[House Hearing, 112 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011 ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2121 __________ NOVEMBER 2, 2011 __________ Serial No. 112-65 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the JudiciaryAvailable via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 71-055 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania [Vacant] TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DENNIS ROSS, Florida SANDY ADAMS, Florida BEN QUAYLE, Arizona MARK AMODEI, Nevada Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel ------ Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas MAXINE WATERS, California TREY GOWDY, South Carolina PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico DENNIS ROSS, Florida George Fishman, Chief Counsel David Shahoulian, Minority Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- NOVEMBER 2, 2011 Page THE BILL H.R. 2121, the ``China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011''......... 2 OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 1 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement............................. 5 The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 5 WITNESSES The Honorable Christopher Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey Oral Testimony................................................. 7 Prepared Statement............................................. 123 Chai Ling, Founder, All Girls Allowed Oral Testimony................................................. 126 Prepared Statement............................................. 129 Ruth Ellen Wasem, Ph.D., Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC Oral Testimony................................................. 199 Prepared Statement............................................. 202 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Material submitted by the Honorable Christopher Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey........ 8 CHINA DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ACT OF 2011 ---------- WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Gowdy, and Lofgren. Staff Present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian White, Clerk; and (Minority) Hunter Hammill, USCIS Detailee. Mr. Gallegly. I call the Subcommittee to order. The relationship between the United States and China has been characterized by Vice President Biden as the most important in the world. In many respects, that is true. However, it seems to me that the relationship between the U.S. and China can be characterized as increasingly complex and, at times, even conflicted since the establishment of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Initially, the relationship between the United States and China was hostile. In fact, our two countries faced off in Korea from 1950 to 1954. Throughout much of the cold war, our relationship with China was tense. Slowly, our relationship has improved since then, especially in terms of our economic ties. Although our relationship has improved, important differences remain. Currently and in the foreseeable future, China will represent a key focus of U.S. foreign and international economic policy. Some say that economic development in China will inevitably lead to democracy. However, the reality is that while economic growth in China continues, the United States justifiably remains critical of the slow pace of democratic reforms in China. As a result, it has been U.S. policy, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, to encourage political change and human rights improvements in China. Those in the Chinese government who commit or sanction abuses should be forewarned that their actions will not be tolerated by the United States. H.R. 2121, introduced by my colleague, or our colleague, Chris Smith, does just that. It informs human rights abusers in China that the United States does not stand by as atrocities are committed. It lets them know they are not welcome in the United States. Hence, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. [The bill, H.R. 2121, follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. And, with that, I would yield to the gentlelady from California, the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me begin by welcoming the bill's author, Congressman Chris Smith, to our Committee. It is a pleasure to have you here, along with your co-witnesses. The bill that you have introduced raises important questions about U.S.-China relations. And while the bill falls within our Subcommittee's jurisdiction because it authorizes denial of visas to certain Chinese nationals, its main focus falls in the foreign affairs realm and the Chinese government's dismal human rights record. Mr. Smith and I have worked together on human rights issues in the past, particularly as they relate to the treatment of trafficking victims and refugees. And I share Mr. Smith's grave concerns about China's human rights record, and I understand his reasons for introducing the bill. China's human rights record reads like a laundry list of abuse: the country's infamous one-child policy, which includes forced abortions and sterilizations; the oppression of Tibetans; the treatment of ethnic minorities like Uyghurs and Mongolians; the crackdowns on democracy and labor rights activists; and the persecution of certain religious groups, including Protestants, Catholics, and the Falun Gong. Our witness, Ms. Chai Ling, saw these abuses firsthand in Tiananmen Square and has since become an outspoken advocate against the one-child policy. The bill highlights one tool at the government's disposal for holding human rights abusers accountable: denial of visas under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I understand the State Department believes it already has this authority under current law. They also seem to have foreign policy concerns with this bill. I suspect their concerns about this bill center on the need to balance the various foreign policy goals our country has with China. The U.S. has significant ties with China, particularly economically, and a strong diplomatic relationship is necessary. But I agree that we also cannot ignore China's human rights record. I look forward to learning today why the additional authority provided in the bill is needed and how it can address the serious ongoing human rights crisis in China while balancing the government's foreign policy goals. And, again, I want to thank Mr. Smith for his work on this important issue and thank him and our other witnesses for appearing today. And I look forward to hearing the testimony. