SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
26–075PDF
2006
THE INTERNET IN CHINA: A TOOL FOR FREEDOM OR SUPPRESSION?
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serial No. 109–157
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
VACANT
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,
Vice Chairman
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director
GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Vice Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
RON PAUL, Texas
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ADAM SMITH, Washington
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
BRAD SHERMAN, California
JAMES W. MCCORMICK, Subcommittee Staff Director
LISA M. WILLIAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member
DOUGLAS ANDERSON, Professional Staff Member & Counsel
TIERNEN M. DONALD, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable David A. Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Mr. James R. Keith, Senior Advisor for China and Mongolia, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Mr. Michael Callahan, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Yahoo! Inc.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Jack Krumholtz, Managing Director of Federal Government Affairs and Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation
Mr. Elliot Schrage, Vice President for Corporate Communications and Public Affairs, Google, Inc.
Mr. Mark Chandler, Vice President and General Counsel, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Mr. Harry Wu, Publisher, China Information Center
Ms. Libby Liu, President, Radio Free Asia
Mr. Xiao Qiang, Director, China Internet Project, University of California-Berkeley
Ms. Lucie Morillon, Washington Representative, Reporters Without Borders
Ms. Sharon Hom, Executive Director, Human Rights in China
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana: Prepared statement
The Honorable David A. Gross: Prepared statement
Mr. James R. Keith: Prepared statement
Mr. Michael Callahan: Prepared statement
Mr. Jack Krumholtz: Prepared statement
Mr. Elliot Schrage: Prepared statement
Mr. Mark Chandler: Prepared statement
Mr. Harry Wu: Prepared statement
Ms. Libby Liu: Prepared statement
Mr. Xiao Qiang: Prepared statement
Ms. Lucie Morillon: Prepared statement
Ms. Sharon Hom: Prepared statement
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APPENDIX
Information on United States IT Companies involvement in PRC
Mr. David Jackson, Director, Voice of America: Statement submitted for the record
Uyghur Press Release
Mr. Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch: Statement submitted for the record
Mr. John G. Palfrey, Jr., Clinical Professor of Law & Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School: Statement submitted for the record
Mr. T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia and the Pacific, Amnesty International USA: Statement submitted for the record
Ms. Ann Cooper, Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists: Statement submitted for the record
Mr. Lance M. Cottrell, Global Privacy Advocate, Founder and Chief Scientist, Anonymizer, Inc.: Statement submitted for the record
Joint Investor Statement on Freedom of Expression and the Internet
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Boston Common Asset Management: Statement submitted for the record
Ms. Pam Dixon, Executive Director, World Privacy Forum
Peter Yuan Li, Ph.D: Statement submitted for the record
Ms. Charlotte Oldham-Moore, Director of Government Relations, International Campaign for Tibet: Statement submitted for the record
Responses from the Honorable David A. Gross to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith and the Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Responses from Mr. Elliot Schrage to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith and the Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo
Responses from Mr. Mark Chandler to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith and the Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo
Responses from Mr. Jack Krumholtz to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith and the Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo
THE INTERNET IN CHINA: A TOOL FOR FREEDOM OR SUPPRESSION?
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Operations,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations] presiding, and James A. Leach [Chairman of Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific] present.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Committee will come to order. Good morning and welcome to this hearing on the Internet in China. We are here to examine a problem that is deeply troubling to me and, I believe, to the American people, and that is that American technology and know-how is substantially enabling repressive regimes in China and elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse their own citizens.
Over the years, I have held and chaired 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China, and while China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called ''economic reform'' has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly. The Laogai system of forced labor camps is still full to capacity, with an estimated 6 million people; the Chinese Government which permits a horrifying trade in human organs continues unabated; the PRC's draconian, one-child-per-couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal and coerced abortion commonplace; and political and religious dissidents are systematically persecuted and tortured.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, while the Internet has opened up commercial opportunities and provided access to vast amounts of information for people the world over, the Internet has also become a malicious tool, a cyber-sledgehammer of repression of the Government of the People's Republic of China. As soon as the promise of the Internet began to be fulfilled, when brave Chinese began to e-mail each other around the world about human rights issues and corruption by government leaders, the party cracked down. To date, an estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and some 32 journalists have been imprisoned by the PRC for merely posting information on the Internet critical of the regime. And, frankly, that is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg.
Tragically, history shows us that American companies and their subsidiaries have provided the technology to crush human rights in the past. Edwin Black's book, IBM and the Holocaust, reveals the dark story of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. Thanks to IBM's enabling technologies, from programs for identification and cataloging to the use of IBM's punch card technology, Hitler and the Third Reich were able to automate the genocide of the Jews. And I would recommend to anyone who is interested to read this book. It is a very, very incisive commentary on how that collaboration worked.
U.S. technology companies today are engaged in a similar sickening collaboration, decapitating the voice of the dissidents. In 2005, Yahoo!'s cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment of cyber-dissident Shi Tao. And this was not the first time. According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo! also handed over data to Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi. Li Zhi was sentenced on December 10, 2003, to 8 years in prison for inciting subversion. His ''crime'' was criticizing in online discussion groups and articles the well-known corruption of local officials.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. When Yahoo! was asked to explain its actions, Yahoo! said that it must adhere to local laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is, if the secret police, a half century ago, asked where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws? Again, these are not victimless crimes that the Chinese secret police are committing, and I believe we must stand with the oppressed and not with the oppressors.
I was recently on a news show talking about Google and China. The question was asked, ''Should it be business's concern to promote democracy in foreign nations?'' While that would be great, that is not necessarily the right question. The more appropriate question today is, ''Should businesses enable the continuation of repressive dictatorships by partnering with a corrupt and cruel secret police and by cooperating with laws that violate basic human rights?''
I believe that two of the most essential pillars that prop up totalitarian regimes are the secret police and propaganda. Yet for the sake of market share and profits, leading U.S. companies, like Google, Yahoo!, Cisco, and Microsoft, have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens. They have, indeed, aided and abetted the Chinese regime to prop up both of these pillars, secret police and propaganda, propagating the message of the dictatorship unabated and supporting the secret police in a myriad of ways, including surveillance and invasion of privacy, in order to effectuate the massive crackdown on its citizens.
Through an approach that monitors, filters, and blocks content with the use of technology and human monitors, the Chinese people have little access to uncensored information about any political or human rights topic, unless, of course, Big Brother wants you to see it. Google.cn, China's search engine, is guaranteed to take you to the virtual land of deceit, disinformation, and the big lie. As such, the Chinese Government utilizes the technology of United States IT companies combined with human censors, led by an estimated force of 30,000 cyber police, to control information in China.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Web sites that provide the Chinese people with news about their country and the world, such as the BCC, much of CCN, as well as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, are routinely blocked in China. In addition, when a user enters a forbidden word, such as ''democracy'' or ''Chinese torture'' or ''Falun Gong,'' the search results are blocked, or you are redirected to a misleading site, and the user's computer can be frozen for unspecified periods of time.
Cisco has provided the Chinese Government with the technology necessary to filter Internet content through its creation of Police Net, one of the tools the regime uses to control the Internet. Cisco holds 60 percent of the Chinese market for routers, switches, and other sophisticated networking gear, and its estimated revenue from China, according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 million annually. Yet Cisco has also done little creative thinking to try to minimize the likelihood that its products will be used repressively, such as limiting eavesdropping abilities to specific computer addresses.
Similarly, Google censors what is euphemistically called ''politically sensitive'' terms like ''democracy,'' ''China human rights,'' and ''China torture'' on the new Chinese search site, Google.cn. Let us take a look at what that means in practice. A search for terms such as ''Tiananmen Square'' produces two very different results. The one from Google.cn shows a picture of a smiling company, but the results from Google.com show scores of photos depicting the mayhem and brutality of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Another example: Let us look at ''China and torture.'' Google has said that some information is better than nothing, but in this case, the limited information displayed amounts to disinformation. A half truth is not the truth; it is a lie, and a lie is worse than nothing. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Google has seriously compromised its ''Don't Be Evil'' policy. Indeed, it has become evil's accomplice, and hopefully that will change.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Not surprisingly, Americans, not just Chinese, are also victims of this censorship. On an informal request from the Chinese Government, Microsoft, on December 30, 2005, shut down the blog of Zhao Jing because the content of Zhao's blog on MSN Spaces was offensive to the PRC. This hearing, no doubt, is offensive to the PRC, and the Chinese people will never hear about this either.
Zhao had tried to organize a walk-off of journalists at the Beijing News after their editor was fired for reporting on clashes between Chinese citizens and police in southern China. However, Microsoft shut down the blog not only in China but everywhere. It not only censored Chinese access to information but American access to information, a step that it only recently pulled back from. Like Yahoo!, MSN defended its decision by asserting that MSN is committed to complying with ''local laws, norms, and industry practices in China.'' Regrettably, I have been unable to find an MSN statement on its commitment to global human rights laws, norms, and industry practices that do promote fundamental human rights.
I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, standing for human rights has never been easy. It is never without cost. It seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical standards, yet we have seen the success of such agreements as the Sullivan principles in South Africa and the MacBride principles in Northern Ireland.
I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would welcome leadership by the corporations to develop a code of conduct which would spell out how they could operate in China and other repressive countries like Vietnam while not harming citizens and respecting human rights. But I believe our Government also has a major role to play in this critical area and that a more comprehensive framework is needed to protect and promote human rights, and that is why I intend to introduce the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 within the next couple of days to promote freedom of expression on the Internet.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me also point out that there are some encouraging and innovative public and private efforts already underway in this area. Electronic Frontier Foundation, for example, allows Windows-based computers to become proxies for Internet users, circumventing local Internet restrictions. Through the efforts of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors fund of a mere $100,000, VOA and Radio Free Asia's Web sites are accessible to Chinese Internet users through proxy servers because of the technology of Dynaweb and UltraReach.
