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

74–959PDF 2012

CONTINUED HUMAN RIGHTS ATTACKS ON

FAMILIES IN CHINA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 9, 2012

Serial No. 112–168

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Pastor Bob Fu, founder and president, ChinaAid Association ............................. 9

Ms. Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers ....................................................................................................................... 23

Mr. Steven Mosher, president, Population Research Institute ............................ 33

Mr. T. Kumar, director of international advocacy, Amnesty International ........ 41

Ms. Yanling Guo, victim of China’s population control policies ........................... 43

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Pastor Bob Fu: 

Letter from Chinese scholars on the repeal of the family planning law ......... 12

Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 17

Documents relating to the capture of and fines levied against Ms. Guo 

translated into English .................................................................................... 57

Ms. Reggie Littlejohn: Prepared statement ........................................................... 27

Mr. Steven Mosher: Prepared statement ............................................................... 36

Ms. Yanling Guo: Prepared statement ................................................................... 45

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, and Human Rights: Material submitted for the record ...................... 67

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 76

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 77

(1)

CONTINUED HUMAN RIGHTS ATTACKS ON 

FAMILIES IN CHINA 

MONDAY, JULY 9, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order and good afternoon to everyone. China’s one-child policy has been in effect since 

1979, is state sponsored murder, and it constitutes massive crimes 

again humanity. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal properly 

construed forced abortion as a crime against humanity. Nothing in 

human history compares to the magnitude of China’s 33-year assault on women and children. Abortion is a weapon of mass destruction and millions have been exterminated. 

Today in China, rather than being given maternal care, pregnant 

women without birth-allowed permits are hunted down and forcibly 

aborted. They are mocked, they are belittled and they are humiliated. In recent days, the exploitation and forced abortion at 7 

months of Feng Jianmei has sparked global outrage and deep concern for her welfare and for that of the women in China. As a matter of fact, I would note parenthetically, in early July, the European Parliament condemned China’s one-child-per-couple policy 

with its reliance on forced abortion. 

While Feng remains in a hospital she calls a prison, her husband 

Deng has been beaten. Feng’s gross mistreatment, however, is far 

too commonplace. Feng Jianmei was forced to undergo an abortion 

on June 2, 7 months into her pregnancy. Many reports indicate 

that local officials in northwestern Shaanxi Province held Ms. Feng 

for 3 days, blindfolded, and coerced her to consent to the abortion. 

With the supposed consent, it took five men to hold her down and 

administer the drug that induced the 48-hour labor. The injection 

was given directly to the child’s head. Ms. Feng’s husband, Deng, 

posted graphic photos of his wife and the dead baby online; embarrassing the government. Deng Jicai, Mr. Deng’s sister, and her 

brother and sister-in-law, had refrained from speaking to the media 

but decided to speak to German reporters who traveled to Shaanxi 

when the government did not produce investigation results as 

promised. 

2

Ms. Deng reported to the media that the local government organized a backlash against the family members, calling them traitors 

and keeping them under surveillance apparently angered over the 

family contact with journalists. Local residents took a long bus ride 

to the hospital where Ms. Feng was recovering from the abortion 

and demonstrated with banners like, ‘‘beat the traitors soundly,’’ 

and ‘‘expel them from the township.’’ Family members claim that 

the demonstration seemed to be a campaign organized and funded 

by local authorities, but made to look like a spontaneous public gesture. 

Mr. Deng reportedly was also beaten and labeled a traitor for 

speaking about the crime committed against his wife. The China 

Daily reported that there was no legal basis for the fine of $6,300 

for the second pregnancy that Ms. Feng refused to pay. The local 

government also has admitted that Ms Feng’s legal rights were violated. Publicity surrounding the forced abortion prompted the firing 

of two local government officials and warning or demerits being 

issued against five others. Mr. Deng escaped from the hospital 

where both he and his wife were being forcibly detained. He traveled to Beijing and hired a lawyer to sue the local government. Mr. 

Deng’s location is now unknown, but it is believed that he is in hiding. And of course, Ms. Feng is still being held in the hospital. 

Their lawyer, Zhang Kai, said recently that he sent a legal request on behalf of the Feng’s husband asking local police and prosecutors to investigate criminal infractions in the case. Deng is also 

seeking unspecified compensation from the government. 

The widespread circulation of the photos posted by Mr. Deng has 

prompted renewed debate in China and the world regarding the 

one-child policy, possibly including within the government itself. 

Researchers with a center affiliated with China’s State Council, the 

equivalent of China’s cabinet, argued in an essay published in the 

China Economic Times newspaper on July 3 that China should adjust the one-child policy as soon as possible to head off a potential 

demographic crisis. 

The Wall Street Journal on July 6 also reported that a group of 

prominent Chinese scholars issued an open letter on Thursday calling for a rethink of the one-child policy. The group argued that the 

policy in its current form is incompatible with China’s increasing 

respect for human rights and need for sustainable economic development. The letter comes less than a month after Feng’s photo and 

story ignited the public anger. 

‘‘The birth-approved system built on the idea of controlling population size as emphasized in the current ‘Population of Family 

Planning Law’ does not accord with provisions on the protection of 

human rights contained the nation’s constitution,’’ the authors of 

Thursday’s letter wrote, adding that the rewriting of the law was 

‘‘imperative.’’

The list of signatories to Thursday’s letter included several high 

profile figures, including Beijing University sociologist Li Jianxin 

and Internet entrepreneur James Liang. ‘‘This is a time during 

which people all over the world have realized that there are problems with the [one-child] policy,’’ Mr. Liang, the co-founder and 

chief executive of a Chinese online travel site, told The Wall Street 

Journal. Mr. Liang has spent the past 5 years pursuing a Ph.D. in 

3

economics at Stanford and just published a book challenging the 

notion that China has too many people. Mr. Liang said he has felt 

a recent opening up of discussion around the one-child policy. 

Mr. Liang also advocates a complete dismantling of the family 

planning system rather than a two-child system put forward by 

others. He said he initially became interested in the one-child policy when he came across research showing that innovation and entrepreneurship are dominated by young people. He said he feared 

a shrinking of the population of young people would hamper the 

country’s efforts to evolve beyond being merely the world’s factory. 

‘‘From an economic perspective, the one-child policy is irrational,’’ 

he wrote. ‘‘From a human rights perspective it is even less rational.’’

Today we will hear testimony from Guo Yangling who will tell 

us how she, like Feng, suffered a brutalizing late-term abortion. 

She notes that heading out to breakfast, she was stopped by an 

older woman in her 50s and asked if she had a birth permit. Again, 

without a birth permit, a child simply cannot be born. ‘‘Then two 

staff members from the Family Planning Commission came and 

asked me where I was from, and where I lived, and what my name 

was. I tried to walk away but they wouldn’t let me go,’’ she will 

say. ‘‘Help,’’ she said, ‘‘somebody help,’’ but no one came to help. 

Then two vans arrived, the doors opened, and she was put into the 

van. 

And she said on her way while she was complaining, they stuffed 

a rag into her mouth to gag her. She then went on to say that 

when she got to the second floor of the abortion mill, there were 

a number of female victims sitting on the benches in the corridor, 

their eyes filled with tears of anxiety, terror and sadness. ‘‘A 

woman dressed in white and wearing a surgical mask told me to 

get on the delivery bed immediately. I refused,’’ she said, ‘‘so they 

pinned me down on the bed by force. After the person in white 

pressed my belly with her hands and felt the position of my baby’s 

head,’’ she goes on to say, ‘‘she stuck a big long fatal needle into 

the abdomen.’’ And then she said, ‘‘my unborn baby had been murdered and I lost heart.’’ She will be testifying today before this 

hearing. 

This is the grim reality of the one-child-per-couple policy: Broken 

women and dead babies. As we have known for three decades, 

there are no single moms in China, except those who somehow 

evade the family planning cadres and concealed their pregnancy. 

For over three decades brothers and sisters have been illegal. Anyone in this room, anybody who might hear about this hearing, anybody in the world who has a brother or sister, not so in China, they 

are illegal. The mother has absolutely no right to protect her unborn baby from state-sponsored violence. 

The price of failing to conform is absolutely staggering. If you 

have an out-of-plan illegal child, your other child, if there is one, 

could be denied education, health care, marriage and the fines, 

again, are unbearable. Ms. Feng was told she had to pay a $6,300 

fine or else her child would be killed at 7 months, sometimes that 

fine, called a social compensation fee, goes as high as 10 times the 

combined salaries of the mother and the father. 

4

Her trauma, women in China like Feng and Guo is incomprehensible and it is a trauma she shares to some degree with every 

woman in China. The World Health Organization says something 

on the order of 500 women per day in China commit suicide. Unlike any other country in the world, these women are suffering the 

trauma of being forcibly aborted and many take their own lives. 

The result of this policy is a nightmarish, brave new world, with 

no precedent in human history. Where women are psychologically 

wounded, girls fall victim to sex selection abortion. In some provinces, 140 boys are born per every 100 girls. And most children 

grow up, as I said before, without brothers, or sisters, or aunts, or 

uncles, or cousins. 

Over the years, I have chaired 37 congressional hearings focused 

in whole or in part on China’s one-child policy. At one, the principle 

witness was a woman named Wuijan, a Chinese student attending 

university here in the United States who testified how her child 

was forcibly murdered by the government. She said the waiting 

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

were screaming. One mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable 

pain, she testified. Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and she described through tears what she called her ‘‘journey in hell.’’

At another hearing right in this room in the mid 1990s, a woman 

who was the director of the family planning clinic in Fujian province said that by day, she was a monster; by night a wife and 

mother of one. Harry Wu arranged for her testimony. It was very 

difficult to get her into this country, and when she told her story, 

you could have heard a pin drop. 

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

victimized mothers, but again, because girls are selected; sex selection abortion is huge in China with a catastrophic impact on the 

girl child as well as this gendercide that has lead to an unimaginable increase in human trafficking. 

Some of you may know I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Well, this year’s TIP released on June 

19 points out that China’s birth limitation policy coupled with a 

cultural preference for sons creates a skewed sex ratio in China 

which served as a key cause, I repeat, a key cause of trafficking 

of foreign women as brides for Chinese men, and for, of course, 

prostitution. 

The report goes on to say that the government took no, that is 

to say, the Chinese Government, took no discernible steps to address the role that its birth limitation policy plays in fueling 

human trafficking in China with gaping gender disparities resulting in shortages of female marriage partners. 

On June 26th, an op-ed in The People’s Daily, the official paper 

of the Chinese Party, shed light on this emerging demographic catastrophe that is in China. The article entitled ‘‘Leftover Men to Be 

a Big Problem,’’ admits there is a ‘‘bachelors crisis’’ that will ‘‘trigger a moral crisis,’’ these are their words, ‘‘of marriage and family.’’ 