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentlelady. And, with that, I will yield to the other Mr. Smith, the Chairman of our full Committee, the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Smith of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China remain common and widespread. As the Chinese government continues to suppress dissenting opinions and maintains political control over the legal system, the will of the people and individual rights are consistently undermined. The end result is arbitrary and abusive treatment of the Chinese people. The bill we will discuss today, which was introduced by our colleague Chris Smith from New Jersey, assists in combating human rights abuses in China. While I support the bill, some of language might be clarified so the sanction on senior leaders in the Chinese government is tied directly to the human rights abuses defined in the bill. Human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, torture, and severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association, are rampant in China. And violations specific to women and abuses related to the national Family-Planning Policy are also rampant. As to the Family-Planning Policy, the Chinese government requires couples to practice family planning. The cornerstone of this policy is the offensive one child per couple policy. To enforce this law, local authorities use the carrot of subsidized medical care, education, and housing. But they also employ a harsh stick--punishments including fines, confiscation of property, salary cuts, and even dismissal from work. Some of the most disturbing methods used to enforce the family-planning laws have included the forced use of contraceptives and forced abortions for pregnant women who already have one child. The one-child policy, with the traditional preference for male children, has led to practices such as female infanticide--the practice of killing female babies--concealing female births, and abandoning female infants. The one-child policy has also contributed to the practice of prenatal sex identification, resulting in the abortion of female fetuses. Although the government has outlawed the use of ultrasound machines for this purpose, the practice continues. By denying visas to certain Chinese nationals in the government who promote human rights abuses, we might as well assist Chinese patriots who work to end the lack of accountability for government officials who are part of the Chinese Communist Party. This legislation will send a message that abuses by these officials that go unchecked within China will not be ignored by the international community. Now, once again, I want to thank our colleague from New Jersey for sponsoring this legislation. I look forward to a good hearing today and then to giving this bill its process. And I will have some questions for the gentleman from New Jersey in just a minute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We have three very distinguished witnesses today. Each of the witnesses' written statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less so that we can get on with the questioning, recognizing that your entire statement will be made a part of the record of the hearing. And we have provided lights there to kind of help you along those lines. Our first witness today is our colleague and friend, Congressman Chris Smith, who represents New Jersey's Fourth District and is currently serving his 16th term in the House of Representatives. He is a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Chairman of its Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee. In addition, he serves on the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. He is the author of America's three landmark anti-human-trafficking laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Congressman Smith received his bachelor's degree from Trenton State College, now The College of New Jersey. Our second witness is Ms. Chai Ling. Ms. Chai was a key student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square movement in China. She is now president and chief operating officer of Jenzabar, Inc., and founder of All Girls Allowed, whose mission focuses on revealing the injustice of China's one-child policy. Prior to Jenzabar, Chai Ling worked as a consultant at Bain & Company, a leading global business and strategy consulting firm. She holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, an MLA in public affairs at Princeton University, and a B.A. From Beijing University. Our third witness today is Dr. Ruth Wasem. She is a specialist in immigration policy with the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. In that capacity, she has written reports for Congress that provide research and policy analysis on a range of immigration subjects. Since 2000, she has led the team of CRS policy analysts, attorneys, and information researchers who work in immigration, and she has previously testified before this Subcommittee in June of 2007. Dr. Wasem completed her doctorate and M.A. From the University of Michigan. She received a B.A. From Muskegon College. Welcome. We will start with our colleague, Mr. Smith. Welcome, Chris. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate deeply your calling this hearing. Ranking Member Lofgren, my good friend and colleague Chairman Smith, and all the Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. Mr. Chairman, in 2000, I wrote a law known as the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. That bill, H.R. 3427, was signed into law in its entirety by reference--Division B of Public Law 106-113. [The information referred to follows:]
