U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–312PDF 2016

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA: THE 2015 ANNUAL

REPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE

COMMISSION ON CHINA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 12, 2016

Serial No. 114–147

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 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

MATT SALMON, Arizona Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GRACE MENG, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, chairman, Congressional-Executive 

Commission on China .......................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Timothy J. Walz, ranking House Member, CongressionalExecutive Commission on China ........................................................................ 10

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith: Prepared statement ................................ 7

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 20

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 21

The Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific: Statement 

of the Honorable Marco Rubio, a Senator in Congress from the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 22

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 26

(1)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA: THE 2015 ANNUAL 

REPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL–

EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Matt Salmon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SALMON. The subcommittee will come to order. 

When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited the United States in 

September 2015, cybersecurity, environmental concerns, and maritime disputes dominated discussions, leaving human rights advocates disappointed that the administration did not use this opportunity to make more headway on human rights issues. 

As we venture to address the wide range of challenges we face 

in our relationship with China, we must not lose sight of the importance of human rights and the rule of law in this bilateral relationship. 

The U.S. Government has paid particularly close attention to 

human rights in China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre 

and, for many years, monitored human rights developments 

through an annual review of China’s most-favored-nation trading 

status. I believe that was also called Jackson-Vanik. 

In 2000, legislation to grant permanent normal trade relations 

with China, which I voted in favor of, included provisions to ensure 

continuing monitoring of the human rights and the rule of law in 

China through the establishment of the Congressional-Executive 

Commission on China. 

The Commission has shouldered this daunting task ever since, 

and I commend the commissioners and staff on their hard work 

and recently released 2015 annual report. The report covers the 

gamut of human rights issues and provides several policy recommendations. 

The Commission’s annual reports have drawn attention to the 

rise of religious persecution in China, suppression of free speech, 

and less respect for due process in politically sensitive cases. 

I would like to take this time to draw attention to some of the 

troubling human rights developments in the PRC. 

2

Consider freedom of religion. Chinese policy toward religious 

freedom varies by religion and group, and its constitution officially 

protects normal religious activities that do not disrupt public order, 

impair the health of citizens, or interfere with the educational system of the state. 

However, the PRC imposes harsh and arbitrary penalties on unregistered religious organizations, including Christian churches, 

imposes several restrictions on religious practice by Tibetan Buddhists and Uyghur Muslims, and persecutes Falun Gong practitioners. Tibetans and Uyghurs are often targeted under the guise 

of crackdowns of alleged extremist and terrorist activities. 

I would like to hear from the panel on the status of religious 

freedom in China. 

In Hong Kong, we have seen the blossoming and the suppression 

of an emerging democracy over the past few years. The pro-democracy demonstrations and the famous Umbrella Movement have 

shown the world people’s excitement for democracy and basic 

human liberties. 

We have also seen reports of Hong Kong booksellers selling or 

publishing books critical of President Xi and other Chinese officials 

mysteriously disappearing and perhaps being abducted, taken to 

mainland China from Hong Kong and Thailand. If true, such behavior is reprehensible—and I would concur with the statement 

you made: It is beyond reprehensible; it is evil. And I hope for the 

swift and safe return of these individuals as well as their three colleagues reportedly being held in mainland China for unknown reasons. 

I look forward to hearing the updates on the situation in Hong 

Kong. 

China’s infamous one-child policy was instituted in 1980 to control population levels and has involved decades of inhumane forced 

abortions and sterilizations, fines, and other sanctions. This draconian policy has resulted in lopsided gender ratios in China’s younger generations and an emerging demographic crisis for the entire 

country. 

We saw the announcement late last year of the government’s 

plan to move to a two-child policy and would like to hear updates 

about that from the panel. 

Human rights organizations rank China near the bottom for 

Internet freedom and freedom of expression. Not only does China 

block Web sites, including major newspaper and social networking 

sites, it has imprisoned dozens of journalists and other citizens for 

posting information deemed critical of the PRC and the Communist 

Party. 

I have only highlighted a few of the many human rights issues 

that persist in China today. The Commission embodies congressional concerns about human rights in China, and I really look forward to hearing from the panel on what more we can do. We certainly welcome policy recommendations and hope to have a constructive conversation to encourage improvements in the rule of 

law and human rights conditions in China. 