We have heard that before, many of our witnesses have spoken to 

this, in some cases for decades, that there is a huge disparity of 

males to females. Nicholas Eberstadt, the world renowned demogVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Sep 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\070912\74959 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

rapher, has said what are the consequences for a society that has 

chosen to become simultaneously more gray and more male. 

Let me just say, finally, last August, Vice President Joe Biden 

visited China and told an audience that he was fully aware and 

fully understood the one-child policy, and he was not second-guessing the state of China for imposing it. I would say, first, to my colleagues, what would the public reaction be if the Vice President or 

any public official, House, Senate or White House or anywhere else 

in the world said that he fully understands and is not secondguessing copyright infringement? A gross violation of intellectual 

property rights? Or torture? Or religious persecution? 

The one-child-per-couple policy is the most egregious and vicious 

attack on women ever in its scope, pervasiveness, and it is done 

with impunity every day. Ms. Feng’s case is one of tens of millions 

that happened over the last 30 years. I would just say that I am 

concerned as well that we continue to fund organizations like the 

U.N. Population fund. 

In May 1984, 28 years ago, I offered the first amendment ever 

to a foreign aid bill to deny funding to any organization, including 

the U.N. Population Fund that are complicit with China’s forced 

abortion policy or its involuntary sterilization policy. It passed, and 

that language matriculated into the Kemp-Kasten Amendment 

after Jack Kemp of New York offered it through an appropriations 

bill. 

After all these years, it is astonishing that policymakers remain 

indifferent or supportive of these massive crimes against women 

and children. The Obama administration has long enabled this policy by its silence and financial support to the tune of $165 million 

over the past 3 years to UNFPA, an organization that supports, 

plans, implements, defends, and whitewashes these crimes against 

humanity. 

I have met with the leaders of the Chinese population program, 

I remember Peng Peiyun on one particular trip, and she launched 

into a defense of their program claiming that the UNFPA was in 

town, was there and they defended it, and said it was a totally voluntary program. 

Finally, in 2000, I wrote a law called the Admiral James W. 

Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. Section 801 of Title VIII of that Act 

is still in effect today. It requires the Secretary of State not to issue 

any visa to, and the Attorney General not to admit to the United 

States, any foreign national whom the Secretary finds based on 

credible and specific information to have been directly involved in 

the establishment or enforcement of forced abortion or forced sterilization. Owing to a glaring lack of implementation, only a handful 

of abusers of women have reportedly been denied visas to the 

United States. That, too, must change. 

I would yield too my good friend, Ms. Bass, for any openings comments that she would make. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this hearing covers a topic 

of international concern for which this committee has, as you recounted, received testimony on a number of occasions. And you 

have certainly been outspoken on China’s one-child policy. And I 

know that several of today’s witnesses have, on numerous occaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Sep 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\070912\74959 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

sions, expertly argued the China’s one-child policy raises considerable concern and is absolutely egregious. 

Today’s witnesses have also drawn our attention to numerous 

other human rights violations with respect to women in China. It 

is my hope that today’s hearing will speak not nearly on behalf of 

the countless women in China, of course, who endured grave harm 

to their minds and bodies, but on behalf of women and girls everywhere who are under threat each and every day, who live in perpetual fear, and who must endure unimaginable pain and suffering, due, for no other reason, than because of their gender. 

You will recall in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. At this hearing, 

Secretary Clinton unequivocally condemned the forced abortion and 

sterilization practices in China. She said at that hearing, ‘‘I consider any governmental imposition that imposes government policy 

on women to be absolutely unacceptable. And I feel strongly about 

forced sterilization, forced abortion, or any other egregious interference with women’s rights.’’

The Secretary State spoke clearly on practices that I, too, find 

deplorable and, frankly, unacceptable. I believe the women and 

men at the State Department have worked and will continue to 

work with the Chinese to address this very serious human rights 

issue. And I was actually surprised to hear of the comments of the 

Vice President, because, actually, I have heard very much the opposite from him as well as from the administration in terms of their 

considering the one-child policy to be absolutely deplorable. 

The measure in health, the society is based on how we treat our 

citizens and the people found within our borders, while these words 

have been said time and time again, these words and their meaning are critically important to all our societies, whether we are 

American or Chinese. It is a measure of the society before us and 

of a future society where peace, freedom and justice is an idea 

worth achieving. It is a reminder that while governments, no matter how powerful, may make and carry outlaws, it is people who 

are the truest measure of these laws. 

While nations should be able to set policies and laws that are in 

the best interest of its people, nations must do so with the deepest 

respect and in accordance with international standards and with 

an eye toward observing always human rights. 

These human rights instruments that have been passed before by 

the United Nations among many others are more than mere words 

on a page. They were crafted after much deliberation from expert 

scholars, civil societies and the aftermaths of events that made us 

question the very essence of our humanity, such as the convention 

on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women are 

the international covenant on civil and political rights. These instruments are fundamental to prevent atrocities of all forms from 

taking place today and into the future. They are our guides to a 

global society that, despite cultural difference, uphold inalienable 

rights that cannot be undermined or struck down. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Bass, thank you very much for your opening 

statement. I would like to yield to Ann Marie Buerkle, gentlelady 

from New York. 

7

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also to our 

witnesses for being here today. Your courageous efforts to bring attention to human rights abuse in China are exemplary and future 

generations will be indebted to you for your courage and your devotion to the cause of creating a free and fair China. Thank you very 

much for being here. 

Over the course of the past decade, China’s rapid advancement 

has fascinated people around the globe. It seems every day, there 

are more and more reports about China’s increasing strength. 

Today, there is no doubt that China is a major player on the world 

stage and challenges America’s leading role in world affairs. Sadly, 

there is an ugly underbelly to China’s impressive assent. Our fascination with China’s advancement is matched by our horror of 

China’s human rights abuses. While China’s economic and technological development has sped forward, civil and human rights in 

the nation have remained very backwards. 

The story of Ms. Feng is heart-wrenching. Seven months into her 

pregnancy, the 23-year-old Ms. Feng was forced to undergo a horrific abortion procedure. Her case is a perfect demonstration of both 

the general persecution Chinese citizens face at the hands of the 

Chinese state, and the particular atrocious practices of governmental officials who have resorted to forced abortions and sterilizations to comply with China’s one-child policy. 

There is no question that China is becoming a leader in the global community and therefore it is up to the global community to 

hold China to a human rights standard. We cannot stand by while 

China continues to commit human rights abuses. For this reason, 

it is essential that the Obama administration pursues Ms. Feng’s 

case to a proper and just conclusion. 

The case that she presents to America is an opportunity for 

America to take a lead in condemning China’s abominable practice 

of forced abortions. As a Nation, and as a world, we must demonstrate the courage to assert what is right and to help this horrific phenomenon. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Buerkle. I yield to Chairman Joe 

Pitts, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to sit 

with your panel today, and thank you to the witnesses for coming 

forward with your testimony. I would like to, first, thank you for 

holding this important hearing, Mr. Chairman. Just a few weeks 

ago, when I received the first report on forced abortion performed 

on Feng Jianmei who was 7 months into her pregnancy, I immediately took to the House floor to decry this horrible practice and 

violation of human rights and this instance of violation of the 

human rights of this young lady. 

Although China’s Central Government denies culpability for 

forced abortions by blaming them on the local officials that act outside the law, China’s one-child policy is undeniably the culprit. The 

Central Government’s coercive policy relating to childbirth has led 

to the stigmatization of having multiple children. This is especially 

the case for having a baby girl. 

In recent years, the effects of China’s one-child policy are finally 

being manifested by China’s precarious population growth and gender gap. It now seems that consensus in China is building toward 

8

reforming the policy. Advocates for reform make arguments relating to China’s economic prowess and its demographic future. I advocate that China break with the policy to put forced abortion to 

an end so that it might live up to its human rights obligations. 

China must end the policy at the Central Government level and 

hold those issuing forced abortions responsible for their crimes. The 

government can start by seeing that justice is done in the case of 

Feng Jianmei and her baby girl. 

Again, I thank Chairman Smith for holding this important hearing and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses 

today and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. I would thank Chairman Pitts for joining us and for 

his leadership on human rights for many years, especially as it relates to China. Without objection, I do recognize myself for an additional 2 minutes just to, again, point out that a picture is worth 

a thousand words. And the picture of Ms. Feng’s baby having been 

aborted at 7 months gestation, and then crudely put next to her in 

the bed is a picture that has awakened the conscience and the concerns of people around the world. That picture, sadly, is replicated 

and has been done over and over again, tens of millions of times 

throughout China, but in this case, there is a picture, and now it 

is posted and people are finally, at long last, seeing the gruesome 

reality of China’s one-child-per-couple policy with its reliance on 

forced abortion, which is cruelty beyond words. And that is what 

that picture has helped to spark. Hopefully people within the Government of China itself will look at that, because it is has made 

its way throughout all of China as well and realize that that kind 

of barbaric behavior toward children and mothers and women is 

absolutely unacceptable in any civilized society. 

I would like to now, having completed my opening statement, 

just make a statement for the record: I would like to point out for 

the record that the written testimony of T. Kumar from Amnesty 

International, who has been before this committee many times before had not been presented to the subcommittee, the subcommittee 

was not notified about Mr. Kumar’s participation at the hearing 

until last Friday evening. He was not noticed publicly until 11:52 

a.m. today. Therefore, without objection, in this exceptional circumstance and pursuant to rule 6(b) of the committee rules, Mr. 

Kumar’s statement, as well the written statement of all our witnesses, will be submitted for the record if he would like to submit 

one. Welcome, Mr. Kumar. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished witnesses beginning first with Pastor Bob Fu, who was a leader in the 1989 student democracy movement in Tiananmen Square, and then became 

a house church pastor that he founded along with his wife. In 1996, 

authorities arrested and imprisoned them for their work in China. 

After their release, they escaped to the United States, founded the 

ChinaAid Association; ChinaAid monitors and reports on religious 

freedom in China and provides a forum for discussion among experts on religion law and human rights in China. Pastor Fu is frequently interviewed by media outlets around the world and has 

testified before congressional hearings, including the Congressional-Executive Commission on China hearing held a few weeks 

ago where we were able to hear directly from Chen Guangcheng. 

9

Then we will hear from Ms. Reggie Littlejohn, who is founder 

and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an international coalition that opposes forced abortion, gendercide and sexual slavery in China, and frankly, anywhere else in the world 

where it occurs. 

She has legally represented Chinese refugees in their political 

asylum cases as an attorney, and testified before the European and 

British Parliaments, the White House and Congress. Ms. Littlejohn 

has served as an expert on China’s one-child policy for ChinaAid, 

and Human Rights Without Frontiers has issued several groundbreaking reports about the incalculable suffering caused by the coercive enforcement of the one-child policy. 