Earlier this month, the technology firm, Anonymizer, announced that it is developing a new, anticensorship technology that will enable Chinese citizens to safely access the entire Internet, filter free. The solution will be to provide a regularly changing URL so that users can likely access the uncensored Internet, although nothing is guaranteed. In addition, users' identities are apparently protected from online monitoring by the Chinese regime. Lance Cottrell of the company has said it ''is not willing to sit idly by while the freedom of the Internet is slowly crushed. We take pride in the fact,'' he went on to say, ''that our online privacy and security solutions provide access to global information for those under the thumb of repressive regimes.''
In conclusion, I hope this hearing might also be the beginning of a different sort of dialogue: A discussion on how high-tech firms can partner with the U.S. Government and human rights activists all over the globe to bring down the Great Firewall of China or firewalls anywhere else where there is a repressive country, and on how America's greatest software engineers can use their intelligence to create innovative, new products to protect dissidents rather than to provide the dragnet to capture, to incarcerate, and to torture these dissidents, and, of course, to promote human rights.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would now like to yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, a good friend and colleague from California who is also a leader in human rights and a leader on this issue, my friend, Tom Lantos, for any time he may desire.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith of New Jersey follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
Good morning and welcome to this hearing on the Internet in China. We are here to examine a problem that is deeply troubling to me, and I believe, to the American people: that American technology and know-how is substantially enabling repressive regimes in China and elsewhere in the world to cruelly exploit and abuse their own citizens.
Over the years, I have held 25 hearings on human rights abuses in China, and while China's economy has improved somewhat, the human rights situation remains abysmal. So-called economic reform has utterly failed to result in the protection of freedom of speech, expression, or assembly. The Laogai system of forced labor camps is still full with an estimated 6 million people; the Chinese government permits a horrifying trade in human organs; the PRC's draconian one-child per couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal and coerced abortion commonplace; and political and religious dissidents are systematically persecuted and tortured.
Similarly, while the internet has opened up commercial opportunities and provided access to vast amounts of information for people the world over, the internet has also become a malicious tool: a cyber sledgehammer of repression of the government of China. As soon as the promise of the Internet began to be fulfilled—when brave Chinese began to email each other and others about human rights issues and corruption by government leaders—the Party cracked down. To date, an estimated 49 cyber-dissidents and 32 journalists have been imprisoned by the PRC for merely posting information on the Internet critical of the regime. And that's likely to be only the tip of the iceberg.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tragically, history shows us that American companies and their subsidiaries have provided the technology to crush human rights in the past. Edwin Black's book IBM and the Holocaust reveals the dark story of IBM's strategic alliance with Nazi Germany. Thanks to IBM's enabling technologies, from programs for identification and cataloging to the use of IBM's punch card technology, Hitler and the Third Reich were able to automate the genocide of the Jews.
U.S. technology companies today are engaged in a similar sickening collaboration, decapitating the voice of the dissidents. In 2005, Yahoo's cooperation with Chinese secret police led to the imprisonment of the cyber-dissident Shi Tao. And this was not the first time. According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo also handed over data to Chinese authorities on another of its users, Li Zhi . Li Zhi was sentenced on December 10, 2003 to eight years in prison for ''inciting subversion.'' His ''crime'' was to criticize in online discussion groups and articles the well-known corruption of local officials.
Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. When Yahoo was asked to explain its actions, Yahoo said that it must adhere to local laws in all countries where it operates. But my response to that is: if the secret police a half century ago asked where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws? These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
I was recently on a news show talking about Google and China. The question was asked, ''Should it be business' concern to promote democracy in foreign nations?'' That's not necessarily the right question. The more appropriate question today is, ''Should business enable the continuation of repressive dictatorships by partnering with a corrupt and cruel secret police and by cooperating with laws that violate basic human rights?''
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that two of the most essential pillars that prop up totalitarian regimes are the secret police and propaganda. Yet for the sake of market share and profits, leading U.S. companies like Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens. They have aided and abetted the Chinese regime to prop up both of these pillars, propagating the message of the dictatorship unabated and supporting the secret police in a myriad of ways, including surveillance and invasion of privacy, in order to effectuate the massive crackdown on its citizens.
Through an approach that monitors, filters, and blocks content with the use of technology and human monitors, the Chinese people have little access to uncensored information about any political or human rights topic, unless of course, Big Brother wants them to see it. Google.cn, China's search engine, is guaranteed to take you to the virtual land of deceit, disinformation and the big lie. As such, the Chinese government utilizes the technology of U.S. IT companies combined with human censors—led by an estimated force of 30,000 cyber police—to control information in China. Websites that provide the Chinese people news about their country and the world, such as BBC, much of CNN, as well as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, are regularly blocked in China. In addition, when a user enters a forbidden word, such as ''democracy,'' ''China torture'' or ''Falun Gong,'' the search results are blocked, or you are redirected to a misleading site, and the user's computer can be frozen for unspecified periods of time.
Cisco has provided the Chinese government with the technology necessary to filter internet content through its creation of Policenet, one of the tools the regime uses to control the internet. Cisco holds 60 percent of the Chinese market for routers, switches, and other sophisticated networking gear, and its estimated revenue from China, according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 million annually. Yet Cisco has also done little creative thinking to try to minimize the likelihood that its products will be used repressively, such as limiting eavesdropping abilities to specific computer addresses.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Similarly, Google censors what are euphemistically called ''politically sensitive'' terms, such as ''democracy,'' ''China human rights,'' ''China torture'' and the like on its new Chinese search site, Google.cn. Let's take a look at what this means in practice. A search for terms such as ''Tiananmen Square'' produces two very different results. The one from Google.cn shows a picture of a smiling couple, but the results from Google.com show scores of photos depicting the mayhem and brutality of the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre. Another example: let's look at ''China and torture.'' Google has said that some information is better than nothing. But in this case, the limited information displayed amounts to disinformation. A half truth is not the truth—it is a lie. And a lie is worse than nothing. It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Google has seriously compromised its ''Don't Be Evil'' policy. It has become evil's accomplice.
Not surprisingly, Americans, not just Chinese, are also the victims of this censorship. On an informal request from the Chinese government, Microsoft on December 30, 2005 shut down the blog of Zhao Jing because the content of Zhao's blog on MSN Spaces was offensive to the PRC. Zhao had tried to organize a walk-off of journalists at the Beijing News after their editor was fired for reporting on clashes between Chinese citizens and police in southern China. However, Microsoft shut down the blog not only in China, but everywhere. It not only censored Chinese access to information, but American access to information, a step it has only recently pulled back from. Like Yahoo, MSN defended its decision by asserting that MSN is committed to complying with ''local laws, norms, and industry practices in China.'' Regrettably, I haven't been able to find an MSN statement on its commitment to global laws, norms, and industry practices protecting human rights in China.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Standing for human rights has never been easy or without cost. It seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical standards, yet we have seen the success of such agreements as the Sullivan principles in South Africa and MacBride principles in Northern Ireland. I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, would welcome leadership by the corporations to develop a code of conduct which would spell out how they could operate in China and other repressive countries while not harming citizens and respecting human rights. But I believe our government also has a major role to play in this critical area, and that a more comprehensive framework is needed to protect and promote human rights. This is why I intend to introduce The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 in the coming week to promote freedom of expression on the internet.
There are some encouraging and innovative public and private efforts already underway in this area. Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, allows Windows-based computers to become proxies for internet users, circumventing local Internet restrictions. Through the efforts of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors' fund of a mere $100,000, VOA and Radio Free Asia's websites are accessible to Chinese internet users through proxy servers because of the technology of Dynaweb and UltraReach.
Earlier this month, the technology firm Anonymizer announced that it is developing a new anti-censorship technology that will enable Chinese citizens to safely access the entire Internet filter-free. The solution will provide a regularly changing URL so that users can likely access the uncensored internet. In addition, users' identities are apparently protected from online monitoring by the Chinese regime. Lance Cottrell of Anonymizer said it ''is not willing to sit idly by while the freedom of the Internet is slowly crushed. We take pride in the fact that our online privacy and security solutions provide access to global information for those under the thumb of repressive regimes.''
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, I hope this hearing might be the beginning of a different sort of dialogue—a discussion on how American high-tech firms can partner with the U.S. government and human rights activists to bring down the Great Firewall of China, and on how America's greatest software engineers can use their intelligence to create innovative new products to protect dissidents and promote human rights.
John Aird Statement
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor the work of Dr. John S. Aird, a distinguished American whose immeasurable contributions as a scholar, population expert, and defender of human rights have changed the lives of so many over the course of his career.
It was with great sadness that I learned of Dr. Aird's death last October. His passing represents a grave loss for all of us who are committed to ensuring human rights around the world, and his tremendous work in this and other fields will not be forgotten.
Dr. Aird, former Senior Research Specialist on China at the U.S. Census Bureau, served for 28 years as that organization's resident expert on the population of China. He was a forthright and vehement critic of the Chinese government's coercive one-child family planning policy.
During his retirement, Dr. Aird worked as a full-time volunteer. He provided expert testimony in immigration courts for 415 families, helping Chinese citizens fleeing their country's coercive family planning programming to secure asylum in the United States.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
John S. Aird was truly one of the most informed and outspoken opponents of China's one-child policy. He testified before this and other Congressional committees on numerous occasions, and I believe my colleagues would join me in saying that his insights were consistently persuasive and well-considered, and proved invaluable to our work on human rights in China.
I would also like to acknowledge today the presence of Dr. Aird's wife of more than 58 years, Mrs. Laurel J. Aird, who has graciously joined us for this important hearing which will continue the course on human rights in China that Dr. Aird helped to chart with his work.
Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for an outstanding, comprehensive statement, and I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Leach and you for affording me the opportunity to say a few words.
Before I come to my foremost statement, let me stipulate for the record the obvious. We work with China on a wide range of issues, ranging from North Korea to Iran, and I very much welcome the opportunity of working with this new and emerging superpower.
Let me also say that I am fully aware of the very important, positive developments that the high-tech companies brought to China. But that is not the topic of our discussion this morning.
The hi-tech companies before the Committee today—Yahoo!, Microsoft, Cisco, and Google—are truly the best in the business. In our open and democratic system, based on our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, these firms have thrived, and their founders have amassed enormous wealth, enormous influence, enormous prestige, but apparently very little social responsibility. Instead of using their power and creativity to bring openness and free speech to China, they have caved in to Beijing's outrageous but predictable demands simply for the sake of profits.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These captains of industry should have been developing new technologies to bypass the sickening censorship of government and repugnant barriers to the Internet. Instead, they enthusiastically volunteered for the Chinese censorship brigade. After initially resisting appearing before Congress, representatives of these companies have come to us today to share their side of things. While some of these firms have been operating in China for years, they have suddenly discovered the need for high-sounding documents which simultaneously affirm their respect for freedom of communication and, at the same time, their complete compliance with repressive laws in China.
In the future, when you type the word ''oxymoron'' in a search engine, you will find the names of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Cisco. These companies need to do more than show ''virtual'' backbone. What Congress is looking for is real spine and a willingness to stand up to the outrageous demands of a totalitarian regime. My message to these companies today is simple. Your abhorrent activities in China are a disgrace. I simply do not understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night.
Let me start with Yahoo!. As we meet today, Chinese citizens who have the courage to speak their minds on the Internet are in the Chinese gulag because Yahoo! chose to reveal their identities to the Chinese Government. It is bad enough that Beijing is so petrified of dissent that it throws dissidents behind bars for years on end and blacklists their families. But it is beyond comprehension that an American company would play the role of willing accomplice in the Chinese suppression apparatus.
Google and Microsoft similarly argue that they must comply with Chinese laws that prohibit online discussions and searching of certain ''sensitive subjects.'' So they have elected to become surrogate government censors, removing content and blocking information that offends the exquisite political sensitivities of the ruling elite in Beijing. Google often cites its adherence to German laws that prohibit neo-Nazi propaganda. This value-free excuse truly sickens me. Germany is a political democracy, and its freely elected leaders prohibited the hate mongering that three generations ago led to Auschwitz. To pretend to argue that this is analogous to the Chinese situation is beneath contempt.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
China has a rubber-stamp Parliament, and the Chinese Government places severe, uncompromising restrictions on freedom of speech and religious liberty. For Google's leaders, who made billions in a free and open society, to become Beijing's censors and agents of repression is unconscionable. They clearly have no moral dilemmas while censoring the suppressed Tibetans and members of the Falun Gong, both persecuted minorities in China. Do these companies have any standards at all?
If tomorrow another repressive government demands that Google block all access to women who want to use e-mail or blogs, will Google comply? What about a Sudanese request to block information on the ongoing genocide in Darfur?
These companies tell us that they will change China, but China has already changed them. Despite their protestations, their suddenly-concocted statements of principle, and an avalanche of press releases, it is clear to all objective observers that if we in Congress had not shined the spotlight on their collusion with Chinese censors, these companies would have continued their nauseating collaboration with a regime of repression. They need to stand with us and fight oppression in China and everywhere where they intend to do business. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Lantos.
The Chair recognizes Chairman Leach.
Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you in convening this hearing, and I would just like to note, in addition to chairing the Asia Subcommittee, I Co-Chair the Congressional Executive Commission on China. I raise this because I would like to note the ground-breaking work that the commission's staff has done on the China Internet issue during the past 4 years. They have assembled an unparalleled data base of English-language resources, including human rights reporting and translations of applicable Chinese laws and regulations which are available on the front page of the commission Web site, which is cecc.gov. I commend these materials to the attention of my colleagues and members of the public who are interested in an understanding of these issues.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As highlighted in the commission's annual report, Chinese citizens face increased government regulation of the Internet, and as we all know, censorship is seldom helpful to any society. We live in an era in which the advancement of human understanding and the growth of the global economy cannot operate effectively without the broadest possible dissemination of knowledge. Ultimately, the Chinese Government may not be able to stem the tide of information unleashed by new technologies and by the growing expectations and sophistication of its own public, but in the meantime, the situation of freedom of expression in China remains problematic.
This may be a particularly awkward week for the United States to raise human rights concerns about another country, given the UN draft report on Guantanamo as well as the continued ramification of instances at Abu Ghraib, but, nonetheless, there are issues in United States-China relations that cannot be ducked, particularly when they involve the responsibilities of U.S. corporations.
During the past year, the Chinese Communist Party has improved its ability to silence and control political discussion on the Internet. Public security authorities have detained and imprisoned dozens of journalists, editors, and writers and shut down one-quarter of the private Web sites in China for failing to register with the government. These actions by Chinese officials have implications not only for China but also for the integrity of the Internet itself as a worldwide forum allowing the free and instantaneous exchange of information.
According to China's own state-run media, it has put together the world's most extensive and comprehensive regulatory system for Internet administration and has perfected a 24-hour, real-time, situational censorship mechanism. A Chinese Government delegate to the UN Working Group on Internet Governance has even been quoted as hoping that China's experience can act as a lesson for the global Internet governance.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These issues bear directly on the development of the rule of law within China. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees Chinese citizens freedom of speech and of the press. Any restrictions to these Constitutional rights should be openly legislated and transparently applied. In reality, restrictions imposed by officials are premised upon ill-defined concepts of social stability, state security, and sedition that mask what is, in fact, mere intolerance of dissent.
Interestingly, it was reported yesterday that a number of senior Chinese ex-officials, including Mao's secretary and a former editor in chief of the People's Daily, have courageously issued a public letter warning that depriving the public of freedom of expression will sow the seeds of disaster for a peaceful political transformation in China. The international community should forge a common voice to urge the Chinese Government to cease its political censorship of the Internet. In this regard, Secretary of State Rice's announcement yesterday that she is establishing a new, global, Internet freedom task force appears to be a constructive initiative.
In this context, some American technology companies have been the focus of recent public attention because of allegations that they have become complicit in the restrictive activities of the Chinese security apparatus. Industry representatives have volunteered to appear today, and this Committee looks forward to hearing their perspective.
I understand that much of the technical architecture of the Internet is substantively agnostic. The same capacities that enable network administrators to protect systems against destructive viruses and allow parents to protect their children from pornography also potentially enable political censorship and the monitoring of dissidents. As with so many technologies, the potential for good or ill depends largely on the intent of the user. Thus, the challenge is to maintain the promise of the technology while also refusing to internalize the intent of those who would use those capacities to restrict the parameters of discussion based on its peaceful political intent.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From this perspective, certain corporate activities appear at first blush to be difficult. For example, it is problematic to see how altering one's search engine to exclude politically sensitive materials is anything other than voluntary cooperation in content-based censorship by Chinese authorities. The same would appear to be true for the removal or blocking of politically sensitive Web blogs or other documents. The potential conflict between censorship and the provision of alternative news is perhaps most acute with regard to Radio Free Asia and Voice of America.
On a human level, the moral hazard of locating Internet operations inside China are most visible in the cases of Li Zhi and Shi Tao, online writers who were sentenced to 8 and 10 years, respectively, after information allegedly provided by one Internet service provider reportedly enabled Chinese authorities to personally identify and publish them. Such activities have coercive ramifications for individuals and individual rights in China and unhealthful ramifications for advancing the rule of law in that country.
What is interesting in the censorship practices of American companies is that the censorship practices of American companies do not represent attempts to uphold the rhetoric of the Chinese Constitution. Rather, they are undertaken in response to, or in anticipation of, a threat of commercial or criminal reprisals by the Chinese Government which contravene their own Constitution.
It is presently impossible to gauge the leverage that American companies possess inside China because many of the limitations they observed are self-imposed and were apparently influenced by but not negotiated with Chinese authorities. By preemptively altering their online products to conform with the predilections of Chinese censors, those companies may be diluting the liberalizing pressure created by the desire of the Chinese people to use their original, unaltered products.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To note one example, when China temporarily shut down access to Google.com, a significant public outcry developed which helped lead to the eventual restoration of that search service. I worry that by providing a sanitized, sensitized version of Google, that company may be allowing Chinese censors to avoid the public pressure that otherwise would result from their restriction decisions.
Citizens of China are willing to risk jail for freedom of expression when certain American companies are unwilling to risk profits for the same principles.
In conclusion, the Internet is an unprecedented tool for the advancement and utilization of knowledge. American search engines and content hosts are considered the most sophisticated in the world. All of us, governments and industries and concerned citizens, should work together to ensure that citizens of China and elsewhere are not denied access to these tools. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Chairman Leach, thank you so very much for that very eloquent statement.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to commend you and Chairman Leach for calling this joint hearing together and certainly compliment our senior Ranking Member on our Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his eloquent statement.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, before I proceed also with my formal statement as I have prepared this morning, I just want to offer a couple of observations, if I may, in terms of the statements that have been presented before our joint Subcommittee hearing this morning.
If there is one word that I offer my sense of what limited knowledge that I have and understanding of the situation that we are faced with not only in China but throughout the Asia-Pacific region, I suppose as someone who is a Member of this Committee who probably is the only Member of the Committee whose roots is from the Asia-Pacific region, I have, I suppose you might say, a different historical perspective.
