost friends and relatives 

in Tiananmen Square. I firmly believe that things could change if 

America were to wake up from its vacant and passive view of 

China. America is not a narrow-minded nationalist empire. America represents the values established by people who pursue the 

dream of freedom. This means that America is destined to be responsible for people who are pursuing similar dreams in other 

countries. I am not advocating war between China and the United 

States. I absolutely do not want confrontation between China and 

the United States. I do not think it is necessary for another Pearl 

Harbor to wake up the American people. I hope that America will 

become the driving force for democracy and human rights in China. 

The very least we can do is to take actions that will not encourage 

the continued growth of a dangerous political virus in China that 

values cash more than freedom and human rights. We can, and 

should, work to assure the Chinese people their dignity, to assure 

a long-term friendship between the United States and China, and 

to assure the security of the cornerstone of freedom for the whole 

world. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you so very, very much. 

14 

Without objection, I would like to put Mr. Ho Pin’s April 28 New 

York Times op-ed, just a few days ago, into the record, ‘‘Gao Yu’s 

Real Crime.’’ Without objection, so ordered. 

We are joined by Commissioner Randy Hultgren. Randy, thank 

you for being here. 

We will now go to Michael Horowitz. 

[The article appears in the appendix.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ho appears in the appendix.] 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, CEO, 21ST CENTURY 

INITIATIVES, A WASHINGTON, DC THINK TANK 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important 

hearing because it sends a signal that efforts to cast the 

Tiananmen massacre into the memory hole may not—hopefully will 

not—succeed. You are keeping the flame, the candle, flickering, and 

maybe more than that. That is the purpose of this hearing, and it 

means a great deal. 

It means a great deal not only because we remember and think 

of the bravery and the courage of the people who stood up for democracy, but Congressman Hultgren, I want to say to you what I 

have said to Congressman Smith. It really gets to the core strategic 

issue of the 21st century. 

We talk about terrorism and we have got to focus on it, but the 

21st century will largely be defined by one question: Will China become a democracy. If the answer is yes, we will compete in terms 

of who builds better cars and computers. 

If the answer is no, in a nuclear age particularly, the risks will 

be extraordinary, and indeed as to terrorism there will be a protector and defender and financier of terrorists throughout the 21st 

century. 

I worked in the Reagan administration when the United States 

confronted the Soviet Union. I think the risks of China remaining 

a dictatorship, for China itself and for the world, greater by orders 

of magnitude than they were during the years that Ronald Reagan 

tried to deal with the Soviet Union. 

And so this hearing, and some of the people here are the people 

standing for the hope that the 21st century will not be, God forbid, 

bloodier than the 20th has been. 

Human rights is the focus here, and what do we do? You have 

heard from some of the witnesses, and I know about this in personal terms. My wife, a physician, went to China last year and was 

detained by the Chinese to give medical attention to Ju Yufu, a 

man in jail for seven years for writing a poem. 

I just heard yesterday the awful news and the marker of why 

this hearing is important and attention is important. Ju Yufu’s 

wife visited the prison and her visits are being cut down. His phone 

calls are not being permitted. They’re not even giving him medication for some of the grave medical conditions he’s confronting, including an aneurysm, vascular sclerosis, enormously high blood 

pressure. He is at risk of death and the Chinese are indifferent to 

that. And all these other cases—Lisa’s case of her father in jail. 

Well, what does one do? Let us begin with the fact I believe that 

China is the least ideological country in the whole world, and that, 

for China, policy is made on a cost/benefit analysis basis. If the 

15 

costs exceed whatever benefits they get for keeping North Korea 

alive, for keeping Lisa’s father in jail, if those costs exceed the benefits, China will change its policy. Ronald Reagan understood that 

that’s how dictatorships operate and that was the basis on which 

he dealt with the—I love the word former—former Soviet Union. 

So the first thing it seems to me that needs to happen is that 

we must raise our voices about these human rights cases, as Ronald Reagan raised his voice about the Soviet Refuseniks and 

Pentecostals. Add to that, Congressman Smith, your visit to Perm 

Camp No. 5. These were the kinds of things—they were not just 

blowing in the wind, they were powerful political forces that ultimately changed history. 

Today’s silence flies in the face of an American history where 

Theodore Roosevelt complained about Soviet pogroms, and Ronald 

Reagan and Jimmy Carter raised human rights issues. The fact 

that we have abandoned that history sends a signal to China that 

it is free to keep these people in jail. We are a country with a history where values and interests have been closely aligned and 

when we move away from that equation, dictatorships understand 

that they are free to do whatever they want. 

So we do not even have the option of silence. Silence is not a 

neutral factor, it is a negative factor, and has great negative 

weight. So speaking out counts and we can make things happen 

when we do. I wish this President did so more and understood 

what he could gain by doing so. 

The second thing regarding China is, I think, to focus on the 

United Nations. We provide—we write the check for, what, 25 percent of its budget. Lisa has talked about how her father is a designated refugee by the United Nations, entitled under international 

law to be free. 

The fact that he is in jail is in naked, open Chinese violation of 

its UN treaties. This violation is even more particularly important 

as China remains the force that keeps North Korea alive. North 

Korea is Tiananmen every day. Its regime stays alive because of 

the Chinese Government. Well, there is leverage that we have. The 

United Nations has been silent and appeasing of China as, in violation of law, China sends back North Korean refugees to death 

camps. 

Why do we not use our leverage on the United Nations through 

the appropriations process to speak out? There is evidence that the 

China-UN treaty actually gives the United Nations the right to 

take China to binding arbitration. I have talked to the High Commissioner for Refugees and they are scared stiff of doing that. 

Well, that is because China is applying the pressure and we are 

not. We have leverage to move the United Nations to be a force 

speaking out against China’s treatment of political dissidents and 

North Korean refugees. It will make a great difference if we do 

that. 

Now let me get to the big one, the Chinese Internet firewall. Do 

not take my word that it is the big one. Hu Jintao has said that 

if China cannot maintain the ‘‘purity of the Internet,’’ it cannot 

maintain the ‘‘stability of the socialist state.’’ 

Tens of thousands of China’s ablest IT people are at work in its 

firewall bureaucracy, and China spends billions of dollars to keep 

16 

its Internet firewalls going. Such firewalls are the Berlin Walls of 

the 21st century. It is not bricks and stones and barbed wire as 

much as it is electronic firewalls that isolate and control millions 

of people in the world’s closed societies, and very particularly in 

China. 

Now I know Congressman Smith knows this, but Congressman Hultgren, the Board of Broadcasting Governors [BBG] gets $750 

million a year and we cannot get them to allocate $20 million to 

hold an Internet firewall breakthrough competition. That is less 

than 3 percent of its budget. 

We cannot get the State Department to do it. We have given 

money for Internet freedom and that money has gone down a hole 

and has had no immediate effect. But a $20 million breakthrough 

competition mandated under the FY 2016 appropriations bill, 

which the State Department can fund via access to the Economic 

Support Fund [ESF] could make history. 

If State and the BBG split the cost of such a competition, it 

would take 0.1 percent of the ESF and 1.5 percent of the BBG 

budget. Instead, the BBG now thinks its core mission—in the 21st 

century—is as a radio operation and dedicates 95 percent to radio 

and little to Internet firewall circumvention. And it does so with 

the GAO [Government Accountability Office] saying $150 million of 

its spending is duplicative. 

I have friends at the BBG and know that there is an internal 

struggle to move the agency into the 21st century, and they are 

good people. But the present bottom line is what Senator Tom 

Coburn said: That the BBG is ‘‘the most worthless organization in 

the Federal Government.’’ That is saying an awful lot. We cannot 

get them to hold a competition to achieve an Internet freedom 

breakthrough. 

Now, why is that important? Hear me, Congressman Hultgren. 

The two most senior people at the Board of Broadcasting Governors 

have said in writing that $20 million would be ‘‘very likely’’ to 

achieve such a breakthrough, and they have been even more affirmative in private conversations. They acknowledge that $20 million will permit, within eight months, the following: 25 million 

closed society residents a day would have access to the same Internet that you and I have. The President of the United States would 

have an at-will capacity to speak to the people of any country at 

any time of his choosing on their cell phones. 

Now to get to this hearing: 500,000 house church Christians in 

China would be able to participate in a worship service hosted in 

the United States and do so interactively. We could have 200,000 

Iranians in a town meeting in and out of Iran and we could do it 

within eight months for 0.1 percent of the ESF and 1.5 percent of 

the BBG budget, where 20 percent of it right now is spent for 

waste and duplication. This is the real stuff of history and we can 

make it happen. 

Congresswoman Granger sits on the Appropriations Committee 

for the BBG. Under the current appropriations bill, the FY 2015 

bill, the BBG is clearly authorized to do this. Well, a letter was 

sent two years ago by former Congressman Wolf, whose role I hope 

you will take, Congressman Hultgren, as the amigo to Chris Smith 

standing up for human rights. He can almost do it alone, but not 

17 

quite. Frank Wolf wrote that letter, along with Roy Blunt and Jean 

Shaheen and John Boozman to the BBG saying, do that $20 million 

competition. 

So we really need to achieve Internet firewall breakthroughs— 

and you have seen demonstrations of what field-tested systems can 

do, Congressman Smith. 

And by the way, the State Department was asked why we are 

not doing this and the answer was because China would ‘‘go ballistic’’ if we did. Internet firewall circumvention is the most costeffective peaceful means of advancing American national interests 

and it has not happened. 

Now, let me just say, if I may, that people like former Senator 

Joseph Lieberman understands this, as does former Congressman 

Frank Wolf. They have seen demonstrations of what can be done 

just to scale up field-tested systems that have now survived billiondollar attacks by China. It is just a question of getting more IP addresses and servers for those systems. 

We can have 25 million by May 2016, at the latest. Let us assume that somehow it does not happen. How in the world can we 

not spend $20 million as against the Chinese spending tens of billions of dollars and the Iranians the same? We have dropped out 

of a peaceful war that the Iranians and Chinese say is critical to 

their survival. 

So I hope from out of this hearing will come renewed determination. Let me add that Senator Lindsey Graham writes the checks 

on the Senate side and I hope he, too, will play that role to allow 

a free Internet to make history. I think it is there to be made. Taking China’s word—not mine, not anyone else’s—taking Iran’s word, 

can allow for the Berlin Wall of our time to be peacefully brought 

down. 

That is what we can do to honor those people who are now in 

jail, Lisa’s father and all the people in those photos over there, and 

I hope it will be done. Thank you for hearing me. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Horowitz, for that 

very impassioned and insightful presentation. I, too, have seen the 

demonstration, about a three-hour demonstration on how the Great 

Firewall can be pierced. It is gross negligence on our part that we 

have not availed ourselves of that technology and others that do 

exist or potentially could exist and the $20 million, as you said, is 

a mere drop in the bucket. 

The reason for the ‘‘no,’’ I do believe, is that there is that undue 

fear, a cowering, if you will, by BBG and others where they do not 

want to infuriate the Chinese dictatorship. It is just that simple. 

If we pierce, as you said, the modern-day equivalent of the Berlin 

Wall, although 21st century, it could make a huge difference. So, 

thank you. 

Dr. Yang? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. May I just say one thing for the record? You 

spent three hours watching the demonstration, Congressman 

Smith. I do not want to frighten other Members of Congress into 

thinking it will take that long to learn what can be done. We could 

not stop you from taking the three hours. We wanted to leave the 

room and you wanted to see more of the demonstration, but I 

would say we could do it in 20 minutes. If we can get some of your 

18 

colleagues to watch this demonstration for 20 minutes they would 

understand how close we are to making history. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz. 

Dr. Yang? 

STATEMENT OF YANG JIANLI, PRESIDENT, INITIATIVES FOR 

CHINA/CITIZEN POWER FOR CHINA 

Mr. YANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Thank you for hosting this important hearing. 

Today we the panelists want to cover three distinct but related 

points. First, when it comes to Tiananmen, why we must never forget and why we must counter, as your Commission has persistently 

done, China’s desperate attempt to infect both its people and the 

outside world with amnesia about these tragic events. 

Second, we want to stress the need to pierce the facade of President Xi Jinping’s phony reforms. Third, we want to address the ultimate question of what can the Congress and the administration 

do to strengthen human rights and democratic values in China? 

Since both my long written statement and my fellow panelists 

have covered the first two, I will focus on the third in the rest of 

my opening remarks. After the Tiananmen massacre, Americans of 

all political persuasions and faiths joined in the protest of the 

slaughter of innocents. 