Then we will hear from Mr. Steve Mosher, who is the president 

of the Population Research Institute, and the author of numerous 

books on China. I have read three of his books, including A Mother’s Ordeal, and it brought great insight to me and to anyone else 

who took the time to read those powerful books. 

In 1979, he became the first American social scientist permitted 

to conduct field research in China since the Communist Revolution. 

He was the man who broke the story of the one-child-per-couple 

policy. Frontline, 60 Minutes, the Beijing bureau chiefs of The 

Washington Post and others back in the early 1980s relied on his 

breakthrough research about what women were experiencing as 

the direct result of the horrific one-child-per-couple policy. He has 

worked on human rights issues ever since and has brought great 

insight to this issue. 

We will then hear from Yanling Guo who was forced by the Chinese officials to undergo a forced abortion at 8 months. Her husband was subjected to a forced sterilization as well, as well as torture and multiple imprisonments. They have three children and 

have been fleeing Chinese authorities for 21 years. They are now 

in Bangkok and have applied for refugee status through the 

UNHCR. 

And finally we will hear from Mr. T. Kumar, who is Amnesty 

International’s Director for International Advocacy. He, too, has 

testified before the U.S. Congress on numerous occasions to discuss 

a broad array of human rights abuses. He has served as a human 

rights monitor in many Asian countries, as well as in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Sudan, and South Africa. 

He also served as director of several refugee ships and camps. T. 

Kumar was a political prisoner for over 5 years in Sri Lanka for 

his peaceful human rights activities. Amnesty International adopted him as a prisoner of conscience when he was incarcerated. He 

started his legal studies in prison, and eventually became an attorney at law and devoted his entire practice to defending political 

prisoners. 

Pastor Fu, if you would begin. 

STATEMENT OF PASTOR BOB FU, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, 

CHINAAID ASSOCIATION 

Pastor FU. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank 

you so much for organizing this timely hearing today. Again, I am 

very grateful this committee gave the platform to really make those 

vulnerable voices heard. 

10

On June the 2nd, in Zeng Family town in the city of Ankang of 

Shaanxi Province, Ms. Feng Jianmei, more than 7 months pregnant, was abducted by local government officials and taken to a 

hospital where she was forcibly aborted of her unborn baby. 

On June 6, local family planning officials and government officials in Changsha, Hunan Province, dragged Ms. Cao Ruyi, who 

was 5 months pregnant to a hospital, beat her and were about to 

force an abortion on her. However, due to the immediate advocacy 

of ours and especially a timely letter from Mr. Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith to the Changsha Government in Hunan 

Province. I still remember I received your phone call even on the 

Sunday, Sunday morning in the church. As well as the efforts of 

the international community, Ms. Cao Ruyi and her unborn baby 

are safe for the moment. 

On June 19, a pregnant Hu Xia of Zhengjiamen village of 

Shangche, Hubei Province, was forcibly taken to People’s Hospital 

by local officials and given an injection to induce a miscarriage. 

Two days later, she delivered that nearly 8-month fetus. 

These three cases in June alone expose the government’s rule in 

forced abortions in China, shocked the international community 

and set off a wave of criticism. However these cases are only the 

tip of the iceberg; numerous forced abortion tragedies occur every 

single day in China. The massive violation of the rights of women 

and their unborn babies through government action and by legal 

means in the implementation of China’s forcibly enforced one-child 

family planning policy has been going on for over 30 years already. 

The international community is late in expressing its concern 

and criticism. In this context, even more does U.S. Congressman 

Mr. Smith, Mr. Chairman, deserve or respect for your long but persistent cries and efforts to end China’s forcibly enforced one-child 

policy. Your contribution will be remembered in the history of 

human rights in China and the world. 

I will give a brief introduction to the Feng Jianmei’s case. On 

June 11, after Mr. Huang Qi a veteran political dissident from 

Sichuan Province, who himself suffered tremendous persecution 

over the years, was the first to post Feng Jianmei’s story on his 

Web site called the 64Tianwang, accompanied by that picture that 

you just showed on the screen. It attracted worldwide attention and 

condemnation. Feng Jianmei, a villager from Zhenping County, 

Ankang City, Shaanxi Province was abducted by the officials and 

taken to the hospital by June 1 while her husband, Deng Jiyuan 

was working out of town. On June 3, her 7-month-old unborn baby 

was forcibly aborted. Upon learning of Feng Jianmei’s case Mr. 

Zhang Kai, a young, well-known Chinese Christian lawyer, wrote 

on his blog publicly announcing that he was willing to take on this 

case. 

Mr. Yang Zhizhu, a former law professor at the China Youth College of Political Sciences, who has long been concerned about, and 

has condemned the one-child policy, also started to take part in 

this rights defense case. In the face of powerful condemnation from 

the international community, China’s official media reported on 

June 15, that Ankang City officials in Shaanxi province had visited 

the forced abortion victim Feng Jianmei and her family the preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Sep 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\070912\74959 HFA PsN: SHIRL
11

vious evening and apologized to her, and said they would hold accountable the officials who were involved. 

On June 22, the government retaliated by beating Feng 

Jianmei’s husband, Deng Jiyuan, and putting him under surveillance. On June 24, the government sent people to display a banner 

in front of their home that read, ‘‘beat up traitors, run them out 

of Zeng family town.’’

After dinner that day Deng Jiyuan shook off his tails and escaped. In the following 3 days, about 83 hours, he avoided multiple 

closely guarded government checkpoints. And on the night of June 

27, boarded a train in Shiyan City, Hubei Province. After he arrived in Beijing on the morning of the June 28, he met with lawyer 

Zhang Kai and Professor Yang Zhizhu and signed papers authorizing them to be his legal representatives in filing lawsuits and applying for state compensation. 

The Zhenping County official director, the newly appointed 

mayor of the Zeng family town and village official from Yuping Village where Deng Jiyuan lives went to Beijing, and on July 1 at 3 

o’clock p.m., they met and talked with lawyer Zhang Kai and Yang 

Zhizhu. They were hoping to see Deng Jiyuan in person. During 

the meeting, the village officials continued to claim that abortion 

was not a big deal where they are from. 

On July 7, lawyer Zhang Kai sent a legal letter to the Public Security Bureau and Procuratorate of Ankang City, Shaanxi Province, requesting them to place the case on file and start a criminal 

investigation. 

The Chinese society and the international community should 

make every effort to end this ongoing tragedy of China’s forcibly 

enforcing the family planning policy. That Feng Jianmei’s case attracted such widespread concern from the Chinese public and the 

international community so quickly is attributable to three main 

factors: The larger context of the recent Chen Guangcheng incident, the photo showing the 7-month dead fetus and the despair on 

the mother’s face, and the timely participation of many lawyers, including Christian lawyers in China. This is the result of the united 

efforts of people inside and outside of China who stand for justice. 

On July 5 the European Parliament voted on and passed a resolution on the forced abortion scandal in China in response to the 

tragedy of Feng Jianmei’s forced abortion, strongly condemning the 

human rights abuses committed in the enforcement of China’s onechild policy. This is a historic step made by the international community in attaching great importance to the rights of women and 

children. On the same day in China, in response to Feng Jianmei’s 

case, five prominent Chinese scholars and another 10 of corporations, including corporation leaders, issued an open letter cosigned 

by other influential academics to the National People’s Congress 

and its standing committee. 

The cosigners were 10 others from of China’s top universities, including Beijing University, Qinghua University, China’s People’s 

University, Chinese University of Political Science and Law, Beijing Normal University. The letter asked legislators to completely 

revise the population and the family planning law to repeal restrictions on citizens’ reproductive rights, and to abolish the birth approval system and the system of social child raising fees. 

12

Mr. Chairman, I want to request to put the record of this open 

letter by these brave 15 scholars, and because of the time restraints, we are not able to complete the translation this morning, 

we will make sure by tonight we will send you the translation of 

these very important open letter. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered, and we will keep the 

record open until we receive the English translation. 

[The letter referred to follows:]


74959e-1.eps
13


74959e-2.eps
14


74959e-3.eps
15


74959e-4.eps
16

Pastor FU. Thank you. Now in Feng Jianmei’s case we see not 

only the great force of justice in Chinese society and the international community, but also that in a Chinese society where political corruption and a bankrupt moral ethics prevail, the Christian 

faith is providing strong support to the people’s pursuit of justice 

and love. Also giving them the courage to stand up to evil forces. 

The forced abortion victim Feng Jianmei and her husband, Deng 

Jianmei, are both Christians. On the very night when Deng 

Jianmei fled to Beijing, he fellowshipped with lawyer Zhang Kai 

and Yang Zhizhu. As a Christian rights defense organization, 

ChinaAid in its 10 years of ministry has witnessed the Christian 

faith bringing great changes to the life of the Chinese people and 

the Chinese society. These changes will eventually bring forth a 

prosperous China that upholds justice, love and peace and actively 

shoulders its international responsibilities. 

Feng Jianmei’s tragedy is repeated hundreds and thousands of 

times each day in China. Recently, China Aid learned of more such 

cases. Guo Yanling who will testify later today, also a Christian, 

from Guangxi Province was persecuted by the government for having more than one-child and forced into exile for 21 years with her 

husband and three children. The wife of Wu Liangjie from Xianyou 

City, Fujian Province was abducted and held by the government. 

On April 6 this year, she was forcibly aborted of her more than 7-

month unborn baby boy. 

We at ChinaAid are willing to work with everyone in and outside 

of China to end this long and violent war against the millions of 

women and children in China. We call upon Congress and the administration to follow the examples of the European Parliament in 

taking specific measures and steps to help China and this cruel 

one-child policy, and the evil practices of forced abortion and forced 

sterilization. We urge the Obama administration to add this issue 

of human rights abuses and family planning to the agenda of bilateral talks on human rights and the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. We ask the Senate and the House to pass a strong 

joint resolution to express the will of the American and Chinese 

people to work toward the abolishment in China of the one-child 

policy. 

Finally, those abusive officials should be held accountable according to international law for their evil illegal behavior in harming 

women and unborn babies. The State Department should place 

travel bans on individuals like them who carry out China’s forced 

abortion policies, and make sure that no U.S. funds go to assist 

China’s family planning agencies. 

And by the mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us 

make concerted efforts for the arrival of that day. Thank you very 

much for hearing me. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for your leadership and your 

for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Pastor Fu follows:]

17


74959a-1.eps
18


74959a-2.eps
19


74959a-3.eps
20


74959a-4.eps
21


74959a-5.eps
22


74959a-6.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Littlejohn, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. REGGIE LITTLEJOHN, FOUNDER AND 

PRESIDENT, WOMEN’S RIGHTS WITHOUT FRONTIERS 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and also members 

Buerkle and Pitts for the opportunity to be here. This feels like 

home to me right now because to my right is Bob Fu, and as you 

know, I started out as the expert on the one-child policy for 

ChinaAid and now I have my own organization. And to my left is 

Steve Mosher who broke this news to the West in the 1980s and 

whose book was one of the most important books that I read in deciding to become involved with this. 