__________ Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Section 801 of Title VIII of that act 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. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, both under Presidents Bush and Obama, no one has been rendered inadmissible, owing to a glaring lack of implementation. The China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011 doesn't seek to replace and, with one line of change in the bill text, would substantially strengthen U.S. law in this regard and get this issue once again front and center. The bill seeks to deny entry to the U.S. senior government leadership, their immediate family members--and that is new; that wasn't in the act that I did in 2000--and anyone else who has committed human rights abuses in the PRC or anyone who has derived significant financial benefit from those policies-- that, too, is new; we didn't put that in the 2000 act-- including participation in China's cruel, coercive birth limitation policy, also known as the one-child-per-couple policy, which relies on forced abortion and involuntary sterilization to achieve its goals; the violent repression or persecution of Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongolians or other ethnic minorities; trafficking of North Korean refugees or their forcible return to North Korea. I have held several hearings on that egregious practice by the Chinese government to not only turn women and men, but mostly women, who make their way across the border into sexual slaves who are bought and sold like commodities, but they also, when they are done with them, send them back to North Korea, where they are immediately incarcerated in gross violation of the Refugee Act, to which China is a signatory. It also would include violent repression, imprisonment, torture, or any other form of persecution of religious believers, democracy adherents, workers' rights advocates--we all know there are no trade unions like those championed by Lech Walesa in China. There is one trade union, run by the government. Anyone outside of its purview, outside of the parameters very carefully set by the government, goes to prison. And I, too, have held hearings on that, as you know, Mr. Chairman, where we have heard from these activists who bravely stand up to the government while there are government officials who are implementing that repression on these people who simply want collective bargaining and a decent wage for their work. Independent media, journalists, and Internet users. I have held three hearings, Mr. Chairman, on the gross abuse of the Internet, including the infamous one, or infamous in terms of their testimony, when we heard from some of the big giants, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco, who, under oath, said, we can't tell what you we are censoring, and we can't tell you this or that. But, meanwhile, 35,000 to 40,000--nobody knows the exact number--of cyber police comb the Internet looking to find users who say prohibited things like the ``Dalai Lama'' or ``freedom of religion'' or anything else or even something favorable about the United States. As the recently released annual human rights report for 2011 by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China notes-- and I do chair that commission--quote, ``China's leaders have grown more assertive in their violation of rights, disregarding the very laws and international standards that they claim to uphold and tightening their grip on Chinese society.'' They have done a head-fake. They are now citing human rights laws, signing on to U.N. documents, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and then they use the language of rights and they totally co-opt it while they repress their own society. Liu Xiaobo, who was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China, continues to remain incarcerated, having served 11 years in prison, for simply signing a document calling for democracy in China. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I chaired a hearing on the plight of Chinese activist lawyer Chen Guancheng and his wife Yuan Weijing, who since 2005 have been subjected to beatings. Their 6-year-old daughter is in their house under house arrest. And they pummel this man and his wife. We don't even know if he is dead or alive. And this man stood up for the women in Linyi city through a class action lawsuit--unbelievable bravery--who had been forced into abortion. I finally say, because I know my time is running out, that in 2004 and again in 2006, Mr. Chairman, I authored the Belarus Democracy Act, which this language very closely parallels. And while it didn't say absolutely, ``Create a list, Mr. President,'' President Bush did faithfully, as a result of the language in the bill which calls for denial of entry in the U.S. of senior leadership of the Government of Belarus, a list of about 200 people, egregious violators of human rights. And it has been paralleled by our friends in the European Union, who now have a list just like ours, almost identical names. And that has very much targeted and, in a calibrated way, said, let's target the abusers. And we won't allow them to come to the United States, and we will hold them to account in any way we can. This is but one more tool in that effort. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full statement be made a part of the record. [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. The time of the gentleman has expired. And, yes, as I said earlier, your entire statement will be made a part of the record of the hearing. Ms. Chai? TESTIMONY OF CHAI LING, FOUNDER, ALL GIRLS ALLOWED Ms. Chai. Well, thank you, Chairman and Chairman Lamar Smith and Congresswoman Lofgren. And I thank you for all the other Members of the Committee and for giving us this great opportunity to testify in front of you to really push forward H.R. 2121, the ``China Democracy Promotion Act.'' I believe the reason why I am standing here supporting this bill is, first of all, this is a historical step to reverse the previous 22-year-long U.S.-China relationship that had led China's human rights conditions to continue deteriorating and to massive crimes, which I will explain later. And the second reason why I am supporting this bill is because it can work. The third thing I believe is because this is the right thing to do to both help China and also defend the value and liberty of the United States. I am especially honored to be testifying alongside with Chairman Smith, for he is our hero and the true force of America. And he has been fighting against China's cruel and inhumane one-child policy since it was first put into action in 1980--before many of us, the native Chinese, have ever realized how gruesome and brutal this policy has been for women and mothers. I look forward for the day, Chairman Smith, Chris Smith and Lamar Smith, and Chairman--I hope I can pronounce your name-- Gallegly and Congresswoman Lofgren, that we can all, together, put this really dark and bloody period of China's history into the history book so it may never happen again. Twenty-two years ago, I was at Tiananmen Square on June 4th morning when the tanks and troops moved in. I remember at that time we stayed until 6 a.m., because rumor was telling us if we stayed there until the last hour--that is, 6 a.m.--somehow the United States leadership would come intervene to stop China's leadership's brutality. But it did not happen. I came to America. Finally, I met with Ambassador Lilly, who passed away I think last year. And I asked him why; was that rumor true? And he said, no, it was not true at all. I said, why don't they do something? He said, because they don't care. And I was very disappointed. Later on, I read his memoir, a really moving memoir, ``China Hand.'' I realized in 1988 when South Korea was facing the same kind of confrontation between the dictatorship versus, you know, dissidents, President Reagan sent a very stern letter to warn the leaders and dictators of South Korean leaders, and Ambassador Lilly was able to hand-deliver that letter. That action changed the history of South Korea, and it led to the dictator to give amnesty to all the dissidents and eventually led to South Koreas' freedom and democracy. I believe had the United States leadership acted that day, on the night of June 4th, and we would have a different China, different U.S. relationship today. But it is not too late to act, 22 years later. However, after 22 years, now we are looking back, the massive crime that has been committed under the current U.S.- China, you know, ``tolerate policy'' of putting profit, business security above the basic human rights. And it allows China's government to repeat the Tiananmen massacre every hour. Under the one-child policy, every day there are 35,000 forced and coerced abortions taking place. Every day there are 500 women committing suicide. For every sixth girl that is scheduled to be born, the number-six girl will be killed, the number-six boy will never find a wife. So, all together, in the past 30 years, more than 400 million lives have been taken. Later, I would like to show the real examples of all the faces and the cries of these victims in PowerPoint. And I believe why this bill can work is because it worked before. In the past, in Burma, when in 2008 Congress passed the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts) to close a loophole in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. Together, that act calls for accountability for those who are responsible for human rights violations and it enforces visa bans for certain junta leaders. This extends to the immediate family members, as well. According to reliable resources, when entering negotiations, a visa ban may become a powerful bargaining chip. The first thing the leaders requested when asked to release the Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, for the visa ban to be lifted. That is what they really care about. So does the same thing, and the Chinese leader will care. Today, in 2010, there are over 128,000 Chinese students studying in America. Every single Chinese leader and bureaucrat wants their children to be in America, and they want their assets to be stored and preserved and invested in America. And they cannot enjoy this privilege if they continue to brutalize their very own people. And I believe this is the right thing to do for America because in many buildings they state, you know, ``In God We Trust.'' And I remember, I was so struck when I first came to America in 1990 to testify in Congress. And it took me many years in America to try to understand what they really mean, until I finally came to Jesus one day 2 years ago. And now I know what it means. So I want to quote a story from the Bible from the Old Testament. When Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, God said in Numbers, Chapter 12, ``My servant Moses, of all my houses, he is the one I trust. So why were you free to criticize my servant Moses?'' Then God punished Miriam and Aaron for their transgressions against God's chosen servant. What I meant to say in that story is if you truly trust God, if we truly trust his promise, the surprising answer, what is the cost of the consequence for the U.S. Stand up against the human rights abuses in