Their outreach showed that human rights issues are not partisan 

issues, but when it came to trade relations with China there was 

a big debate. One side of the debate led by Representative Nancy 

Pelosi asserted that U.S. trade relations with China must be linked 

to China’s human rights record. This idea was embodied in Pelosi 

and Mitchell’s legislation in 1993. 

When President Clinton reversed the policy in Representative 

Pelosi’s proposal, he made a terrible mistake. The reversal was 

based on the theory which was widely upheld by corporations, columnists, pundits, and policy makers that trade would inevitably result in more political freedom and guaranteed basic human rights. 

In order to test that confident prediction, Congress established this 

Commission which Congressman Smith chairs. 

Under its mandate, the Commission has annually examined just 

how much China’s economic growth and interaction with the world 

has led to real civil liberty and political freedom for its citizens and 

each year the Commission’s clear conclusion has been: not very 

much. 

That finding is consistently echoed in the annual human rights 

records of the State Department, U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom, international human rights groups, and by the 

testimonies of my fellow panelists today. 

The lessons are very clear. We must abandon the delusion that 

economic growth will bring human rights and democracy in China 

in the foreseeable future. Instead, Americans of conscience should 

insist that their government confront China on human rights 

issues. They should demand that their government openly condemn 

China’s violation of basic human rights and demand the release of 

its prisoners of conscience. 

They should express support for those in China briefly asserting 

or defending the human rights of others and receiving brutal punVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
19 

ishment for their good deeds, They should support such congressional bills as the China Human Rights Protection Act that you, 

Congressman Smith, just introduced yesterday, and the Global 

Magnitsky legislation that you and Representative McGarver introduced earlier this year. 

We applaud and fully support these worthy initiatives, but in 

closing I would like to suggest you carefully consider another proposal that is at the same time more fundamental. Congress should 

pass a simple, short and sweet China Democracy Act. 

We, Initiatives for China, recently hosted our 10th annual InterEthnic Inter-Faith Leadership Conference. It was attended by a 

great many members of faith groups, ethnic minorities, and advocates in China and abroad of democracy, civil liberties, and human 

rights. 

At its conclusion, we passed a resolution which I want to expand 

on today. It calls on Congress to enact a China Democracy Act, recognizing that advancement of human rights and democracy in 

China is in America’s national interest and calling for an annual 

assessment of whether the American Government is advancing or 

actually undermining those goals. 

In the early 1990s, I and many others believed that it would take 

only a few years and not much outside physical assistance from the 

U.S. Government to achieve those goals. But we over-estimated 

how soon those briefly resisting in China could educate the people 

about the need for a peaceful transition when their voices were 

being silenced by prison and brutal torture and their speech was 

blocked by modern technology. 

At the same time, the Chinese Government has never stopped 

discrediting China’s democracy movement with the claim of American policy to provide it with secret assistance. In fact, the U.S. 

Congress has never passed something as simple as a China Democracy Act, stating American policy to advance human rights and 

rule of law and democratic values in China. It is shocking to me 

that there is no such law at the present time. 

That brings me to the resolution proposed by our conferees a few 

weeks ago for the China Democracy Act. This would not be a nonbinding resolution. Instead, it would be binding legislation flatly 

stating congressional judgment that advancing human rights and 

democratic values in China is decidedly in America’s national interest. 

That precludes the currently widespread but inaccurate claim 

that the Congress must balance on the one hand its claim to support the universal value of human rights and on the other hand 

America’s national interests. 

The bill also would require a report from the President to Congress every year on how government programs, policy, or action 

during the prior 12 months has strengthened human rights and 

democratic values in China and, equally important, how any program, policy, or initiative has weakened human rights and the 

democratic values in China. 

All Federal departments of government, every single one, should 

have to report on what they are doing to bring democracy to China 

by advancing human rights and the rule of law there. The act also 

put them on notice to take no action, adopt no policy, and impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
20 

ment no program that would undercut the democracy movement or 

weaken human rights in China. 

Such a China Democracy Act and annual presidential report 

would give us a better idea of what success we have had so far, 

what caused them, and how we should increase the financial resources and deploy them to promote democracy and human rights 

in China. Without such legislation, I very much doubt we will be 

on track and on course to succeed in what we dreamed of back in 

1989. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Yang, thank you very much, again, for 

your steadfast support for human rights defenders and for democracy and freedom in China for all of these years, for the personal 

sacrifice you have made, and for this recommendation. As you 

know, with the China Human Rights Protection Act, it would specifically sanction Chinese Government officials, create a China 

human rights documentation center for NGOs [non-governmental 

organizations], and require a report to Congress. 

So I think we are paralleling, but any additional ideas you might 

have on how we can beef that up, I think you just, in your written 

testimony, have provided some of that. We will absolutely take it 

into consideration. So, thank you for that very important input that 

you have provided. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions and I will yield to my good 

friend and colleague, Commissioner Hultgren. 

First, Lisa Peng, when you testified before the committee, my 

subcommittee a couple of years ago before Xi Jinping’s first trip, 

you and the other four, five daughters in total—we actually called 

it the five daughters. It was a hearing of five daughters, all of 

whom—and Michael, you will remember that hearing very, very 

well—have a dad who is incarcerated, is a human rights defender, 

and you were all very eloquent that day, as you were again today. 

You had asked—all of you had asked—to meet with President 

Obama and I will never forget. It was so touching. You said, ‘‘Well, 

he has two daughters, he will understand and he will listen to us 

when we make an appeal on behalf of our fathers.’’ We tried for 

six months through letter, phone calls, and every other way we 

could think of to get the President to meet even for 15 minutes 

with the five daughters, and Xi Jinping came, a missed opportunity 

if ever there was one when he was here. 

But he will be coming again and I will again reach out to the 

President. I hope he will hear that appeal that he meet with you 

and the other four daughters before he again meets with Xi Jinping 

to raise the cases of your dads. 

So we will do that by way of letter, we will include your testimony from today, and then the other five testimonies from that 

last hearing. You know what the answer was that we got back from 

the President of the United States, which I find absolutely appalling? He said—or they said on his behalf—he does not have the 

time. 

When you say you do not have time for something, you have not 

stated a fact, you have stated a priority. The fact that five wonderful daughters was not a priority, that needs to change and the 

21 

President needs to find his voice. I am glad—when it comes to 

human rights—I do not care who is in the White House. 

I have never shied away, and I have been here 35 years. When 

there was a Republican that was being neutral—and there is no 

such thing as being neutral. I think your point, Dr. Yang, a moment ago about pushing forward or not, neutrality is being on the 

side of enabling and complicity. I was very glad that you pointed 

out, Ho Pin, in your testimony—I believe it was yours. Let me just 

find it again—yes. 

When you talked about how George Bush sent a special envoy. 

It was Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor, to reassure 

Deng Xiaoping that we were okay maybe not with what was actually happening, but that we would not create ripples and problems. 

When Frank Wolf and I went a couple of years ago to Beijing 

Prison No. 1 where Tiananmen Square activists, 40 of them with 

heads shaved, looked just like a concentration camp from the news 

reels from the 2nd World War in Nazi Germany, very gaunt men 

who were doing slave labor in Beijing Prison No. 1, 40 of them 

were Tiananmen Square activists. Even then we thought, how 

could President Bush have reassured the dictatorship that all is 

well? 

As you also pointed out, it was Clinton, Dr. Yang, who first 

linked most-favored-nation status with progress, significant 

progress—operative phrase—with regard to human rights and then 

infamously de-linked it when there was significant deterioration 

which gave the cue, gave the nod to the dictatorship that profits 

trump human rights every day of the week. 

So to me, that was a reneging that said that it was not a priority 

for us. We need to regain our voice and we need to do smart things 

like Mr. Horowitz is advocating to break the Chinese firewall. 

Again, we will ask again that the President meet with you and 

with the other four daughters, five in total, to bring up these 

issues. 

I would point out for the record that on June 25 we are going 

to be chairing—in my subcommittee, I am going to be chairing— 

a hearing on American universities in China and academic freedom. We have invited NYU and they have said ‘‘yes.’’ It has been 

a year—in invitations—for them to come. 

Dr. Jeffrey Lehman will be testifying, as will others, to raise this 

issue of whether or not we are on the side of promoting democracy, 

human rights, and freedom or whether or not we are enabling the 

dictatorship in that country and actually making them even more 

effective in their dictatorship and their repression. 

Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman Smith, may I make one recommendation to you as in advance to the Xi Jinping visit? Get in 

touch with George Schultz, would be my recommendation. He tells 

this great story of Reagan’s great breakthrough of when the Soviet 

Ambassador came to him and said, ‘‘What is going on with your 

boss? I try to talk to him about ruble stabilization and nuclear war 

and whatnot, and all he wants to do is talk about Jewish Refuseniks and Pentecostals. I can’t do any business with him.’’ And 

Schultz, who was very shrewd, said ‘‘I have got the same problem. 

If you want to deal with Ronald Reagan you have got to start reVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
22 

leasing Pentecostals and you have got to start treating Refuseniks 

differently.’’ Of course, that happened and with it cracks began to 

develop in what was thought to be a 10-foot thick Russian Iron 

Curtain wall. 

So former Secretary Schultz, one of the most distinguished Americans, understood what speaking out for dissidents in dictatorships 

can produce. I think if he could speak out and tell the story about 

this simple bargaining 101 strategy and its effectiveness, he could 

be a great ally before the Xi visit if you could get him to tell that 

story. 

Chairman SMITH. That is a great story. The lessons learned from 

the Soviet Refuseniks and the Jewish Refuseniks is a great one. I 

went to Moscow many times during the Soviet dictatorship and 

Schultz always met with the dissidents first, then met with his Soviet interlocutors. We have asked President Obama to do the same 

thing on his trips to China: meet with the dissidents, listen to 

them, provide an umbrella of protection and concern and empathy 

for their plight. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. But here is the point: Even if you did not 

empathize a fig about fingernails getting pulled out of pastors or 

life sentences of dissidents like Lisa’s father and so forth, history 

teaches you that if you want China—Reagan understood this with 

the Soviet Union—to talk about weapon systems, to talk about all 

the bilateral issues that the State Department regards as important, the best bargaining technique to make this happen is to start 

talking about human rights. They then change the subject and 

start to bargain on those other issues. 

So the lesson to be learned here is that this is not just—they put 

your efforts down, the efforts of the three of you here, as some 

knee-jerk reaction. That is very nice, thank you very much, they 

tell you, but we are big boys talking about the big issues, and 

human rights controversy gets in the way. 

They do not understand history in the way Ronald Reagan did 

and the way it has happened, in the way Teddy Roosevelt talked 

about pogroms on the Soviet Union in 1900. Human rights advocacy is a great power tool to get dictatorships to start coming to 

terms on all the issues. They fear it most, are most vulnerable, if 

we talk about human rights. So it is a Bargaining 101 issue here 

and it is that history that ought to be communicated to the Obama 

administration, I think. 

Chairman SMITH. Before yielding to Commissioner Hultgren, let 

me just say, Dr. Teng, you made a very profound statement when 

you said ‘‘History will require us to answer one question: Did we 

stand on the side of tank man or on the side of the tank? ’’ That 

is just very profound and unfortunately I will not even say the jury 

is out; we have enabled and stood on the side of the tank as a society and as a government. 

Mr. Hultgren? 

Representative HULTGREN. Thank you. So good to be with you. 

I appreciate the incredible work that all of you are doing. I also am 

so honored to be with two of my heroes. Chairman Smith just is 

a tireless fighter for life and for freedom and for human rights. It 

is so powerful. And my good friend Trent Franks as well. Both are 

incredible mentors to me and it is a privilege to be a part of this 

23 

Commission and know that we will—absolutely can and will— 

make a difference together. So, thank you. 

I have a couple of questions, if I could. I apologize, I had a couple 

of hearings this morning and so missed some of the early statements, but wanted just to follow up on that. 

Dr. Teng, I wonder if I could ask you quickly about current 

crackdowns on freedom of speech, association, assembly, and religion that have begun after Xi Jinping took office, and why do you 

think this crackdown has been so severe? 

Mr. TENG. Thank you. Yes. As I have mentioned today, the Internet, universities, the NGOs, human rights defenders are facing a 

very severe crackdown. First, we can see the Communist Party 

feels the ideology increasing, especially as we analyzed Document 

No. 9. 

We can feel the Communist Party is fearing the possible or the 

potential color revolution so much and they think the Western 

NGOs, the Western information, media, universities are influencing Chinese intellectuals as well as ordinary people. Besides the 

ideology crisis, we know that the Party is also facing a lot of social 

and political problems that clashes between the people and the 

comments and the Xinjiang Uyghur area and Tibetan area and the 

gap between the poor and the rich. 