And, of course, T. Kumar and Amnesty International have taken 

a leadership role on all of this forced abortion in China condemning 

it on human rights bases. 

I am also thrilled that the European Parliament has passed a 

resolution strongly condemning forced abortions and sterilizations 

globally and has called for a review to assure that funding it ceases 

from these various organizations. 

Now as this committee is aware, there have been several cases 

that have happened in quick succession in June of forced abortions. 

Number one is the case of Feng Jianmei, whose photograph and 

story Women’s Rights Without Frontiers actually broke to the West 

on our blog. We have heard some detailed testimony about this. 

The next case is that of Cao Ruyi of Changsha City, Hunan Province, who also, at the same time, within a few days of the Feng 

Jianmei case, it was reported she, at 5 months pregnant, was being 

dragged out for a forced abortion and being fined the American 

equivalent of $24,000, an astronomical amount in China. And due 

to intervention of various organizations and Christopher Smith, she 

was able to get out of the clutches for the time being with a lesser 

fine, but she remains in jeopardy. 

I also want to bring up the efforts of another outstanding organization, Women’s Rights in China, President Jing Zhang who has 

been in touch with Feng Jianmei and Cao Ruyi and actually had 

arranged for Cao Ruyi and her husband to be in hiding right now. 

Then there is the case of Hu Jia, June 19, 2012. It was reported 

in China’s Southern Metropolis Daily that she was forcibly aborted 

at nearly 8 months. And the fact that this case was reported by a 

major Chinese newspaper indicates that there may be a turning of 

the tide inside of China that major news organizations now are 

willing to step in and condemn these abuses. 

And then finally, there is the case of Zhang Wen Fang of Hubei 

province, her forced abortion occurred at 9 months, but it was in 

2008. However, she stepped forward seeing the other women step 

forward and not only was she forcibly aborted at 8 months, but she 

had her uterus, her cervix and one of her ovaries removed. She 

been a successful business owner before this happened, and now 

she is completely disabled in a wheelchair. She said her son is like 

an orphan, her older child is like an orphan and she is dependant 

on her aging mother. 

Now why is it that all of these cases have sprung forth so quickly? Is it that there has been a crackdown in China? There are more 

forced abortions happening right now? No, I do not believe that’s 

24

the case. Forced abortion in China has been happening for decades. 

And it is not that there is a sudden crackdown. I believe that the 

reason that these cases have emerged has to do with the fact that 

just 2 weeks before the first cases emerged, Chen Guangcheng 

came to the United States. Chen Guangcheng is the moral towering 

figure over this entire issue and has sacrificed more than anyone 

else on behalf of the women and babies of China and his miraculous escape, his coming to the U.S. Embassy, the whole drama that 

ensued there that finally ended up with him coming to Newark, 

New Jersey on May 19 is something that gripped the world, but 

also China. 

And instrumental to, I believe, both Chen Guangcheng’s release 

and to the publicity within China that resulted in these cases coming forward was the efforts of Voice of America. Voice of America 

stands alone as the voice of the West being able to penetrate and 

get over that firewall in China. I have been interviewed for Voice 

of America over 10 times, I can tell you that the first time I was 

interviewed, many people called in and said they never heard of 

Chen Guangcheng or don’t believe that forced abortion is happening in China. And by the time that Chen Guangcheng was coming to the United States, everybody knew who he was and everybody know about the reality of forced abortion in China. 

And so I believe that this ability to reach the Chinese people 

with the truth through Voice of America was instrumental both in 

building the movement insides of China’s free Chen Guangcheng, 

and also giving women the courage inside of China to come forward, because if the miraculous could happen, if Chen Guangcheng 

could escape as a blind sick man from Dongshigu Village with a 

broken foot and make his way to the Embassy and come to the 

United States, if the impossible can happen for him, then it can 

happen for the women in China. That is why I believe that these 

women have come forward. 

Now at the same time, there has been an international movement in the one-child policy and that has to do with the publicity 

that has been generated by the West. And Congressman Chris 

Smith has stood head and shoulders above anybody else in this, 

hearing after hearing after hearing about Chen Guangcheng and 

about the one-child policy. And as I mentioned to Congressman 

Smith last week, there was a very similar case that came out in 

the hearing on November 10th, 2009, Wang Li Ping was also forcibly aborted at 7 months, we also had a picture of her lying on the 

bed next to her forcibly-aborted baby, it was equally heart rending. 

And then there was also the case of Lu Dan who died during forced 

abortion at 9 months. 

Those two cases were in my original report in 2009, they are 

equally serious as the current cases and yet it never made it into 

the mainstream media. Why? I believe it is the incremental effort 

of Congressman Chris Smith, all of these hearings, the people sitting around me, Voice of America and other media, case by case, 

hearing by hearing, press release by press release, getting the word 

out, getting the word out, getting the word out, to the point now 

where we have a major international movement which could actually lead to the end of this horrific policy. 

25

So leading that charge right now is the European Parliament of 

all places. I have testified twice at the European Parliament. In 

fact, when I was there in 2008, I was told I was the first person 

ever to have testified there exclusively on the one-child policy. In 

2008, I was one of a dozen experts, I had 8 minutes. In 2011 when 

I testified again, I had 1 hour and 15 minutes and I was the only 

person testifying. That is an indication of the growth and importance that this issue has taken over the years because of all of our 

efforts. 

So they have now passed a resolution strongly condemning forced 

abortion in China, specifically naming Feng Jianmei and also specifically admitting that they are funding programs that do population control or family planning in China and asking for an inquiry to be made to make sure these programs—which would include the UNFPA and IPPF—are not complicit with forced abortions. I am very excited about this inquiry because I firmly believe 

that any unbiased inquiry is going to reveal complete complicity between the UNFPA and International Planned Parenthood, and 

forced abortion in China. You cannot help the Chinese Communist 

Party with their population control program without being 

complicit with forced family planning. And I have to say when we 

see forced abortions and forced sterilization, infanticides happening 

all over the place, on one hand and on the other hand, we hear silence from organizations like UNFPA and IPPF, silence is complicity. 

Furthermore we have now seen within China a building movement, and the first of which is that according to the China Economics Times, several researchers in the Developmental Research Center, a prestigious government-affiliated think tank, have cited the 

coming demographic disaster as a reason to move away from a onechild policy and they have now proposed a two-child policy. 

I just want to say I do not think that a two-child policy is the 

answer to the one-child policy. And if China moved to a two-child 

policy, you are not going to be hearing Women’s Rights Without 

Frontiers declaring victory. There are two problems with a twochild policy: Number one, in the countryside of China today, they 

already have a two-child policy in the sense that if your first child 

is a girl, you can have a boy and that—you can have a second child. 

And the way that is interpreted by many couples is they have a 

second chance to have a boy, and that is where this gendercide 

comes in. Demographers have found that for the first child, they 

are willing to let nature take its course, but when they have a girl 

and they have one child left, that is where you get on the second 

child 140 boys born for every 100 girls born on average. And there 

are two provinces in China, Jiangsu and Anhui, where on that second child, there are 190 boys born for every 100 girls born. So, that 

is gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of baby girls that happens 

in the context of a two-child policy. 

The second reason I don’t think that a two-child policy is a solution to the one-child policy is that, for me, the issue is not whether 

the government allows a woman to have one child or two children; 

the issue is that the government is telling people how many children they can have and enforcing that limit coercively. So even if 

there is a two-child policy, women are still going to have to have 

26

a birth permit, and they will still be subject to forced abortion if 

they don’t have one on that first and on that second child. 

The second group calling for reform within China is a group of 

very prominent and brave scholars who have criticized the onechild policy on the basis that it violates human rights. And one of 

their leaders, James Liang, is calling for the abolition of the onechild rule. And I just salute his courage. 

Now, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers has come up with six 

policy recommendations, and they are all in my testimony. I just 

want to highlight one of them, which is that we should pass—we 

would encourage Congress to pass an act concerning United States 

corporate responsibility in China. I just think that this would be 

absolutely essential. We are talking about governmental efforts 

from our Government to their government, and we have—Women’s 

Rights Without Frontiers has a number of recommendations on 

that front, and I think that they are all very important; however, 

I think that there is a major role that United States corporations 

can play. 

I would like to recall to this committee the testimony of Ping Liu, 

who testified actually before this very committee on September 22, 

2011, and she testified to the fact that she had five forced abortions. She couldn’t have contraception because she had a kidney 

problem, so she just kept having abortions. 

But what she talked about, and this was in the 1980s, is that 

in her factory they had this surveillance system. They had familyplanning officials like a department in the factory, and they had 

collective punishment, so that if one woman on her floor or in her 

group were pregnant, the entire group would be punished. So all 

of the women were watching each other. They were basically exposing each other for forced abortions. Every month women had to undress, and in the nude they had to present themselves before family-planning officials to demonstrate that they weren’t pregnant. 

So what I would like to know is are these practices still going 

on in China? This testimony is on practices from the 1980s. We 

don’t have any more recent testimony on this. I would like to find 

somebody who is a recent person that has come over from China 

and has experienced what happens in factories. But I would also 

be very surprised if U.S. or other foreign factory owners—whether 

the women in those factories get a free pass on the one-child policy 

because their factory happens to be owned by a foreign country or 

a foreign corporation. 

It might be very difficult to investigate this, very risky, but I 

think it would be a great thing for the United States Congress to 

pass a corporate responsibility act for corporations that are doing 

business in China to say that they will not comply even with Chinese law to the extent that that law would cause them to commit 

crimes again humanity, including, but not limited to, forced abortion. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Littlejohn follows:]

27


74959b-1.eps
28


74959b-2.eps
29


74959b-3.eps
30


74959b-4.eps
31


74959b-5.eps
32


74959b-6.eps
33

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Littlejohn, for your testimony, and your recommendation, I think, is a good one. We are 

looking into it. You have raised this before, and I thank you for 

that. 

I would like to now ask Steve Mosher if he would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN MOSHER, PRESIDENT, 

POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. MOSHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important meeting, and, Congresswoman Buerkle and Chairman Pitts, 

for taking the time to attend. I appreciate your interest in this 

issue. I believe that every minute of attention that we can focus on 

China’s one-child policy saves lives in China. 

I would like to focus on one particular aspect of the one-child policy, and that is the support that it receives, financial and otherwise, from international organizations, chiefly the United Nations 

Population Fund. In fact, I have entitled my testimony ‘‘China’s 

One-Child Policy and the U.N. Population Fund: A Deadly Partnership’’ because I believe it is the case, and I believe we have collected evidence in an unbiased inquiry of the U.N. Population 

Fund’s continued involvement in forced abortion and forced sterilization. Let me tell you what I mean. 