Members present will be permitted to submit written statements 

to be included in the official hearing record. Without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:29 Apr 13, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AP\011216\98312 SHIRL
3

ments, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject 

to the length limitation in the rules. 

And we are privileged—did the ranking member have a statement he wanted to make? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Why not. 

Mr. SALMON. Happy to entertain that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I do, indeed. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding 

this timely hearing. 

And I want to thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Walz for their work with 

the Commission. Since Congress created the Commission in the 

year 2000, the Commission has done some very thorough and important work in documenting and analyzing human rights issues in 

China. I want to endorse the Commission’s findings as stated in 

the executive summary. 

It is increasingly clear that China’s domestic human rights problems are of critical interest to U.S. foreign policy. There is a direct 

link between concrete improvements in human rights and the rule 

of law and the security and prosperity of both the United States 

and China. 

The Chinese Government has raised hundreds of millions of people out of crushing poverty, but they can’t go forward beyond where 

they are now, economically or socially, unless they follow the rule 

of law and provide for human rights. Without stronger rule of law 

in China and without healthy respect for the will of the people and 

their individual rights, it is impossible for China to be a credible 

partner on issues that matter to the American people. 

Trade is one of those. Tied to the rule of law and human rights 

are China’s unfair trading practices. From subsidies to state-owned 

enterprises, both hidden and overt, to currency manipulation, the 

Chinese Communist Party has shown itself ready to pursue its own 

perceived short-term interest at the expense of written agreements 

with the United States and at the expense of transparent accounting to their own people. 

Beyond the issue of American prosperity, the Commission’s work 

is shining a light on the human cost of the excesses that accompany the single-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party. It is 

deeply disturbing to see the Commission’s evaluation that human 

rights and the rule of law continue to deteriorate in China. 

The list is long: The inhumane enforcement of the one-China policy, as to which we have seen some amelioration; the trafficking of 

persons, men, women, and children, for forced labor and sexual exploitation; harassment of religious groups, most notably the Falun 

Gong that we have just discussed; rigging the rules for voting in 

Hong Kong. Many on this committee and subcommittee have—I 

was there with Steve—stood shoulder-to-shoulder with democracy 

advocates in Hong Kong, and there have been a host of other codels 

that have done the same thing. 

Pervasive restrictions on the expression in print and online; the 

suppression of ethnic minorities, from Tibet to the Uyghurs; detention of labor leaders, denying them the right to organize, which, of 

course, not only denies their rights but adversely affects American 

workers that would like to compete in the world on a fair basis. 

4

This is a sobering set of problems, and I would advise those who 

believe the Communist regime is evolving into a modern, developed, and humane system to read the Commission report. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman. 

We are privileged today, this afternoon, to hear from two of our 

colleagues: Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China; and Mr. Tim Walz, 

ranking House Member of the Commission. And we are grateful to 

both of these witnesses for joining us today and presenting the 

Commission’s findings. 

So I will start with you, Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON 

CHINA 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Salmon and Ranking Member Sherman and the subcommittee, for holding this important hearing and inviting my good friend and colleague, Tim 

Walz, to be here to make a presentation and to answer any questions. 

The 2015 report is a comprehensive, heavily documented review 

and analysis of human rights and the rule of law, or, more aptly 

spoken, the lack of rule of law, in the People’s Republic of China. 

It is an impressive undertaking and is the work of an equally impressive and dedicated staff. 

The Commission’s 2015 report comes to the troubling conclusion 

that the Chinese Government’s efforts to ‘‘silence dissent, suppress 

human rights advocacy, and control civil society’’ are broader in 

scope than in any other period documented since the Commission 

started issuing reports in 2002. That is distressingly bad news not 

only for the great people of China, who long to be free, but also for 

China’s neighbors and, by extension, the rest of the world. 

President Xi Jinping and the current cohort of China’s leaders 

tolerate even less dissent than previous administrations. In the 

past year, China’s leaders expanded the use of legal statutes and 

a pervasive security apparatus to maintain the Communist Party’s 

leading role and power over the country. 

Torture and arbitrary detention remain grave problems, employed with impunity by the security forces to silence dissent and 

discourage religious groups and ethnic minorities from seeking 

greater freedoms. Indeed, in early December, December 2 and 3, 

the U.N. torture reports, the fifth in a series, act as a scathing indictment of the systematic use of torture by leaders in China. We 

will be holding a hearing in our Commission on January 26 to 

probe even deeper into this horrific use of torture on people in 

China. 

