U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–643 PDF 2012

CHINESE MEDIA RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2899 

JUNE 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–110 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 20, 2012 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 2899, the ‘‘Chinese Media Reciprocity Act of 2011’’ ..................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

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

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

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

John Lenczowski, Ph.D., President, The Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Nick Zahn, Asia Communications Fellow, Director of the Washington Roundtable for the Asia Pacific Press, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Robert L. Daly, Director, Maryland China Initiative, The University of Maryland 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 8 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Addendum to Response of John Lenczowski, Ph.D., President, The Institute 

of World Politics, Washington, DC, to Question from the Honorable Steve 

King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, 

Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ................................... 46 

(1) 

CHINESE MEDIA RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:02 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, King, and Lofgren. 

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

Clerk; and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement to order. 

Before we do our opening statements, I just want to let everyone 

know, we are probably going to have the bells going off around 1:35 

for a series of votes. We are going to try to get the opening statements and as much of the testimony taken as possible. So maybe 

we can make it before the votes start. 

Today, the hearing is focusing on the Chinese Media Reciprocity 

Act of 2011, introduced by our colleague, U.S. Representative Dana 

Rohrabacher. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

ensure open and free access by American journalists in the People’s 

Republic of China. 

The bill establishes a reciprocal relationship between the number 

of visas issued to state-controlled media workers in China and in 

the United States. The bill builds upon already existing law contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act. Visas granted 

to officials and employees who have been accredited by the foreign 

government are issued ‘‘upon a basis of reciprocity.’’ 

However, the system has been anything but reciprocal. In the fiscal year of 2010, 650 Chinese citizens entered the U.S. with ‘‘I’’ foreign media visas. And so far in fiscal year 2011, 811 Chinese nationals entered the U.S. 

These reporters are agents of the Chinese Government and work 

for a news organization under the control of the Chinese Government Communist Party. In contrast, the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors of the United States Government International Broadcasting Agency is allowed only two reporters to be stationed in Beijing. 

Let us not forget that while the Chinese press has grown, it has 

also remained a tool of the Communist Party. According to State 

2 

Department reports, the United States has let the Chinese Communist Party establish a wide network and diverse media platform 

to disseminate their message directly in the U.S. At least 14 Chinese state-owned media organizations have a presence in the 

United States, and their operations in the United States are subject to many fewer restrictions than the operations of American 

media organizations in China. 

The state-controlled Chinese news agencies are not subject to 

censorship or blockage in America. They can cover any news story 

or express their opinion, any opinion they desire. In contrast, Representative Rohrabacher reports that the BBG’s two correspondents 

in China, one from Radio Free Asia and the other from Voice of 

America, are harassed by the Chinese police. They have been assaulted, detained by the Chinese officials seeking to block their 

work. 

Further, the BBG has its transmissions in China blocked and 

censored. Their website cannot be accessed by China. In contrast, 

every edition of China Daily is available anywhere in the United 

States. 

H.R. 2899 will assist in rectifying the disparity in treatment of 

state-controlled journalists in both China and the United States by 

amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to the state I-visas, 

so that they may only be issued to state-controlled media workers 

from Communist China on the basis of reciprocity with visas issued 

to U.S. citizens who are employed by the Broadcasting Board of 

Governors and who seek to enter China. 

At this point, I will yield to my colleague from California, the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. 

[The bill, H.R. 2899, follows:] 

3 


HR2899-1.eps
4 


HR2899-2.eps
5 


HR2899-3.eps
6 


HR2899-4.eps
7 


HR2899-5.eps
8 

Ms. LOFGREN. In the interests of time, I would ask unanimous 

consent to put my full statement in the record, and will just make 

a few comments. 

Clearly, there is no doubt that the Chinese Government regularly 

imposes severe restrictions on freedom of the press, that the Communist government oppresses its own citizens in many, many ways 

that we find highly objectionable and wrong. 

I understand Mr. Rohrabacher’s concern about the disparity, and 

I certainly do not question his motives in proposing this measure. 

I think I disagree, however, with the approach. I think if we kick 

99 percent of China’s journalists out of this country, I don’t think 

that is going to make the situation better, honestly. 

I think to respond to their oppression of the free press with the 

curtailment of the press strikes me as probably the wrong approach. And I think that will not make China better. It might 

make us a little worse. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, because of the impending votes, 

I will, again, put the rest of my statement in the record and look 

forward to hearing this distinguished panel, including our friend 

and colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And without objection, the gentlelady’s comments 

and entire testimony will be made a part of the record of the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the relationship between the 

U.S. and China. Late last year, this Subcommittee held a hearing on a bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith that gave us the opportunity to examine the Chinese 

government’s dismal human rights record. 

That bill, H.R. 2121, authorized the denial of visas to certain Chinese nationals 

in an effort to promote democracy and hold human rights violators accountable. I 

noted at the time that the State Department believed it already possessed the visa 

denial authority provided in the bill and that the bill posed foreign policy concerns. 

I approach today’s hearing in much the same way that I approached that previous 

hearing. There can be no doubt that the Chinese government regularly imposes severe restrictions on the freedom of the press. The State Department’s country report 

on China makes it clear that virtually all media in China is state-sponsored media. 