Many, many mass protests are related to corruption or pollution 

or land-taking. So superficially we can see that the Communist 

Party is very, very strong and powerful and confident, but in reality obviously the Party feels insecurity. They are not confident. 

Thank you. 

Representative HULTGREN. Thank you. 

Ms. Peng, thank you for being here. I want you to know, certainly for myself and others, your father and your family are in our 

thoughts and prayers and we appreciate so much your strong voice 

certainly fighting for him, but for others as well. 

I wondered—and again, I apologize I was not able to hear your 

testimony—if you could just give a brief update to me and to others, and if you have already covered this I apologize, but how your 

father is doing, his health, is he getting proper food and care? 

When was the last time you communicated with him, and what 

your sense is of his current condition? 

Ms. PENG. Thank you for being here today. My father is still suffering from poor health with no medical care. He has suffered from 

many heart attacks, kidney stones, bronchitis, arthritis. He has 

been serving his life sentence for the past 11 years and, frankly, 

it is a miracle to me that he is still surviving and motivated to continue to live. 

I think this is because he has faith that the United States will 

stand for its own values, the same values for which my father 

fought. I think he has faith that the United States will understand 

that its values and its interests are one and the same, and for that 

he continues to exercise, to write, and to do whatever he can to 

push through. 

His courage to continue to live is what inspires me to continue 

advocating for his freedom here in the United States because if he 

who has spent 11 years in prison can still have hope that the 

United States will stand for its values, then I certainly do. Like 

24 

Mr. Horowitz said, I think it takes Bargaining 101. I think it requires the United States to speak up, to mention the names of people like my father, to use to its advantages China’s contempt for 

international law. 

In fact, China has made it easy for us, the United States and the 

international community, to take action and make a case for political prisoners like my father, because much of what they’ve done 

is illegal, even according to their own law. For example, my father 

is a U.S.-based dissident with UN refugee status who fled persecution, so his arrest in Myanmar by Chinese police violates the principle of non-refoulement. He was denied his right to due process, 

he has suffered the past 11 years from no medical care, and his requests for medical parole have all been ignored. So I think China’s 

contempt for rule of law makes it easy for us to support cases like 

my father’s and to bring up his name. 

Representative HULTGREN. Well, thanks. Your father, his example, certainly is inspiring and quite honestly convicting to me and 

to us, as well. I know we can, and need to do and must do, more. 

So thank you again for being a part of this and being here today. 

Can I have time to ask one more question? Is that okay? 

First of all, before I have a question, Mr. Horowitz, thank you. 

I am in, whether it is the 20-minute version or the 3-hour version 

I definitely want to. Let us schedule that and maybe see if we can 

get some other colleagues to join in as well, because that is to me, 

again, unconscionable and, with such an incredibly small investment, the world change that could happen with that, so I definitely 

want to see that. 

I wonder if I could just kind of wrap up, I guess, Dr. Yang, just 

to ask quickly. It appears many human rights advocates and legal 

defenders in China also belong to religious institutions that exist 

outside of state control. I wonder if you could discuss how China’s 

religious communities play a role in fostering human rights awareness and political reforms. 

Mr. YANG. Thank you for your question. Before I answer this 

question I want to follow up with Teng Biao’s answer to your previous question just now. There was a New York Times article a few 

days ago. The title is, ‘‘China’s Security Laws Elevate the Party 

and Stifle Dissent.’’ Mao would approve. ‘‘Mao would approve’’ 

means China is on the way back to the Cultural Revolution. Mr. 

Ho Pin, in his opening remarks, mentioned Gao Yu. 

Gao Yu, for your information, is a 71-year-old journalist who was 

charged with leaking state secrets. What she gave out to the international media actually was the CCP’s [Chinese Communist Party] 

Document No. 9, which actually states the seven no-speaks or 

seven perils. I will just give you an idea of what is in it. 

The seven perils are: constitutional democracy, press freedom, 

market economy, universal values, civil society, independent judicial system, and CCP past mistakes. So you can see that censorship 

has been brought to another level ever since Xi Jinping assumed 

his leadership. 

Back to your question. The religious groups are playing a very 

important role in China. There is no civil society, nor any independent organizations allowed in China. The Chinese Government 

is suspicious of any organization because if people organize they 

25 

can do more than individually. An organized force is always a 

threat to the Chinese Government. 

But you understand that religious groups are so committed, they 

are more committed than other civil groups, so they come together 

and become a very important force, demanding freedom. So they 

may just begin with a freedom of religion approach, but in the end 

they will help China liberalize in other fields as well. I will just 

give you one example. 

There is a house church organization which is very big in China, 

especially in Beijing. When their members form NGOs on environmental issues, for example, the Chinese Government tries to target 

them. But when they understand that there is a big religious group 

behind them, they will be more careful dealing with them. 

So I think religious groups are playing a very important role. But 

at the same time, religious groups have received persecutions, severe persecutions in the past two decades. Falun Gong practitioners are the most severely persecuted in the past two decades, 

so we cannot forget them and we should continue to advocate for 

the imprisoned religious people in China. 

Representative HULTGREN. Is it okay if Mr. Horowitz comments 

just quickly? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I really do apologize, but I think this is so central. I am doing it because Congressman Franks is here and you 

have been the leader on the issue of religious persecution, and very 

particularly in China. 

I want you to know that in doing so you are not just out there 

protecting Christians, you are making a difference for human 

rights throughout China. When we first, with Congressman Smith 

and former Congressman Wolf, tried to pass the International Religious Freedom Act [IRFA], the New York Times was saying how 

could these right-wing Christians be out there speaking for this minority sect when all these great Chinese human rights heroes—I 

forget, senior moment, the name of the great one who was in jail 

for like 15 years. Wei Jingsheng—and the columnist at the New 

York Times said why aren’t they focused on Wei Jingsheng? 

Well, Wei Jingsheng got out of jail while we were trying to pass 

the IRFA bill and he became its No. 1 advocate. He did so because, 

he said, if the word goes out to the Chinese people that the regime 

cannot even burn down a church, there will be freedom for political 

dissidents, for artists, for everybody in China. That was exactly the 

story of what protecting Pentecostals and the Soviet Refuseniks 

did. It sent out the word that there was freedom for everybody. 

I am a Jew who has worked on Christian persecution. I am in 

such awe of these Christian groups in China and the leadership 

and the courage they exercise, and the fact that they are the spear 

points for freedom for everybody. 

I will just tell one last story of a major figure—I do not want to 

name her—in Chinese human rights efforts. She was very, very 

successful in China in the fashion industry and she tells the story 

about how she thought her life just was hollow. She was making 

money but, she said, ‘‘but I do not want to wind up with lots of 

pretty dresses. There’s more to life than that.’’ 

So a friend of hers said, ‘‘Why don’t you go to church? ’’ And she 

said, ‘‘Oh no, come on, no church for me, I’m not into that sort of 

26 

thing.’’ The friend bugged her and finally she went to church. She 

said when she went in that church in China, a house church, she 

said, ‘‘For the first time in my life in China I walked in a room and 

everybody was smiling.’’ She had never seen that. She has become 

a very devout, quietly committed Christian whose bravery emanating from her faith has her dealing with one-child policies, and 

dealing with all sorts of human rights advocacy. 

So your question could not be clearer that when we—when you, 

Congressman Franks—protect religious leaders who are persecuted 

in China, you are protecting every atheist in China, every activist 

in China. That is what history tells us and that is what is happening in China right now. 

Representative HULTGREN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. I would like to yield to Chairman Franks. 

Commissioner Franks serves as Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee on the Judiciary, but he also is the Chairman of the Religious Freedom Caucus in the House. 

Representative FRANKS. Well, it would be better if I left the room 

because I cannot improve the circumstances here on my behalf at 

all. I appreciate the kind words. I just say to you that I know that 

it seems obligatory always, but I truly believe that Chris Smith, 

when it comes to human rights in the Congress, is the four-star 

general. He is the man that when people ask me about something, 

sometimes they get a blank stare and I say, ask Chris. He has been 

a hero of mine for a long time. I have watched Congressman 

Hultgren ever since he has been here. He has always been on the 

side of human dignity and freedom. 

Let me just say, while we are walking along that road, those of 

you that have been activists for human rights and human dignity 

and human freedom on China, I do not think you could possibly understand the importance of your role because you bring to the 

whole world the recognition inside a country that is not known for 

human rights. 

You are bringing the whole world the reality. If you win China 

today, you will win the world tomorrow. You have an opportunity 

to be a catalyst for the most profound kind of change and I just 

cannot express to you the affection and the respect that I feel for 

you for that commitment. 

Not to patronize you, Mr. Horowitz, but when you made the comments a moment ago about the notion if we focus on human rights, 

that sometimes it drives our potential partners to the table on 

some of these other issues. I have got to be very open with you, 

that never occurred to me. 

I always thought, well, when you speak of human rights you are 

speaking of the greater issue because if we can create a collective, 

introspective examination of these countries, their own heart, that 

maybe that will change things in a big way and we will not be adversaries. But still, your words spoke very powerfully to me and I 

found them extremely compelling and I was embarrassed that it 

had not occurred to me before because I could not agree with you 

more. 

When we speak of the true foundational issues in some of these 

countries that have an intrinsic—not only a fear of discussing that, 

but a recognition of their own failure in that regard, it pushes 

27 

them over and at least we get some efficacy in our discussion with 

them. 

Then one other thing I would mention and then I will have one 

question for everyone. That is the whole notion, again, Mr. Horowitz—that he mentioned, when we talk about religious freedom it 

is the cornerstone of all other freedoms. If we have religious freedom, out of it flows free speech and a lot of other wonderful things. 

Countries that practice religious freedom do not find themselves 

at war with each other most of the time. They do not find themselves enemies of the human family. Those who practice religious 

freedom do not suggest that we have no differences, they simply 

suggest that we can be kind and decent to each other in spite of 

those differences. It is, in my judgment, one of the great hopes of 

humanity. Again, no one practices that more than you. 

So I would have one question for all of you. I did not mean to 

give a speech, Mr. Chairman, but I have one question for all of you. 

In a very brief way so that we can kind of take advantage of the 

time here, because I believe that you all have a collective and a derived wisdom here and understanding of the real challenges we 

face, you can apply it to China or to the greater cause of religious 

freedom and human rights. 

If you could say to America one brief thing that you think we 

should either know as a people or do as a people to ameliorate this 

tragedy of people across the world not having the recognition for 

the fact that they were created in the image of God, this human 

dignity that is intrinsic to all human beings, this religious freedom, 

this freedom to be human, could you just give me your top line 

thought and then I will turn it back to the Chairman with gratitude. 

Mr. Biao, first. Dr. Teng? 

Mr. TENG. Yes. I would say that religious freedom is the most 

fundamental of human rights and I hope that the United States 

and Western democracy can mediate and take strong action to punish the perpetrators of violating religious freedom, to stop these 

perpetrators from entering the Western world. 

Representative FRANKS. Have any thoughts? 

Ms. PENG. I would say that the reason we should care about religious freedom in other nations, not just in our own, is that the fundamental freedoms that come from religious freedom, are the values on which our nation was founded. In order to respect our own 

values and to hold our own actions to the highest standards, we 

need to continue to promote religious freedom and other freedoms 

in other nations. So in a sense this is about what we can do to respect our own nation’s values as much as it is about promoting 

freedoms around the world. 

Representative FRANKS. Thank you. 

Mr. HO. My sentence would be that if human rights freedom in 

China cannot be improved, then America’s foundation on human 

rights and freedom would be also impacted. It will bring the erosion of U.S. freedom. In this New York book fair, the Chinese officials put out their books. In China, you do not even have the freedom to publish books, but the Chinese officials can bring their own 

books to a book fair in New York. 

Representative FRANKS. Thank you. 

28 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Can I just modestly shift the question? I do not 

think the issue is reaching the American people, I think they are 

reached. I do not think the issue is reaching Members of Congress. 

For the most part, they are reached and those who are not do not 

dare vote the other way. The real question is congressional strategy 

that can be effective. I think we send the wrong signal when bills 

get introduced and they do not get passed. It tells China they are 

scot-free. 

So I have a very specific suggestion as a former general counsel 

of the Office of Management and Budget. I hope that you, Congressman Smith, can gather together 40 or 50 Members and come 

up with a package that is effective but doable in the FY 2016 appropriations bill when you take up the State Foreign Operations 

appropriations bill. 