When we look at the broad picture in terms of the Asia-Pacific region and its experience, transitioning is what I look at in the period of the last 60 or 70 years. The fact of the matter is when China first became independent in 1949, with over 400 million Chinese living at the time, and you look at the fact that here we are barely experiencing the fact that we are almost 300 million after establishing our own sense of democracy, less than 300 years, over the last 250 years, our population is less than 300 million. Now, the People's Republic of China has 1.3 billion people.
To me, regardless of how you label the kind of system of government that the Chinese leaders and the people have established thus far, the fact of the matter is I have to give them some sense of credit. How do you provide a system of government to feed 1.3 billion people out there, whether it is a democratic form or what? I would like to use the word ''transitioning'' probably as the best way that I could describe.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is the Asia-Pacific region has gone through tremendous transitioning. Some of the dialogue that we have had in the times past in this Committee looking at the fact that colonialism was not a bad word 60 or 70 years ago, except for the most repressive administrations toward some of these countries that we now find ourselves in the Asia-Pacific region: The French in Vietnam, the British in China, the Dutch in Indonesia, for some 350 years the most brutal colonial experiences that the Asia-Pacific countries have experienced.
I suppose one reason I ask sometimes my colleagues, why do you suppose a lot of these Asian leaders end up becoming Marxist socialists? That is because the worst examples of democracy are those supposedly exemplified by the western nations that extolled some principles of democracy during the period of colonialism who were out there carving empires did not paint a very pretty picture, in my humble opinion, in terms of the experiences that the Asia-Pacific have experienced at that period of time.
So there is one word that I would like to share with my colleagues. China is transitioning. Internet technology was introduced in China in the mid-1990s. According to the People's Republic of China data, the number of Internet users in China, not including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, reached over 111 million in 2005, making China the second-largest Internet population in the world. Internet usage is expected to rise as China continues to promote Internet development and enjoy rapid economic growth notwithstanding that the PRC Government strictly controls news and political content online, which has drawn the attention and criticism of many analysts and my colleagues here as policymakers from our country.
Frankly, I do want to commend China for controlling pornographic, violence-related, gambling, and other harmful information. At issue today is whether or not United States investment in China's Internet industry has led to the greater flow of global information in the country or whether or not United States corporations are overlooking violations of freedom of expression in China in order to maximize their profits.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, United States Internet companies in China reportedly are considering how to develop common responses that would attempt to strike a balance between promoting freedom of expression and operating within an authoritarian political system. Like former Secretaries of State James Baker and Madeleine Albright, I also believe that the growth of the Internet and other information technologies will help bring about wide-scale democratization abroad. As one from the Asia-Pacific region, I also believe the United States should be respectful of growing democracies, as I commend the U.S. corporations who are working to bring this about.
I believe it was Tom Friedman's recently written book, The World Is Flat, that presents an interesting observation about the scale on the globalization aspects of looking at information technology. It kind of had its beginning among nations then among the corporations. Now, it is with the individual. An individual in China can directly communicate with individuals here in America or any other part of the world.
It seems that with information and freedom of the press, we have some of our own problems. Why the New York Times was told for 1 whole year not to present its, I guess you might call, little leak about domestic surveillance because of our national security in place, which now raises a very interesting question about the right of the public to know whether or not the Administration can conduct domestic surveillance without having to get warrants from the Court.
A very interesting situation in our own country calling about freedom of expression and how we are having to go through this interesting debate about the Fourth Estate and its right to tell the public what is happening, causing at least this Member to raise issues in our own country when we talk about freedom of expression, why the New York Times took a whole year. Why did it prompt them all of a all of a sudden to say, well, I guess we had better tell them our sources, telling that there has been domestic surveillance these past 4 years by the Administration without having to get a warrant, a very interesting issue that we are debating in our own country about freedom of expression.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to just share that observation with my colleagues and look forward to hearing from our witnesses at the State Department as well as from our corporate community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank my colleague.
The Chair recognizes Chairman Rohrabacher.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Chairman Leach, and Mr. Lantos, who again shows us that Republicans and Democrats share the ideals that are at the heart of our Government here in Washington, DC. Let me note if there is any question of transition going on and what direction transition is going.
What we are discussing today would indicate that China is in transition in the wrong direction, which is of utmost importance to the future of the United States and the stability of the world as well as to the people of China. Let me note that, yes, in a free society, when a free society is attacked, and a war is declared upon them by radical Islam, which we now face, certain things are permitted that would not be permitted otherwise. Yet this is no comparison to China, which is a government which is at war with its own people.
Corporate America, in dealing with these situations in the past, has a dismal human rights record. Now, whether it is Google or Yahoo! or any other, and we are not just picking on these particular high-tech companies, but any number of multibillion-dollar corporations who are doing business in China, they are carrying on this tradition of making a buck with no consideration for human rights or the American ideals that we supposedly all share. Again, we see a betrayal of America's ideals and an undercutting of those who are struggling for democracy and freedom in China. Not only, let me note, are China and the Chinese freedom of those people being undermined, but so are the long-term chances of peace between the United States and China and the stability of the world.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I say, this is, again, a shameful act which we have seen so many times in corporate America, helping tyrants oppress their people, and now they do it again in an age of high technology, which shows us that technological development and sophistication of development, because we have been told all we need to do is help develop China's economy, and they are going to become more liberal, and here we see high technology and the development of industry in China is leading to more repression.
It is amazing to me that an American Internet company cannot connect the dots between profit and free and unfettered access to ideas. It is incomprehensible how they fail to see and to understand the implications to their own financial future by colluding with Chinese authorities to track down pro-democracy advocates or by setting up firewalls against such offending words as ''independent judiciary'' or ''democracy.'' If and when China becomes a democracy, and those brave souls who are struggling now for freedom in these desperate circumstances in China, if they manage to overthrow their oppressor, these companies will be the first to be booted out by those who remember their betrayal and hypocrisy.
Today, we have in the audience an American citizen who happens to be a Falun Gong practitioner, Mr. Huan Lee. Before last week, he operated out of his home in Atlanta through his laptops communicating with people in China to help them get around the Internet firewalls that American companies have established. Well, he and other computer experts in Falun Gong have developed cutting-edge, antiblockage applications and technology of their own especially designed to help overcome these obstacles.
Well, last week, Mr. Lee, an American citizen, in his home in Atlanta, was attacked by Korean- and Chinese-speaking men. He was bound and tied and wrapped in a blanket and beaten. He needed stitches in his face. When I met him yesterday, his face was still black and blue. Then they asked in Chinese where his files were and took his computers, a hard disk, a cell phone, and his briefcase. Law enforcement authorities are investigating this attack, but at present the perpetrators remain at large.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of course, in China, this would be common. What would be uncommon is that Mr. Lee would still be here. Mr. Lee, you are a hero of freedom. You are an American, and thus you are an American hero of freedom. I would ask you to stand for one moment. [Applause.]
Gentlemen—keep standing, Mr. Lee, for 1 minute—you have to choose between Mr. Lee and people like him in China who believe in our ideals as Americans and choosing between a gangster regime that beats people up and has heinous acts of oppression against their own people. It is your choice. Unfortunately, it appears that corporate America and you gentlemen have made the wrong decision. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. [Applause.]
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Dana.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are two issues here. One is the free flow of information and censorship where the Internet has been a tremendous positive, and I believe the involvement in U.S. high-tech companies has made it net a greater positive. However, it is up to these United States companies to inform their customers that not all of the world's sites are available on the Worldwide Web if you are in China. It should not be www. It is not worldwide Web; it is Chinese-censored Web. Second, we need to do everything possible in the United States to punch holes through the Chinese firewall to develop techniques, and I commend the Falun Gong and others who are doing that.
What concerns me even more is privacy, where a breach of privacy has led to the imprisonment of several democracy advocates. At a minimum, United States companies need to inform their customers of the degree to which the Chinese Government may get private information. When I go to Google.com, I see the privacy policy. What is interesting about that policy is it says they may cooperate with a court order. They may cooperate with a criminal investigation.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope when I look at it again it says, a criminal investigation of a democracy, not that Yahoo! will turn over my e-mails, which would not be that interesting, or maybe the Chairman's, which would probably be more interesting, if that is part of the investigation of the Government of Sudan or China. Customers ought to know what the privacy policy is, and it is not enough to say criminal investigation because there is a difference between Beijing and Washington.
Second, the delete key has got to be a delete key so that when one of your customers deletes a document, it is gone from your system completely, unavailable to the Chinese Government or anyone else. I am particularly concerned about the participation or possible participation of U.S.-based employees in aiding oppressive governments, and that is why I would like to work with Members of this Committee, particularly Chairman Smith, on legislation that would prevent U.S.-based employees of any company that has confidential information, ISPs or banks or whomever, insurance companies, et cetera, prevent all U.S.-based employees from turning over confidential information to an oppressive government unless our Government certifies that that information is being requested pursuant to a legitimate criminal investigation of a nonpolitical crime.
A request from China or a court order from China directing Yahoo! or Google or anybody else to turn over information, or Bank of America, to turn over information to the Chinese Government should be ignored until you know that that is a legitimate criminal investigation and not an attempt to put a democracy advocate in prison.
Finally, if we are talking about privacy, I do need to comment about the privacy of Americans. Regardless of what this Administration is actually doing, its attorney general and our President himself are asserting that every chief executive of this country can, without a warrant, seize any information necessary to further the war on terrorism, wide open, any information, and I would hope that the companies represented today would tell us that Americans logging on to your domestic sites will have their privacy protected to the full extent of your privacy policies and will not be turned over to the U.S. Government in the absence of a court order.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Otherwise, while those in China may see their privacy violated in the most heinous ways, we here in the United States may also find that perhaps some future President asserting these very broad interpretations of the Constitution is reading our e-mail, and I would prefer that that not happen without a court order. I yield back.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important hearing, and thank you to the many witnesses who will help us today probe this very grave issue of people versus profits, of expression versus repression, of the rights of human persons versus the plans of the collective.