Foreign journalists who live and work in China must overcome serious obstacles to 

collect and report the news. According to a survey conducted by the Foreign Correspondents Club in China, many foreign journalists and their sources face harassment, detention, and intimidation. 

Such journalists also experience visa threats and visa delays, which are frequently 

tied to official concerns about the content of their reporting. It is therefore little 

wonder that American journalists affiliated with the Voice of America find it difficult both to gain access to China and to perform their duties in China without 

spending an inordinate amount of time and money trying to get around government 

efforts to clamp down on their reporting and broadcasting. 

Still, the purpose of this hearing is to examine H.R. 2899, the ‘‘Chinese Media 

Reciprocity Act of 2011.’’ The bill compares the hundreds of visas granted by the 

U.S. to Chinese state-sponsored media workers with the two visas made available 

by China to American state-sponsored media workers. The bill’s response to this disparity is to revoke visas for hundreds of Chinese journalists and to limit future 

visas for such journalists to the number of similar visas provided by China to employees of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). 

9 

I understand Mr. Rohrabacher’s concern that while we grant entry to some 800 

Chinese state-sponsored journalists, China allows entry to only 2 BBG journalists. 

But this comparison does not include the several hundred American journalists reporting from China at any given time who do not work for the BBG. It also fails 

to take into account the fact that the BBG is seeking 6 to 8 additional visas for 

American nationals in China. Under this bill, even if China were to provide all of 

the visas sought by the BBG, the U.S. would still be required to revoke the visas 

of 99% of the Chinese journalists who currently have permission to work in the U.S. 

I am concerned that despite the best intentions of the bill’s sponsor, this bill 

would lead to greater restrictions by China on foreign journalists, whether statesponsored or not. If we kick 99 percent of China’s journalists out of the country, 

even if they fully comply with our requests for state-sponsored journalists, how can 

we expect China not to do the same to our journalists? 

I am also wary of responding to China’s free press restrictions by erecting our own 

restrictions on the free press. One of the most important and effective ways that 

America spreads its core values to the world is by welcoming people to this country 

and living by those values. 

Essentially, I am concerned that this bill won’t make China any better, but that 

it will make America just a little bit worse. 

We have a distinguished panel of experts here today and I look forward to hearing 

their testimony. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We have four distinguished panel witnesses 

today. Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered 

into the record in their entirety. 

I ask that each of you summarize within 5 minutes. As you 

know, we are on a tight schedule today, but your entire testimony 

will be made a part of the record of the hearing. We have provided 

you lights down there that will help facilitate accomplishing that 

5-minute rule. 

Our first witness is our colleague from California, U.S. Representative Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. He represents California’s 46th District and is currently serving his 12th term in the 

U.S. House of Representatives. 

He serves as Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and serves 

on the House Committee on Science and Technology. 

Prior to serving in Congress, the Congressmen served as special 

assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He received his master’s degree from USC. 

And with that, welcome, Dana. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman 

Gallegly and Ranking Member Lofgren. 

I appreciate you calling this hearing on the aggressive nature of 

the perception management campaign by the Chinese Communist 

Party as we see it here in the United States of America. 

The Chinese Communist Party is attempting to diminish the 

United States as the world’s leader. The military arm of the CCP, 

the People’s Liberation Army, has been undergoing a rapid and 

alarming buildup and modernization. 

10 

Thanks in large part to an unparallel level of economic espionage, enormous investment by U.S. corporations, and having been 

granted most favored nation trading status, the Chinese economy 

has grown at an expansive rate year after year. This transfer of 

wealth and power has been due to the Chinese Communist Party’s 

successful use of perception management, especially here in the 

United States. 

This is how they continue to get away with stealing our trade secrets, manipulating the currency, receiving millions of dollars in 

foreign aid from the United States. Millions of American jobs have 

been lost due to their successful efforts. 

On the other hand, our Government has had little influence 

within China. While we embrace the free exchange of information, 

in China, the Chinese Communist Party lacks legitimacy and maintains its grip on power by organized violence and through intimidation. 

The CCP must control information to stay in power, which 

means their power both inside China and their power outside 

China. The Communist Party of China is also afraid of the Chinese 

people learning the truth that it goes to great—and they are afraid 

of the truth, that they go to great ends to jam radio broadcasts, 

censor the Internet, deny visas to Voice of America reporters, and 

interfere with the work of the two Voice of America reporters that 

they do allow to operate in Beijing. 

In contrast, the United States has issued hundreds of I-visas to 

Chinese journalists; 811 Chinese entered the United States with Ivisas in fiscal year 2011 alone. We allow the CCP to freely distribute their insidious propaganda without interference, including 

delivering the China Daily right to the doors of this building. The 

CCP would never permit Voice of America material to be distributed to the offices of the rubberstamp parliament in Beijing. 

A year ago, the largest Chinese Communist Party controlled 

news organization moved their North American headquarters to 

Times Square in New York and introduced an English television 

broadcast service that runs 24 hours a day. 