China? The answer is, the cost of doing nothing, the cost of repeating what we have been doing in the past 28 years will be much higher than standing up to doing the right thing, the Godly thing, and the righteous thing. Mr. Gallegly. I am going to have to stop you there. Ms. Chai. Yes. I thank you for the time. Mr. Gallegly. The full statement will be a part of the record of the hearing, and I thank you for your testimony. Ms. Chai. I would also like to include--this is the 350 names, and addresses of the forced-abortion one-child policy policymakers and enforcers. We would like this to be the beginning of those---- Mr. Gallegly. Without objection---- Ms. Chai [continuing]. Names to be entered into the record---- Mr. Gallegly [continuing]. That will be added to the record of the hearing. Ms. Chai [continuing]. And also the pictures of the stories of all these, you know, one-child policy victims entered into the record, too. Mr. Gallegly. That document will be added to the record, without objection. Ms. Chai. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Chai follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. Dr. Wasem? TESTIMONY OF RUTH ELLEN WASEM, Ph.D., CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC Ms. Wasem. Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to be testifying before you this afternoon on behalf of the Congressional Research Service. As a backdrop to this afternoon's discussion of China Democracy Promotion Act, my testimony provides summaries of two subsections of the Immigration and Nationality Act: section 212(a) on the grounds of inadmissibility; and section 212(f), which authorizes the President to bar the entry of foreign nationals he deems detrimental to the United States. These subsections of current law may be considered comparable to provisions in H.R. 2121. This legislation states, as we have already heard, that the President may exercise the authority under 212(f) to deny the entry into the United States of foreign nationals from the People's Republic of China who engage in human rights violations and other specific acts. To gain admission to the United States, foreign nationals must first meet a set of criteria specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act that determine whether they are eligible. Conversely, foreign nationals also must not be deemed inadmissible according to other specified grounds in the Immigration Act. The Bureau of Consular Affairs in the Department of State is the agency responsible for issuing visas. All foreign nationals seeking visas must undergo inadmissibility reviews performed by the Department of State consular offices. Section 212(a), now, that is where the grounds of inadmissibility are spelled out in the Immigration Act. These criteria include health-related grounds, criminal history, national security violations. The provisions that discuss the criminal and national security grounds are particularly germane to today's hearing. Among those foreign nationals who are deemed inadmissible under current law are: foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom; foreign nationals who have committed, conspired to commit, or aided in human trafficking; foreign nationals who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide; and foreign nationals who have committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing. Furthermore, the 2002 Consolidated Appropriations Act included a provision that deems inadmissible any foreign national that has been directly involved in the enforcement of population-control policies, forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice, or forcing a man to undergo sterilization against his--or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her freewill. The law does provide exceptions for foreign nationals who are heads of state or cabinet-level ministers and is subject to a waiver if the Secretary of State determines that it is important to national interest. The Secretary of State would provide a written notification to the appropriate congressional Committees. Secondly, I am going to talk about 212(f), and that is the suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions. In addition to 212(a), which we just discussed, the Immigration Act gives the President authority to bar the entry of foreign nationals he deems detrimental to the United States. This broad authority states, ``Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the United States, he may, by proclamation and for such period as shall be deemed necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens of any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose upon the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.'' In August of this year, the President issued Proclamation 8697, which bars the admission of any foreign national who planned, order, assisted, committed, or otherwise participated in widespread or systematic violence, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other serious violations of human rights against a civilian population. Of the 212(f) proclamations currently in effect, most are directed at foreign nationals from specific countries or regions. These countries currently in effect include Belarus, Bosnia, Burma, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, the Western Balkans, and Zimbabwe. This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Wasem follows:]
__________ Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Dr. Wasem. Chris, how successful is the visa restrictions with regard to Burma? Mr. Smith of New Jersey. It has been successful, although Burma is very, very heavily isolated by the junta itself. But it has been part of a multifaceted set of sanctions imposed upon it by succeeding Administrations, Republican and Democrat. So there aren't many Burmese officials from Rangoon or anywhere else in Burma seeking to come here. That is precisely