The companies represented here today have been pilloried in the press, and rightfully so, for abetting repression in China and, in one case, for cooperating with Chinese authorities, on the one hand, while stonewalling the U.S. Department of Justice on the other.
Mr. Chairman, this situation is not good. Now, with that said, I want to listen to all of our witnesses to understand how American multinational corporations are working to reconcile fundamental ethical standards with their efforts to observe foreign laws that violate American principles of justice.
American leadership and innovation have spurred the creation of the Internet. This remarkable technical breakthrough has since become synonymous with globalization, the Industrial Revolution of the late 20th century. Now globalization does carry the potential for progress to benefit human kind, but it also involves unprecedented challenges, including the one here today. U.S. companies operating around the world are required to abide by the local laws of the countries in which they operate just as foreign companies are required to abide by U.S. laws. However, the question before us is whether U.S. companies have a further obligation to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights when local laws overseas conflict with the basic principles upon which our laws are based.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The case of Shi Tao has focused worldwide attention and harsh criticism on United States Internet service providers operating in China. Let me say at the outset that it is my sincere hope that no U.S. executive would willingly and knowingly collude in the detention and jailing of journalists. Nevertheless, the damage has been done, and that damage is very serious in human terms.
I submit that it is valid to argue that more truthful and good information is better than less information, that our Internet companies, which are second to none, should be free to continue leading and empowering the free flow of information worldwide. It is also valid to argue that this free flow of information is like a rushing global torrent that will eventually burst any dam that is in its way.
Nevertheless, these arguments will ring hollow to Shi Tao and others like him, and during this hearing we cannot turn back the clock for Shi Tao, but after this hearing it is clear that we can no longer settle for business as usual.
Now, given the collective ingenuity available to the companies represented in this room, I cannot imagine the need to throw up our hands in despair or that we would dare to settle for dismissing personal liberty as a cost of doing business. So I look forward to a candid discussion on the issue of safeguards, export controls, and other possible mechanisms that we can employee to further limit jeopardy to the citizens of the world who seek a free exchange of information.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for bringing together such a knowledgeable group of witnesses to explore the important issue of corporate responsibility toward American fundamental principles of justice.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate our Committee's leadership, Chairs, and Ranking Members for initiating this discussion and for the passion that has been clearly in evidence. This is a difficult set of issues, and I think we have already seen important and valuable soul searching done in a variety of sources, including some of the companies that will be visiting with us today.
But I think the companies themselves are more an indicator of a much larger set of issues and problems, and I hope we are sitting back listening to them and thinking about how the various companies in the information age walk the line in compliance with U.S. laws, the laws in the many countries around the world that they are operating, how we provide information, what impacts this has right here in this country, as has been referenced by a couple of my colleagues, on our own war on terrorism.
I fully believe that in China, in the long run, truth in information will transform that country, and with several Members of this Committee, when given the chance in direct conversation with Chinese leadership at the highest levels, have been unstinting in pushing back in terms of issues of access, of freedom, of being able to advance some of our democratic ideals. The question remains how best to do it, who plays what role, especially for the United States Government, and this is a mirror on our own behavior.
I think there are issues we could talk at some length about: Unlawful spying on U.S. citizens; the limits, the guidelines we are going to give to technology companies in terms of complying with laws, real or imagined. There is a lot to be explored, and they could tell us about difficulties in dealing with well-intended legislation that some of us have voted for that has turned into a nightmare and posed legal problems.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also think this Congress has to be very careful about the signals that it sends. I am one who thinks that our telling the Palestinians right before the election who they were going to vote for might have just pushed Hamas over the top, and the Chinese Government, with some 4,000 years of history, has not always been amenable to being hit by a crowbar by the United States Congress. I think we have to be surgical and careful about what we do so that it is not counterproductive, but that is Congress.
We are going to hear from the Administration ultimately when we wind down our comments because they are practicing diplomacy, and they have got a lot going on, from Six-Party Talks—the list is endless in terms of the environment, the economy, and global security. And we need to take a step back and have a deep breath there.
I am hopeful that, apart from the politics and the diplomacy and the practice of business, that Congress does not overreact. I am open to suggestions for legislation, but a lot of what we did with knee-jerk reaction in the collapse of Enron and MCI produced some intemperate legislation with Sarbanes-Oxley that has been frozen in time. We would not have done it that way if we had done it in a thoughtful manner. Our dual-use-technology export controls have created a sort of bizarre regime where thoughtful, independent observers will suggest that, with the best of intentions, we have created problems not just for American business but actually might be undermining some of our security objectives, and it is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is frozen in time, and Congress is incapable, once it is there, of going back and thoughtfully looking at it and making adjustments that most rational people say ought to be made.
I commend the leadership for taking and shining a spotlight. I think just by having this hearing, important things are happening. I am open to how we strike that balance, how we work with the private sector, work with the Administration, work with governments around the world, but I hope that this is just the first step of a thoughtful, longer-term discussion so that we, at the end of the day, do something that achieves what all of us agree needs to happen, but too often Congress fails in the way that we initiate it.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate your courtesy, and I look forward to further proceedings of this hearing.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Chairman Burton?
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing. I am a little disappointed in some of my Democrat colleagues in trying to equate what is going on in China with the war against terror and how our President and our country is trying to stop additional terrorist attacks on this country by making sure we monitor what potential terrorists are doing here and abroad. But I know it is an election year, and I can understand them doing that. They would like to get the majority back, so I guess we just have to tolerate that.
Let me talk just a little bit about the issue at hand. President Hu, when he took office in 2004, indicating, and people were believing, that there was going to be an era of good feeling between the United States and China and that there was going to be less repression, and, according to what I have seen, it has been just the opposite. There is more hard-line activity over there. The golden shield, which is going to police the Internet over there ostensibly to deal with potential lawbreakers and people who might be a threat to law and order, is really just a tool to put innocent civilians in jail who criticize or who disagree with the regime.
It is a totalitarian, Communist approach that has been used in the past, but what bothers me about these American companies is I am sure that Microsoft and Google and Yahoo! were all watching television several years ago when young Chinese had a Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, and young Chinese people were standing in front of tanks because they were fighting for liberty and freedom and all of the things that we enjoy. And they remember the thousands of young people that were thrown into gulags over there—10 million people are in the Communist gulags today, 10 million, and they were thrown into these Communist gulags and made to eat gruel and make things that we buy, ad infinitum.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We were all horrified by that. It was horrible, and the whole world criticized the Chinese Government for their repressive tactics and how they were crushing, literally with tanks, crushing people who only wanted freedom. That is what the President has been talking about, freedom and democracy, for some time. That is what we are all about. That is what John F. Kennedy was about. That is what we have been about since the beginning of our Republic: Freedom and democracy and human rights for human beings around the world. And here we are in the technology age, and some of the most successful and effective companies that we have ever seen—the richest man in the world started Microsoft, and I really admire Bill Gates. I think it is fantastic that a man could acquire that kind of knowledge and that kind of wealth from being a great technology leader.
But now it is being used to repress people in the most repressive government in the world, and I just cannot understand why these companies who are making so much money cannot do it in a different way, not supporting a repressive regime that throws their people in jail simply because they disagree with them or crushes them with tanks.
So today, Mr. Chairman, when we talk to the people from these Internet companies and these major technology companies, I would like to ask them if there is anything being done to create countercensorship software because if they are making all of this money from the Chinese Government over there, maybe it would not be a bad idea to throw a few bones to the people who would continue to like to communicate in a free and effective way without the threat of being thrown into a gulag.
I would also like to ask, and I hope they will think about this when they testify, and I would like to have my whole statement inserted in the record, if I might, Mr. Chairman, but I would like for them, if they do not mind, telling us how much money they are making from their contracts with China. I think it would be interesting for the American people to know how much money they are making in helping repress the people who would like to have freedom of communication and have freedom in their country.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is a very important issue. I am not sure that anything we are going to say today or do today is going to change a lot because everybody knows, in corporate America and around the world, the dollar is very important. I am a free-enterprise advocate. I am a conservative Republican, and I believe in free enterprise, but I also believe, with free enterprise comes responsibility, and I hope the leaders of these companies will take to heart what is being said here today.
We did not want you guys to come up here just to beat on you. That is not what we wanted you to come up here for. Hell, I want you to make a lot of money. I want you to be successful. That is the thing that makes America tick, that makes us the greatest economy in the world, but at the same time, there is a responsibility that must be realized as well.
We really need to do everything we can to bring about freedom, democracy, and human rights in this world, and I hope that these companies will take this to heart when they leave today and maybe try to do something in a little different direction to bring about a positive change. And I would like to know how much money you are making from these contracts over there, and I hope you will tell the American people. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MESSRS. CHAIRMEN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT AND TIMELY HEARING. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OUR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES, AND THOSE REPRESENTING THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY.
WHILE I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN A FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO FOSTER AND NURTURE DEMOCRATIC REFORM IN CHINA AS A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT STEP TO ENSURE THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC AND SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
IN RECENT YEARS, THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS HAS WORKED ON A BIPARTISAN AND BICAMERAL LEVEL TO SEND A STRONG, CONSISTENT MESSAGE TO REPRESSIVE REGIMES LIKE THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC): OPEN THE FLOODGATES AND MAKE A REAL COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT AND ADVANCE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND POLITICAL OPENNESS, RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS, AND PROMOTE AND PROTECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
WE MUST WORK TO ENSURE THAT U.S. COMPANIES WHICH ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN BUSINESS CONTRACTS WITH THE PRC DO SO IN A TRANSPARENT AND LEGITIMATE MANNER. TO THAT END, WHILE I REMAIN GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRC'S OPPRESSIVE TACTICS, I WAS ALSO TROUBLED TO HEAR THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS SURROUNDING THE DISCOVERY THAT AMERICAN COMPANIES ARE ALLEGEDLY COMPLICIT IN SUPPORTING CHINA'S REPRESSIVE ACTIONS.