Additionally, they placed a 60-foot tall advertisement at the 

north end of Times Square, which is estimated to rent at, just for 

that sign alone, $300,000 to $400,000 a month. That means, in 1 

year, the CCP spends the equivalent of a quarter of the VOA’s 

China budget, but just on one sign. 

I am also really concerned that the CCP has over 70 Confucius 

Institutes and Confucius Classrooms here in the United States. 

They put teachers and party-approved content masquerading as innocent cultural material on U.S. campuses. 

And of course, just a few weeks ago, a Chinese investor, using 

an undisclosed sum of Chinese state funds, bought the AMC entertainment movie theater chain. Due to this, the CCP will now influence the content of U.S. movies as well. 

So finally, let me just say that the CCP is clearly using 

disinformation to advance nationalistic and hegemonic ends. 

America should not concede this valuable ground to the Communist Party. And it is not us trying to accept the idea that we 

are limiting. Let them, if there is going to be reciprocity, let them 

11 

increase the number of people on our side that are permitted to 

come in. 

So the central argument against this, by saying it would lead to 

a suppression of information here, actually, they would then be 

making that determination. We are just simply saying reciprocity 

and just assume have it go up rather than down. 

So I thank you for calling this hearing. And I hope for markup 

as well of H.R. 2899, so that we can have this vote come to the 

floor, and we can alert the American people to how we’re getting 

snookered by the Communist Chinese. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:] 

12 


DR-1.eps
13 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank 

you for joining us today, Congressman Rohrabacher. 

Now we’ll move to the second witness, Dr. John Lenczowski. He 

serves as the founder and president of the Institute of World Politics, an independent graduate school of national security and international affairs here in Washington, D.C. 


DR-2.eps
14 

Prior to this, he served in the State Department in the Bureau 

of European Affairs as a special advisor to the Undersecretary for 

Political Affairs. 

Dr. Lenczowski received his master’s degree and Ph.D. from 

Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 

Welcome, Doctor. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN LENCZOWSKI, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, 

THE INSTITUTE OF WORLD POLITICS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LENCZOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly and Congresswoman Lofgren. 

I’m honored to share some thoughts about the legislation at 

hand. My concern with the principles underlying this issue dates 

back to the Cold War, and it’s a very similar situation. 

Today, we’re concerned that China has severely restricted visas 

for our official broadcasters, as we have discussed. This last year, 

in contrast to the only two official correspondents we have in Beijing, the State Department granted 868 visas to Chinese media 

representatives. 

The diplomatic principle here, reciprocity, is playing out today 

just as it did in the Cold War. For example, during the Cold War, 

the State Department had more KGB personnel working in the 

U.S. Embassy in Moscow then it had Americans. The Soviets had 

the run of our Embassy and could easily identify our intelligence 

officers and our vulnerabilities. 

In contrast, we had exactly zero Americans working in the Soviet 

Embassy here. 

The State Department’s rational for hiring all these KGB 

operatives? It was hard to find housing in Moscow for any more 

Americans. 

In response to this, we created the Office of Foreign Missions to 

enforce reciprocity. If the Soviets gave us trouble in securing housing in Moscow, then they would encounter similar difficulties here. 

All of a sudden, housing in Moscow became mysteriously available. 

Today, we see Beijing being given lopsided advantages in almost 

every sphere. Just like the Soviets, the Chinese require our Embassy and consulates in China to use the Chinese diplomatic service bureau with their intelligence service assistance, of course, to 

hire local Chinese solely through them. 

The lack of reciprocity extends to numbers of students studying 

in both countries, the number of scientists to do research in our national laboratories, the numbers of national centers involved in 

public diplomacy, the numbers of intelligence collectors, and other 

categories. 

Who exactly are China’s media representatives? None are true 

professional journalists. The number who even pretend to be reporters is a tiny percentage. Some are Communist Party propagandists. Most are intelligence operatives with the Ministry of 

State Security, the MSS. 

Most of those officers, under media cover, are agents of influence 

and political counterintelligence officers who work in cooperation 

with the massive Chinese propaganda presence here. 

15 

Just part of that presence are the aforementioned 81 Confucius 

Institutes in American universities that both conduct propaganda 

and stifle criticism of Chinese policies. In contrast, we have only 

five American centers in China that are not independently operated but come under the control of Chinese university officials. 

Chinese political counterintelligence officers penetrate and harass American organizations that represent groups that pose a 

threat to the Chinese Communist Party. Beijing calls these groups 

the ‘‘Five Poisons.’’ They include the Uighurs in Xinjing province, 

the Tibetans, the Taiwanese, the Falun Gong, and pro-democracy 

groups. 

These agents identify critics of the Beijing regime, attempt to 

manipulate their perceptions, and discredit their views. 

Here Beijing uses the visa weapon. If you write for a publication 

of any of the ‘‘Five Poisons,’’ you are likely to be denied a visa to 

enter China. If your business advertises in one of their publications, you will be blacklisted and denied business opportunities in 

China. 

Unfortunately, our foreign policy systematically ignores such influence operations and their ability to distort our perceptions of reality. 

Chinese propaganda is designed to create a false conventional 

wisdom, influencing not only our media but our academic community from which come our future intelligence analysts, military officers, and policymakers. 