the opposite situation with regards to China and, as was proven, with Belarus. I met with Alexander Lukashenko 2 years ago with 10 other Members of Congress and 1 Senator. Lukashenko looked at me and said--he is the dictator in Belarus, of course--and said, ``You are public enemy number one,'' because of the Belarus Democracy Act and because he and his senior leadership are precluded visas to come here. And it has had an impact. And the fact that our European partners joined in and, likewise, promulgated a list to prevent, you know, the issuance of a visa has further isolated that last dictatorship in Europe. If you look at the language of the Belarus Democracy Act, it mirrors what we put into this bill. This bill is a blueprint. I even cite in the Belarus Democracy Act section 212(f), as my good friend Dr. Wasem pointed out. I mean, these authorities exist, but they are dormant, they are on a shelf. And what we found with the Belarus Democracy Act, President Bush took that, and it animated what our policy became--some of it mandatory, some of it not. And this is a blueprint for action; that is what we have before the Committee. Mr. Gallegly. I have a very limited amount of time, so if everybody could make an effort to give me succinct answers, I would appreciate it. In relating to H.R. 2121, the current law, of course, already provides the authority to deny visas on human rights abusers and specifically with the issue of forced abortions. Can you explain why there is a need for 2121 if, in fact, what I have said is correct? Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Excellent question, Mr. Chairman. We add additional provisions that, again, we derived from the Belarus Democracy Act: immediate family members; we added a new ``derived significant financial benefits from'' human rights abuse. I held a series of hearings, 31 to date, on human rights in China as Chairman of the Human Rights Committee for Foreign Affairs over the course of many years. At one of those hearings, we had members, Harry Wu and many others, who had been tortured in the Laogai; Palden Gyatso, a Buddhist monk; a woman, Catherine Ho, very courageous woman. And they brought in the implements used to torture. Well, this law would say and underscore that, at a minimum, people who manufacture those kinds of implements, made indigenously in China, should not be given visas. So it will require, or, at least, we hope it will inspire--better word--a list. Right now, 10 years later--and, again, Mr. Chairman, as I said in my testimony, I wrote section 801, denial of entry. And, unfortunately, under President Bush and under Obama, nothing, nada, not a single person that I know of. And part of the reason might be we said ``directly involved.'' The Chinese government goes into overdrive to deny, as does the U.N. Population Fund and all the cheerleaders for that horrific program, to say there is no coercion. And then our government says, ``Well, we asked, and they said they weren't involved.'' We need to be much more focused on a human rights policy that says, we are going to look at the facts on the ground. If you are involved with this, if you are censoring the Internet, if you are doing this or that, you can't get a visa to come to the United States. So this is a blueprint for action. Mr. Gallegly. Thanks. My time is getting short, so I would just like to ask Ms. Chai, what is your assessment of how the Chinese government would respond to us enacting H.R. 2121? How would you define and what would you expect for us to be prepared to deal with from the Chinese government? Ms. Chai. The Chinese government, to me, would be very upset. This is something that goes into their heart because every one of them want their children and their grandchildren and their relatives to be here. And the senior leaders might be already taken care of; they may already become U.S. citizens. It is the middle level. And, for example, there might be between 350,000 to 850,000, one-child policy family-planning committee people. Those people will continue to attempt to send their children to America, their wives to America. They will not like it. This mess would get into their attention, will give them pause of what are they doing, and realize we are watching, and they must stop what they are doing. I think this message if it gets into China would inspire many people to come over, volunteer to help. When the criminals list is put forth on the Internet in a central place, I think it will be very effective. And I think the United States should stand firm. When you do act righteous and act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with the Lord our God, that God will be our protector and our shield. And just stand firm. We will be okay. Mr. Gallegly. Ms. Lofgren? Ms. Lofgren. Dr. Wasem, if I am hearing you correctly, the only substantive change this would make to existing law would be to include senior government officials and their families whether or not you could prove up that they actively did the human rights abuse themselves. Ms. Wasem. I wouldn't necessarily say the ``only,'' but that is the major---- Ms. Lofgren. The major issue. Ms. Wasem [continuing]. Broadening of it, yes. Ms. Lofgren. Right. Now, have we included the families of individuals in the past when we have utilized barring, you know, visas as a diplomatic tool? Ms. Wasem. I know, in current law, some of the bars, if you have already--if you have gained financially from the activities, particularly if you look at the human trafficking and some of the drug---- Ms. Lofgren. Right. Ms. Wasem [continuing]. Provisions, that if you are an adult child or a spouse, you are included if it appears that you have gained. That is the main thing I am aware of. But in the broader sense---- Ms. Lofgren. What if you were a minor child? What if you are, you know, the 14-year-old of a---- Ms. Wasem. That I am not aware. But I could get back to you on it if you want me to---- Ms. Lofgren. I would just be interested. And, Chris, listening to you--I am sorry, Congressman Smith--it seems that, if I am hearing you correctly, one of the major benefits of this legislation would be to really incent the Administration to create a list. Because they have a lot of this authority already in existing law, but it hasn't been used by two Administrations of different parties. Is that about right? Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Part of it is out of frustration, Zoe--Ms. Lofgren--to the fact that, you know, we have had this for 10 years, we have had other existing authorities---- Ms. Lofgren. Right. Mr. Smith of New Jersey [continuing]. And there has been-- -- Ms. Lofgren. And they are never used. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. They haven't done a thing. Ms. Lofgren. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. And I raise issues of this kind. Ms. Lofgren. Right. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. There are other issues, like the memorandum of understanding on Gulag labor. It is Swiss cheese; it is not implemented. Ms. Lofgren. Right. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. This is one area where we could make a huge difference. Ms. Lofgren. Yeah, because it will force them to make the list. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. The Belarus Democracy Act specifically had the family members included, as well. Ms. Lofgren. I have another question, which--you referenced the Burma situation and the fact that we had gotten collaboration from our European allies. I don't think we are going to get that kind of collaboration with China because-- well, maybe I would be wrong, but my guess is not. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. You know, I actually was one of the few who voted for sanctions against South Africa in the early 1980's. And part of the argument there was, the Europeans are doing it, why aren't we doing it? And, of course, I think it was the right policy. But just because some other nation refuses to go along, I mean---- Ms. Lofgren. No, no, I am not suggesting that it should keep us from doing what we think is right. I am just asking about how effective it will be. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. I think that it would be very effective because we are a prime destination for high officials in the Chinese government. And there are many middle officials, there are many people in the security apparatus, which we referenced, who are torturers. Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special rapporteur for torture, did a scathing report on torture in the PRC, which is now blocked, by the way, on their Internet. You can get all of the alleged abuses in Guantanamo but nothing about what is going--he wrote one about there, too, and he wrote one about the People's Republic of China. I read his report. Very, very good U.N. diplomat. People do those tortures, and they hop on a plane, they come to New York, they come to Washington. This would hopefully incentivize the Administration to begin chronicling, putting together a list, who are the abusers. And, as Chai Ling said, she already has a number of abusers that would be a good starting point for the Administration. Right now, there is nothing of this kind, to the best of my knowledge, going on. If anything, we are enabling those people, ``Come on over.'' Well, you know, any modest sanction we can impose on a gross abuser of human rights, we ought do it. Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for answering my questions. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Gowdy? Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Chai, I want to use my time to give you the opportunity to give voice to the women and girls of China whose voices we haven't heard, or if we have heard--we have sent messages from this government--and I will allow that sometimes people commit verbal non sequiturs or verbal gaffes, but to say that we are not going to second-judge China's one-child policy or to say that we fully understand it, I don't understand it at all. So I want you to give voice to the women and girls of China who have suffered under this policy. Ms. Chai. Thank you, Congressman Gowdy. Your voice and your support almost brought me to tears. So I would love to take the opportunity you give to me and the honor you give to me to speak of those women and the mothers and fathers who cannot be here. With your permission, I would like to be able to show the PowerPoint--you showed it earlier? Okay, they are going to drive it, control it. I just want to answer, Congresswoman Lofgren, your message earlier. Just imagine, the incoming Chinese President in 2012-- his daughter is studying at Harvard. And imagine the impact if the next Chinese President will continue to tolerate this one- child policy. What might be the impact if this bill, H.R. 2121, is able to pass before that time? What might be the implication? This would definitely be the most defining moment in the U.S.-China relationship, with this bill. Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman would yield for a follow-up on that point since it was directed to me? Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lofgren. Here is the question, and it is really not the intention, but, as you are saying that, I am thinking, ``Well, then, does she go to Oxford instead?'' You know, which goes to my question to Chris on how do we get kind of a worldwide collaboration on putting the pressure up. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Even the worst abusers of human rights in Africa, China, North Korea--maybe not so much in North Korea--even people like Joseph Kony and Bashir in Sudan don't want to be on a list, don't want to be indicted. They seem impervious to any kind of criticism. And it seems to me that this is a modest step to say that if you abuse people, we are going to be promulgating lists, we are going to be following who you are, and you are not welcomed here. You know, Chai Ling, hero of the Tiananmen Square student movement, suffered immensely, thankfully got out. She has led an effort to say, what about the gendercide? Ten years ago, the U.S. Department of State had a report in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices that said as many as 100 million girls are missing in China. I just had a hearing on the one-child-per-couple policy, and Chai Ling and several other very distinguished witnesses presented. And the point was made that between 40 million and 50 million, now, men won't find wives by 2020 because they have been systematically exterminated through sex-selection abortion. This is the worst crime of gender ever, and it is being done by people. Well, let's focus on who those people are, create lists of who is doing not just forced abortion and forced sterilization, forced IUD insertion and all the other terrible abuses, but let's also look at the other human rights abuses, which we do here, and let's finally do something. Ten years since I got that law passed, not a thing. And Chai Ling has been so brave for all these years, raising these issues. And it is about time we had--oh, like she has, 300 people who are intimately involved with this--you know, at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced abortion was construed to be a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime against humanity. The Nazis did it, you know, a smaller number, and now we have a situation here. Ms. Lofgren. I don't disagree with that. It is a question of efficacy. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. So let's cease political cover---- Ms. Chai. Right. Exactly. Mr. Gowdy. I think we only have about a minute, and I---- Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given an additional minute since he was---- Mr. Gallegly. Without objection. There is a conference that was just called, so. Ms. Chai. Okay. Thank you very much. If could you roll the PowerPoint, I would really appreciate it. And so we prepared pictures that could basically share the cases of these people. This is Chen Guancheng, the blind attorney. Chairman Smith had held a press conference yesterday. He was exposing 130,000 cases in 2005 of forced abortion and forced sterilizations in Linyi, he was imprisoned for 4 years and 3 months. He has been beaten consistently ever since he was released to house arrest in September. We listened in detail about how he was beaten for 4 hours nonstop in front of his child. If you can go to the next page, this is a woman, Wan Li Ping, and she was 23. She was not married and got pregnant. They found her, dragged her into forced-abortion clinic and injected poison into the baby. The baby was killed, and they dumped this baby in a plastic bag in front of her bed and asked her to pay the money for the operation. She didn't have the money, and therefore the baby was dumped in front of her. They killed both her baby and her hope, and they want her to pay for the procedure. The next page is--and every day the 70 percent of the women who are going through forced and coerced abortions are single women because they are not allowed to have children, they don't have marriage certificates, therefore they don't have a birth permit. This woman, Ms. Chen, she is still in fear. She lives in New York now. She had two daughters, and the family-planning committee went to her home, saying, ``You are over quota. You have two options: be forcibly sterilized or give up one of your babies.'' And because of gendercide, her family, her in-laws still want her to try to give birth to a baby boy. She hesitated, and the baby girl was kidnapped. We don't know where that is. And her husband had a mental breakdown after that incident. Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Chai, the Chairman has been very, very gracious to me, and I don't want to take advantage of his generosity. But it is unimpeachable that the suicide rate among women in China is higher, that the ratio of females to males is completely out of balance, that the orphanages are full of girls--not boys, but girls. Ms. Chai. Yes. Mr. Gowdy. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren, for giving me extra time. And I thank you for being here as the face of those who don't have a voice in China, because it is a travesty and it is immoral. Ms. Chai. Thank you very much. Mr. Gallegly. I would just like to say to Ms. Chai that the fact that we don't have a large group of folks here today is not an indication of their lack of sensitivity or a lack of concern for this travesty that most of us are aware of, certainly not to the degree that you are or Chris is, but you can be assured that your testimony today is not taken lightly as a result of the fact of lack of participation. But there are so many things going on here. I want to make sure that you are aware that, again, all the testimony that you have, whether you have formally presented it or you have it there in writing, will be made a part of record of the hearing so that we will all have an ability to look at that and also the pictures that you have brought along. For those that are not here, they will be available to them as well as us. Ms. Chai. Thank you very much. I am grateful. Mr. Gallegly. But because of time constraints that we have, I am going to have to call the time on the hearing. And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, which we will forward to you for your response, and hope that we will have a timely response to the questions that will be made a part of the record of the hearing. And, without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. And, with that, I thank you for being here today. And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]