In our Political Prisoner Database, which we believe is the best 

in the world, the Commission has carefully compiled the information of over 8,000 cases, including over 1,300 currently detained 

prisoners of conscience. This is the database. It is accurate. It is 

used increasingly by people all over the world. We saw a 36-percent 

increase in access to the prisoner base from 2014 to 2015. 

5

Among the list are Nobel Peace Prize winners like Liu Xiaobo, 

journalists, human rights lawyers like Gao Zhisheng, labor activists, advocates for democracy, as well as those who are fighting for 

minority rights, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Falun Gong practitioners, as 

well as Christian and Buddhist religious leaders, whose peaceful 

religious activities are somehow viewed as threatening to China’s 

social order or national security. 

The 2015 report also documents the highly coercive population 

control policies in effect since 1979 into the year 1980 and shows 

that this is nothing less than state-sponsored violence against 

women and girls. The report includes details on the methods used 

to enforce birth restrictions, including forced abortion and involuntary sterilization, heavy fines, draconian fines, the withholding of 

social benefits, the loss of jobs, arbitrary detention of couples that 

have a child without government permission. You need a birth-allowed coupon from the government in order to have a baby in the 

People’s Republic of China. 

Despite the platitudes given to China for the recently announced 

two-child-per-couple policy, the pernicious structure of coercion remains completely in effect. Chinese families are not free to determine the size of their own families and not when they might have 

that child. It remains illegal for single women to have a child. 

There is still pressure to forcibly abort a child, again, if the pregnancy is not approved by the state. 

In addition, the two-child policy does little to stem the massive 

problem of human trafficking in China. We have seen huge increases in forced marriages, documented in the report, and sexual 

slavery in China. Trafficking from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma 

have increased in recent years, in part because there are an estimated 30 million, some say as many 40 million, young men who 

are unable to find wives or start families because of the skewed sex 

ratio. The girls, the women, simply don’t exist. 

In fact, Mr. Chabot’s bill on Girls Count is an important contribution, and we make mention of this in the report, that if we 

really had a systematic effort to enforce that globally, we would 

see, I think, even greater clarity on the missing daughters of 

China. 

So thank you, Chairman Chabot, for that bill and that law. 

There is so much detail and information included in this year’s 

annual report we don’t have time to summarize it all. I am seeing 

the clock is winding down. But China has issued a series of new 

national security laws just last year that give even more unprecedented powers to domestic security forces that seek to limit the exchange of people and ideas. The NGO law is a draconian effort to 

end NGOs as we understand them. 

Despite President Xi’s public commitment to implement the rule 

of law, that is often a cover for lawlessness, as the pervasive use 

of torture, as I mentioned, and detention, especially when it is done 

in a way that people don’t even know where the detainee is—so 

there is no access to a lawyer—is increasing, not decreasing. 

Chinese authorities continue to rein in on the media, the Internet, and social media, especially if they are in any way criticizing 

the government. 

6

China continues to rank with Iran, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia 

in terms of the misery it inflicts on religious believers. And the government sometimes seeks to co-opt those religious—you asked the 

question, and during Q&A we can expand upon it—but the crackdown on the Falun Gong, 17 years in the making, the crackdown 

on even those churches that are officially recognized, like the Three 

Self and the Patriotic Church, the Catholic Church—they have 

found themselves in the cross-hairs over the last year by the Chinese dictatorship. 

The report shows little progress with regards to WTO obligations, and we expand upon that in detail. And the actions of the 

Chinese and Hong Kong Governments during the past year raise 

serious concerns about the future of Hong Kong’s autonomy, press 

freedoms, and the rule of law. 

The idea that somehow more trade would bring about a matriculation to democracy has crashed and burned. This report again underscores that. Well-meaning as it was, we now know beyond any 

reasonable doubt they have taken that hard currency and it has increased their ability, as a dictatorship, not only to repress their 

own people but to project power all over the world. 

I thank the chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

7


98312a-1.eps
8


98312a-2.eps
9


98312a-3.eps
10

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Walz? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. WALZ, RANKING 

HOUSE MEMBER, CONGRESSIONAL–EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

and members of this committee. Thank you for making this a priority. 