Here, the Chinese play the visa game. If an American writes 

about China’s military, intelligence, or its Laogai slave labor system, or other sensitive subjects, they are routinely denied visas. 

Once denied a visa, scholars can no longer do fieldwork and bolster their credentials by traveling to China. So they censor themselves, and the fruit of this self-censorship is ever greater lack of 

knowledge or concern about subjects central to U.S. national security policymaking. We saw the identical phenomenon in the Cold 

War. 

Beijing corrupts us in other ways. It contributes to the campaigns of American politicians. It uses commercial leverage to influence our businesses, and even to blackmail our congressional 

representatives who vote for legislation like this, with the threat of 

the withdrawal of business in their districts. They hire former Cabinet members and military officers to stifle any criticism. 

I can only scratch the surface of this major national security 

challenge. I entreat this Committee and the Congress at large to 

take this challenge seriously and enforce greater reciprocity in the 

use of visas, so that Chinese influence operations can be minimized 

and U.S. national security can be protected. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lenczowski follows:] 

16 


JL-1.eps
17 


JL-2.eps
18 


JL-3.eps
19 


JL-4.eps
20 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Dr. Lenczowski. 

And as you know, your testimony, all of your written testimony, 

will be part of the record of the hearing. 

Our next witness is Mr. Nick Zahn. Mr. Zahn serves as the Asian 

communications fellow and director of the Washington Roundtable 

for the Asia Pacific Press at the Heritage Foundation. He manages 


JL-5.eps
21 

the largest organization of Asia and Pacific news media in the 

United States from his office in Heritage’s Asian Studies Center. 

Mr. Zahn’s responsibility is to advance American leadership and 

national security by promoting the organization’s policy agenda 

through relationships with international media. 

Mr. Zahn received his bachelor’s degree from the University of 

Wisconsin. 

Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF NICK ZAHN, ASIA COMMUNICATIONS FELLOW, 

DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE FOR THE 

ASIA PACIFIC PRESS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. ZAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not 

be construed as representing any official position of the Heritage 

Foundation. 

The Washington Roundtable for the Asian Pacific Press at the 

Heritage Foundation is quite unique among this town’s think 

tanks. It is my duty to get to know the Asian media market and 

press corps for purposes of promoting Heritage’s work and ideas. 

This responsibility has given me a first-hand understanding of 

how these reporters, including China’s reporters, operate. 

In preparing my testimony, I’ve drawn from this daily interaction 

as well as some of Heritage’s broader work on public diplomacy. 

And as I look at any comparison between the way the U.S. and 

China handle one another’s government-sponsored press, the single 

most striking inequity that jumps out at me is the number of visas 

issued. The current imbalance is simply unacceptable. 

In 2011, the U.S. Department of State approved 868 visas for 

Chinese state journalists. The Chinese continued the abysmal 

precedent of allowing the Voice of America only two visas to work 

in the People’s Republic of China. And as mentioned previously, 

that’s 868 to 2. 

China’s government has consistently rejected visa applications 

for Radio Free Asia staff since President Bill Clinton’s 1998 trip 

when three personnel were denied travel into the PRC. 

Compounding the disparity, journalists in China are heavily 

censored. Both at home and abroad, decisions made by the Chinese 

Communist Party about desired coverage or censorship of particularly sensitive subjects are issued via the central propaganda department or the state council information offices. 

Censorship, of course, is a key concern for the party. The party’s 

primary mission for press is to help maintain social and political 

control, especially during sensitive events such as the 1989 

Tiananmen protests or, more recently, the 2008 Beijing Olympics, 

when public opinion guidance was reviewed by Chinese president 

and party general secretary Hu Jintao. 

So last year, in February 2011, when activists in China inspired 

by the Arab Spring called for pro-democracy protests, authorities 

moved security forces quickly to quash protesters and the corresponding press coverage to go along with it in about a dozen 

major cities in China. 

For instance, as a Jasmine Revolution protest got underway on 

Sunday, February 27, 2011, our two VOA correspondents in BeiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jul 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\062012\74643.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
22 

jing, Stephanie Ho and Ming Zhang, went to downtown Beijing to 

an event site to investigate. Both were detained, manhandled, seriously threatened, and humiliated by uniformed and plain-clothes 

Chinese police. 

Ho was pushed and shoved into a small store and hustled away 

in a police van. And although this was his first time being detained 

in Beijing, Zhang had been detained eight times outside Beijing 

since arriving at the bureau in China in 2007. 

So this must change. The U.S. needs to be taken seriously as an 

advocate for liberty and, therefore, must actively support the development of an open and objective press corps that works to hold governments accountable. 

It has long been hoped that the example of our openness would 

be reciprocated in China, but that has not come to pass. There 

should be reciprocity between the numbers of China’s state-sponsored media allowed U.S. visas and China’s visas granted to U.S. 

Government employee counterparts. 

If it requires revoking or limiting visas of state journalists to encourage progress on China’s end, that is something the U.S. should 

do. After all, the United States and the PRC are in a contest of 

ideas. We believe in the idea that governments exist to protect the 

rights of the people. Opposing that idea is the notion of a government striving to protect itself from the people. 