Thirty-two years ago I was an eyewitness to the forced abortion 

of several dozen women, who, like Feng Jianmei, were 7, 8, and 

even 9 months pregnant. Now, the Chinese Government at the 

time, this was in 1980, echoed by the U.N. Population Fund, 

claimed that these were local aberrations, these were overzealous 

local officials, and certainly this was not in any way supported by 

or encouraged by national policy. This was not true then, and it is 

not true now. 

Beijing continues to vigorously pursue its one-child policy, ignoring human rights violations, the skewed sex ratios, the labor shortages, the massive infanticide and sex-selective abortion of baby 

girls. And China continues, after all these decades, to be supported 

in these atrocities by the U.N. Population Fund, and supported in 

very, very specific ways. Now, let me detail the U.N. Population 

Fund’s involvement. 

I know that you, Mr. Chairman, remember in the late 1990s, the 

U.N. Population Fund was very proud of the fact that it was setting up model birth control counties in China. In fact, it wrote a 

letter to the U.S. Congress—the then-head of the U.N. Population 

Fund wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress saying in those counties 

there will be no abuses. In these 32 counties where they were taking over the management of the birth-control program, the program 

would be fully voluntary. It would be untainted by coercion. There 

would be no targets and quotas. There would be no abortion as a 

method of family planning. Women would be free, the letter said, 

to voluntarily select the timing and spacing of their pregnancies. 

Now, several years later, 5 years later to be exact, the U.N. Population Fund added another 40 counties to the list of model birth 

control counties, so there are now 72 model birth control counties 

run by the UNFPA, or so it claims, in China. And in those counties, it claims, there are no abuses of the kind that we have heard 

this morning. 

34

Well, we at the Population Research Institute, and I personally, 

have visited five of these model family-planning counties where the 

UNFPA officials are supposedly in charge of the program and 

where there are no violations: Fengning County in Hebei Province; 

Luan County in Hebei; Wenshui County in Shaanxi; Sihui County 

in Guangdong. The list goes on. And in those counties we found 

forced abortions. We found targets and quotas for abortions and 

sterilizations. We found cases of late-term abortions. We found all 

of the abuses that have characterized China’s family-planning program, one-child policy, from the beginning in these counties where 

the program is managed by the U.N. Population Fund. 

So I believe on the basis of our inquiry, it is very clear that U.N. 

Population Fund officials who are managing these programs, and 

who are trained by the U.N. Population Fund, and who may, in 

fact, be paid by the U.N. Population Fund, are, in fact, overseeing 

a program of forced abortion, forced sterilization, late-term abortion, infanticide, and all the rest. 

I believe there is compelling evidence to suspend funding to the 

UNFPA this time not on a temporary basis, but this time by law 

and permanently. 

A couple of other things that I will just mention in passing. The 

population-control authorities in China, echoed by the U.N. Population Fund, have long claimed that minorities, because of their minority status, because of their limited numbers, are exempted from 

the one-child policy. The county, Fengning County, in northern 

Hebei Province that we visited and collected evidence in, in fact is 

a Manchu autonomous county. It has a majority of Manchus living 

there. The Manchus that we talked to said, no, we have the onechild policy imposed on us, just like our neighboring Han Chinese 

do. 

Secondly, the punitive fines which exist in model family-planning 

counties, couples who give birth to a second child, one document 

from a model family-planning county says, will be assessed a fine 

from five to seven times their annual income. Those who illegally 

give birth to a third child will be assessed a fine from seven to nine 

times their annual income. And those who give birth to four or 

more illegal children—I don’t know how they do it, but the rule is 

there—will be assessed a fine extrapolated from the above schedule 

of multiplists. So it could be 10 or 12 or even higher times the annual income. 

There is child abduction and child trafficking in these model family-planning counties. We were told by local officials, ‘‘At the 

present time, if you don’t pay the fine, they come and abduct the 

baby you just gave birth to and give it to someone else’’; give it in 

some cases to local orphanages, which then adopt these babies out 

and make a profit on that transaction as well. So we have child 

trafficking as part of the program. 

This morning, a friend of mine sent me another story about 

women or couples who are ‘‘selling their second children.’’ Pregnant 

with an illegal child, realizing that they couldn’t afford the fine, realizing that they would be, when located by the population control 

officials, taken in by force and forcibly aborted, they were looking 

for people to give their children to, to sell their children to. 

35

Now, the government professes to be shocked by this development of selling unborn babies to the highest bidder and determined 

to stamp it out. This is the height of hypocrisy. It is hypocritical 

for the Chinese Government to complain about the buying and selling of babies, because it is the Beijing regime itself that has turned 

babies into commodities by putting a price on their heads, a price 

of tens of thousands of dollars on their heads, and allowing them 

to be sold by state-run orphanages. 

I will only mention one specific case. We interviewed a woman 

in China who, in order to throw the population control police off 

her scent, gave—went when she was 6 months pregnant to a neighboring village, gave birth to the baby safely there, left it in the custody of a cousin of hers, and then on the way back home, knowing 

that she was going to be visited by the population control police, 

stopped by an abortion clinic and, after paying a small bribe, was 

given the dead body of a baby girl who had been aborted the day 

before, brought home the corpse to her house. 

As soon as the population control officials heard that she had returned to her village, they came to either collect the money or collect the baby. She held the corpse of the dead baby girl out, didn’t 

say a word. And they said, oh, your baby died, and left. That illustrates the extremes to which couples in China have to go to protect 

their children. 

So conclusions, there are three. First, China’s one-child policy 

constitutes the longest-running and most far-reaching violation of 

human rights the world has ever seen, both in the sheer number 

and in the duration of the human rights violations. Four hundred 

million Chinese children, give or take a few tens of millions, are 

dead because of this policy which has left their mothers wounded 

in both body and spirit and killing themselves in large numbers. 

Second, the one-child policy is, as it has always been, coercive not 

by accident, but by design. The abuses we have talked about today 

are not occasional missteps by overzealous officials, they are the 

very lifeblood of the program. The one-child policy, like all political 

campaigns launched by the Chinese Communist Party, is deliberatively coercive. The extraordinary pressure that the highest levels 

of the Chinese Government put on lower level officials to collect 

fines and meet quotas can have no other outcome than brutality, 

cases like Feng Jianmei’s. 

And finally, the U.N. Population Fund has been complicit in China’s one-child policy from the inception of the one-child policy. It 

does not merely turn a blind eye to abuses, but it facilitates them 

in various ways. This is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in 

the U.N. Population Fund’s model family-planning counties, model 

birth-control program, where UNFPA-trained officials oversee the 

enforcement of the one-child policy, and where human rights 

abuses are nonetheless rampant. 

And I have just one policy recommendation, Mr. Chairman. I 

would repeat what I said to you probably back in 1983: The U.N. 

Population Fund should be defunded; this time, however, the cuts 

should be permanent. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mosher follows:]

36


74959c-1.eps
37


74959c-2.eps
38


74959c-3.eps
39


74959c-4.eps
40


74959c-5.eps
41

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Mosher, thank you very much for your incisive 

testimony and for your decades—again, having been the man that 

broke the story itself. 

And I would note parenthetically, and I think the subcommittee 

members are aware of this, Stanford University actually retaliated 

against you. It was so bad, I will never forget it, the Wall Street 

Journal did an editorial in your favor, and it was entitled ‘‘Stanford 

Morality.’’ And it talked about how, in the interest of having access 

and the continued programs with China, they were willing to throw 

a human rights whistleblower who documented exactly what he 

saw and broke the story to the world—to put you in a—to deny you 

the ability to get your doctorate there. So thank you for that bold 

and tremendous leadership. 

I would like to now yield to T. Kumar from Amnesty International and welcome him back to the committee. 

STATEMENT OF MR. T. KUMAR, DIRECTOR OF 

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCACY, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 

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

First of all, Amnesty International would like to thank the committee collectively and you personally to inviting us and for all of 

the leadership you have done to lead human rights abuses around 

the world, and also Members of Congress who are here. Thank you 

very much. 

Amnesty International have documented human rights abuses in 

China over several decades, and one of the issues we documented 

is the one-child policy and abuses connected to it to enforce those 

policies. We have documented what other victims have previously 

said: Forced abortion, forced sterilization, and also family members 

have been caused or imprisoned or detained in reeducationthrough-labor camps for objecting, or to exert pressure on the 

women who have been pregnant so far. We also have documented 

when some women tried to petition against forced abortion and 

sterilization cases, they have been detained in reeducation-throughlabor camps and also imprisoned there for quite some time. 

So overall, what we have seen is this practice of enforcing onechild policy has contributed to numerous human rights abuses not 

only to these women, but also to the family members. 

Due to pressures by you as well as other leading governments 

around the world—and I will say you are the main champion—the 

Chinese Government took a very important step about 10 years 

ago. In 2002, they passed a new law pretty much humanizing or 

saying that they want to make sure that no human rights are violated in the process of enforcing the one-child policy. It is not that 

they got rid of the one-child policy or anything else; they said, you 

know, it should not be used for detaining or any other form of 

abuses. 

That was a landmark turnaround. We thought then that the 

abuses would be stopped. But to our disappointment, despite that 

particular law that was passed, to this day what we are seeing is 

the same abuses are continuing there. There is no political will 

from the government. This particular law came into effect primarily because of international pressure. So what says to us, to evVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Sep 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\070912\74959 HFA PsN: SHIRL
42

eryone, is that when the pressure is there, it has its impact. That 

is what this hearing also is going to achieve. 

Even according to the law they should have arrested certain officials who have been committing these abuses, but from Amnesty 

International’s point of view, we could not able to find a number 

of cases of officials who have been detained or imprisoned. So by 

raising this issue, we want to see what can be done from an accommodation point of view. 

There is an opportunity that is coming out in 2 weeks’ time. 

China-U.S. human rights dialogue is going to be taking place in 

Washington July 23–24. That is an opportunity for the U.S. Government to raise this issue, as well as other issues, with Chinese 

authorities. This is something you can take the leadership in exerting pressure on the administration to make sure that human rights 

is being discussed in a meaningful manner. 

Every year U.S. Government discusses human rights with China, 

but to our knowledge, discussion for the sake of discussion is taking place. It is not part of the mainstream dialogue that is being 

taken care in the name of security and economic data. So we would 

urge the U.S. Congress to urge the administration to include 

human rights as part of the dialogue of security and economic dialogue. It should be called security, human rights and economic dialogue, where human rights enjoys part and parcel of the whole 

issue of other importance that U.S. plays in terms of dealing with 

China. 

Before I close, I just want to highlight other human rights abuses 

that are taking place. The reason is that it is all interrelated. No 

one human rights abuses can stand alone if others systems are in 

place. For example, even one-child policy will not stand alone if 

others, like the reeducation-through-labor system, is not there, if 

freedom of expression is there. So as a result, we have to address 

in a holistic manner, by giving importance to certain issues that 

can be highlighted, like one-child policy should. 

