him were barred or beaten. so all of this shows that implementation of the agreement and the realization of the commitments are far more important than the agreement and the commitments themselves. i hope that congress will do more in monitoring an urging the administration to ensure the civil rights of guangcheng and his family members are protected by the law. and guangcheng was allowed to enter the u.s. embassy and a member of the obama administration including the assistant secretary and the state department legal advisor and ambassador all made a great active effort and of course sacrificed lots of sleep, sleepness and during the

negotiation time. and although some aspects of the events that followed certainly were not handled appropriately by the administration. we are nonetheless pleased to see that high level american and chinese officials have promised to help guangcheng and his family come to the united states so they can arrest and have further studies in the u.s. institution. and this shows that our country recognize that it is responsible for the outcome of the fate of guangcheng. we hope that a member of congress can provide all the tools and that the administration need to back their commitment and to follow through and it will certainly looking forward that day when chen and his wife and two children to touch the soil in

the united states of america very soon. hopefully. >> mr. fu, thank you very much for your testimony and for your insights. i now yield to chang, a political prisoner for 18 years. the father of the democracy world movement. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: in january 1994, i met with a representative chris smith in beijing for three hours. and he was obviously concerned of the situation of the american

policies about the chinese human rights. so he advised then secretary of state warren christopher to meet with me in beijing in that spring. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: since then there was a very important negotiation going on. and that negotiation has not only affected the human rights situation in china, but also affected the u.s. china relationship. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: to this point there isn't too many people has

full knowledge of this history. and i think it's very important to reflect full accounts of their negotiation. and because it will make a good reference for what's going on as a precedent now. so therefore i give you a reflection of the history there and because it's a kind of long so i will have my assistant read out my statement to you. thank you. in september 1993, i was released a half a year ahead of schedule with conditions restrict my personal freedom. such a release is called a control release by chinese law. the supervision would not end until march 29, 1994, at the end of my 15-year sentence. after being released from prison i had done the following work. one, collect donation for

individuals and organizations subject to political prosecution. two, purchase bank stock shares as the preparation for facilitating money transfers. three, plan to establish independent workers union for workers. four, plan to set up a nongovernmental organizations for artists to relieve them of exploitation of the government. five, assist in offering one billion chinese yens worth of stock in state owned enterprises and improving with the facts after making huge profit that the government has to be manipulating the stock market to exporting mass investors. i met with representative chris smith in january 1994. we had talked three hours in a restaurant in beijing. and that he's -- i give him

advice and we exchange ideas as regarding how to push for human rights and democracy in china. on february 27th, 1994, following the meeting with chris smith i met with the u.s. assistant secretary of state privately in a restaurant. he asked me if i was willing to meet warren christopher, the u.s. secretary of state to discuss human rights issues in china where christopher were to visit christopher in the following months. he mentioned about the debates in the u.s. congress about human rights and trade issues and the potential risks of this meeting. i hoped my opinions would prevent the u.s. from moving backwards on human rites issues in china. i would be willing to take such a risks and meet with the

secretary of state. he mentioned that my opinions had been passed on to president clinton by senator kerry and already had a positive effect on the set up of radio free asia. he hoped that my views would help the secretary of state christopher. we discussed and agreed on some details of the meeting with secretary of state christopher during his visit. in the morning about two or three days later a police who has been in charge of my surveillance come to my home and say that security would like to talk to me. later they brought me to a resort hotel saying that i should relax here and wait for their superior. i ask who would i meet and what to discuss but there were no answers. on the next day, official come who claim to be a senior official representing the highest authority in the chinese

government. by observing the way he casually dismissed the police officer to have a private talk with me, i could tell that -- based on the fact that he had to leave for half an hour after our talk then come back with responses, i would assume there are officials with higher rankings nearby who monitored our conversation and then made the decisions. at g beginning of the talk the officials say it was a negotiation because he needed my help. he said he knew that i had an appointment to meet with the u.s. secretary of state and know my opinions. we will not change your opinions, but we would not want to do so. we could not change your opinions and we would not want to do so, but we wish you will not meet the u.s. secretary of state. i say that's impossible. because i had dupreed to meet i could note break the promise.

he said they could offer an exchange. we knew what you want to do, he said. if only you will not meet the u.s. secretary of state we will agree to what you want. i said i did not believe things could be so simple. why is it so important for meet or not with the u.s. secretary of state. why would you agree to let me do these things that you have been prohibiting us from doing just because of this. he say, you might not know how important that the u.s. trade is to us. taking away those figures 70% of our rural profit are from the foreign trade and 70% of that come from the u.s. trade because of the u.s. markets profit was high. you might think with communist government would collapse without american profit, which isn't true. i wouldn't want to do the same if i were you. but the chinese people would

suffer and many chinese company would go bankrupt. since you love the people so much, we have guessed that you would grow to our offers. i say not really. i believe that collapse of the communist government and establishment of a democratic system would be more beneficial to the chinese people. it would be the lesser of two evils and the interest in chinese would be better compensated in the future. he said that you have described the issue too simple. you were once in our internal circle and should know our politics. do you really think it would need to trade sanctions? i say why not. he say that the interest of china and the united states have dictated that trade sections if any would be short lived. the businesses of countries would not allow them to continue to the degree that ill need.