The disparity between the courses our two countries are taking 

must be addressed, and the United States must adjust and use all 

means of diplomacy at its disposal to counter the current trend in 

the imbalance of state-funded press between the U.S. and China. 

Elsewise, over time, the prestige of the United States will be 

made to suffer and our influence as a force for good will be diminished. And of course, we must not let that happen. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zahn follows:] 

23 


Zahn-1.eps
24 


Zahn-2.eps
25 


Zahn-3.eps
26 


Zahn-4.eps
27 


Zahn-5.eps
28 


Zahn-6.eps
29 


Zahn-7.eps
30 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Zahn. 

While I welcome Mr. Daly here today, I am going to yield to the 

gentlelady from California, at her request, to make the formal introduction. 


Zahn-8.eps
31 

Ms. LOFGREN. First, actually, I am surprised by that, because I 

didn’t know I was making the formal introduction. But I did wish 

to recognize someone who is in our audience here today, and that 

is Isaac, who is Mr. Daly’s son, who is 12 years old and getting a 

little government lesson here, I hope, in the House Judiciary Committee. 

So, we welcome you, Isaac, and I know that your dad is going 

to make you very proud today. 

I would also like to introduce Mr. Daly. I’ll be very quick. 

He has been the director of the Maryland China Initiative at the 

University of Maryland since 2007. Prior to that, he was, for 6 

years, the American director of Johns Hopkins University and 

Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies. 

He began work on U.S.-China relations as a diplomat for the 

USIA. After leaving the Foreign Service, he taught Chinese at Cornell University. And for the next 9 years, he worked on television 

projects in China. He has numerous awards and has been recognized and taught at various institutions. 

In the interest of time, I’ll simply say welcome, Mr. Daly and 

Isaac, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Before we go to your testimony, Mr. Daly, I’m 

going to yield myself 30 seconds to introduce a special guest of 

mine today who is also a 12-year-old. His grandmother and grandfather are with me. His grandmother has worked for me for 42 

years and is retiring this year, and that’s her grandson Jake. 

I know she looks like she must’ve started when she was 6 years 

old. But they are both original Washingtonians, but have been in 

California for 50-some years. And the grandfather, Tom Shields, is 

a dear friend who worked for 31 years in the FBI. 

And Jake is here, as Mr. Daly’s 12-year-old, learning about government here in Washington, DC. 

So we welcome you, and with that, Mr. Daly, welcome 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. DALY, DIRECTOR, MARYLAND 

CHINA INITIATIVE, THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Mr. DALY. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly, and thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren, for convening this hearing on media reciprocity with the People’s Republic of China. 

I am sympathetic with what I take to be the impetus for this legislation. There is, in fact, much that is galling, as all of you have 

already recounted, in China’s conduct of its public diplomacy and 

in the limitations it places on our journalists working in China. 

China’s unblinking disregard for reciprocity should be of concern 

to the Congress and should be the subject of representations by 

members of the legislative and executive branches who conduct our 

relations with China. 

Still, the retaliatory approach that H.R. 2899 takes to these 

issues, I believe, is counterproductive. Its enactment would exasperate problems it seeks to correct and would cast doubt on America’s commitment to the free flow of ideas. 

The proposal we are considering today is that U.S. expel all or 

all but two Chinese journalists within 30 days of the bill’s enactment. ‘‘America expels China’s journalists’’ will be the headline in 

China and around the world if this bill becomes law. 

32 

This retaliatory approach would cast the United States not as 

the defender of reciprocity and press freedom, but as fearful, shortsighted, and cynical about values this law exemplified. 

The most striking difficulty with the retaliatory approach is that 

it considers only the activities of Chinese and American journalists 

employed by their respective states, ignoring the work of the 200 

or so Americans employed by commercial media in China. Because 

the label of ‘‘government journalist’’ can be rightly applied to all 

Chinese journalists in America, their numbers should be compared 

to those of all American journalists working in the PRC and not 

just to the number dispatched by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 

But even comparing the total number of government and commercial journalists in each country misses the point. Our goal need 

not be numerical parity. What we seek is an international regime 

in which all countries may send as many journalists as they desire 

and can afford to other nations, and in which those journalists may 

report freely. 

Beijing accredits only two BBG journalists, but even if an unlimited number were allowed to work in the PRC, VOA would only 

wish to send six to 10 reporters to China. That doesn’t solve the 

reciprocity issue. 

Not only does the proposed legislation ignore the work of American commercial journalists. It ignores the complexity of modern information networks that shape the public perceptions that we are 

concerned with here today. 

Americans learn about China from professional journalists stationed there, but also from nonaccredited stringers, writers, and 

travelers; from corporate reports and academic research; from analyses by government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, and multilateral 

organizations; and from a growing body of material from China 

itself and from third countries. 

American and foreign bloggers and websites that cover China 

round out what is now a dynamic array of information sources 

whose output already exceeds the assimilating capacity of any one 

reader or any one government. 