And I want to thank my chairman, Mr. Smith. This Congress has 

no more passionate, committed human rights champion than Chris 

Smith, and he proves it year after year, and I am grateful for that. 

And as Mr. Smith said, you see sitting behind us one of the most 

dedicated staff you will ever find in compiling the database and 

putting out this, what I consider to be, critically important document in leading how—again, the most important relationships in 

the world, between the United States and the People’s Republic of 

China, and making sure that we are focusing on the human rights 

aspect of it. So I am grateful for that. 

My involvement in China goes back about three decades. I started out with being one of the first group of young high school teachers to teach in Chinese high schools back in the 1980s; continued 

on with cultural exchanges and visiting fellowships at different institutions in China. 

I have been to China dozens of times, and as I always say, I am 

about one trip away from knowing nothing about China, it feels 

like. It is complex; it is difficult. But I can tell you this: I have been 

on those dozens of trips to Hong Kong, and I have never quite felt 

the sense of concern that I have felt over the last couple months. 

I was in Hong Kong; in Lhasa, in Tibet; and in Beijing. And it is 

a challenge. 

And I think many of us recognize—and I am glad that the chairman mentioned it—the decoupling of most-favored-nation status to 

human rights was something, and I, too, supported that. And I 

think the idea was, with a free-market economy, we would see a 

more opening of the Chinese grip on social life and on human 

rights. That simply has not occurred. 

And so I think there needs to be the focus on what the Commission says. I would say I think the report is correct; it is getting 

worse, not better. It extends from, as you heard, the things Mr. 

Smith said. 

And I can tell you, the NGO law is incredibly draconian. What 

is really interesting to me is every person I talk to in China—and 

this has been in the last few weeks. We were in Hong Kong meeting with a group of the American Chamber of Commerce, and it 

was the bankers who were deeply concerned about this. It is not 

Bankers Without Borders type of folks, that they understand that 

the critical aspect of international cooperation and all of the things 

that you build to build civil society and across nations are going to 

be jeopardized if this NGO law goes into effect. And, again, it is 

meant, as I heard one of my colleagues up here say, it is about 

them controlling it, controlling that piece of information. It is dangerous. 

11

I will have to tell you, Hong Kong and the basic rule of law that 

was drawn out is under assault. I never thought I would see it. 

Anson Chan, who many of you are very familiar with, I viewed as 

she was the person that helped transition this and was reassuring 

us that everything was going to be fine in this transition. She is 

now coming back and saying, ‘‘I was wrong. It is not going to be 

fine.’’ It is being undermined. 

We met with the bishops of the Catholic Church there. They are 

being undermined. The Chinese are appointing those, the bishops, 

instead of that. The lawyers being arrested—and, again, China continues to articulate they want to have rule of law. There is a difference between rule of law and rule by law, or rule by lawlessness, 

however you are using it. If you are using the law to oppress those 

very people, if the lawyers who are there—and keep in mind, these 

are people who were arrested trying to defend women, who were 

defending women’s rights issues in China. They were arrested. 

Their lawyers were arrested. It has had a chilling effect across the 

society. 

And if you get some time and there are some questions, the situation in Tibet—and I want to be very clear. When I was there—

and I mentioned to someone, I said, ‘‘Oh, the last time I was in 

Tibet I think was late 1989,’’ and the Chinese Government official 

said, ‘‘No, it was February 1990.’’ I said, thank you for reminding 

me because I had forgotten when that was. They knew. 

And I did say, when it took me 6 days by bus to get there in 

1990, now we flew in next to a railroad. There is no denying China’s economic growth and China’s ability to raise standards of living. They should rightfully be proud of that. China has moved 

many people out of poverty and moved them into a more stable and 

more prosperous existence. But we cannot decouple economic 

growth from human rights growth, and, as a Nation, we need to 

hold those ideas up. 

And in all fairness, sitting in the deepest heart of the Forbidden 

City, having a spirited debated with the Premier of China over 

Tibet and talking about the Dalai Lama, his comeback to me was, 

he said, Congressman, I think you also taught in Pine Ridge, did 

you not? And I said, yes, I did. He said, how did that work out for 

you? And I said, no one here is defending what happened to the 

Native Americans. We are pointing out that nations need to understand how you move forward, how you learn from these. 