The reeducation through labor, there are almost 0.5 million people who have been detained without charge or trial. That figure 

varies because we don’t know exactly what happens there. But the 

conservative figures we have come up is that system of reeducation 

through labor sent chills through the citizens where they can be 

locked up without charge or trial. 

Secondly, the lawyers, the legal profession, faces enormous pressure from the government if they speak out on human rights-related issues. That also falls under this one-child policy issue or 

forced abortion. They can’t take a position on this, so that issue 

also should be raised. 

Religious persecution, even though it is not directly involved, I 

would urge that the religious persecution issue is also at the top 

of the agenda for the U.S. Government when they deal with China. 

That penalty—again, I mean, you can argue whether the death 

penalty has decreased there or not. To this day China executes 

more people than the rest of the world combined despite all the 

amendments they brought in to reduce the number of sentences 

and executions. 

And finally, two more regions. One is Xinjiang and Tibet. In 

Xinjiang, Mr. Chairman, you knew, Rebiya Kadeer’s two children 

43

are in custody. It should be raised at every meeting that the 

United States has. 

In Tibet, the issue of Panchen Lama, who was selected 15 years 

ago by the Dalai Lama, still not to be seen, and the situation is 

getting worse. 

So in closing, Amnesty International urges you to ensure that 

during the upcoming dialogue, the U.S.-China human rights dialogue, human rights is discussed in a serious manner, and if they 

fail, then Congress should exert pressure to make sure that human 

rights is part and parcel of security and economic dialogue. 

Thank you very much for inviting us. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Kumar, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would hope, as you indicated, that the dialogue would be of 

some meaning. The problem has been is that it is often a gabfest 

with very little relationship to deeds. And the people who engage 

in it, listen and talk. These issues, if they are brought up, certainly 

are not brought up with the seriousness that they need to be 

brought up with. 

I think, you know, especially in light of the worsening instability 

of China because of its demographic nightmare that it is experiencing, the missing girls and the aging population vis-a`-vis young 

people, that that instability, as Valerie Hudson testified here at a 

hearing we had last year, portends a very, very dangerous future 

for China internally that could very quickly become an expression 

of war or war actions internationally. She pointed out in her testimony that Japan and Taiwan were the two most likely victims of 

that kind of instability on the short and intermediate term. And, 

of course, others could be at risk futurewise. So it ought to be incorporated. 

To date, it is in my experience, and I would love to be proven 

wrong, that when these issue are brought up, they are brought up 

as an obligatory—if they are brought up—obligatory mention rather than a heartfelt expression of solidarity with the women of 

China, as well as with their children, including their unborn children. 

But thank you for that very strong point. It is a good one. 

We do have our next witness via telephone. 

Ms. Guo, you have got the floor. And thank you for testifying. 

Bob Fu will be translating for you. And, again, we deeply appreciate your willingness to speak. 

STATEMENT OF MS. YANLING GUO, VICTIM OF CHINA’S 

POPULATION CONTROL POLICIES 

[The following testimony was delivered telephonically through an 

interpreter.] 

Ms. GUO. Honorable Congressman Chairman Chris Smith and 

honorable members of the committee, friends for Chinese human 

rights, human rights in China, the following is my account that I 

was forced to abort my baby. The year was 1995. I was already 8 

months pregnant. At that time I was staying at my sister’s house. 

It was in the morning on the day that the incident happened, and 

I was heading out to buy breakfast. I was dragged by the familyplanning officials. Then I was forcibly dragged into a car, a van, 

by these family-planning officials. In the van, I was crying out and 

44

asked for help. Help, somebody rescue me, save me. But they 

grabbed me and held me down, and I had a cloth used to wipe cars 

stuffed into my mouth. 

I was then taken to the second floor of the hospital. As I was in 

the hospital, I saw a number of female victims sitting on the benches in the corridor and waiting to be forcibly abortion—for forced 

abortions. Later on, I was pinned down on the bed by force by these 

family-planning officials. And the person in white pressed my belly 

with her hands and felt the position of my baby’s head. And she 

stuck a big, long, fatal needle deep into my abdomen. 

After about an hour later, because of my poor health, the baby 

was born by dragging. So at that point the person guarding me 

went to fetch a person and pull the baby out and put it on a small 

table less than 3 feet from me. It was a baby boy, my son. My son. 

[The following testimony was delivered telephonically through an 

interpreter by Mr. Deng on behalf of Ms. Guo.] 

Ms. GUO. By then my unborn baby had already been murdered. 

After that, the Chinese Communist Party’s family-planning officials 

captured me, and then I was forcibly sterilized. I was beaten and 

without any strength to work anymore, I had to flee. 

I just want to seek justice after these wounds. Those officials 

didn’t even admit any mistakes and what they have done to me. 

Not only that, I was also handcuffed by these family-planning officials. They used electric shock batons and electrified my hands. 

And I was imprisoned twice for this, for violations of China’s onechild policy. And we were forced to pay heavy fines, and even our 

house was destroyed. In order to flee from the dangers, we had to 

escape. So we have been wandering around outside for 21 years. 

We finally managed to get to Thailand without any living supplies. 

I do hope the United States Government and all friends sitting 

around here today help us to seek justice and find justice, and find 

justice, and to really find justice for the Chinese women; and also 

to help the many babies, wounded babies; and remove this evil 

family-planning system, and restore our human rights, and support 

us with humanitarian aid. 

I also want to thank you once again for all your help. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for today’s opportunity you gave to me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Guo follows:]

45


74959d-1.eps
46


74959d-2.eps
47


74959d-3.eps
48

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for your courage in testifying. And again, through your tears, we are again reminded of the 

horrific impact this barbaric policy has had on not just the children, but on the mothers. 

Pastor FU. Mr. Chairman, allow me to just add a few words 

about Ms. Guo’s case. I was here this morning trying to test the 

quality of the phone call, and Ms. Guo’s husband told me a story 

that happened last night that explains, you know, the price and the 

toll, the trauma that had been done permanently almost to women 

like Ms. Guo. 

He told me, he said last night as Ms. Guo was preparing to testify today, her husband heard very strong weeping, crying in the 

restroom. And later on her husband described to me that Ms. Guo 

walking out of the restroom with her arms like this as if holding 

a baby. And her husband said, ‘‘Honey, why do you do this?’’ and 

she said she was in the restroom and saw her son. She said, ‘‘Our 

son is back’’; not only their 8-month son, she said she saw many 

hundreds of thousands of babies following her. 

And I think, you know, it is traumatic. I mean, you can tell if 

you read the rest of her testimony, not only she herself experienced, but she saw, you know, many other women around her that 

very day, and she saw actually a bag of trash of babies in the trash 

can, and she couldn’t identify to say goodbye to her dead son. 

Certainly, you know, I hope with her testimony and the hearing 

today, it could become a reality that more and more, hundreds and 

maybe thousands of babies could be rescued as a result of her testimony today. So that is my prayer. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Fu, thank you so very much. You know, it just 

underscores the trauma that goes on for years and is lifelong, and 

Ms. Guo is dealing with that still in the hospital. And people today 

as we meet, it is happening to them. It is so grossly underappreciated by Congress, by the White House, and by Parliaments 

around the world, although there is hope with the European Parliament recently taking its action, just how traumatized these 

women really are, when we have pointed out the number of suicides, far in excess of any other nation on Earth. 

I remember I met with Peng Peiyun, a woman who ran the program for years, and brought up an article that had been in The 

New York Times and pointed out—it started off about how this 

woman was essentially clinically depressed over what she had experienced. And she just said it was rubbish, it was just nonsense, 

it was just made up; that the women of China do not have those 

problems. Of course, she also said there was no such thing as a 

forced abortion either in the People’s Republic of China. So she certainly was lying and deceiving, but just completely discounted the 

impact on women like we just heard. 

In previous hearings when we have had women who had suffered 

the cruelty of forced abortion, without exception they have been unable to finish their testimonies. 

During the Clinton administration, in this room, I had invited 

women who were on the Golden Venture program that President 

Clinton had changed our asylum policy from to preclude asylum 

protections for women fleeing forced abortion. He did it by Executive Order, and when he did that, these women had credible cases 

49

before the administrative law judge, but when the policy was 

changed, they were in no man’s land and were being not coerced, 

but compelled in many ways to go back to China. And lawyers were 

fighting to keep them here. 

Well, I invited them to testify. To get them here we almost had 

to resort to a subpoena because they did not want them to tell their 

stories. But a woman sat right where Reggie Littlejohn is sitting, 

who found an abandoned baby girl, made that girl her own, and 

the family-planning cadres knocked on her door and then forcibly 

aborted her because she had her one. She could not finish her testimony, nor could the others, just like we heard. Wujian, in 2009 

when she testified, broke down several times. 

So I think, if anything, if the press could convey and if lawmakers could better understand the trauma that women are suffering, the helplessness that they feel is without parallel—to have 

their babies not only stolen, but then murdered by the state. And 

they feel there is nothing they can do to stop it. 

So I would like to thank our panel. I have a couple of very brief 

questions, and then I will yield to my distinguished colleagues. 

I am wondering if you could tell us what you think we can do 

to mitigate any further retaliation against Ms. Feng, her husband, 

and the lawyers who are taking up her case. I have been amazed 

and in awe over these lawyers in China who take up cases, and 

then like Chen—Chen Guangcheng—and then they themselves become subjected to punitive actions, including incarceration and torture. You can go through the long list of very brave men and 

women. I am wondering what we could do. I mean, this woman and 

her husband and the lawyers now, but certainly those two and 

their family have been traumatized. How do we prevent further retaliation against them as we have already seen the beginning 

manifestations when the so-called townspeople showed up to call 

them betrayers? Would anyone like to take that? 

Pastor FU. This is the update about the lawyer situation. I was 

able to talk with a lawyer, Zhang Kai, who has signed the agreement to represent Feng Jianmei and her husband, Deng Jiyuan’s 

case. He says so far he only received one phone call from the security officer from the Domestic Security Squad Division and a gentle 

warning. He has not received a sort of visible, direct threat for taking up this case. And, of course, the local officials even went to Beijing. And remember what had happened to Chen Guangcheng on 

numerous occasions in the past when he escaped to Beijing, and 

Chen Guangcheng was abducted, kidnapped, by the officials from 

the Linyi or Shandong Province right in front of Dr. Yang Zhizhu, 

a professor of law and himself a lawyer, and they were beaten. 

So I think we should continue to raise this case. And certainly 

as Mr. Kumar suggested, this month, July 23 and 24, during the 

human rights dialogue with China, I think Secretary Clinton 

should raise this case during the dialogue. 