While the Communist Party does strive, as you’ve heard today, 

to limit the Chinese people’s access to information, the Chinese 

people, in fact, have a wide range of news sources, accurate and inaccurate, censored and uncensored. Tech-savvy Chinese, especially 

those who can read English, can gain access, although with some 

difficulty, to the same array of information that we enjoy. 

So when we consider the full range of international information 

sources and, very importantly, when we take account of the fact 

that America, despite being grossly overspent by the Chinese Government, America, in fact, has vastly more influence on Chinese 

perceptions and culture than the Chinese Communist Party has on 

American views and tastes, it is not clear to me which problem 

H.R. 2899 seeks to solve. Nor is it clear how expelling China’s journalists would advance the cause of press freedom. 

Expelling China’s journalists would provoke a protracted and 

ugly series of reciprocal expulsions. In the unlikely event that Beijing declined to expel our journalists, its restraint would allow it 

33 

to seize the moral high ground while portraying the United States 

as fearful of scrutiny by Chinese media. 

And we should bear in mind that Chinese journalists are the primary source of information on the United States for most Chinese 

readers and viewers. Many of their reports, in fact, are comprehensive and fair. This is in fact because many of the reports are simply 

translations from American media, which are republished in Chinese. 

It is in our interests that the Chinese receive the information 

that these reporters provide, even though some of it is biased and 

inaccurate. 

Many Chinese writers and editors here in America, impressed by 

their experience in the United States, push for greater scope and 

objectivity in Chinese reporting. As advocates for greater press 

freedom in China, they’re more effective than American activists 

and more effective than they could be if they were not allowed to 

work here. Expelling them would cut off one of our best channels 

for promoting press freedom in China. 

But what is most worrisome in the retaliatory approach is its 

suggestion that America conduct its public diplomacy on China’s 

terms, competing to see which nation is more willing to restrict 

media rather than on the American model of promoting an unfettered exchange of ideas. 

If we trade the American paradigm for the Chinese approach, we 

abandon the openness that is the key source of our global influence. If we retain our confidence in the American model, then we 

can continue to inspire the Chinese people to push for greater freedom. 

That is what our media and our public diplomacy have done successfully, although not to our complete satisfaction, for the last 30 

years. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:] 

34 


Daly-1.eps
35 


Daly-2.eps
36 


Daly-3.eps
37 


Daly-4.eps
38 


Daly-5.eps
39 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Daly, your time has—okay, I appreciate you 

summarizing. 

With that, I would like to open the questioning. We are going to 

be voting in less than 10 minutes, so I’m going to try to get at least 

one question of each Member, so we won’t have to call you all back, 

since there is a series of votes. 

Mr. Lenczowski, in your testimony you cite historical examples 

of how absence of reciprocity between the U.S. and Russia was a 

national security concern. Do you think that the lack of reciprocity 

between the U.S. and China poses a similar national security concern? And if so, could you give us, in a very summarized way, how 

you would address that issue? 

Mr. LENCZOWSKI. Thank you, sir. 

I think this is all about national security. That is what this is 

all about. This is about the problems of perceptions management 

and the corruption of American accurate perceptions of what is 

going on in China. There are very few Sinologists in the United 

States compared to the number of Sovietologists during the Cold 

War. The few that are able to talk about sensitive subjects are extremely limited in number. And one of the problems is that they 

are even corrupted in other ways in this entire process. 

For example, there is a major think tank in this town that had 

a prominent China military analyst. A big donor to that think 

tank, who had major China business interests, didn’t like the accurate and clinical analysis that was coming out of that China military analyst and arranged to have him fired, because he didn’t 

want Americans to become alarmed by China’s military buildup, 

and which might rock the boat in U.S.-China relations and harm 

his business interests. 

So the guy was fired, was given hush money, and went on to 

other another think tank, where two trustees, who were major donors of that think tank, threatened to resign and withhold their financial support if that analyst was kept on there. 

This type of corruption is just unbelievable. And it is going on. 

And the problem is the general principle of lack of reciprocity on 

all of these different matters has a huge effect on self-censorship, 

as I mentioned, by academics and journalists. 

And so there is a fundamental perceptions management problem 

here, which seriously affects our ability as a Nation to hear the 

truth about what China is doing, not only in its human rights practices internally but its aggressive activities abroad, its military 

buildup, and its massive intelligence presence in this country. 

There are probably tens of thousands of Chinese intelligence 

operatives in this country, because of the style of intelligence collection. 

I don’t disagree with Dr. Daly when he talks about the desire of 

enhancing public diplomacy and representing the free flow of information. My problem here is that most of these people are not real 

journalists. 

They are political counterintelligence officers. They are engaged 

in influence operations here in this country. And what we are talking about here, to a large extent, is reciprocity when it comes not 

just to journalists but to intelligence officers. 

40 

The number of Chinese media representatives in this country 

who are actually writing and editing stories is miniscule. There are 

very, very few stories and broadcasts coming out of these people. 

What are the rest of them doing here? They are engaging in activities that exceed the proper bounds of their media representation or 

of diplomatic representation. 