that is resulting in the collapse of the communist government. i say in that case, you have no need to negotiation with me. you also know that i would rather stay in prison than give up the principals. he say we knew that. we understand you better than your comrades. we hope you could think about that carefully. and the highest authority would be forced to step down because of that. that's why some wanted to make a fuss on you and had to protect you from getting to trouble. he also say that you might laugh at me for such a low level lie, but i have to tell you that it was the truth. you are now standing at the focal point of u.s. relationship. if you're in trouble, was it real or false the highest authority were the best in ship. only after he stepped down could

someone take this position. therefore some people try to get you in trouble to achieve their own octoberives. when they reach your goals they would cooperate with the u.s. government to resolve trade issues. you should know better. i said, i still do not believe in your promise. i would need assurance. the stepping down might not be the baddest thing and the person replacing him might want to compromise with us as well. he said, we will agree with several things that you want to do. would you think about it again? i have something to do and we'll come back in half an hour. he give he maine a piece of paper with offers listed on it. the first saying it was to release political prisoners including a list of 35 names. the next three were also what i really want to do. that is establish workers

unions. establish artist owned business and the purchase bank shares and help with receiving and transfer of humanitarian donations. after more than an hour. the official come back and ask what i thought about it. i say what you agree means nothing. the establishment of workers union requires approval for ministry of civil affairs. the artist colony requires approval from culture ministry. therefore for what you have said sounds like lies. he say i repeat again that i am representing the highest authority to negotiate with you. all these items always in our scope of power. when the time comes i will help you to complete all the

procedures. i still say that i couldn't believe what he just said. he said, how about this, we will add one more offer that you would be able to see in addition to release the political prisoners providing that you do not betray your promise. we will not arrest any of your people by which to him means all prodemocracy activists. i said you just detained a number of prodemocracy activists recently who are not on your list. what about them? he say those got detained legally not in legal procedures yet. if you give me one day, i will get all of them released. we could decide tomorrow. tomorrow you could make phone calls to verify if we had ability to keep you with promise. the next day i called several friends and verified that all those detained were indeidre

leased without either conditions nor explanations. but i was still inclined not to accept their offers. this official seems very anxious and told me that you must know that we are bearing greater deal of risk. we have already expanded the communist party. if you still discreet than we would have to arrest you, which would be played into the hands of the other side and all the offers to you would be blown away. then he added, the americans are not as reliable as you might think and they could ultimately reach a compromise with a new leader then political prisoners would be round up as usual and you will not be able to complete anything that you want to do. you should think about what is at stake. let me give you a worst case scenario. even if you -- even if we

recanted in the future you at least got the benefit of having the political prisoners released. the other side might not even give you this benefit. at that time, i felt the credibility of his words were pretty high. so i accepted their offers and made a detailed plan for me to leave beijing to seek medical treatment. i politely declined to meet secretary of state christopher. i felt that i definitely would not get those offers after a meeting with the secretary of state. and if the u.s. would insist on checking on the human rights issues in china it would not have cancelled annual review of the most favored nation status. the offer including the provision that immediately after secretary of state christopher had arrived in beijing, i couldn't go back to the city and continue to do what i wished to accomplish and they would fulfill their remaining offers.

on march 29, 1994, they notified me of two things, first i have completed my prison sentence would no longer be under their control and all my civil rights were restored. al secretary of state christopher had already left china. the situation had changed somehow and they hoped i would spend some time relaxing in the south and return to beijing after one or two months. i insisted ongoing back to beijing according to our original conditions. i started by doing so, i thought i could verify if they had the ability to fulfill their promise. two days later i entered the highway from beijing. the entire highway was closed with just a car carrying my friend and me and the four police cars surrounding us, when i arrived at exit, we were

blocked by more than 100 police officers including agents from several different department of safety bureau, the officials from security bureau and the prosecutors office. a police officer who i was familiar with and who has been in charge of my surveillance for many days told me that the situation was too complicated and he did not know what was going on either. he asked me not to -- then we were going back room negotiations later a police who i did not recognize come and showed me the subpoena. they took me into the businessman who was going to transfer stock shares of one billion chinese yen to us to a koun fit making company. i slept until the afternoon and heard a police man arguing with someone.