I thought, to tell you the truth, their willingness to at least engage this and not pretend—I mean, making that comparison, to 

me, was telling, that they were getting there. 

And it wasn’t about lecturing, and I don’t think that is what the 

Commission and Mr. Smith is about, but it is about speaking truth 

to power. It is about speaking for those that don’t have the voice. 

It is about understanding that those basic human rights, whether 

it be trafficking, whether it be draconian family planning programs, NGOs, or many of the other issues, if we don’t say it, no 

one will. 

And I would close with this and ask you—I asked activists, when 

we met with families under, you know, cloud of dark because their 

lawyer husband had been arrested, or we met with dissidents in 

Hong Kong or in Tibet, I asked each one of them, does it help or 

12

hurt when we speak about this? And they said, ‘‘Please don’t ever 

stop speaking about it. Please tell our story. Please tell what is 

going on. It is critically important.’’

So, Chairman and Ranking Member, members of this committee, 

I thank you for doing just that. And I am certainly open for questions. 

[Mr. Walz did not submit a prepared statement.] 

Mr. SALMON. I thank the two gentlemen for the very effective 

and well-done report. I thank you also for your commitment to 

human rights—all across the globe, but we are focusing on China 

today. 

Mr. Walz, I had an opportunity back in the nineties to go into 

Tibet, as well, and spent a couple of days, you know, with many 

of those monks, interviewed them. And then I, about 6 months 

later, went to Dharamsala and spent about 3 days with the Dalai 

Lama to talk about the issues of Tibet. 

I was a missionary when I was a young man for my church in 

Taiwan, and I learned a lot about the culture. I learned the language while I was there. I have been over to China probably close 

to 50 times. 

And when I debated the issue of permanent normal trade relations back when President Clinton was President, it was a very robust debate. And I was on one side of the fence, and I remember 

the other side of the fence was a couple of people I have a lot of 

love and admiration for. One of them was sitting right before me, 

Chris Smith, and another one was a guy that is not here anymore, 

Frank Wolf, and, on your side, Nancy Pelosi, who made some very 

credible arguments about, you know, how the decoupling of trade 

and human rights through this activity could be very, very harmful. 

And I remember saying at the time that I truly did believe that 

moving on the continuum of a person’s basic needs, that once they 

opened the box on a free market that it was hard to suppress the 

other things that I believed would come naturally with that. And 

so I prognosticated that, by passage of PNTR, that in the not-sodistant future we would see a robust movement, improvement if 

you will, of human rights issues. 

And I am still trying to scrape that egg off my face to this day, 

because it never happened. I think with the first couple of Presidents there was some movement, some movement, but I believe 

that under this current regime they have taken some big steps 

backward. And all the dreams and the things that I hoped would 

happen with the free trade, they just didn’t materialize, and I am 

very, very disappointed. 

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could say—and I hear exactly what 

you are going through, because I do this too. The thing I would say, 

though, is it has inspired those dreams amongst the people, that 

it did do that. And the opening of the market and what is available 

and the middle class and what their children could achieve to or 

whatever, it has done that. 

The problem is that I think we thought there would be more of 

a movement amongst or more of the desire. But I think it also 

comes through when people—some of my colleagues who were 

along on this latest trip were amazed that the students at Peking 

13

University didn’t really know what happened on June 4, 1989. I 

said, ‘‘That is not so surprising. What is more troubling to me is 

that students here might not know what happened.’’

And so I hear your struggle with this, but——

Mr. SALMON. Well——

Mr. WALZ [continuing]. I also think it made a difference 

among——

Mr. SALMON [continuing]. You know, I see people that are just, 

you know, regular citizens that come up with phenomenal ideas, 

and then they make money, and they get out of the poverty that 

they have been living in. And that kind of mobility has been a good 

thing. But not nearly enough good things have happened in the 

realm of human rights improvements that we all desire. 

I was at the handover ceremony for Hong Kong, and I remember 

at the time meeting with Anson Chan and meeting with Martin 

Lee and, you know, getting different messages about what this 

‘‘one-China, two systems’’ was going to mean. And I believed in my 

heart that China would respect that sovereignty, if you will, if that 

is the best term for it, that delineation of two governments within 

a government, letting Hong Kong operate in an autonomous way. 