With regard to Ms. Guo Yanling’s case, we received her cry-out 

petition after the Chen Guangcheng case was exposed. And she and 

her husband actually with their three children escaped to Thailand 

August 7 last year and registered in the UNHCR, the High Commissioner on Refugees, in Bangkok. And, of course, after this hearing she is exposed, and I would hope that this committee and the 

50

Congress and the administration, especially the Bureau for—the 

PRM, Population, Refugee and Migration, should pay attention and 

send a priority one request to the United Nations—the refugee bureau, refugee agency in Bangkok to let them at least speed up their 

process of approval for their refugee protection. I think these are 

the things we can do immediately to help protect them. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Mosher, you mentioned the UNFPA model birth 

control counties, and I think what is, again, underappreciated by 

most is the obsession level with regard to promoting population 

control in general, and in China particularly. I remember Harry 

Wu wrote a book called ‘‘Better Ten Graves than One Extra Birth,’’ 

and what he was merely putting as the name of his book was a 

big slogan that he had a picture of, as you pointed out. You have 

a number of—you have taken pictures of those slogans that are 

really part and parcel of the policy—‘‘Better Ten Graves than One 

Extra Birth.’’

I just read a very interesting book called, ‘‘Unnatural Selection,’’ 

I wasn’t fully aware until I read the book just how sex selection 

was included as a way of lessening population. If you kill the baby, 

the girl child in the womb, she will never be a mother and will 

never give birth to children who will lead to an increase in population. A staple, a mainstay of the population control movement 

propaganda, and China swallowed that hook, line and sinker with 

its one-child policy and then the consequences of sex-selection abortions. 

I wonder if you could speak to, elaborate on this—you know, 

when you talk about these—and I remember in 1985, there was a 

hearing on the one-child-per-couple policy which brought out of a 

lot of the information you had provided that led to 60 Minutes stories and other things. There was a 1985 hearing run by the majority—I was a minority Member then—and our witnesses were telling us, it’s all over basically. I don’t exaggerate. It was basically 

the high tides of China’s population control program had reached 

its zenith, and now it was going toward normalcy. And, of course, 

Michael Weisskopf’s three-part expose in The Washington Post 

completely obliterated that thesis for that hearing. But we have 

heard that over the years, over and over again. These were injustices, if they ever occurred, of the past. 

When you talk about these model birth control counties, it reminds me of Srebrenica in a whole different context, a place that 

the U.N. called a ‘‘safe haven’’ during the terrible war in Yugoslavia, and it became a mustering zone for the killing of about 

8,000 men with full acquiesce by the Dutch UNPROFOR peacekeepers. 

Maybe not a good analogy, but it is certainly similar, because at 

the bottom, at the core of those model counties, they are still implementing the government policy of one child. Could you just elaborate on that, if you could? 

Mr. MOSHER. Well, I think you are perfectly correct in pointing 

out the repeated attempts to convince the outside world that the 

policy is undergoing modifications and some changes, and the 

abuses are a thing of the past. Once you hear that five or six times, 

it loses credibility. And the most recent efforts, of course, which appear to originate separately from the government, among acaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:28 Sep 24, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\070912\74959 HFA PsN: SHIRL
51

demics and so forth, are the first real sign of hope that I have seen 

in the past few decades. 

Government bureaucrats who respond to criticism are simply trying to defuse foreign criticism. They are not going to make fundamental changes in the program, and to see the beginnings of Chinese civil society now reacting, and at great personal risk, as the 

attorneys do, as some people in the media do is very heartening. 

It doesn’t mean that the battle is over, but perhaps now the program is entering its final years. 

We shouldn’t forget that the Chinese Government has pledged to 

continue the program until 2050. That is a long time in the future. 

We also shouldn’t forget that every Chinese leader beginning with 

Deng Xiaoping, through Jiang Zemin, through Hu Jintao has endorsed the policy, which means that it is not an issue that locallevel officials or middle-level officials can discuss with impunity because the center has set a policy, and their job is to follow that policy. 

I have long thought that much of what comes out of China in 

terms of modification of the one-child policy is simply done for reasons of saving international face. 

Secondly, I have also believed that one of the reasons why for 

decades the Chinese Government authorities have ignored the 

slaughter of little baby girls is because they understand that this 

contributes to the solution of what they consider China’s overpopulation problem, because the tens of millions of young men who 

are unmarried and who will never marry because their brides have 

been killed in utero or after birth will not contribute to population 

growth in the future. They will not have any children. So if you 

eliminate a woman, you eliminate all of the children that she 

would have had and all of her children’s children on down through 

the generations. 

Finally, going back to the point that Reggie made about going 

from a one-child policy to a two-child policy or three-child policy, 

the problem here is that the government has taken control of all 

of the reproductive systems in China. It has usurped the authority 

of parents to decide for themselves the number and spacing of their 

children. This did not begin in 1979 or 1980 with the one-child policy. This began in the early 1950s in which there was a discussion 

held between Chairman Mao and his senior officials as to whether 

or not it was the proper role of government in China to dictate how 

many children should be born in that country; whether or not it 

was the role of the state not just to control all the means of production under the high tide of communism, but also to control the 

means of reproduction, which is to say the male and female reproductive systems of all Chinese. And the decision that was made by 

Chairman Mao in the early 1950s was that the state had a legitimate role in controlling reproduction, and in the 1950s he exercised 

that role by encouraging the Chinese to have larger families. And 

then, of course, things came full circle. 

But the problem here is the state has taken over control of reproduction. This is a fundamental human right, and until the Chinese 

state decides it has no business interfering with the reproductive 

systems of couples in China, the problem will continue. Whether or 

not there is an end to the one-child policy, whether or not there is 

52

a move to a two-child policy or three-child policy, the fundamental 

problem lies here. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The testimony that we just heard is a—you know, we sit here almost in the abstract and discuss this issue. But when you hear the 

anguish in that woman’s voice about the loss of her child this many 

years later, as a mother of six, I can only just begin to appreciate 

her grief. So, thank you, Pastor, for allowing her testimony to be 

translated today, and, again, thank you to all of you for your willingness to be here and defend human rights. 

My questions are directed to anyone who would be willing to answer or able to answer. 

One of the things we hear are the apologists who say that, well, 

the vast majority of Chinese women support this policy. Can any 

one of you speak to that? And also we hear that the policy only affects urban dwellers or government workers, and so if you could 

flesh that out for us, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Well, with respect to your second question, it is 

interesting because some people say, oh, well, that only happens in 

the urban centers, or that only happens in the countryside. So you 

are talking about the people who say it only happens in the urban 

centers, and I want to point out a case that came out in March of 

this year. It was an anonymous posting, but it was a posting—and 

I think many people will remember this—it was an image of a fullterm baby floating in a red bucket. That happened in Linyi. That 

is where Chen Guangcheng is from. A woman had given birth. She 

had been forcibly aborted at 9 months. I guess the needle slipped 

and passed the baby’s head because the baby was born alive, cried, 

and that baby was drowned in a bucket. And there was a picture 

that was posted on Weibo and went all over the world. 

Now, Chen Guangcheng comes from the countryside of China. He 

comes from Dongshigu Village. If you want to read some of the 

most horrific cases you have ever read in your life, just read the 

Chen Guangcheng report, which I posted and also broke to the 

West in the hearing on September 22, 2011, of this subcommittee. 

That all happened in the countryside. Women aborted, 7, 8, 9 

months. 

Men, there is a man that was killed. There was a man who committed suicide; a grandmother and her brother were forced to beat 

each other; whole families, extended families, that were brought in 

because of a family-planning violation of one person in their family. 

Because of implication, they were all brought in and tortured together and forced to pay 100 yuan a day in family-planning learning fee tuition. 

All of this happened in countryside. Homes were destroyed. And 

yet things have been happening in the city as well. There was a 

case that happened I think it was in October 2010 of a woman in 

Xiamen—this was broken by al-Jazeera—who was forcibly aborted 

at 8 months. It happens in the cities, and it happens in the countryside. It happens everywhere in China. 

Ms. BUERKLE. I will just follow up, and then please feel free to 

answer. Some will say the Chinese accept this policy. That is what 

53

I would like you to speak to as well. Just what is their feeling 

about this, and have they accepted this policy? 

Pastor FU. To say or claim that the majority of Chinese women 

support the cruel one-child policy is a flat-out lie. I think no women 

in China will be happy to see their wombs being owned by the family-planning officials from the day of their marriage to the day really they were forcibly sterilized. Every woman has a book, a book 

recorded. Every month they have to undergo mandatory and forcibly undergo a physical check to see whether they are pregnant, 

whether there are any signs of pregnancy. Of course, once they are 

found escaping, then the whole family, the neighbors, other relatives will be in big trouble. So no woman will support that kind 

of policy. Yes, it is a lie. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess my question is to all of you. How can we best combat and 

call attention to this? Whether it is the American community or the 

global community, what can we do to combat any apathy, or ignorance, or just a disregard of this tragic policy? 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Well, having hearings is really at the top of the 

list. I think this kind of thing really does help publicize public policy. I would also like to remind this committee of an Act that was 

sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith, H.R. 2121, the China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011. I think Congress could pass an Act 

like this, and what that would do, it would enable the President 

to deny entry into the United States for Chinese human rights 

abusers. I think that that would be a major thing. 

And I would also mention that part of ending the policy is giving 

people within China the hope that it can end and helping them to 

continue to be informed about this. And again, I want to lift up 

Voice of America, which is constantly under attack, and getting, I 

understand right now, that they have cut the funding for interpreters so that people who speak English can no longer appear, so 

I will not be able to be on there, Congressman Smith will not—only 

Chinese speaking people will be able to appear on Voice of America. That cuts out a lot of Americans to be able to speak into China 

about these issues. 

So that’s another thing to keep the visibility going on within 

China as well, and Voice of America is the major organ for that.

Mr. MOSHER. I would return to the point of delegitimizing China’s one-child policy by taking funding away from China that 

comes to it from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, 

which has been active in China since 1979, the U.N. Population 

Fund which has also been active in China from that same year. 

The fact that the Chinese Government gets funding for its onechild policy from prestigious international organizations that are, 

in part, funded by the United States is used by the Chinese Government to justify and explain the program to the Chinese people. 

The government says to the people if the United Nations, which 

represents the collective views of the people around the world, 

thinks that we are doing a good thing by embarking on the onechild policy, they say who are you to resist, or who are you to think 

it is a bad idea? 

54

So we need to end that source of support for the one-child policy, 

and I believe that will embolden a lot of people of China to speak 

out where they haven’t before. 

Mr. KUMAR. Coming back to your first question of the support 

among women. When there is no need to forcibly abort a—you 

know people support, why do they have to force it? So that pretty 

much nullify that particular argument. 