This is an intelligence problem. It is a perceptions management 

problem. It is a fundamental subversion of what we’re trying to do 

in this country. During the Cold War, we had some massive expulsions of Soviet intelligence officers. I see no problem with an analogous expulsion of Chinese intelligence officers who are not only engaging in perceptions management and the subversion of our accurate perceptions of reality, but are also engaging in the massive 

theft of our intellectual property, which is completely arranged for 

their huge military buildup of asymmetrical capabilities that are 

becoming a meaningful potential threat to the United States. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Dr. Lenczowski, and I certainly concur with the concerns about intellectual property, among 

other things. 

At this point I yield to the gentlelady and Ranking Member, Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be 

brief. 

In terms of the reciprocity issue, I’m not sure that that is the 

right approach. But if I’m reading the materials correctly, if we had 

the approval of every application we made, it wouldn’t be 20. And 

so really what we’re saying is, we would have to—you know what 

that is? People get very nervous when the room shakes. That is actually trash compacting down in the basement. So don’t worry 

about it. 

This bill, if it became law, would simply require the revocation 

of hundreds of visas, and I’m not sure, Mr. Daly, as you’ve mentioned, that that’s the right message we want to give. 

I mean, if, as Mr. Lenczowski has said, there is theft of intellectual property, we ought to arrest them and prosecute them. I’m not 

a supporter of what the Chinese Government does. They are an oppressive, communist regime, and they are not our friends. That is 

not the issue. 

The question is how best to deal with this dangerous rival. 

And I guess the question I have for you, Mr. Daly, is, if this bill 

is not the answer, what are your suggestions about positive steps 

we could take to address legitimate concerns about reciprocity, but 

also what steps could we take to increase the flow of free information about freedom into China? 

Mr. DALY. Thank you. 

First, I think that as anybody who’s been to China, has spent 

some time there, and who knows the media environment, will realize, while it remains censored and while it is restricted, it is, nevertheless, more free all the time, fairly dynamic. And there are a 

number of American media outlets that have a regular presence in 

China. Sports illustrated is in Chinese. The Harvard Business Review is in Chinese. It’s freely accessible. More popular magazines, 

like National Geographic, things like Cosmopolitan, are available. 

41 

There are groups in China that translate every single article in 

every edition of the British Economist into Chinese and make it 

available. So there is, in fact, a lot of information out there already. 

Nevertheless, I do think that these are serious issues and that 

we do need to take some of the steps that have been recommended. 

Reciprocity should be a prominent issue in our China agenda. 

The President, members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress who 

deal with China, should regularly raise the issues that have been 

raised here today—numbers of journalists, the access that they 

enjoy—in public and private meetings with the Chinese. We should 

call them out on this regularly, as we do on intellectual property 

violations and human rights violations. 

Elevating reciprocity as an issue would also have the advantage 

of reminding Americans that the China Daily supplements in the 

Washington Post and the New York Times, and that the CCTV 

channels, are, in fact, Chinese Communist Party organs. 

Secondly, if we are concerned, as has been mentioned here today, 

with prevailing in a public diplomacy competition with China, then 

we have to train a large number of experts in a range of professions who are fluent in Chinese and knowledgeable about Chinese 

history and Chinese culture. So I think that Congress does have an 

opportunity to provide enhanced support for K-12 Chinese language curriculum, for 100,000 Strong, for university programs that 

train the personnel we need. 

We can also provide enhanced support for VOA’s Chinese language broadcasts. Currently, VOA has limited broadcast hours. 

There is a chance to enhance that and to also improve the style of 

VOA. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can I ask you a question in terms of these publications that are being translated into Chinese? One of the concerns 

that we have about what China does is to try to keep their citizens 

from accessing information on the Internet, by blocking and the 

like. 

To your knowledge, is this information, has it been blocked by 

the Chinese Government? And do you think that the more—we 

helped fund Tor and other mechanisms for people to avoid the censorship through good technology. Do you think that would be a 

positive step forward? 

Mr. DALY. China does block VOA broadcasts. It blocks Facebook, 

YouTube, Twitter, American commercial media. It could have an 

immediate and profound impact. 

It blocks these websites because its American-style press freedom 

would, in fact, pose an existential threat to the Chinese Communist 

Party. That is true. 

But the Chinese are also adept at getting around the Great Firewall. Voice of American programs are posted on the VOA. They get 

comments from China by the thousands. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time is up. I would just thank the Chairman 

for this hearing and suggest that at some point we might want to 

actually have a briefing on Tor, because it is something we helped 

fund, but it is a way to get around censorship that is very exciting. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentlewoman. 

42 

I would ask a special request of my good friend from Iowa, Mr. 

King. Would you expedite your questions, because we have three 

votes, and I don’t want to come back? 

Mr. KING. How much time is left on the clock, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you like 3 minutes? 

Mr. KING. Just a point of information, how much time is left on 

the vote clock on the floor? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. It’s a 15-minute vote. 

Mr. KING. They just called it now? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. About 2 minutes ago. 

Mr. KING. So it will be more than 5 minutes, and I think I can 

get that done. Thank you. 

Now thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for this 

hearing. It is interesting testimony that has come before this panel. 

It causes me to think a little bit about the broader implications. 