But yet it has never materialized in the selection of their chief executive—never materialized. 

And that is why we saw the Umbrella Movement. That is why 

we saw the student protests and the uprising. I had an opportunity 

myself last year to go and meet with a lot of those students and 

freedom fighters, and they are hoping that their trusted friends 

here in the United States will not leave them by the wayside. They 

are hoping with all their hearts that we will continue to call attention to the need to allow them to be able to choose their own path 

and their own leaders. 

And so I didn’t mean to, you know, kind of go into some kind of 

a soliloquy here, but the fact is what you are doing is so incredibly 

important, and I appreciate it. And I believe that, as we go forward, we need to have a strong bilateral relationship with China, 

but that doesn’t mean that we are not honest and that we don’t 

stand up for the values that have made us a great Nation and to 

be that shining city on a hill that we have always been. 

Mr. Smith, I am sorry for all those comments. I wanted to ask 

a question or two, but I have used my time. I don’t mean to filibuster either, so I am going to turn it over to Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. China is undergoing a real economic stress. Its 

Chinese party derived its support, arguably its legitimacy, not from 

any ideological reason. You know, if you believe in the divine right 

of kings, well, then a king has legitimacy. If you believe in democracy, winning an election gives you legitimacy. If you believe in 

Marxist Leninism, then if you are the vanguard of the proletariat, 

you have legitimacy. They are not the vanguard of the proletariat. 

So they achieve their legitimacy chiefly by saying, hey, we deliver 

better economic growth. They are not doing that now. 

Do you see them relaxing their control in order to gain the economic benefits of the rule of law or retrenching their dictatorship 

as a reaction to, well, hey, we may be less popular because the 

economy is not doing as well, so we are going to have to smash 

more heads in? 

14

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. I think it is more the latter, I would say to my good 

friend from California. 

Let me just, you know, to Chairman Salmon, we had the exact 

same goal, all of us, and it was to promote democracy, freedom, and 

human rights for the great people of China. Unfortunately, they 

were not players. They gamed the system. They continue to do so. 

And I think, to the question just asked, we are looking at a dictatorship that is flush with power. It is making money hand over fist 

all over Africa. It is trying to export its bad governance model all 

over the world. That is why people like Bashir in Sudan and others, you know, prize the Chinese relationship, because they ask no 

questions about human rights and democracy and freedom. We do. 

The West does, as well. 

So I think they feel there has never been a real penalty phase 

for their gross human rights abuse. 

On the population control program, for example, I have been 

raising that issue doggedly since 1983, when I first learned about 

it; offered the first bill in Congress to criticize it, call it crimes 

against humanity. 

And, recently, the former director of the Brookings Center for 

Public Policy, Wang Feng, said that history will judge the one-child 

policy as worse than the cultural revolution—worse. It has so horribly impacted upon women especially. They have 6,000 suicides 

per day—not week, month—per day. And that is from their own 

CDC numbers, largely attributable to this draconian policy which 

just invades women and kills their babies and hurts them. 

On all these other issues——

Mr. SHERMAN. I do want to sneak in one more question. 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. But all the other issues, the whole basket of 

human rights issues, they have not been held to account. And, unfortunately, they have been rewarded, unfortunately, with more 

economic benefits, more access. There are 90 bilateral——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Smith, I would like to sneak in another question. 

We have had a dedication to the free flow of information. In the 

era when we confronted Soviet Communism, we had Voice of America, and they would jam it. So the technological battle to push in 

the free flow of information was something we engaged in. We used 

our skill to get around the jamming. 

Well, today it is not about shortwave radio; it is about the Internet. We see the great firewall of China, the jamming of the 21st 

century. But what I don’t see is all of the intellectual capacity of 

Silicon Valley being used to smash that wall. 

Mr. Walz—and I realize I, at least, am not a technological expert, 

and this may be something you would want to pursue with the 

Commission. But could the United States offer a contract or prize 

to those in Silicon Valley who can crack the great firewall of China, 

defeat these efforts, and let everyone in China who is online be online to the World Wide Web? 

Mr. WALZ. Yes, I think so. But the problem we have had—and 

we have had this hearing—American companies have helped be 

part of that firewall. And that is the problem. 

15

And I would say this is a very sticky subject for all of us, and 

I think many of you have hit on it. Your question was, are they 

entrenching? Yes, I do believe they are entrenching. China changes 

when it is in China’s interest or when there is a penalty for it. 