Yang Jianli has talked about an annual report. Requiring it is 

the sort of thing that can go in an appropriations bill, which can 

do the very thing Jianli wants done in his stand-alone bill. I think 

that a provision in the coming FY16 bill that does not merely authorize but mandates a break-through competition for Internet firewall circumvention would be another provision that could go in a 

reform package. 

Something else would deal with the United Nations saying that 

the United Nations must do X to enforce its treat, which China regularly breaks. That is the tool, in my judgment, to get Lisa’s father 

out of jail, to force China to live up to its treaty obligation, to get 

the United Nations much more aggressive on that score. I would 

be happy to work—and many of us would be happy to work—with 

a small group to help produce such a reform package. 

But if you could get 50 Members, bipartisan, Congressman 

McGovern, others, on a bipartisan basis to approach Speaker 

Boehner, Congressman McCarthy, Congressman Rogers, Congresswoman Granger and the House leadership and say this is what we 

have got to have in the FY 2016 foreign operations appropriations 

bill, the leverage you could exercise and the reforms you could 

achieve would be enormous. 

I think you can put some very historic things in the FY 2016 bill. 

You have got Congresswoman Granger who starts on your side, 

and Congressman Rogers for sure on your side. So I think that by 

just working effectively, quietly at the beginning, you can promote 

religious freedom and liberty with powerful tools, signals, and real 

actions that will not involve just talking. And you can do it within 

the next month or so in the FY 2016 appropriations act. Thank 

you. 

Representative FRANKS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can 

follow up specifically and practically and definitively and 

proactively—and use all these other kind of words—I mean, in 

other words, seriously about this because I think the man makes 

a lot of sense. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. You just whistle, I will be there. 

Dr. Yang Jianli. 

Mr. YANG. Thank you, Congressman Franks, for your question. 

As a Christian, I understand how important religious freedom is. 

It is so important that people can find the source of their conVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
29 

science and also they can act according to the convictions of their 

conscience. 

In China, there is no religious freedom. At this point I want to 

bring to your attention what is happening in China. The Chinese 

Government has been making great efforts to demolish churches in 

a few provinces, mostly in Zhejiang province. That happened because the Party Chief saw the church was taller with the cross. It 

is taller than the Party Committee’s building so he felt jealousy of 

the influence and jealousy of power, so he ordered the demolition 

of many churches in Zhejiang province. 

So that gave us an example that a one-party system can never 

guarantee religious freedom. That is something we try to change in 

China. At this point I want to mention to you, Congressman 

Franks, before you leave that I think America has had lost opportunities in the past two decades to change China right after the 

cold war. 

The mistake was made simply because what I called the 

compartmentalization of policies which put human rights against 

national interests of the United States. So today in my opening remarks I emphasized advancing human rights and democracy in 

China is in America’s interests. 

Representative FRANKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. YANG. There is no such law in this country to say it, to regulate the Federal Government’s work in that regard. I bring with me 

today two books. One is by former Congressman Barney Frank and 

another is by former Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson. Both 

books talk about the case that they worked together to get my freedom, how they worked together, one from Congress, the other from 

the executive branch. They worked together. 

Actually, they got my release when Secretary of Treasury 

Paulson went to the first U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue, 

which is not about human rights on the surface, but in the meeting 

he mentioned my case and pressed the Chinese Government to release me, he said, literally said, ‘‘This case is very important for 

me. If you want to continue the dialogue, you have to respond.’’ 

Then they responded and released me just two weeks later. 

Representative FRANKS. Yes. 

Mr. YANG. So that is the example. That shows how the congressional members, the Congress and the executive branch, can work 

together for human rights even on occasions which on the surface 

are not human rights issues related. 

So what I advocate is we have to end compartmentalization of 

American policies and to link every single work of the U.S. Government to human rights because it is in the interests of this country. 

Thank you. 

Representative FRANKS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have come to a lot of your hearings and they 

are always very insightful, but I think this one has been especially 

so and I hope we follow up on what Mr. Horowitz and some of the 

others have said. Thank you for your commitment. Thank all of 

you. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. Congressman, I apologize for talking so darned 

much, but this is such a rich hearing. I agree with you. I cannot 

let Jianli discuss his imprisonment without telling, very quickly, a 

30 

little bit about him. He had a five-year sentence in jail, much time 

in solitary confinement. 

This man wrote poetry in his own mind while he was in solitary 

confinement and he published it afterward. But what happened 

was, the Chinese said after a period of time, ‘‘We will let you out 

and as soon as you get out of prison we are going to kick you out 

of the country.’’ 

He said—and this is the bravery of these dissidents like Jianli— 

‘‘Well, you cannot tell me when to leave my country. It is my country. I will leave when I think the time has come.’’ ‘‘Well,’’ they said, 

‘‘that is okay but we will stick you in jail for your full term.’’ He 

said he was ready for that. I do not know, he probably served another year or so in jail just to send that signal of freedom and independence and patriotism. 

But it also sends the message that this dangerous guy—and the 

Chinese knew how dangerous he was—got released when a Secretary of the Treasury said quietly we ought to do it. 

I would say one other thing on the religious side. Xi Jinping may 

be making a strategic mistake. He is going a little too far. He is 

not being shrewd here. 

On the religious side, one thing that ought to be on the table at 

this hearing is that the Three Self-Patriotic churches, which used 

to be held out as patriotic Chinese believers supporting the Communist regime, they are now being subject to persecution so that 

the Three-Self churches and the House Church movements are 

working together and becoming allies—and this is a great movement that is happening and developing in China. 

As Congressman Smith knows, both are now on the same side 

more and more which creates a critical mass of protesters so that 

the power of the Christian community and the Falun Gong and the 

Uyghur community is greater than it has ever been because Xi 

Jinping is taking persecution one step too far. So the work you are 

doing has an even more fertile possibility of changing China and 

making history. 

Representative FRANKS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Just let me conclude with one or 

two final questions and a comment. First of all, we do meet again 

today to remember the sacrifice, even unto death, of those people 

and those who endured severe injury and have suffered decades of 

incarceration on behalf of internationally recognized human rights. 

Tiananmen Square could have been the turning point for China. 

I believe that the spirit of Tiananmen Square, of the students who 

were there, inspires, as I said in my opening, everyone, including 

the Congress, to never let up, never lose focus that the people of 

China absolutely yearn to be free and deserve to be free. When we 

enable a dictatorship, we then become complicit in their misery. 

Let me also say that Xi Jinping—and I read that article in the 

New York Times as well and was again disturbed by this race to 

the bottom of Xi Jinping—it seems as if he is seeking to channel 

Mao Zedong and to emulate the excesses of that man and, of 

course, to the great detriment of the Chinese people. 

But when we talk about what can be done, what can you say 

about a country that continues to incarcerate the best and the 

bravest and the brightest of China, as it did with Dr. Yang and as 

31 

it is with your dad and so many others? It still holds in jail the 

Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo. 

The world cannot forget that, and we will not forget it, certainly, 

on this Commission. Many of us in Congress will not forget that, 

or his wife who has suffered, kind of like being jailed herself because of that incarceration. 

I would call on the administration again to enforce the law. 

China gets the designation ‘‘Country of Particular Concern [CPC]’’ 

and there are 18 or so specific prescribed sanctions that can be 

meted out because of their extreme violation of religious freedom 

and the persecution of believers of all kinds. 

And as you said, the Falun Gong get a special set of repressive 

measures meted out against them. Yet, the only sanction that the 

administration continues to use is almost like a double-hatted sanction, the Tiananmen Square sanctions on military cooperation and 

technological transfers, while there are several other sanctions that 

ought to be imposed upon the PRC because of their designation 

‘‘CPC.’’ 

They ought to be Tier Three under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the law that I sponsored. There is no doubt that they 

have become the worst violator in a number of human trafficking 

cases, largely attributable to the one-child-per-couple policy and the 

lack of women because women have been systematically 

exterminated through sex-selection abortions. 

They were Tier Three for one year and had an automatic downgrade, and then were replaced back up to the Watch List, which 

I thought was a very cruel misdesignation on the part of the administration because Tier Three could need more sanctions when 

it comes to the atrocity of human trafficking. 

There is a visa ban in effect. I wrote it [the ban] in 2000. They 

are not enforcing it for those who are part of the cruelty of the onechild-per-couple policy. Less than 30 people have been sanctioned 

years-to-date since 2000. 

New laws. We need those. We need them now and we will work 

hard on those. Michael, as you know, there are always interests 

starting at the White House and the State Department who are 

loathe to put anything that looks like a sanction on the country of 

China, so we have huge obstacles to overcome there. 

I would ask all of you in conclusion, if you could—and again, 

there are opportunities. We interface with the Chinese and with 

leaders there, but it is not the same as the executive branch. They 

are the designated hitters, if you will. They are the ones who are 

empowered by our Constitution to be the point people, the President being the number-one person, to talk with and to meet with 

presidents and prime ministers. 

There is an executive meeting going on, at the end of this, on 

economic issues, a dialogue. The human rights issues, Dr. Yang, 

need to be incorporated. That is at the end of this month. Very 

often, they are hermetically sealed away from all other talks. Remember, Hilary Clinton said it. 

It was an insight into the modus operandi of this State Department when she said she is not going to let human rights interfere 

with global warming issues and peddling U.S. debt through Treasury bills to the Chinese on her first trip to Beijing as Secretary of 

32 

State. I am fearful that there might be a perfunctory mention of, 

oh, human rights, let us put an X in that box and get that off the 

table. Names have to be tendered. 

This Commission has the best prisoners list, and I applaud our 

staff for the tremendous work that they do in compiling, vetting, 

and ensuring that political and religious prisoners and their case 

stories and their families are all compiled in a way that is actionable. That needs to be conveyed to the Chinese at every meeting. 

My question to all of you in conclusion is that the President will 

be meeting with Xi Jinping, as we all know. When he met with Hu 

Jintao, it was an utter failure the first time, especially when they 

had the joint press conference and a reporter asked about human 

rights and Hu Jintao had trouble understanding the question 

through some alleged technical difficulty. The President jumped in 

and said, ‘‘Oh, but they have a different culture in China and a different political system.’’ 

It was so bad that the Washington Post wrote a scathing editorial that said, ‘‘Obama Defends Hu on Rights’’ and said ‘‘the culture understands human rights.’’ That is why the gulags, the 

laogai, are filled to overflowing with people like Dr. Yang and so 

many others, your dad, who have suffered to ensure that those 

rights someday are respected in the People’s Republic of China. 

The other point was a political system. It is a dictatorship. Let 

us call it for what it is. So what would all of you say to the President when he meets with Xi Jinping? What should he say to him? 

Should he hand him a list and say, come on, Mr. President, it is 

time. Join the 21st century. These people are good people. They 

love your country. They are patriots in the greatest sense of that 

word and they just want human rights and fundamental freedoms 

respected. What would you say? Dr. Teng, we will start with you. 

Mr. TENG. Yes. If I have a chance to talk to President Xi Jinping 

I will tell him, stop the persecution of human rights activists and 

release all the political prisoners and prisoners of conscience and 

start the process of democratization or there will be no future for 

the Communist Party, there will be no future for the Chinese people. If the Chinese Communist Party still commits more crimes 

against universal values, it will be punished definitely in the future. 

Ms. PENG. I would say to the President, who seems so eager to 

preserve multi-culturalism around the world, is that one man’s cultural diversity is another man’s life sentence, his denial of medical 

care, his denial of basic liberties, his being torn apart from his family. 

But I would also note that the ‘‘culture’’ the President bends over 

backward to appease, is not the culture of the Chinese people. The 

culture of the Internet firewall, violating internal law to kidnap political prisoners, denying freedoms—that culture that the President 

tries to ‘‘respect’’—is the culture of the Communist Party. 

I think if he really were in the interest of respecting cultures, as 

he says, he would do well to realize that one demonstrates respect 

for another culture not by tacitly consenting to anything they do, 

such as imprisoning human rights activists, but rather by holding 

those cultures to the highest of standards. That to me is the expression of the most genuine and truest respect for another culture. 

33 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. HO. Xi wants to come to the United States for recognition 

of China-U.S. relations as a relationship between two powerful 

countries. But if Obama accepts this relationship, Obama will also 

accept China’s violation of human rights. 

During the Jiang Zemin era, Clinton met with him and established this strategic partnership relation and actually gave a weapon to them for violating human rights—it was a mistake and gave 

them a weapon for violating human rights. We do not want Obama 

to repeat this mistake. Thank you. 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I have a wonderfully ironic point but it would be 

the most ultimate strategic point that I would urge on the President to say to Xi Jinping. I think he should say: 

‘‘You know the greatest source of power that any government can have is for its currency to be the world’s trading 

currency. It means that if you are the world’s trading currency you can run your printing press and just print pieces 

of paper and the rest of the world gives you goods and 

services. 