EVEN THOUGH THE ARRIVAL OF THE CHINESE INTERNET IN THE MID-1990S PROVIDED THE AVERAGE CHINESE CITIZEN WITH THE ABILITY TO MORE RAPIDLY EXCHANGE IDEAS, IT ALSO BROUGHT ABOUT THE DEBILITATING USE OF STRICT CENSORSHIP AND THE LIMITATION OF FREE SPEECH. OVER 111 MILLION PEOPLE IN CHINA HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, AN INCREASE OF 88% IN JUST THE LAST THREE YEARS. IN FACT, THE CHINESE INTERNET IS THE SECOND LARGEST INTERNET MARKET BEHIND THE UNITED STATES.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SO, WE MUST ASK OURSELVES THE QUESTION: SHOULD WE REMOVE U.S. COMPANIES FROM CHINA AND HAND OVER COMPLETE INTERNET CONTROL AND DOMINATION—AND SUBSEQUENTLY, COMPLETE CENSORSHIP—TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT?
THERE IS A BETTER WAY; IT IS MY HOPE THAT USERS OF THE INTERNET IN CHINA WILL CHISEL AWAY AT THE VIRTUAL WALLS OF REPRESSION AND DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT CEASE FROM CENSORING INFORMATION.
AS YOU KNOW, THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT OWNS ALL THE TELEVISION AND RADIO STATIONS IN CHINA, AND MOST PRINT MEDIA OUTLETS, SO AS TO PROPAGATE AND PROMOTE STATE-SANCTIONED IDEOLOGY AND INFORMATION.
MEDIA PROFESSIONALS OPERATE UNDER STRICT ORDERS TO FOLLOW CENTRAL PARTY DIRECTIVES AND TO 'GUIDE PUBLIC OPINION' AS DIRECTED BY POLITICAL AUTHORITIES WHO EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO DIRECTLY CENSOR BOTH THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MEDIA TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
NOW, THE HEAVY HAND OF CHINESE CENSORSHIP EXTENDS INTO THE UNTAMED ELECTRONIC WILDERNESS THAT IS THE INTERNET. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE OFFICIAL PRC PARTY LINE IS TO PROMOTE THE USE OF THE INTERNET, WHILE IN REALITY HEAVILY REGULATING AND MONITORING ITS USERS.
ACCORDING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ESTIMATES, CHINA'S INTERNET CONTROL SYSTEM EMPLOYS MORE THAN 30,000 PEOPLE—THROUGH AN OFFICIAL BUREAUCRACY—TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET AND PUNISH INTERNET USERS WHO QUESTION, CRITICIZE, OR STRAY FROM THE ACCEPTED, HEAVILY-CENSORED LANDSCAPE OF TOPICS AND COMMUNIST PARTY DOGMA. IN OTHER WORDS, CHINESE CITIZENS USE THE INTERNET AT THE GREAT RISK OF PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT—MORE SO THAN EVEN CONVENTIONAL MEDIA.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE PRC'S MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SECURITY HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY UPGRADING AND EXPANDING ITS ''GOLDEN SHIELD'' PROJECT—A GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM THAT WAS INAUGURATED IN 1998.
THE GOLDEN SHIELD PROJECT INCLUDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADVANCED COMMUNICATION NETWORK AND COMPUTER-BASED INFORMATION SYSTEM PURPORTEDLY TO BE USED TO IMPROVE POLICE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY. UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE HAVE DISCOVERED, THE PRC IS NOT USING GOLDEN SHIELD AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE POLICE EFFICIENCY, BUT AS A WAY TO MONITOR CHINESE CIVILIANS VIA REMOTE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE, ONLINE DATABASES CONTAINING IDENTIFICATION RECORDS OF CHINESE CITIZENS, AND INTERNET POLICING.
WE MUST NOT OVERLOOK THESE EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN CHINA. WHILE THE INTERNET HAS PLAYED A ROLE IN BRINGING GLOBAL ATTENTION TO THE ISSUE OF CHINESE CENSORSHIP, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MUST DO ALL THAT WE CAN TO ACTIVELY PROMOTE THE FREE FLOWING EXCHANGE OF IDEAS THROUGHOUT THE REPRESSIVE REGIME.
A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WOULD BE TO PROMOTE THE DISTRIBUTION AND USAGE OF COUNTER-CENSORSHIP SOFTWARE.
IN FACT, I AM A PROUD COSPONSOR OF REPRESENTATIVE COX'S ''GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM ACT OF 2005'' (H.R. 2216), WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE $50 MILLION TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM POLICY COMBAT STATE-SPONSORED AND STATE-DIRECTED INTERNET JAMMING BY REPRESSIVE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS—SUCH AS THE PRC—AND THE INTIMIDATION AND PERSECUTION BY SUCH GOVERNMENTS OF THEIR CITIZENS WHO USE THE INTERNET.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IN THE SAME VEIN, SINCE HE ASSUMED POWER IN 2004, PRESIDENT HU JINTAO HAS DISAPPOINTED THOSE OF US WHO EXPECTED DEEPER AND MORE MEANINGFUL OPENING OF CHINESE SOCIETY. PRESIDENT HU HAS TAKEN A HARDER LINE TO SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION, WHILE STOKING CHINESE NATIONALISM WITH THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF REPRESSION AND XENOPHOBIA. THERE IS A DARK SIDE OF NATIONALISM AND PRESIDENT HU HAS DEMONSTRATED A TENDENCY TO USE NATIONALISM AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR AUTHORITARIANISM.
WHILE TODAY WE ARE LOOKING AT INTERNET USAGE AND CONTROL OF THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY WITHIN CHINA, I WANT TO ALSO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT CHINESE MILITARY STRATEGISTS HAVE ADVOCATED EXTENSIVE HACKING AND THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTER SUPER-VIRUSES AS METHODS TO ''GAIN DECISIVE EDGES OVER ADVERSARIES.''
AS WE ALL KNOW, CHINA POSSESSES A BOOMING HI-TECH INDUSTRY AND I AM CLOSELY WATCHING TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS A POLITICAL WILL AND COMMITMENT TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES FOR PEACEFUL MEANS WITHIN AND BEYOND CHINA'S BORDERS.
MOREOVER, CHINA WILL HOST THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN 2008, AND THERE MUST BE SUSTAINED INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE ON CHINA TO BREAK FROM THE PAST TO PURSUE AND INSTITUTIONALIZE DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS AND INSTITUTIONS.
MESSRS. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS VITALLY IMPORTANT HEARING. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE COMMITTEE'S WITNESSES AND FINDING A VIABLE SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THE GROWING PROBLEM OF CENSORSHIP THROUGHOUT CHINA.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased that you are holding these important hearings on the role of the Internet in China. Let me try to be as brief as I can.
Certainly, no Member likes the fact that United States-based Internet gateway companies, such as Yahoo! and Microsoft, have been implicated in providing information to Chinese authorities that has landed its clients in jail. Neither are Members pleased about the reports that United States companies have cooperated in filtering their sites of political content the Chinese Government finds objectionable and provided technology to enhance the capabilities of Chinese censors to monitor the Internet. The actions rub at the fundamental principles of an open society which cherishes and thrives on the free exchange of ideas and information.
Despite the PRC's efforts at censorship of the Internet and their odious consequences, we also must not forget that the Internet is an incredible force for freedom and change around the world. It is my understanding that China now has somewhere around 166 million e-mail accounts. Those with access to computers conduct nearly 400 million Internet searches daily. A significant amount of this activity escapes Chinese censors' eyes. For example, it is my understanding that much of the information about growing discontent in the provinces is communicated throughout China via the Internet. The Chinese Government's attempt to put a lid on the outbreak of SARS was undermined by Internet communication.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that this hearing will become part of a constructive dialogue about the challenges to Internet freedom and perhaps lead down the road to a responsible and standardized set of industry practices that all U.S. Internet companies will follow.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also believe it is proper and very timely that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced yesterday the formation of a new, global, Internet freedom task force that will attempt to address the challenges of Internet freedom. I would be interested in hearing the Administration's thought on the new task force.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to note the absence of China's largest search engine company, Baidu, which you may have invited to the hearing today. Baidu controls more than 50 percent of the Chinese Internet search market. It is listed on Nasdaq, has American investors, and has voluntary submitted to Chinese censorship. I believe that it would have been very enlightening to have their representatives at the witness table today, so I hope at another time they will come and testify in front of this Committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, as several times in the past I had originally chosen not to speak at this time because we are here gathered to hear the testimony of the people that we have brought into the room, but, once again, some of the comments of my friends on the other side force me to interject my own thoughts on this. And that is that this Committee and our Human Rights Caucus have held several hearings on the issue of torture, and I sometimes think, in listening to my colleagues on the other side, that they could be brought in front of that committee for the torture they do to logic, especially when they try to draw comparisons, these bizarre and outlandish and idiotic comparisons, between colonialism and the fact that there is an attempt on the part of our Government to identify people who are talking to our enemies, that is to say, identify people who are communicating with al-Qaeda, and somehow make that a relative act, relatively the same.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What the heck? Whether or not China, a country with a human rights record that should be and is often condemned by most of the civilized world, a country that does what it does to its own people, a country that has no regard for human rights, that in any way these two actions, the actions taken by the government to try to get these Internet operators and high-tech providers to give them the information they need to imprison people who are talking about things like freedom, it is just ridiculous to try to make these comparisons and to try to make the world feel as though these actions are in any way, ours and theirs, similar. They are not.