All of a sudden now, you saw—we got a real big breakthrough 

on cybersecurity when President Xi was here. That is the untold 

story. We got a good deal on cybersecurity. Well, was that because 

of great negotiations here? I am sure some of you would say, ‘‘No. 

We haven’t seen that.’’ I will tell you what happened, was China 

now has intellectual property that other countries are stealing, so 

now they are concerned about it, so they are involved with this. 

That is in our best interest, to bring them into this. 

The issue in the South China Sea is simply unacceptable, in the 

Spratly Islands and some of the issues they are doing there, but 

China is not about to disrupt global international trade. It is what 

they do. But they do want to flex some of their muscles. 

So the answer is, yes, that we can get them, yes, when companies are there. But I would leave you with this, and maybe the 

next question will come up, is, how much pain are we willing to 

take to make them pay for it economically? Because Mr. Smith is 

right; they have been rewarded for this. And if it is all about commerce alone, without an accountability piece on the human rights, 

they will continue to do it. 

When the issue of intellectual property started to hurt, they 

changed. When the issue of human rights or some of the issues 

that you have heard mentioned here hurt, I believe that is when 

they will change their behavior. But, right now, I have to tell you, 

I am more pessimistic than I have been in many years because 

they are still continuing to benefit from it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I look forward to working with the members in 

the room on legislation to prohibit U.S. companies from helping 

this great wall of China. And I look forward, if we can get some 

appropriations, to actually funding an effort to defeat it. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Just briefly, a couple of points. 

In 2006, I chaired a hearing right here, and we had the top people from Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo sworn in. I swore 

them in. And, at that point, they were completely manipulating the 

search engines of the Internet, especially Google and Yahoo, and 

Cisco was helping with an enormous project that was literally helping the public security apparatus, the police, the secret police, to 

surveil and find out when anybody went online and logged in. 

They have gone from bad to worse on Internet restrictions. Our 

report deals with that extensively. I have introduced a bill called 

the Global Online Freedom Act, which would prohibit the export of 

those items to China, where they have the capability to help their 

police. 

We did that with apartheid. There were certain things that the 

police could not get in South Africa from the United States, put on 

the no-export list, because it aided and abetted that kind of repression, you know, apartheid by South Africa and in this case in 

China. 

16

I would ask you to take a look at the section. It is very real. I 

think Google and others have learned a hard lesson as the indigenous facsimiles of Google, like Baidu and the others, have literally 

pushed them out almost completely, not completely, taken over, pirated their software. Intellectual property rights are not respected 

by the Government of China, so they just steal it, make it their 

own. And, you know, shame on us for not seeing that coming, but 

it is not too late because, obviously, the Internet and all of those 

things are continuing to evolve. All the more reason why that legislation needs to move. 

And I thank my friend. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. 

And thank both of you for being with us to focus our attention 

on what is going on in China. 

I remember Tiananmen Square. I think that that was a historic 

turning point for the worse. 1989, Herbert Walker Bush was President of the United States. And we had just had Ronald Reagan, he 

had just replaced Ronald Reagan. And under Ronald Reagan, we 

set in motion—I was happy to be part of his team—we set in motion the—how do you say—the dynamics that would bring down 

the Berlin Wall, would have the Soviet troops withdrawing from 

Central Europe, and, yes, the democratization, as rocky as it has 

been, in what was the Soviet Union and now is a somewhat democratic Russia, although lots of flaws. 

And then, in 1989, when George Bush was President and 

Tiananmen Square happened, I believe that had Herbert Walker 

Bush called the Chinese leadership and told them that if they used 

their military to suppress Tiananmen Square all the deals that we 

had made are off, all the economic deals—that is what Ronald 

Reagan would have done, and that is how Ronald Reagan would 

have created a freer world. But Herbert Walker Bush created a 

world in which we have a monster state that threatens the peace 

and stability and represses over 11⁄2 billion of their own people. 

And we then embarked, under the leadership of Herbert Walker 

Bush and then, of course, every President since then, of a policy 

designed to increase the economic power of a country that was 

ruled by a totalitarian government. And as the witnesses have stated, it was done with the excuse that making them more prosperous 

would make them more democratic, make war less likely, et cetera. 