‘‘Well, Mr. Xi, as long as you have an absence of human 

rights and religious freedom in China, it does not matter 

what our debt to you will be, it does not matter how much 

your GNP goes up and how much ours may go down, the 

dollar will have no competitor because the world will not 

cede to you the kind of respect and authority that the dollar has and allow the RMB to be its trading currency. 

‘‘You want to compete with us for world power? Release 

Lisa’s father. 

‘‘The power that the release of dissidents would have and 

the power you have in terms of being a more powerful factor in the 21st century by implementing the agenda of this 

Commission is greater than all of your defense spending in 

terms of what China will be in the world. 

‘‘No matter what happens to your economy, the world will 

never cede to you the kind of power that America has. 

When you become a democracy, when you implement 

human rights, you will be a much tougher competitor to 

the United States.’’ 

I think that would be such a strategic way of the President saying, become a democracy, compete with us, and even if you win 

some trade competitions, the world and the United States will be 

in better shape. 

All these dissidents who are accused by the regime of being antiChina, they are the greatest pro-China people in the world because 

once human rights is implemented in China, China can project its 

economy and its economic strength into world respect in ways that 

all of the armies and navies it may put together never will. 

Mr. YANG. I would urge the President to convey a very clear message to President Xi Jinping that how the Chinese Government 

treats its own people matters to the relationship of the two countries because the American people care. They care, so as President 

I must care because America is a democratic country. There is no 

normalization of so-called new power relations if China is not on 

34 

the way toward democracy. If there is no progress of human rights, 

there is no normal relationship between the two powers. 

It would be remiss of me if today I do not mention a group of 

Chinese students studying in this country who were born in the 

1980s and 1990s and who recently signed an open letter to their 

counterparts in China, calling on them to pursue the truth, the 

truth about the massacre and pursue democracy and freedom in 

China. That shows the failure despite its best effort on the part of 

the Chinese Government to infect amnesia about the tragic events 

and the failure to brainwash the younger generation. 

That also shows democracy, freedom, and human rights are not 

a gift for one generation, it is a common, universal desire for all 

human beings. Here at the hearing I want to thank them. I want 

to thank them because they give us hope. Thank you again for your 

leadership. I lost count of how many times I have testified at the 

hearings you hosted. Ever since 1996 when China’s defense minister came here, you hosted the first hearing on China’s human 

rights; 15, 16, 17, 20 hearings. I lost count. Thank you very much 

for your leadership. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, Dr. Yang, this is my 52nd hearing on 

human rights in China. 

Mr. YANG. Fifty-second? Oh, my God. 

Chairman SMITH. And the hearing you mentioned—and again, it 

is so apropos to this hearing. You recall and you were so eloquent 

that day. Chi Haotian, the defense minister of China, was here, got 

a 19-gun salute at the White House, was at the Army War College, 

and was feted as a respected diplomat, even though he was the 

Butcher of Beijing, the operational commander who sent in the 

tanks. 

We called on President Clinton to repudiate that and he would 

not, so then Chi Haotian, as you recall so well, went to the Army 

War College and a mid-level officer asked about how many people 

died at Tiananmen Square, and Chi Haotian said no one died at 

Tiananmen Square. He thought he was in Beijing where the big lie 

would be amplified by the local media. 

So we put together a hearing in two days, and you testified, as 

did some others. We had a person from the People’s Daily who actually reported on it and then got into big trouble, went to prison 

himself, and others who saw what went on. 

The Time Magazine correspondent who watched from his balcony 

as people were killed. We invited Chi Haotian or anybody from the 

Chinese Embassy to sit there and tell us their side of the story, 

and they refused so we had an empty chair. But that denial, which 

the students are speaking to students back in China about, you can 

only suppress the truth for so long. 

As Michael Horowitz has said, when the Internet finally opens 

up widely, the truth about Tiananmen Square will be well-known 

and the agony suffered by so many will be well-known. That will 

be part of the reform process. But you were eloquent that day and 

I will never forget it. 

Mr. Horowitz? 

Mr. HOROWITZ. As we are closing, I cannot not do it without complimenting you and your leadership, however uncomfortable it may 

make you, Congressman Smith. This is a lesson in history. You 

35 

have these hearings and how you do not get discouraged is almost 

beyond me, because people say, ‘‘Oh, another hearing, who cares, 

you’re not making a difference, the ‘big’ issues are moving forward 

and not yours.’’ 

Well, I lived in Mississippi when the University of Mississippi 

Law School was first integrated. I have watched what has happened in Eastern Europe. People think that history is a process of 

gradual progression until it reaches a point and things change. 

That is not how history is made. History is a flat-line that declines a little bit from time to time, but keeps alive because a handful of people just keeping a torch lit, keep a little flame flickering, 

and they go on and on and on with people saying, ‘‘Why are you 

wasting your time? ’’ And then, overnight, everything changes and 

people say, ‘‘How did it happen? ’’ Overnight not gradually, what 

was impossible becomes inevitable. I saw it in Mississippi, we saw 

it in the Soviet Union. 

People who used to talk about freedom in the Soviet Union were 

put down, why are you bothering me with Captive Nations Week 

resolutions when we have got to negotiate nuclear treaties with 

this power that is going to be around for a thousand years. 

So I have to say about your leadership in keeping that flame of 

freedom flickering, that there will come that overnight day that 

dictatorships will fall and people will say, ‘‘Where did this come 

from? We never assumed that it would happen.’’ When it does, your 

leadership, in my judgment, will have been an irreplaceable component of that development, and it is going to happen. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. I beg to differ. It is the people at this table 

that are making all the difference in the world, and the people that 

are incarcerated and struggling every day in China. But thank you 

so much. 

I appreciate it again. We will continue on. Our next hearing, as 

I said, is on June 25. It will be in my Subcommittee on Human 

Rights and it will be on campuses like the NYU campus in Shanghai and others, whether or not that is a help or a hindrance. So 

thank you so much. 

We remember with prayer and deep awe those who suffered at 

Tiananmen Square for a new China where freedom and democracy 

flourish. God bless you all. 

Without objection, the opening statement by Senator Marco 

Rubio, our Cochairman, will be made a part of the record. 

Thank you so much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rubio appears in the appendix.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the hearing was concluded.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

38 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TENG BIAO

JUNE 3, 2015

IT’S TIME TO CHANGE CHINA POLICY

INFLUENCE OF TIANANMEN MASSACRE

Twenty six years have passed, but the killing did not end in 1989. Many innocent 

citizens labeled ‘‘Tiananmen thugs’’ have been executed. In custody and repatriation 

centers, prisons, reeducation through labor camps and various black jails, countless 

deaths have been due to state violence. Citizens die at the scene of forced 

demolitions, or under the iron fists of city management. Since 1999, at least 3,800 

Falun Gong practitioners have been cruelly tortured to death. Since 2009, at least 

140 Tibetans have self-immolated in protest of the authorities’ brutal domination. 

Cao Shunli was tortured to death because of her participation in the Universal Periodic Review at UN in Geneva on behalf of independent citizens. As activists are captured and tortured and underground Christian churches and other religious groups 

are persecuted, the gunfire of Tiananmen is echoing in the background. 

The Tiananmen massacre sustained the one-party system. Since the Party showed 

its true face in 1989, its ruthless treatment of the Chinese people has become even 

more brazen. Partly because of not having unions and not having the freedom to 

assemble and go on strike, there is ‘‘the [economic] advantage of the lack of human 

rights.’’ Through government-business collusion and an extremely unequal redistribution, China has achieved its rapid economic rise. 

But many social and political problems are behind this economic growth: pollution, ecological crises and widespread unsafe food products threaten this generation 

and later generations. Extremely unequal income distribution causes China to become one of the countries with the greatest wealth disparity. Corruption spreads viciously. Clashes between citizens and authorities are increasingly intense. It is ever 

more difficult to see hope for solutions to the problems of Uyghurs and Tibetans. 

THE RECENT COMPREHENSIVE CRACKDOWN

The Chinese government never stopped its crackdown on people’s resistance. 

Since Xi came to power, he issued a harsh comprehensive crackdown. More than 

1500 human rights defenders have been arrested and detained—some of them were 

brave enough to promote political activities, but many did not touch politics. Environmental protection, LGBT rights groups, feminist NGOs, rural libraries, think 

tanks—so many NGOs have been shut down. Some lawyers were disbarred, jailed, 

tortured and disappeared. Some lawyers are facing disbarment. 

Internet censorship is increasingly strict. Influential writers and bloggers are silenced or even jailed. VPNs are controlled and Gmail is blocked. Document No.9 reflects the severe control over ideology in universities, internet and media. Gao Yu, 

70-year-old renowned journalist, was sentenced to seven years, accused of leaking 

state secrets. 

Three important laws have been drafted and will pass soon. The State Security 

Law, Counter-Terrorism Law, and Foreign NGO Management Law. These laws are 

abusive by nature and these laws give ample room for abuses. These laws will empower the domestic security forces and state security cadres. Foreign NGOs will be 

seriously affected, and many will have to leave China. Public security bureaus, instead of civil affairs bureaus, will be given the power to ratify and supervise Foreign 

NGOs. The Counter-Terrorism Law requires western IT companies to provide 

encryption keys and source codes. 

Very recently, a Uyghur Muslim was sentenced to six years in Khashgar for refusing to shave off his beard, while his wife was imprisoned for 2 years for wearing 

a burqa, as part of a severe crackdown on religious ‘‘extremism’’ in Xinjiang. 

The Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has been disappeared for 20 years. 

Some relatives and friends of Tibetan self-immolators were detained and sentenced 

for assisting in the self-immolation. 

In Zhejiang and other provinces, local authorities destroyed many crosses and 

Christian churches, and some pastors were jailed. Falun Gong and other some religious groups’ members were detained and tortured in prison and Legal Education 

Centers (an extra-legal detention system). Many lawyers were harassed when chalVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
39 

lenging the Legal Education Centers, with at least four of them suffering broken 

ribs from beatings. 

Forced abortion and forced sterilization are still widespread, even though there 

was a slight loosening of the one-child policy. 

More forced demolitions have happened, and petitioners are facing harsher punishment than before. 

In general, the current comprehensive crackdown is seen as the worst since the 

1989 Tiananmen Massacre. 

I don’t deny that there are some improvements and reforms. In enumerating 

progress being made in China’s legal system, people have pointed out the lower 

number of death sentences, the new criminal procedure law, the abolishment of reeducation through labor, reform of the local court system, the government’s willingness to provide information, and the ongoing anti-corruption campaign. To begin 

with, it is questionable whether or not most of the above are actually progress in 

the legal system. Even if they are, the major driving force for these changes has 

been the people, each a result of the probing, pressure and price paid by rights lawyers, democracy activists, and the countless Chinese on the lower rungs of society. 

It is really ridiculous that some people think the credit should go to the dictators 

and perpetrators of human rights abuses. The meaningful progress of the past two 

decades is the growing civil society. 

RETHINK CHINA POLICIES

There must be something wrong: so as to not inflame the Chinese Communist 

Party (CCP), they do not dare to meet with the Dalai Lama. To gain Chinese markets, they disregard violations of human rights. To receive large orders for goods, 

they one after another adopt appeasement policies towards the Chinese Communist 

autocratic regime. Democratic countries join in the Asian Infrastructure Investment 

Bank. Beijing watchers and researchers self-censor, even to the point that they defend despotism, to please the Party, or to not lose cooperation projects with China, 

or scared they won’t get a China entry visa. Confucius Institutes, scholars and students federations supported by Chinese Embassies, and other government-sponsored 

programs, have eroded western academic freedom. 

But now is the time for the West to rethink and adjust its policies towards China. 

A strong repressive political power is threatening not just the Chinese people, but 

the entire world—economically, politically, militarily and spiritually. Only promoting a truly free China comports with the long-term interests of humanity. Before 

China is democratized, the world will not be safe. The CCP won’t last forever, but 

Chinese people will continue to live on that soil. The day will come when US must 

deal with today’s Chinese prisoners of conscience locked away and filled with suffering, Liu Xiaobo, Xu zhiyong, Ilham Tohti, Pu Zhiqiang, and others. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pass an act to prohibit Chinese perpetrators who are responsible for human rights 

violations from entering the US and other democratic countries. The Magnitsky Act 

is a good example. 

Support Chinese human rights defenders, political prisoners and real NGOs. Give 

awards to prominent activists, just as the west has done with the Dalai Lama, Liu 

Xiaobo and Hu Jia. 