We are operating two different systems where what we are doing today could never be done, of course, in China. Looking into these issues is not allowed. The ability for us to analyze our own problems and to share them with the world, which we do so regularly; that certainly never can be done in China.
It is interesting in a way to me because in the original discussion of PNTR, permanent normal trade relations with China, we had so many companies coming in to tell us that, in fact, if we only would give them the ability to trade with China and to do so on a preferred basis that all of a sudden Jeffersonian democracy would break out all over China as a result of this economic vitality that we would create.
I remember saying at the time, if that were the case, why would the Chinese be here lobbying for this? Who knows more about China, us or the Chinese? The fact is that they wanted PNTR. They wanted it because, of course, a more vibrant economy helped them control their population. It helped them solidify their position. They do not want this freedom, however. They do not want the freedom of the Internet for exactly the opposite reason, because it would destabilize the regime, and we should, of course, understand what motivates, and we should do whatever we can to expand that concept of freedom throughout the world, and one way to do it is to let people have access to the free marketplace of ideas.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We should not be fearful of the free marketplace of ideas. There will be some we do not like listening to, but it is nonetheless good for us to be able to explore them, and it is good for the Chinese people to be able to explore them. It is a healthier world we would create, and it is a less dangerous world we will create if that kind of opportunity is afforded to all people in China. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum?
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was hesitant to speak because we have so many people waiting to listen to what we are going to hear from our Government, from the testifiers who have their opinions on what should be done, and then from the companies who are directly involved in this. But to say nothing when my friends, and I do regard some on the other side of the aisle my friends, when we, as Democrats, say we need to look at laws, we need to look at the laws which China has and which these corporations, which we have encouraged to go to China through trade agreements passed by this country, have to work within the rule of law of China.
I think having a discussion about what we do to promote our democratic values here at home and abroad is a legitimate discussion. I think having a discussion with these companies about what we can do to protect people in China as they access the Internet—I think privacy statements have been discussed. Maybe what should be showing up in a privacy statement is: ''This site has been filtered. It has been restricted by your government,'' or, ''Your government may be monitoring this over our objections, over our company's values, but this is the arena in which we have to work in.''
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But then when some of my colleagues have talked about we, too, have to be ever vigilant to uphold the goals, the ideas, and the values of our United States Constitution and to make sure that we are participating in the checks and balances that are important in our democracy to remain healthy. For people to say that they are going to tolerate us saying that up here while people all around the world are watching does not speak well of us working together in a bipartisan way to do exactly what Mr. Tancredo said, to listen to one another, to learn from one another, and to have open and honest exchanges in which we are truly listening to one another.
To make comments that by wondering when we are going to have oversight hearings to find out how the Executive Branch is using its gathering of information through the Internet and through other technologies to listen in on what American citizens may be doing or may not be doing is somehow unpatriotic and that somehow, as a mother and as a person who took an oath of office to defend this Constitution, I am not a true American is wrong.
So what we need to do here today is to listen to the challenges that are out there for corporations as they interact with governments such as China in having their customers access the Internet and work with them to create an open society on the Internet. What we also need to do is to do our job here at home in our obligation to make sure that checks and balances are fulfilled so that we, at the same time, are looking clearly and making sure Americans' privacy rights are protected. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce?
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROYCE. Yes. I do not think anyone, Mr. Chairman, is making the argument that no one is a true American because they might suggest a moral equivalency argument. All we are saying is that, or I think the point my colleague is trying to make is that, before 9/11 the NSA was eavesdropping, and we might as well admit it, on al-Qaeda on the pilots potentially who were going to take a plane and crash it into the Pentagon. Now, there were about a dozen calls that came out of Yemen where we listened in.
Now, the NSA was concerned enough about civil liberties that they knew that these two al-Qaeda agents were now in the United States, and thus to be treated like citizens, they did not set up their electronic equipment on this side, in the United States, and did not follow the conversations in the United States.
What subsequently happened, just by way of explanation, is that in the United States the NSA, under orders from the President of the United States, decided that in the future if, through the al-Qaeda switchboard in Yemen or anywhere else in the world, al-Qaeda attempted to make contact with their agents in the United States, we would, in fact, follow up in the U.S. instead of making this an area where those agents might operate without oversight, and we did that because, in addition to this particular incident, we had several other incidents that we were able to prevent on United States soil and in Europe through the use of this technology.
Arguably, for those of us on this side, this does not seem to be the same moral equivalency argument that we are involved in vis-a-vis the whole discussion of China. I think the thing that troubles us about those companies that have gone above and beyond the censorship that China demands of them as a cost of doing business, and we certainly have listened to the argument of the companies, they say that their issue is offer censored Internet service or offer none at all.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We understand that argument, but what I think gives us particular pause right now and drives this hearing is that Yahoo! provided evidence to Chinese authorities that led to the imprisonment of Internet writer and activist Li Zhi, and the difference between imprisoning or monitoring and affecting his conversation as opposed to an al-Qaeda agent is demonstrably different because what you are talking about here is someone who is simply trying to articulate the position that freedom of speech is an important right in China, and part of Chinese evolution is accepting a divergence of opinion.
The cooperation of Yahoo! with the Chinese police led to his arrest and subsequent 8 years' prison sentence. It is one thing to play by another country's censorship rules, as odious as they may be, as is the case here, but it is a very different matter to aid in ruthless persecution of free thinkers, and for those of us that want to protect the environment for free thinkers in the world, I think it is important also to delineate the difference between someone involved in freedom of expression and someone involved in terrorist activity.
I, by way of my meager effort to offer a partial solution to this that I think might help compensate in some way for the damage done, would make the following observation. Some of the best minds in the world are involved in developing this new technology, and it strikes me that those same minds could be involved in developing ways to break through jamming.
For many years, I have carried legislation including Radio Free Asia. I have expanded the broadcasting now. We built the largest and most powerful transmitter in the world on Tinian Island with legislation I have carried. One of the things that really frustrated me about United States industry, and I will be very blunt about this, after we developed that capability, allegedly a company in Texas then went to the Chinese authorities and offered them the technology to jam Radio Free Asia in order to silence the ability to disseminate information across Asia.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, what steps might industry take now? How could we find a way that could repair some of the damage? I would suggest at least the consideration of an idea, and I would prefer this outside of the government. I am not a big enthusiast for government involvement unless it is to set up something like surrogate radio service in some place in the world where there is no functioning free speech. I can see the utility in that, but I prefer the private market.
So my suggestion might be that those involved in an interest in free speech, because there is a great commitment to that with respect to many of the people that are going to appear here today, or at least in the past they have articulated that position, consider setting up some kind of a fund, privately maintained, that will help fund and consider contributions in technology that will help overcome the jamming, that will find ways around the censor of the Internet, and make that available.
I would think that that would be something that would maybe even offset the reputation that some United States companies have created, like the one I cited in Texas that allegedly then sold to the Chinese Government the very technology that would allow them to jam. They had been a part of helping to develop it. Our taxpayers paid for a United States company to help. It was part of the effort to develop the broadcasting capabilities, and then they turned right around and sold that to the Chinese Government.
I do think that there is, in the interest of freedom, a stakehold in this for many of the personalities in this room today, and I think their minds should be focused on what the private sector can do to help, as I said, overcompensate for some of the damage done.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman Smith and others have spoken eloquently about China's abhorrent human rights record. They are right. We, as a country, owe it to ourselves to look as closely as we can at these difficult issues which will profoundly impact the Chinese people's future and, frankly, long term, will impact our own nation's well-being. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been listening. Let me first start by this because I think that, first, in the spirit of honesty and in the spirit of truth, for me as I listened to my colleagues on the other side talking about whether or not this is equated to the NSA, et cetera, let me just say, in the spirit of Black History Month, first of all, many blacks in this country, when we had the founding fathers, they did not have freedom. In fact, for over 200 years, there was no freedom. We just lost Coretta Scott King. What they were fighting about as recent as a few months ago is freedom, and we have got to practice what we preach.
Freedom has not been for everybody here in America. Just ask some of the individuals in New Orleans. So we have got to make sure sometimes that we practice what we preach and that we do not try to blame someone else for some of our own failings.
Freedom is work, freedom is sacrifice, and freedom is making a difference. Now, for me, freedom is not just pointing fingers at American companies whom we said, and I know some way, well, the Chinese wanted them—well, we said we wanted them to be in China. Why? Well, I know I voted for PNTR. Why? Because I think that most of our American corporations and American businesses doing business in China have been some of our greatest Ambassadors. I think sometimes we forget the fact that China has changed substantially over the last 20 to 25 years, and it is, I think, a direct result of many of our businesses that are doing business in China.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I was told one thing prior to visiting China, but going to China, I was told before I left that if I would talk to any Chinese individuals on the street, that they were so fearful of their government, they would not talk to me. They would run from me for fear of being locked up and put in jail. Well, I wanted to test that theory myself because I know that that would have happened some 20 to 25 years ago.
I got an interpreter and a car, and I stopped at bus stops that no one could have possibly known that I was going to stop at just to see what the reaction of the Chinese people would be and to ask them what their reactions were and what their feelings were toward the American companies doing business in China. I was quite shocked. It was not what I was told before I left.
I found that the Chinese people were very engaging and very appreciative of our American businesses. In fact, most of them desired to work for the American businesses because they saw it as a road to a better life and to freedom. We had some great off-the-record conversations. So for us to now come and say that because our American corporations are abiding to the laws of China that they are at fault, I think not.