And I take it that both of the witnesses—and you may comment 

on it—now say that theory was totally false and basically is what 

has led us to the evil situation that we have today. Is that correct? 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I believe that. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I think so, but I think it is hard, too. I think 

Mr. Rohrabacher summed it up. I do think there are frustrations 

with that. I think it is hard to say what containment would have 

done, and not doing anything. But I do think, as a Nation, that we 

can’t decouple our economic interests from our human rights and 

our values. So, on that, I agree with you on that. 

17

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. And with this policy, we actually made 

ourselves vulnerable if we tried to enforce our own standards. 

Mr. WALZ. That is true. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It would then be very detrimental to our 

economy and our people in order just to maintain the standards 

that we supposedly believe in. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Rohrabacher, if I could just respond quickly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Go ahead. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, Herbert Walker Bush obviously was once 

our Ambassador to China and really thought that he knew the Chinese leadership or how they might respond. When he sent Brent 

Scowcroft there after Tiananmen Square, that was a major, major 

mistake, in my opinion. 

Bill Clinton properly said that he was coddling dictatorship. He 

made a famous speech along those lines. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I remember. 

Mr. SMITH. But then he, Bill Clinton, came into town. We had 

the votes in a bipartisan way to take MFN away unless there was 

significant improvement in human rights. You know, Nancy Pelosi 

on the Democrat side, I and many others on the Republican side, 

we had the votes, in my opinion. And the President did an Executive order that said, unless all of these criteria are met—and it was 

an excellent Executive order—MFN is a goner. We were conditioning our trade with human rights. 

In May 1994, on a Friday afternoon after just about everybody 

left this place, President Clinton ripped in half his Executive order 

and decoupled human rights from trade. That is when the Chinese 

Government took their measure of us and said, ‘‘They just care 

about profits.’’

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So instead of making them more democratic, 

our association and interaction economically with the Chinese have 

actually made us less democratic. What you just described, waiting 

until everybody is out of town in order to make a fundamental 

change, is not consistent with what a free society does. 

Let me note that on most of the petitions and most of the letters 

and most of the demands and the bills that you are talking about, 

I think you will find my name right underneath yours. And I always, always, always respected your leadership on this. 

One last note. It has been stated quite often, when you talk to 

the people about the current situation in China, that they say, 

well, now there are Christians in China. There are more Christians 

in China than there are in the United States, but they are in their 

churches. 

And here is what we have to remember. There were other periods in China that the Chinese people are very familiar with, and 

that is that they are told, if their church registers, they don’t have 

anything to fear. Okay. But we know very well—and there are 

many churches that people have registered. 

But we know that, shortly after taking over China, the Communists had, Mao Zedong initiated what they call, ‘‘Let a hundred 

flowers bloom.’’ And what happened was—this was to open up. It 

was like the new—it happened under Lenin, too, if you remember, 

the new economic order. There always seems to be an opening in 

18

which then the totalitarians come in, and they know exactly who 

to go to. 

And so the people who are religious followers, as the Falun Gong 

now are fully aware, are targeted. And whether or not they are 

going to wait until after the flowers have bloomed or whether 

something else will cause the trigger to be pulled, they know they 

are in jeopardy. 

We still have a totalitarian government, as your testimony—as 

the chairman has stated. We have a totalitarian power in charge 

of a huge hunk of the planet. We have been subsidizing and increasing the power of that government. It is time that we stop 

doing that, find a policy that will create more freedom and less 

likely to have conflict, and a government that is more consistent 

with the type of things we believe in as our gifts given by God, 

rights of every person. 

And, with that said, thank you very much. 

Mr. SALMON. I would like to thank both the gentlemen for their 

testimonies today, but, moreover, I would really like to thank you 

for all the wonderful work that you have done with the Commission and just encourage you to continue doing all the great work 

that you are doing. Billions and billions of people are counting on 

a positive outcome and the light that we can shine on these issues, 

because wickedness hates the light. And so I hope we keep doing 

that. 

So thank you very, very much. 

And, without any objection, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(19)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

20

f


98312n.eps
21

f


98312m.eps
22

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE MATT SALMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC


98312b-1.eps
23


98312b-2.eps
24


98312b-3.eps
25

f


98312b-4.eps
26


98312c-1.eps
27

Æ


98312c-2.eps