Stop the cooperation with Chinese government-organized NGOS—or GONGOs— 

which are helping the Chinese government to suppress human rights and freedom. 

For example, the All-China Lawyers Association and Chinese Human Rights Association. 

Make sure that the Confucius Institutes, scholars and Students federations and 

other government-sponsored programs do not violate academic freedom and human 

rights. 

Punish the American companies and individuals who help or cooperate with the 

CCP to suppress freedom and human rights. Yahoo is one example when it provided 

clients’ information to Chinese state security, leading to the long-term imprisonment 

of several Chinese intellectuals. 

Help to develop technology to circumvent internet censorship. 

After 26 years, the symbolism and meaning inherent in that world-famous picture 

still need understanding: a young person solitarily standing in front of a tank, it 

communicated the terror and bloodiness of tyranny, and communicated Chinese people’s resolute and brave resistance to tyranny.History will require us to answer one 

question: Did we stand on the side of the Tankman or on the side of the tank? 

Thank you very much for hearing me. Your ideas, your voices and your votes will 

influence China, and bring more freedom and human rights to this planet. 

40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA PENG

JUNE 3, 2015

PASSIVE ACCEPTANCE, ACTIVE SCRUTINY

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political 

processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses. 

This was the 2013 topic at the City Club of Cleveland’s Annual High School Debate Championship featuring Lincoln-Douglas debate, a one-on-one form of debate 

centered on the morality and ethics of a value proposition. Each year, the City Club 

of Cleveland provides two high school debaters the opportunity to debate in a room 

historically renowned for celebrating the freedom of speech. As I researched the 

topic of human rights abuses in preparation for the debate, I reflected on the moral 

obligation of countries to protect human rights and the fundamental role human 

rights ought to play in foreign relations. I learned that despite such a moral obligation, it is easy to stand by as human rights are abused; it is easy to passively accept 

human suffering. This topic was personal for me because my father, Peng Ming, is 

serving a life sentence in a Chinese prison, branded a criminal by the Chinese government because of his work advocating for human rights. 

My journey to advocate for the release of my father and for human rights in 

China began two years ago with a debate topic that piqued my interest in learning 

about those rights and about my own father. I had always known that I am his mirror image and that we both share a love for the art of debate, but, beyond that, 

I did not know much else. After all, my last memory of him was from eleven years 

ago. Thus, I began to piece together a timeline of my father’s life and my family’s 

journey of escape to America. 

My father, Peng Ming, is an environmentalist, an economist, and a human rights 

activist. He is the author of The Fourth Landmark, a book on China’s economic and 

political growth that was sponsored by the Ford Foundation. He was also the founder of China Development Union, a think tank established to address the censored 

topics of rule of law and human rights. However, in 1999, the Chinese government 

shut down the think tank and sentenced my father to 18 months of labor camp. His 

crime? Passionately advocating for human rights and freedom in China. Upon his 

release, the government wire-tapped our house, began following our car, and even 

threatened my father with a second arrest. It became too dangerous to continue living in China, and so my family decided to flee political persecution. 

We eventually made it to Thailand, where we were granted UN Refugee Status. 

On August 29th, 2001, we landed in the United States, the land that stood for us 

as a beacon of freedom, human rights, and rule of law. For the first time, we experienced freedom of expression and justice not as values confined to an underground 

think tank, but rather as values championed by a nation. 

In the United States, my father continued his human rights work. In 2004, he 

traveled to Thailand to establish a safe haven for political refugees. However, he 

was lured to Myanmar, kidnapped by Chinese secret police, and quickly sentenced 

to life in prison. The United Nations Working Group for Arbitrary Detention has 

determined that the deprivation of my father’s liberty is in contravention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, my father is a U.S.-based dissident with UN refugee status who escaped political persecution in China. Therefore, his kidnapping is in violation of the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids 

the return of a victim of persecution to his persecutor. My father has also been deprived of his right to due process, as he was denied access to a lawyer and a jury 

of his peers, rights we take for granted here in the United States. 

That Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution prompted my journey to discover who my 

father is and the values for which he stands. While I had the privilege to debate 

in a room that celebrates the freedom of speech, my father remains locked in a room 

built to stifle and punish prisoners of conscience. It has been a decade during which 

I have been privileged to receive an American education and learn about freedom, 

democracy, and justice, but a decade during which my father has remained imprisoned for fighting to secure those very same values. As an American citizen, I cannot 

merely stand by and passively accept the denial of these fundamental freedoms. 

In the past two years, I worked with members of Congress, written op-eds and 

essays on my father’s story, and testified before the Taiwan Parliament, the European Union Parliament, and the United States Congress to advocate for my father’s 

freedom and for the freedom of thousands of other political prisoners in China. 

Although the support from US congressmen has give me great hope for my father’s release, I know that his case is only the tip of the iceberg. There remain thousands of prisoners of conscience and innocent Chinese civilians who suffer the same 

41 

denial of basic freedoms. If we don’t speak up, there will remain no hope for human 

rights in China, and activists like my father will continue to suffer. 

Sadly, the human rights issue is one that is easily ignored in light of pressing 

economic concerns. China has become the world’s second largest economy and a 

major trading partner of the United States. Powerful economic interests want us to 

turn a blind eye to China’s human rights record. Respecting America’s values and 

standing up for human rights has never been easy. And it is not easy now. But isn’t 

this what the promise of America is really about? 

Though I am no politician or expert in this field, I have learned through LincolnDouglas debate that human rights are the foundation from which meaningful and 

effective discussions of economics and politics must proceed. In fact, these are the 

same values and fundamental freedoms on which our great nation was founded. And 

as someone who was rescued, raised, and educated by this country, I feel that I owe 

the United States my utmost gratitude. However, gratitude for one’s country is not 

demonstrated by passive acceptance of our country’s actions, but in active scrutiny. 

We show our gratitude and love for our nation by holding it to the highest of standards, the standards on which it was founded. 

In doing so, I have realized that the issue of human rights is not only political— 

it is personal. It is a personal commitment to speak up. It is a refusal to remain 

silent. It is acting on the principles that we read and write about. It is the efforts 

of people like you who speak up and take a stand on human rights that give me 

hope for the future. They give me hope for the possibility of telling my father in 

person how much we have all cared about him and his dream for China’s future. 

They give me hope for the possibility of securing human rights in China, and for 

paying the utmost respect to the values on which our own great country was founded, the values for which I hope it will always stand. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HO PIN

JUNE 3, 2015

Representative Smith and Senator Rubio: 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand here today and give voice to 

a brave Chinese journalist, Ms. Gao Yu, who has recently been imprisoned on fictitious charges for the third time. The seventy-one-year-old Gao Yu merely fulfilled 

her duty as a journalist and shared the truth that she knew with the public. Gao 

Yu’s case is not isolated. More and more writers, thinkers, and human rights lawyers are being illegally detained or imprisoned. They include Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, economist lham Tohti, writer Xu Zhiyong, lawyer Pu Zhiqiang. The 

list goes on. 

Over the years, many people have stood in this very spot, urging the world to pay 

attention to China’s human rights abuses. But, this solitary light in the darkness 

has not been able to illuminate China’s blatant violations or pierce through the 

smog shrouding all the injustices. Therefore, I don’t want to go that route again and 

focus solely on China’s human rights issues or to condemn the Chinese government 

like others have done before. I want to raise some questions instead. 

With its deteriorating human rights records, why is China getting stronger by the 

day? Why are Chinese leaders getting more popular in the international community? Is China building its national strength for the sole purpose of jockeying for 

the number one position with the United States? Will China engage in a war with 

the United States and its Asian neighbors such as Japan and Philippines? Will the 

world return to a cold war? 

These are not new questions. American experts have already provided some answers. Some scholars believe that there is a secret ‘‘bamboozling’’ department within 

the Communist Party. It has designed strategies that have successfully deceived the 

world and gained China several decades of time to develop. Some say the rule of 

the Chinese Communist Party is already approaching its end and the regime is on 

the verge of collapsing. Others claim that US-China relations have deteriorated to 

a critical point and that the US should throw China some candies to lure it back 

to the right track. 

So what are my views? 

First, I believe that China has risen, and it has, as advertised, risen peacefully. 

China is the world’s No.2 economy and has splashed huge amount of investment 

across the globe. Millions of wealthy Chinese travelers flock to every famous tourist 

site and the most expensive department stores. It would be impossible to close your 

eyes and ignore China’s rise. The only thing China has yet to achieve is the number 

one position in the world. 

42 

At the same time, China’s rise has not led to any wars. Even though the Chinese 

army has been acting like a belligerent hormone-raging teenager in the South and 

East China Seas over the last few years, I don’t think the Chinese leadership has 

plans or the desire to start a war in Asia. Especially when they are not psychologically prepared to lose a war. The most arrogant and bold military commanders 

can merely strike a pose through minor incursions or the intimidation of the militarily weak Philippines. With the exception of its strategic missile defense systems, 

which aims to deter, rather than invade, the Chinese army doesn’t yet have the ability to project its power around the globe. Even in the Pacific region, Chinese navy 

and air forces are not capable of a sustaining war against Japan and the US. 

In other words, China lacks the ability to launch a large-scale war in the Pacific 

theater in the foreseeable future, not to mention launching a world war like the 

Nazi Germany did. China does not have the capability, nor the guts. It’s not their 

intention. There is no Adolf Hitler in China. More importantly, the Chinese leadership doesn’t see the necessity. 

In addition, China has no plans to engage in a cold war with the West, United 

States included. The current political system in China cannot be defined in conventional terms. It’s neither socialism, nor capitalism. It’s not an empire in the traditional sense. It is a mongrel. One of the most famous maxims of Deng Xiaoping 

states that ‘‘It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches 

mice.’’ Therefore, the end justifies the means. While this pragmatic philosophy has 

contributed to China’s rapid economic growth, it also turned the Chinese political 

system into a two faced monster the likes of which one normally sees only in computer games. Like the legendary cat that has nine lives, it’s adaptable and resilient. 

As a consequence, many incomprehensible things have happened—the ruling 

Communist Party has defied expectation and lived on. The government can blatantly repeat something that is universally acknowledged as lies. For example, the 

Communist Party is promoting an anti-West agenda in its internal documents. The 

Communist Party’s propaganda machine distorts truths about Western democracies 

to prevent the pursuit of democratic values by its citizens and to threaten its citizens who are trying to demand the rights to select their own leaders, criticize their 

governments and use the law to protect themselves. On the other hand, the Communist Party has long abandoned socialist theories. Many leaders are big fans of 

Western democratic societies. They send their children to study in the West or secretly help their relatives who intend to emigrate. Some view the fact that they can 

visit the West as a badge of honor. I have met and talked with many Chinese officials when they traveled in the U.S., and hardly anyone was a true opponent of 

Western values. On the contrary, they all agree that a democratic system can guarantee fairness and bring stability to the country. 

In other words, the Chinese leaders have no intention of building another Berlin 

Wall. Neither do they plan to start a cold war with the West. They have no desire 

to impose their systems on the West because they can’t even define the kind of political system China has. There is no Stalin in China and nobody wishes to be his disciple. President Xi Jinping has heaped praise on Putin, but his praise has its own 

purpose. President Xi admires Putin’s personal power. It is true that the Chinese 

president stood side by side with Putin to inspect the troops in the Red Square a 

few days ago, but that doesn’t mean that China and Russia can establish an alliance 

against the U.S. Mistrust of Russian by the Chinese government and people is deepseated and hard to dispel. 

Thirdly, the conflicts between China and the West are not about ideology or cultures. The mainstream religion, in China has long served as a tool to unite all factions of society. Religion, a tamed pussycat, is becoming an integral part of the Communist Party. The Chinese are not capable of starting a holy war against the West. 

They wouldn’t even dare. Nationalism is nothing more than lip service. The Chinese 

leaders use this type of neurotic nationalism to cover up their empty and phony ideology. No leaders would want nationalism to become fanatical and get out of control. 

Overheated nationalism could set the house of the party on fire. 

If the above are true, why are we worried? We should not only be concerned but 

also alarmed. It’s not a matter of which country will be the world’s number one. The 

changes in China will impact the world. If China can integrate itself into the civilized world, in which people’s rights and self-determination are respected, the world 

will enter a new era. Mankind can truly base their thinking and policies on a common destiny. If the Chinese Communist Party, with its terrible records on human 

rights and stellar results in economic development, is allowed to continue, it will 

not only bring disaster to the Chinese people, but also destruction to the whole 

world. It is neither an actual war with weapons, nor is it a cold war between two 

ideological camps. It’s not a conflict of cultures and value systems. China’s mongrel 

and pragmatic nature has made its system more adaptable and more powerful. Its 

43 

ability to destroy the world’s political and biological environments and to spread 

such destructive power is beyond even its own expectation. A virus starts with just 

a few patients. Soon, it spreads to every corner, causing a worldwide outbreak. This 

is what China will do to the world - destroy the very foundation of human freedom. 