I’m one who has advocated for a level of reciprocity in a number 

of areas. This reciprocity advocated for the press personnel, this is 

a great big subject. And when you think in terms of 1 million visitors from China each year, which Dr. Lenczowski has testified to, 

and you think about how many agents can be needles in that haystack, I think that that is really interesting testimony. 

Then I look back at some of the other things that we have. Religious workers visa, I actually have a bill that requires reciprocity 

for religious workers. And it recognizes not necessarily that China 

is a big problem there, since the 5,000 religious workers, but religious workers can come from Saudi Arabia, but it’s very, very difficult, if even possible, to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia. I think 

there should be a religious workers reciprocity policy as well. 

The subject was brought up about the intellectual property theft, 

and the broad effort on the part of the Chinese piracy of intellectual property. And that is patents, trademarks and copyrights alluded to earlier in this testimony or in the response. And we had 

the massive effort to steal American intellectual property and incorporate it into the national defense scheme of the Chinese. 

Then I think also a bill that passed out of this Committee, the 

Chairman of the Committee—excuse me—the sponsor of the bill 

was Mr. Chaffetz of Utah. And it eliminated the per country cap 

in certain visa categories, which was the diversity cap, so that we 

get a representation from multiple countries across the world. I opposed the bill. 

I was one of, maybe the only Republican, to oppose the bill, because it looked to me like it could all be Chinese coming in under 

those visa categories that were changed. 

So I am suggesting this, as I listen to this testimony, that has 

brought some of this together for me, I support this bill that Mr. 

Rohrabacher has brought. I support the international viewpoint 

that he brings to the United States Congress. 

And I also would ask if there be consideration, perhaps, to roll 

all these reciprocity things together, so that America can have a 

reasonable opportunity of competing in the world. The bill that 

deals with intellectual property that I have introduced, what it 

does is, and I wrote this bill from Beijing after they had toasted 

our delegation in multiple cities with the same talking points each 

time, which was we’re going find some people that are stealing inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:50 Jul 31, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\062012\74643.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
43 

tellectual property and eventually we will bring felony charges 

against them and lock them up. And I asked who was locked up 

and who’s been fined and are they state-owned businesses, so if 

they pay a fine, it comes out of one pocket into another. That is 

what happens in China. 

So I wrote a bill that directed the U.S. Trade Representative to 

conduct a study to determine the value of the loss of U.S. intellectual property due to Chinese piracy, and directed them to apply a 

duty on all Chinese imports in an amount equal to recover that loss 

of value of intellectual property and an administrative fee in order 

to distribute those funds back to the proper holders of that intellectual property. 

That is one of those things when you say, go ahead and steal intellectual property, but we’re going to charge you back for it, so 

keep stealing and we’ll keep the money and send it to the people 

that own the copyrights, the patents, and the trademarks. 

I support the issue with the press. I think the United States 

should be a lot smarter. We are an open society that allows access 

to every aspect of our society. 

Al Qaeda has taken advantage of that, as have the Chinese, as 

have our enemies continually. It is amazing to me that our Founding Fathers could have such wisdom and foresight, and we could 

have such current day blind sight on this issue. 

So I raise again the issue of the per country cap. I believe to 

eliminate that per country cap in Chaffetz bill was a mistake. It 

opens the door to the Chinese. 

And I would ask consideration to put all these reciprocity things 

together, so that America can compete on a level playing field. 

Then I would just throw out a question to—since I’m advised not 

to ask Representative Rohrabacher a question, but to Dr. 

Lenczowski, to just import to this Committee, if you could, the 

things that you didn’t have an opportunity to say. 

And then at that point, I would yield back to the Chairman, so 

we can go vote. Thank you. 

Mr. LENCZOWSKI. I very much appreciate, Congressman King, 

your remarks. 

And indeed, this really is an issue which is much larger than just 

the media issue. And I am sympathetic to the fact that perhaps 

this bill may indeed risk making us look a little bit like we are 

afraid of free-flowing information and so on and so forth. 

The problem here is that our foreign-policy authorities have been 

incredibly imprudent in how they are managing our overall relations with China. This is the central problem. It is just the way it 

was with the Soviet Union. 

It was incredible, the lack of reciprocity in things that we did 

with Moscow. We let them cheat on all their arms control agreements. They had a strategy to cheat on all their arms control 

agreements, and we lived by ours. There was no reciprocity there. 

[See Appendix for addendum to the response of Mr. Lenczowski]: 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Dr. Lenczowski, I apologize for interrupting you, 

but the clock is going. 

If you would be kind enough to put your full answer, and make 

that available to the Committee, I would be grateful. We will make 

it a part of the record of the hearing. 

44 

And with that, I will thank our witnesses all for being here. 

Without objection, I ask that all Members will have 5 legislative 

days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the 

witnesses, which will be forwarded, and ask the witnesses to respond in a timely fashion, so we can make them a part of the 

record of the hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for infusion in the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I would just say I am glad that we won the 

Cold War. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. That is a good thing. 

And with that, I thank you all for being here, and the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

46 


74643A-1.eps
47 

Æ 


74643A-2.eps