I think of all of the communications that were completely cut off in this country. Long before the NSA, there were wire taps and other illegal activity that took place with Dr. King. Long before that, there were people that were jailed, one, a Member of this Congress, a member of the Black Panther Party. I am sure he can go into a whole lot of things that took place with reference to that organization.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we have got to continue to push and pursue freedom but not say we are going to, number one, point fingers at our companies. Maybe here is a role and an opportunity for the State Department and the International Society to get together so we can set some rules for all companies, no matter where we have Internet access, as opposed to saying that now something that we all voted for, or most of us in this Congress, for PNTR, to say, now we are going to point a finger at you, company, or that company. I do not think that is the way to go. It is right to compare what we do in this country to what other countries do.
So to say to us on this side that we should not be, well, it is not only for me, not only about NSA. It is about the historical background of all kinds of other kinds of illegal activities that this Government, Democrat or Republican, have taken place, and people have had an effect when they were just trying to fight for freedom. But we did not stop and listen to our local newspapers or anyone else who said it was prohibited, that we are not going to allow you to continue to do business there.
So I say that we need to work at this thing collectively. We need to make sure that we are working together so that freedom for the Chinese people can come, but do not put ourselves in the position where individuals are looking at us and making us the laughingstock because, again, we are saying do something, and then we are not doing it ourselves.
We have got to make sure that not only we tell people what to do and how to do it, that, in fact, we lead the way by doing it ourselves, and that is what this is all about. This should not be about just pointing fingers at our American companies, who I believe have been great Ambassadors and have forwarded more peace, more freedom, I should say, and more opportunity to the people of China, and as long as that information continues to flow, you cannot stop it because truth will continue to roll like the waters around the globe. I yield back.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Adam Smith?
Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I appreciate you having this hearing. I think this is an incredibly important discussion. When you are talking about interacting with regimes that you disagree with, there are a lot of very complicated and important issues that come up, and certainly this is not limited to China, and it is not limited to private companies. State-to-state issues arise as well, and I just feel that it is not a black-and-white issue. It is not engagement always works. No matter how bad they are, no matter what they are doing, simply engage, and it will get better. Nor is it true that simply saying, Look, if we disagree with you, we are going to have absolutely nothing to do with you. I do not think that is a smart approach either.
I think you have got to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and where China is concerned, it is particularly important because we are talking about 1.4 billion people and the most prominent emerging power in the world. Having a positive relationship with China, I think, is incredibly important to the future peace and stability of the globe.
When we look at this particular issue, the one thing that occurs to me is, let us assume for the moment that no United States tech company does business in China. Does it get better? Is it less repressive? Does China move forward? I do not think so, not in the least bit. I think lashing out at the companies there as sort of enabling this is a little absurd. China is what China is, and if the tech companies leave, that is not going to change.
So we have to look at what are we doing, and is it going to make a positive difference? I think one of the positive differences that is out there is what Mr. Meeks referenced, and this is what I am hearing from countless sources. While there is no question that China is a repressive regime, and you can pick your example and bash on it in a number of different ways, I think the question is, is it getting any better? The story I am hearing is that it is, that, in fact, there is greater freedom and openness amongst the people than there was 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So if we are making progress, that is something to make note of. It is not standing up and saying it is all perfect, it is all beautiful, and I do not remember anybody promising Jeffersonian democracy the year after we passed PNTR, by the way. I think there was a far more realistic approach, that you engage, and you make progress, and you move forward.
We do not have the power, as big and powerful and strong as we are as a country, to simply point around the globe, and I would trust this lesson would be learned quite clear by now, snap our fingers and say, You will do this the way we want you to. It is more complicated than that, but I think we are making progress in China.
When you talk about the Internet, in particular, I think the most interesting aspect of this, yes, they require filters. Well, we require filters around here. Private companies require filters as well, and yet I think we would all know that those things are only so effective. They are consistently broken, consistently hacked into, and the same is happening in China. China is not going to be any more successful at filtering and firewalling everything than we are. If you have it there, people will get through those firewalls and get information that they otherwise would not, and that is undeniably happening right now. So I think we have to be mindful of that.
Now, one thing I will say is that we have some leverage here, and I hope that our companies, and I think our role on this Committee is to put pressure on our companies that are over there doing business to use that leverage as well as they can. I think we must be realistic about that in negotiating with China to try to make progress and move forward, but I think it would be a grave mistake for this Committee to stand up and say, Look, China, we do not like what you are doing. Therefore, we just do not want to talk to you or have anything to do with you. I think progress is being made. I think the Internet is one way to do that.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do think we sometimes get a little pie in the sky about the progress that is going to be made, that it is going to be instantaneous and comprehensive. It is not going to happen. It is going to be slow and steady, and I think it is.
So while I look forward to this discussion, and I want to hear more about what is going on over there and how we can help move the ball forward to make the regime less repressive and more open, I do not think the approach here is to simply bash on the companies for doing business with China. It is far, far, far more complicated than that. Progress is being made. I hope we can work with the companies and with our own State Department to figure out how to make more progress but not to create a new Cold War with China by saying, ''We disagree with you; therefore, we will never have anything to do with you.'' I think that would be a very grave mistake for our foreign policy, so thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ranking Member Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this very important and timely hearing. I do not know of any issue more prominent as relates to relationships between the U.S. and the PRC than this issue right now.
More than 100 million people in China are Internet users. China has become the second-largest country of Internet usage in the world ever since the Internet was introduced there in the 1990s. Because of the huge population, estimated between 1.3 and 1.5 billion people, and rapid economic growth, the number of users is increasing very fast, spreading from the metropolitan cities in the eastern areas to the cities and even small towns in middle and western regions of the country. It is spreading like wildfire.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Internet has been shaping Chinese society and changing the way of ordinary people's lives throughout that nation. However, politically, the Internet is both a tool for freedom and repression. It is sort of a tale of two cities: The best of times and the worst of times. The fact is that at the beginning the West was generally optimistic about the role the Internet would play in China. They said the Internet would accelerate liberalization and freedom of speech.
The assumption was that the Internet is impossible to control and censor. Former President Clinton once said that trying to control the Internet would be like trying to nail Jello to the wall. Unfortunately, and if anybody could do it, he probably could have done it, unfortunately, the Chinese Government has managed to do that, and United States companies have been involved. That is why we are here today at this hearing.
I think it has been mentioned that if we had been a little less anxious to change what was called Most Favored Nation status, which China enjoyed, but it was a trade treaty that had to be approved on a regular basis. There were people who felt that, first of all, the name sounded too good because the jury was still out on the People's Republic of China, and to have something called the Most Favored Nation status for trade relations sounded too good, and so those people who think of names that are very positive—the most positive a name sounds, the more suspicious I get. But then Most Favored Nation status, as we all know, was changed to permanent normal trade relations.
PNTR. That sounded a little less cozy, a little less favorable, especially in light of Tiananmen Square, in spite of the imprisonment of religious leaders and so forth. So we now have permanent normal trade relations, which means that we cannot reopen this unless it is some dramatic act of Congress that can undo a trade law, which would be almost impossible at this time. Why it was felt that we should give away a tool to keep a country that was emerging out of total totalitarianism into attempting to have some kind of democracy and free enterprise, to me, made no sense at all.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Chinese Government requires all companies to comply with its regulations on censorship and control of information. Companies like Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft have complied, which we would expect them to do if they are going to do business in the PRC.
I am very concerned and disturbed by the actions of Yahoo! disclosing the e-mail addresses and contents of cyber-dissident Li Zhi and Shi Tao to the government, respectively, in 2003 and 2004, which has already been mentioned, resulting in Mr. Lee's 8-year sentence and Mr. Shi's 10-year sentence.
In 2004, Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks were involved in assisting China to develop censorship capabilities in trading for four out of the six contracts from the Chinese Government. Microsoft's blog-hosting service, MSN, at Beijing's request, closed down the popular online journal of blogger Zhao Jing, who also worked as a research assistant in the Beijing bureau of the New York Times.
In 2006, the new local Google site in China, www.google.cn, will comply with local Chinese laws and regulations, move the key words like ''democracy'' and ''human rights,'' ''Tibetan independent,'' ''Tiananmen crackdown,'' ''Falun Gong spiritual movement,'' ''Taiwanese independence'' from use in the Chinese search engine. That is total censorship. It is absolutely wrong.
All of these facts are disturbing. These companies must find ways to work around this brutal censorship whenever possible, but I am afraid that if these companies were asked to leave China, the Chinese people would be the ones to suffer. You mentioned before, Glasnost and Perastroika in the USSR was a gradual, time-consuming, year-in-and-year-out by virtue of contact between western people, youth groups visiting the people in the USSR finally saw the breakdown of that system of the Warsaw Pact countries, and the wall came down in Berlin.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It was a slow process. With the Internet, these things can be accelerated. However, as I have indicated, it can also be the worst of times, as it could be in the best times. So 10 years ago, no one would have imagined we would be talking about Chinese end users on e-mail and Web blogs, but today the activities of ordinary Chinese citizens on these Internet services flourish.
So though censorship is wrong and should not be used, it is a reality in China right now, and these companies have to operate in that reality. I think it is more useful for the United States companies to be operating in China and providing access to information and outlets for cultural expression and opinion sharing than for Chinese people to have to rely on Chinese Internet providers which do self-censorship and even blog more information.
We also have to remember that most Chinese citizens who use the Internet are not going to look for information on Falun Gong or Taiwanese independence anymore. In other words, the Internet is much more than a tool for political use, and our attempt to reduce the issues to that could have unintended consequences.
Once again, as I voted against the Most Favored Nation status or permanent trade relations, I think if we still had it open, we could pressure China, for example, even in Darfur where they are extracting the oil or looking the other way as genocide is going on, and they, being a permanent member of the Security Council, can veto any strong resolution condemning what is happenin