What I want to emphasize is that this is not what the Chinese leadership envisioned thirty years ago. Neither is it the political ambition of the current leadership. 

The current situation is the consequence of human weakness, the short-sightedness 

of politicians of the West, the insatiable greed of unscrupulous capitalists and the 

distorted social and political structure in China. Together, they have created such 

a virus, or at the very least, they have provided opportunity for it to mutate and 

spread. 

Two months after the Chinese government brutally cracked down on the student 

movement in China on June 4th, 1989, President George Bush provided prompt support for Deng Xiaoping through his secret envoy. The collapse of the former Soviet 

Union and East European Communism made many politicians in the West complacent. They forgave and accepted the paranoid and humble Chinese leaders. In return, Deng Xiaoping and his successors initiated open door and economic reform 

policies. These reforms didn’t bring any political progress. Instead, China took advantage of the technology from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the West and the benefits 

of the WTO to boost its economy at the cost of social equality and its environment. 

Once the Communist Party strengthened its power through its strong economy, it 

went on to undermine Western opposition to China’s human rights practices. 

Now, the Chinese leadership practically doesn’t care at all about the pressure 

from Western public opinion because politicians and businessmen from around the 

world are salivating at China’s immense purchasing power, investment and markets. It’s no exaggeration to say that today, Chinese leaders are the most well-received, honored guests in a majority of countries worldwide; China is the destination 

for many of the world’s elite who thirst for gold. 

Beijing tightly controls the freedom of the press. They could cut off Google and 

Yahoo anytime; they’d refused visas for New York Times journalists, and blocked 

access to Twitter and Facebook. All without impunity. While at the same time, they 

can set up any media they would like in the US. They provide free trips to Chinese 

language media chieftains in the West to receive training in China, and they even 

hire secret hackers to attack independent Chinese media outlets overseas. Ironically, China, which screens, censors and bans any print and electronic publication, 

has been invited to serve as the country of honor at book fairs in Frankfurt, London, 

and New York! 

Hollywood is the epitome of free American culture; filmmakers are free to ridicule, 

mock, and criticize American politicians and government officials such as senators, 

judges, and the president, without fear of persecution. But in their pursuit of China’s box office dollars, Hollywood executives have consciously decided to steer clear 

of any criticism of the Chinese government. Despite this, American movies are still 

censored in China, and some are not allowed at all. 

Given these circumstances, does China’s leadership have to risk it all and start 

a war? Does China have to close its doors once again and restart the cold war 

against the West? They can get everything they need and they can reject everything 

they don’t want. 

The problem lies in the fact that the West pursues short-term economic interests 

by ignoring the worsening of Chinese people’s rights. Western corporations scrambled to do business with China regardless of the record of human rights violations. 

A desire for profit with no social conscience encourages the growth of this new style 

of politics in China. It is tantamount to striking the core of every lesson Chinese 

officials learned about conducting their political business worldwide. Meanwhile, the 

cash that the Communist Party waves in their hands has made it possible for the 

China virus to spread unencumbered in the world, causing the value of Western 

freedom to grow weaker, feebler, and more and more susceptible to illness. 

China was never a threat before. It was the Western world that has made the 

Chinese leadership think the West could easily be threatened. 

So what can we conclude? No one can figure it out, because no one is consciously 

aware; to a certain extent, we have all been infected by the virus. Otherwise, we 

would not feel so confused and lost, so powerless. And because of our inaction and 

complacency, Gao Yu, Liu Xiaobo, Ilham Tohti, Wang Bingzhang, Xu Zhiyong, and 

Pu Zhiqiang are languishing in prisons. Chinese citizens who died 26 years ago in 

Tiananmen Square and now lie in the ground have turned into lonely ghosts wandering in the wild. Dawn has yet to arrive in China. If we continue along this 

muddy, murky road, we will also be swallowed by the darkness. 

The reason that I’m standing here today is that the scene I saw 26 years ago in 

Tiananmen Square still has not faded from my memory. I share the pain of those 

44 

who lost friends and relatives in Tiananmen square. I firmly believe that things 

could change if America were to wake up from its vacant and passive view of China. 

America is not a narrow-minded nationalist empire. America represents the values 

established by people who pursue the dream of freedom. This means that America 

is destined to be responsible for people who are pursuing similar dreams in other 

countries. I am not advocating war between China and the US. I absolutely don’t 

want confrontation between China and the US. I don’t think it is necessary for another Pearl Harbor to wake up the American people. I hope that America will become the driving force for democracy and human rights in China. The very least 

we can do is to take actions that will not encourage the continued growth of a dangerous political virus in China that values cash more than freedom and human 

rights. We can, and should, work to assure the Chinese people their dignity, to assure a long-term friendship between the US and China, and to assure the security 

of the cornerstone of freedom for the whole world. 

* * * 

[From the New York Times, April 28, 2015] 

GAO YU’S REAL CRIME

(By Ho Pin) 

NEW YORK—One evening in June 2013, I received a call from a man who identified himself as an official for the Chinese Communist Party’s Propaganda Department in Beijing. He asked me to publish an internal party directive on Mingjing, 

a Chinese-language news portal I run out of New York. 

Western media had already reported on the key segments of the directive, known 

as Document No.9. Many analysts saw it as President Xi Jinping’s attempt to adopt 

a traditional leftist and anti-West agenda. 

The caller claimed that Document No.9 was merely a routine directive that analyzed new political trends and that journalists should not read too much into it. By 

sending me the full text, the official said he intended to provide a proper context. 

‘‘The political situation in China isn’t all that bad,’’ he told me. 

I wasn’t sure whether the call was part of a deliberate leak with tacit approval 

from the senior leadership or an individual acting alone. He sent me the document, 

and though I thought that its significance might have been overblown in the earlier 

press accounts, I believed it offered a rare glimpse of the inner workings of the Chinese government. I verified its authenticity and published it in Mingjing Magazine 

in July 2013. 

In April 2014, Gao Yu, a journalist friend, disappeared in Beijing. The next month 

I was shocked to learn that she had been arrested for allegedly leaking Document 

No.9 to me via Skype. The police claimed to discover on her computer three digital 

copies of the paper, which they used as evidence against her. Ms. Gao countered 

that she had downloaded them from the Internet and that they were slightly different from what I posted online. 

Earlier this month, Ms. Gao, 71, was sentenced to seven years in jail for leaking 

‘‘state secrets.’’ The judge based his conviction chiefly on her ‘‘confession,’’ which she 

retracted because, she said, it was given after threats against her son by the police. 

Did the propaganda official leak the document to me with the intent to frame her, 

I wondered. Or, did the police simply find a convenient excuse to lock up Ms. Gao, 

who had been blacklisted because her writing had frequently appeared on overseas 

websites? I chose to believe the latter. 

Document No.9, written in a typical jargon-studded language, warns party leaders 

against seven political ‘‘perils,’’ including the promotion of constitutional democracy, 

universal values, civil society and Western-style press freedom. 

As a publisher of United States-based magazines about Chinese politics, I frequently receive news tips and government documents—a me ́lange of truth and rumors—from Chinese officials, scholars and business people. Some expose scandals 

within the government out of a sense of justice, while others aim to advance a political agenda or to smear political opponents. One thing is certain: The ‘‘deep throats’’ 

know that China’s senior leaders care about what the overseas news media reports 

about them. 

I have known Ms. Gao since the late 1980s, when we were both journalists for 

state media organizations. In China, where most journalists are mouthpieces of the 

party, she has kept her independence and paid a hefty price: She was put in jail 

in 1989 for her support for the 1989 student protest movement, and again in 1993 

because of her connection with a Hong Kong magazine. In recent years, Ms. Gao’s 

commentaries and analyses published in the West have offered valuable insights 

45 

into Chinese politics, especially during the internal wrangling surrounding Bo Xilai, 

the former Politburo member purged in a cloud of scandal in 2012. 

Ms. Gao frequently gives voice in her articles to the liberal and moderate factions 

within the party that have become disillusioned with President Xi Jinping, the man 

whom they called China’s Vladimir Putin. Document No.9 was reportedly directed 

at this group. But Ms. Gao has never allied herself with any political factions. 

In 2012, when Mr. Xi’s relatives sought her help in clarifying Western media reports about his family’s finances, she agreed and presented their views through 

Mingjing. At the same time, she was not afraid of speaking out against Mr. Xi. In 

a private talk, she described China under Mr. Xi as a combination of a modern-day 

Nazi and Stalinist state. 

Before Ms. Gao’s trial in November 2014, I drafted an affidavit detailing how I 

had received Document No.9 from a party propaganda official. The Chinese Consulate in New York refused my notarized statement. I then FedExed it to Ms. Gao’s 

defense attorney, but the Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court excluded my 

testimony in its deliberation. 

If the leadership punished Ms. Gao to intimidate future leakers, their efforts are 

in vain. As long as the Chinese public craves Chinese news from overseas, and 

trusts Western media over state-controlled propaganda, China’s elite will continue 

to feed Western journalists ‘‘exclusives.’’ Our stories will influence Chinese politics 

more than ever as factions compete to smear their opponents, intensify power struggles and hasten changes within the party. 

Ms. Gao’s real crime had nothing to do with leaking Document No.9. She offended 

the authorities by speaking out against government policies. Even though Mr. Xi 

has recently announced plans to make the legal system more transparent, Ms. Gao’s 

conviction shows that nothing has changed under a dictator who cannot abide dissenting views. 

The case also reflects China’s increasing arrogance toward the West, which is increasingly tolerant of Beijing’s growing human rights violations and nationalistic behavior. Corporations are caving in to Chinese demands, placing short-term business 

gains ahead of principles, thus confirming to China the diminishing influence of the 

West. Consequently, the Chinese government feels free to imprison and bully Chinese and foreign journalists. Standing up to China will not only guard basic human 

values, but protect Western economic interests. No business is safe in a totalitarian 

country. 

Gao Yu has sacrificed her personal freedom three times for the cause of free 

speech because it is the cornerstone of all freedoms. 

Ho Pin, the founder of Mirror Media Group, and Wenguang Huang, who translated this essay from the Chinese, are co-authors of ‘‘A Death in the Lucky Holiday 

Hotel: Murder, Money, and an Epic Power Struggle in China.’’ 

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 29, 2015, in The International 

New York Times. 

46 


95041.001
47 


95041.002
48 


95041.003
49 


95041.004
50 


95041.005
51 


95041.006
52 


95041.007
53 


95041.008
54 


95041.009
55 


95041.010
56 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

NEW JERSEY; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

JUNE 3, 2015

Twenty-six years ago the world watched as millions of Chinese gathered to peacefully demand political reform and democratic openness. The hopes and promises of 

those heady days ended with needless violence tears, bloodshed, arrests and exile. 

Mothers lost sons, fathers lost daughters, and China lost an idealistic generation 

to the tanks that rolled down Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. 

Tiananmen Square has come to symbolize the persistent and brutal lengths the 

Chinese Communist Party will go to remain in power. This event has done more 

to negatively shape global perceptions of China than any other in recent history. 

We remember the Tiananmen massacre here in Congress because of its enduring 

impact on U.S.-China relations. We remember it also because an unknown number 

of people died, were arrested, and exiled for simply seeking universally recognized 

freedoms. We also remember Tiananmen because so many people were arrested last 

year for trying to commemorate the anniversary in China. 

We remember this date each year because it is too important to forget and because it is too dangerous to commemorate in China. 

The Chinese government should allow open discussion of the Tiananmen protests 

and end the enforced amnesia surrounding the events of 1989. And, more importantly, the Chinese government should take responsibility for the national tragedy 

that occurred on June 3rd and June 4th, 1989. 

Sadly, it seems that a China lead by President Xi Jinping will not take such responsibility. President Xi and top Communist Party leaders regularly unleash bellicose attacks on ‘‘universal values,’’ ‘‘Western ideals,’’ and ‘‘revisionism of the Party’s 

history.’’ 

The domestic screws on dissent have tightened considerably since Xi Jinping assumed the Presidency. Over 230 people have been detained for their human rights 

advocacy and peaceful efforts at political reform. A number some rights groups are 

calling the largest crackdown in two decades. 