Coming back to the issue of how best to begin to address this, 

of course, all the recommendations we support but after sitting 

here and listening to this testimony from Bangkok, I think the 

angle of what happened to women who undergo this from the—is 

missing. That should be brought to light, how a woman who have 

been forcibly aborted, not abortion, this is forcibly aborted, feels 

and undergoes the pain and suffering, that should be brought in. 

I will say that that will have a immediate impact on people around 

the world and everyone. So I would recommend that you try to hold 

a hearing only for women who have gone through this experience, 

forced abortion basically, I am not going to complicate with other 

issues. Try to find the women who we just heard from Bangkok, 

that will have an impact here because you have to have impact 

here as well, not only in China. Thank you. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. A few final questions, why has the U.N. system so 

failed the women of China? As I think all of you know, we have 

tried and under both Reagan and Bush, and Bush, defunded the 

UNFPA only to have its supporters, particularly in the European 

Union and elsewhere, seek to fill the gaps, if you will, and increase 

their funding which, again, sends that message that Mr. Mosher 

just conveyed to us that ‘‘who are you to question this when the 

UNFPA is here?’’

And I have seen that myself, as I indicated earlier, when the 

UNFPA is pulled out as a defense against all critics and they simply say it is a voluntary program, and that is the end of the story. 

So we have, in this year’s foreign operations appropriations bill, 

there will be a defunding on the House side. In all candor, the Republicans will seek to take out funding for the UNFPA. The Obama 

administration will oppose it vigorously, as will the Senate, and at 

the end of the day, we are less likely to get a cut or an elimination 

of the funding for the UNFPA, that doesn’t mean we are not going 

to try. 

I think to be complicit in these crimes against humanity, in my 

opinion, suggests that the UNFPA itself ought to be at the Hague 

answering for such crimes and complicity in such crimes. And that 

story will come out someday, and we know it, but the Chinese people, I think will, especially the women of China will be extraordinarily chagrinned and angered that the U.N. played such a pivotal role in their repression. We will try, I can assure you, we will 

try, and we will try hard to do that. 

Let me ask you, if I could Ms. Littlejohn, you mentioned H.R. 

2121 a bill that I have introduced. We need, I believe, and your 

thoughts on this, to do more under current law and I wrote it so 

I know it is there. It is the Admiral James W. Nance-Meg Donovan 

Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000, 2001; it is still in effect. 

55

It requires that a visa be denied to those who are complicit in these 

crimes and of forced abortion and forced sterilization. 

We have found after doing some investigations of this that a 

total number of 18 individuals, since its enactment back in 2000, 

have been denied entry into the U.S., which is a very poor and ineffective compliance record. 

I would note parenthetically that I am the author of the Belarus 

Democracy Act of 2004, where we have a similar provision about 

denying entry visas to those coming in from Belarus. And there are 

some 200 people on a list who are human rights abusers who were 

denied entry. 

I think our next step really needs to be the promulgation of lists 

and the invitation to those who know abusers to come forward with 

their names so that the State Department, so that the U.S. Government will deny visas to the United States based on these crimes 

against women. So that is a follow up item I think we really need 

to go forward with. 

And finally, with regard to trafficking, the Chinese Director of 

the Ministry of the Public Security Anti-Trafficking Task Force 

stated in the reporting period that the TIP Report covered, ‘‘The 

number of foreign women trafficked to China is definitely rising’’ 

and that, ‘‘Great demand from buyers, as well as traditional preference for boys in Chinese families are the main culprits fueling 

trafficking in China.’’

So what many of us have predicted for years is now coming to 

fruition in a very, very terrible way with more women from outside 

the country being brought in and being abused. Any of your 

thoughts on that? It seems to me that if this policy is not immediately and irrevocably reversed, and it will take time to reverse 

its consequences, this problem of human trafficking will only be exacerbated and China will become the ultimate magnet for the buying and selling and the commodification of women in the world. 

Your thoughts? 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree with you 

and am very glad that the TIP Report is finally including this after 

we have been pressing this issue for years. 

I just want to bring forth the plight of North Korean girls, because there is definitely a confluence between the vacuum of 

women, and China just basically sort of sucking up women from 

many of the surrounding countries, and the way that it is violating 

international refugee law in this sense. 

As you know, if human rights is worse anywhere in the world 

than in China, it is North Korea and people risk their lives to get 

over that border. Sometimes young women and girls they come 

over the border into China thinking that they have finally escaped 

a horrific situation and they might be able to find some kind of 

safety in China, and then they immediately get snapped up in the 

sexual slavery trade. And these young girls can get beaten, they 

can get raped, they can get murdered, and there is nothing they 

can do, there is no one they can appeal to, because if they then go 

to the authorities and say, look, I have been trafficked, help me, 

the Chinese authorities will say, oh, you are an illegal economic migrant and repatriate them to North Korea in contravention of 

56

international refugee law, and these girls can end up in the North 

Korean death camps or possibly executed. 

I have heard credible reports of members of their families being 

executed as well. So this is something that I would like to highlight 

in the context of the way the one-child policy is causing devastation 

to women and girls internationally, especially in North Korea. 

Mr. SMITH. Pastor Fu. 

Pastor FU. I just want to actually elaborate on the issue of how 

or why there has been silence even from some women’s organizations on this forced abortion issue. And I, of course, came from 

China without knowing a lot of American politics and before I was 

already receiving accusation that somehow to help rescue Chen 

Guangcheng, maybe even a part of the right-wing conspiracy. I 

don’t even know this term. 

This is not a political issue, this is not a partisan issue, this is 

women’s, children’s rights issues, this is life and death issue. I 

think it should not be regarded as American domestic political 

issue. And we cannot play them, or even drag them into the U.S. 

political field. The women like Ms. Guo, they are crying out, they 

have nowhere to go. And if we just use—whatever way if this issue 

is regarded as part of the U.S. politics, and I think it sent a very 

chilling signal, I think, indirectly actually played by the Chinese 

Government, and to make more women and children into more 

miserable conditions. I think I would urge those women organizations like the National Organization for Women to come up. 

Really these are the women’s issues, these are their sister issues. 

It should not be regarded as a political issue, to pay attention on 

these issues and to stand up and speak up for these vulnerable 

women, millions of them suffering in China because they are pregnant with their second, third baby. And they are dragged, you 

know, like pigs, and Ms. Guo, her testimony, she shared about—

we have actually received this thick stack of documentation showing how she was captured, arrested with official stamps and to say 

that one town she was forced to pay a fine already after escape to 

another township, they force her to pay another fine and she cannot pay, she cannot afford to pay when she was imprisoned. 

It was well-documented, so I have already sent to the committee 

for the translation of these documentation. I also want to request 

that it be put as part of the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

57


74959f-1.eps
58


74959f-2.eps
59


74959f-3.eps
60


74959f-4.eps
61


74959f-5.eps
62


74959f-6.eps
63


74959f-7.eps
64


74959f-8.eps
65

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Mosher. 

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, I came back to the United States 

from China almost as politically naive as my good friend, Bob Fu, 

never having been interested in domestic politics where abortion to 

population control was concerned until I was forcibly confronted 

with it in China. And my first thought in the early 1980s was to 

go to the National Organization for Women. And I did and I talked 

with Eleanor Smeal, who was the head of the National Organization of 

Women. And I presented her with documents about forced abortions in China, pictures that I had taken and so forth, and she 

looked sober-faced at my presentation, my evidence. And then she 

said, well, I am personally opposed to forced abortion, but China 

does have a population problem and that was the end of it. They 

would not do anything. 

Now maybe their views today would be different. Maybe the compilation of evidence that you and Reggie and others have brought 

together over the years will convince them to overcome their reticence to condemn forced abortions in China and everywhere. We 

should continue to go to everyone, all people in goodwill and encourage them to take action against this. It is true that in the 

United States, if you did a poll on forced abortion, you would probably find over 90 percent of Americans oppose forced abortion. We 

find that 86 percent of Americans oppose sex-selective abortion, 

which is happening in China at epidemic levels. 

So this shouldn’t be a political issue not because of the partisan 

divide, but it is a simple matter of human rights that women 

should not be forcibly aborted, that the little girls should not be 

eliminated simply because of their sex after birth and before birth. 

And I think on that ground we will finally find consensus. 

Ms. LITTLEJOHN. May I just add to that? I think there are 

grounds for hope here, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers from the 

very beginning have been saying this is a human rights issue. 

When it comes to forced abortion, whether you are pro-choice or 

pro-life, you don’t support it because forced abortion is not a choice. 

And several people from the pro-choice movement have come forward recently, Victoria Nuland from the State Department, in the 

case of Cao Ruyi, said we have seen reports of the Chinese women 

as being detained and possibly pressured into a forced abortion and 

that we oppose forced abortions. 

Then Nancy Northup, from the Center for Reproductive Rights, 

wrote a letter to The New York Times, dated July 4th of this year 

saying that she opposes forced abortion and specifically citing Feng 

Jianmei. I think this is a breakthrough. This is the first time one 

of these pro-choice groups has come through and finally said we oppose forced abortion. And in this regard, I just want to mention the 

forerunner of all this, who was Cori Schumacher who about a year 

ago, it was the 2011 reigning world women’s longboard surfing 

champion, and an ardent pro-choice feminist, and she boycotted the 

2011 world women surfing championship tour because one of the 

events took place in China. Citing the testimony before Lantos 

Commission which you chaired in 2009 and citing the Web site of 

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, she said she will have nothing 

to do with a country that is forcibly aborting women. 

66

So I just think that that is great. She was a forerunner of this, 

so I see that now finally, perhaps because of this confluence of 

forced abortion cases that have recently come out, the pro-choice 

people are finally seeing the light forced abortion is not a choice. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Kumar.

Mr. KUMAR. I would recommend that as I mentioned earlier, that 

it is important to bring the issue that this is forced abortion, and 

in the impact it has on women and of course, we should keep on 

pushing the administration to keep this as one of the priorities, opportunities as mentioned earlier of upcoming dialogue. Thank you, 

thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I would just disagree with you in terms 

of keep it as one of the priorities, I would say make it one of the 

priorities, but we disagree. I would like to ask unanimous consent 

that a report by the Laogai Research Foundation, Harry Wu’s foundation called Human Rights, Abuses Caused By the One-Child Policy As Seen From Official Documents be made a part of the record. 

Without objection so ordered. 

[The report referred to follows:]

67


74959g-1.eps
68


74959g-2.eps
69


74959g-3.eps
70


74959g-4.eps
71


74959g-5.eps
72


74959g-6.eps
73


74959g-7.eps
74

Mr. SMITH. And I would like to thank our very distinguished 

panel and our very distinguished guest from Bangkok who testified 

via phone for her contribution today, for, again, reminding us the 

consequence the one-child-per-couple policy has had on women in 

her case going back to 1995 in her case, and Feng’s case going back 

just a few weeks ago. I would like to thank you all for your tremendous testimony. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(75)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

76

f


74959n.eps
77

Æ


74959m.eps