The Chinese government rounds up not only reformers, but those who defend 

them. It views most Uyghurs as security threats and then jails Uyghur intellectuals 

peacefully seeking ethnic reconciliation. It not only smothers internet freedom and 

its domestic media but threatens foreign journalists and spurs self-censorship from 

Harvard Square to Hollywood. 

The Chinese government also threatens foreign citizens or foreign institutions 

who speak out for greater human rights. The family members of Canada’s Miss Universe, for example, were threatened for her outspokenness about human rights. 

Also, China’s new and troubling NGO law, could bar an American university from 

China, or even detain its representatives in China, if a campus student group stages 

a protest in the United States against the Chinese government’s treatment of Tibetans, Christians, or Falun Gong; the detention of Liu Xiaobo, or the criminal tragedy 

of China’s 35 year ‘‘One-Child Policy.’’ 

U.S. policy must support Chinese advocates who promote human rights and political reform and stand firm for U.S. interests in greater freedom and democracy in 

China. 

Our strategic and moral interests coincide when we support human rights and democracy in China. A more democratic China, one that respects human rights, and 

is governed by the rule of law, is more likely to be a productive and peaceful partner 

rather than strategic and hostile competitor. 

We should remember this fact as we watch China building bases and threatening 

free and open seas lanes in the East and South China Sea. 

The United States must also make strong appeals to China’s self-interest. The 

rule of law, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, a flourishing civil society 

and accountable officials would promote all of China’s primary goals—economic 

progress, political stability, reconciliation with Taiwan, good relations with America, 

and international stature and influence. 

At the same time, the United States must also be willing to use political and economic sanctions to respond to gross violations of human rights in China—torture, 

prolonged and arbitrary detention, forced abortions and sterilizations, psychiatric 

experimentation or organ harvesting from prisoners. 

That is why I introduced yesterday the China Human Rights Protection Act of 

2015 (H.R. 2621). The bill will deny U.S. entry visas and issue financial penalties 

to any Chinese official who engages in gross violations of human rights. 

The United States must show leadership in this regard and send a strong message. The worst violators of the rights of the Chinese people, those who abuse uniVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
57 

versal freedoms with impunity, should not prosper from access to the United States 

and our economic or political freedoms. 

It is tempting to be pessimistic about China’s future and the future of U.S.-China 

relations. I am not pessimistic, but hopeful. Constant repression has not dimmed 

the desires of the Chinese people for freedom and reform. 

While the hopes of the Tiananmen Square demonstrators have not yet been realized, their demands for universal freedoms continues to inspire the Chinese people 

today and has passed on to a new generation. 

We have with us today participants of the Tiananmen protests of 1989 and new 

generations of advocates for democratic openness and human rights. They fight for 

universal freedoms, they fight for the release of their fathers and families, and they 

fight for reform and a future China that protects human rights. It is the new generation that will inspire change in China. 

I believe that someday China will be free. Someday, the people of China will be 

able to enjoy all of their God-given rights. And a nation of free Chinese men and 

women will honor, applaud, and celebrate the heroes of Tiananmen Square and all 

those who sacrificed so much, and so long, for freedom. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA; 

COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

JUNE 3, 2015

Twenty-six years ago this week, student-led popular protests gripped Beijing. 

Spurred by the death of a prominent reformer, thousands gathered in Tiananmen 

Square in April 1989 seeking greater political freedom. Their numbers swelled as 

the days passed not only in the capital but in cities and universities across the nation until more than a million, including journalists, workers, government employees and police, joined their ranks making it the largest political protest in the history of communist China. 

Late in the evening of June 3, the Army opened fire on peaceful ‘‘counter-revolutionary’’ protesters. The bloodshed continued into June 4. To this day the precise 

number of resulting casualties is unknown and more than a quarter century later 

there has been no movement toward a public accounting of the events of that week. 

Rather, those seeking to commemorate the dead are harassed, detained, and arrested. 

Perhaps the most iconic image to emerge from the Tiananmen Massacre, is the 

so-called ‘‘tank man’’— the small lone figure, shopping bags in hand, who jockeyed 

to position himself in the path of an advancing line of People’s Liberation Army 

tanks. His actions flew in the face of every human impulse to avoid impending danger. The ‘‘tank man’’ remains an enigma—his fate unknown. Some speculate imprisonment, others execution. Still others venture that he is alive today, unaware of his 

fame because of the Orwellian lengths that the Chinese government Internet censors have gone to block any searches of the events surrounding June 4. 

Despite the fact that China’s rulers revealed the true nature of their regime that 

day, too many of our political and business elite have been content with the status 

quo in China, especially as it relates to the denying of basic human rights and liberties. In fact, U.S. policy has aimed at engaging with the Chinese Communist 

Party, surrendering American leverage and principles. 

Twenty-six years later, repression continues to be the order of the day and the 

aspirations of the Tiananmen generation remain unfulfilled. President Xi Jinping’s 

presidency has been marked by what experts describe as the most intense crackdown in years. The organization Chinese Human Rights Defenders reported in 

March that the government’s persecution of rights defenders was as severe as it has 

been since the mid-1990s. The list of those arrested and harassed is extensive, including Uighur economist Ilham Tohti, Tibetan Buddhist leader Tenzin Delek 

Rinpoche, Tie Liu, Pu Zhiqiang, and Chen Kegui. Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu 

Xiaobo remains in jail and his wife Liu Xia suffers under house arrest, as does 

human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng. 

A report released by Freedom House earlier this year found that since Xi Jinping 

came to power the regime has employed harsh tactics ‘‘to dominate online discourse, 

obstruct human rights activism, and pre-empt public protests’’— findings which are 

routinely echoed by Chinese dissidents. There is deep concern within civil society 

about the draconian new NGO law now under consideration in the Chinese legislature. This law would severely restrict the operations of foreign NGOs. 

The regime also is strengthening its grip on Hong Kong, denying the people of 

Hong Kong their promised right to freely choose their leaders. And China’s growing 

58 

repression at home is being watched closely by its neighbors as Beijing flexes its 

military capabilities and reasserts illegitimate territorial claims threatening regional security. China’s neighbors realize that how a nation treats its own citizens 

is indicative of more than just a country’s internal situation. 

Despite this grim picture, I believe change is coming to China. Systems of government which are built on repression do not stand the test of time. Even with China’s 

economic growth, we have yet to see political openness follow. While the road to reform in China is uncertain, American support for the ideals which are at the heart 

of our own experience in self-governance ought to be a cornerstone of U.S. foreign 

policy. 

In her inaugural trip as Secretary of State in 2009, Hillary Clinton opined, en 

route to China, that contentious issues like human rights ‘‘can’t interfere with the 

global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.’’ 

Human rights should be fully integrated into every level of our bilateral relationship 

with the Chinese government, and repressive governments the world over. It is always in America’s interest to support the expansion of democracy and its institutions. 

For too long, China has gotten a free pass. With the approaching U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue the president has an opportunity to prioritize these 

issues—to charge every participating U.S. government agency to bring human rights 

to the forefront with their Chinese counterparts, to present them with lists of political prisoners and press, by name, for their unconditional release. The Administration can take proactive steps today to impose visa bans on Chinese government officials who are perpetrators of grave human rights abuses. 

Twenty-six years ago several Tiananmen art students constructed a magnificent 

paper mache statue of the so-called goddess of democracy, in the hopes of bolstering 

the fledgling protest movement. It was ultimately destroyed by soldiers clearing the 

square, but not before its creators authored a declaration explaining their work. It 

read in part, ‘‘On the day when real democracy and freedom come to China, we 

must erect another Goddess of Democracy here in the Square, monumental, towering, and permanent. We have strong faith that that day will come at last.’’ 

Helping the Chinese people reach that day is not just our moral duty as a free 

people, but will have a profound effect on the state of freedom in the world and on 

global security. We must keep the faith with the Tiananmen generation and work 

toward the realization of their dream for generations to come. 

59 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

CHINA IN 1989 AND 2015: TIANANMEN, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND DEMOCRACY

JUNE 3, 2015

Witness Biographies 

Dr. Teng Biao, a well-known Chinese human rights lawyer, a Harvard 

University Law School Visiting Scholar, and Co-founder, the Open Constitution Initiative 

Dr. Teng Biao is a well-known Chinese human rights lawyer, a Harvard University Law School Visiting Scholar, and Co-founder, the Open Constitution Initiative. 

He holds a Ph.D. from Peking University Law School and was a visiting scholar at 

Yale Law School. He is interested in the research on human rights, judicial systems, 

constitutionalism, and social movements. As a human rights lawyer, Teng is a promoter of the Rights Defense Movement and a co-initiator of the New Citizens’ Movement. In 2003, he was one of the ‘‘Three Doctors of Law’’ who complained to the 

National People’s Congress about unconstitutional detentions of internal migrants 

in the widely known ‘‘Sun Zhigang Case.’’ Since then, Teng Biao has provided counsel in numerous other human rights cases, including those of rural rights advocate 

Chen Guangcheng, rights defender Hu Jia, the religious freedom case of Cai 

Zhuohua and Wang Bo, and numerous death penalty cases. 

Lisa Peng, Daughter of Chinese democracy activist Mr. Peng Ming, freshman at Harvard, and TEDx speaker 

Lisa Peng is the daughter of Chinese human rights and pro-democracy activist 

Mr. Peng Ming who was kidnapped in Burma by Chinese secret police and sentenced to life in prison in 2004. Lisa was born in Beijing and suffered doubly as 

a second child by being denied official legal recognition. In 2000, her family fled government persecution and was accepted by the United States as UN refugees in 

2001. Lisa is working with the China Aid Association, the State Department, and 

members of Congress to advocate for the release of her father and other prisoners 

of conscience. She has shared her father’s story in a Plain Dealer Op-Ed and a 

TEDx Talk. Lisa is a freshman at Harvard University, where she studies mathematics and political philosophy. Outside the classroom, Lisa is an op-ed writer for 

The Harvard Crimson and a staff writer for the Harvard Salient, a member of the 

John Adams Society, and a singer in the Radcliffe Choral Society. 

Ho Pin, President and CEO of Mirror Media Group 

Ho Ping, a former journalist and director of the news department at Shenzhen 

News was originally from Hunan and participated in the 1989 student movement. 

Ho left China for Canada after Chinese authorities started investigating him because of his writings and analysis of political events in China. Ho Ping established 

Mirror Media Group in Canada in 1991 and the Chinese language news website 

Duowei News in 1999. Ho sold the website to Hong Kong media mogul Yu Pun-hoi 

in 2009 (Duowei has a news bureau in Beijing). Mirror Media Group currently includes five independent publishing houses, five magazines, three websites, a bookstore, and an online bookstore. Mirror Media Group has Chinese-language publication distributors in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States. Ho Pin 

has worked in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan with news and publishing 

organizations as a reporter, editor, and executive. 

Michael Horowitz, CEO of 21st Century Initiatives, a Washington D.C. 

think tank 

Michael Horowitz has led a broad range of human rights coalitions and has 

played major roles in the passage of such human rights legislation as the International Religious Freedom Act, the North Korea Human Rights Act, the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act and the Sudan Peace Act. Mr. Horowitz has been especially 

active on behalf of Tibetan Buddhists, Christians, Falun Gong believers, and 

Uyghur Muslims. He also has provided vital assistance to organizations dedicated 

to fighting Internet censorship and penetrating China’s Great Fire Wall. He served 

as General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration. 

Dr. Yang Jianli, President, Initiatives for China/ Citizen Power for China 

Dr. Yang Jianli is a scholar and democracy activist internationally recognized for 

his efforts to promote democracy in China. He has been involved in the pro-democVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:47 Dec 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 U:\DOCS\3JUNE15.TXT DEIDRE
60 

racy movement in China since the 1980s and was forced to flee China in 1989 after 

the Tiananmen Square massacre. He holds PhDs in mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley and in political economy and government from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In 2002, Dr. Yang returned to 

China to support the labor movement and was imprisoned by Chinese authorities 

for espionage and illegal entry. Following his release 2007 and his subsequent return to the U.S., Dr. Yang founded Initiatives for China, a.k.a. Citizen Power for 

China, a nongovernmental organization that promotes China’s peaceful transition to 

democracy. In March, 2010 Dr. Yang co-chaired the Committee on Internet Freedom 

at the Geneva Human Rights and Democracy Summit. In December 2011, Dr. Yang, 

joined H.H. Dalai Lama and four other delegates, to attend Forum Democracy and 

Human Rights in Asia, hosted by former Czech president, Vaclav Havel. 

Æ