i heard a strong voice say we've got the oldest and no one was allowed to meet this man alone. the police man i knew say that we got instruction from our supreme that we must meet with him alone. you have no authority to listen to our conversation and your superior has agreed to this. thn the police officer i knew took me to a private room outside the restaurant and tole me that after departure of secretary of state christopher the debate with the party got them all heated. the other side did not believe the americans and also did not believe i did not influence the americans. they insist i meet with the communist party and did not think that they should i bide by agreement. their boss ask me to be more

patient. my patience has time limit. on the saturday i formally informed the police who were guarding me that according to the law of criminal procedures, a subpoena for interrogation could not last longer than three consecutive days, unless they got arrest warrant. i would leave by my own this evening. they say, you just wait. we will go immediately to the prosecutor's office to get arrest warrant. at the evening, i ask if they got the arrest warrant. they said, they have not yet. the prosecutor's office would not issue arrest warrant, because they already had a residential surveillance certificate issued by public safety bureau which did not need approval from the prosecutor's office. i said that residents at the surveillance means that i would

stay in my own house and there would be no restriction for my personal freedom. i just cannot leave surveillance. what are you going to do? is the dictation? they laughed at me and said i should not try to use the legal loopholes. their laws would be incorporateed by them not by my own understanding, also it was known they would create a procedure, create a precedent for me in regarding this residence and the surveillance and because it did not get into the legal procedure, they did not even need to notify my family members. i would not have any rights provided by the law. that's, they started illegal detention against me that lasted for 18 months, without the newspapers and tv, without any contact with the outside world. from what i learned later at least by the summer of 1995, the promise of releasing political prisoners and no arrest of my

people had indeed happened for about one year. i think it was because the trade sanctions would not be lifted smoothly and that the american people still cared about human rights situation in china. otherwise, ming would not be able to get a compromise between trade and the series of dig tatership and the communist party. from this procedure we can learn several features concerning negotiation with the chinese communist regime. one, they are only restrained by their interests but not bound by their promises. this is because they do not recognize others but their own ideal from all evil cults. thereby insisting i stay in china in chong made a wrong judgment due to lack in common knowledge and u.s. government

did not let him learn a common knowledge and brought to him the trouble that we have come up. two, the chinese government is not whole but consistent of various interest groups. the struggle is in those factions, lack of rules and national interests often become bargaining chip s between their own negotiations. promises mad by one faction often become targets to be attacked by other factions. non-compliance of agreement is common happening in china. the u.s. government by believing in promises made by one particular faction without any assurance has made a mistake of political judgment. three, taking hostage first and then make negotiation is a transitional waif negotiation by the chinese communists. in their ideology of pertaining maximum benefit regardless of means is a legitimate message

against those who are deemed as not -- to their ideals. they want to use means at their best interests, which is their official theory. by returning mr.ing c inchen gug to the police, they have made yet another mistake of political judgment, and will pay extra price for it. [ speaking in foreign language ]. >> translator: sorry i used extra tinchts thank you for that comprehensive look and i think part of what are your testimony helps to do is to ask the question in the very pertinent question, how high do we value political prisoners, human rights, democracy, and that the chinese government and the leadership weighs the resolve of the commitment of the u.s. side in this bilateral relationship, and if we are not committed all-in, if you will, on human rights, they take the measure of our resolve or the lack thereof and respond accordingly. i think you talked about, you

know -- the leadership and especially it's not monolithic. there are people inside the government who might even want to do the right thing, but if we're now folding or not extending our very serious resolve to all players, cheng, his wife, two children and the others, we unwittingly perhaps but never the les gis give up w we might otherwise attain. i would ask reggie littlejohn if she would present her testimony. >> thank you. honorable members of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, i'm grateful for this opportunity to address the subcommittee here during this very sensitive time of negotiations on behalf of chen guangcheng, his family and his supporters. i have been asked to testify concerning two of this key supporters, one is he pawrong known at pearl and the other, jong chungyong one of his key leaders of his legal team. pearl, as many of of you know,

has played a key role in organizing support for chen guangcheng for years, and last time i testified, which was on may 3rd, she had been detained for almost a week, and i voiced a concern that she might be tortured, that, that the chinese communist party might be pressuring her to disclose the other members of her network, but we raised the issue of her case very strongly in that hearing. congressman smith raised it very strongly and the very next day she was released. so i have skyped with her twice now. the day after she was released and then also on saturday, and she has asked me to read a statement to the committee thanking everyone for the way that her case has been raised in visibility, which she believes is what has resulted in the fact that she was not cherr torturedg

that detention. and as what chen guangcheng has said, this kind of accomodation of kowtowing to the communist party a very infective but, rather, when you have transparent, powerful ald voe ca advocations that people are trected. pearl said i would like to thank everyone who fights for our freedom, activists, congressmen and congress wem as well as the u.s. government, the state department, secretary clinton and the united states. i hope i will visit this great country one day, but now i just want to the stay with my friends in china. what i want is for all of my friends to be safe. now, that is very courageous on her part, because even though pearl was not tortured during this most recent detention, she has suffered significant violence. specifically, on january 10th of

2011 she drove to cheng's village where plain clothed guards smashed her car outside of his home. then on may 30th, 2011 she went to yinon county and plained clothed cars kidnapped rob and beat her and in fact struck her face 30 to 40 times. she was subjected to a painful position for four hours while being driven in a car and then dumped on the road. then i june 6, 2011 she went again tore cheng's case and local officials kidnapped her, robbed her. plained clothes guards drove her over four miles and kicked off out of into a field and where they tried to stuff her socks into her mouth and tied her up and touched her breasts. despite the violence she has suffered, pearl wants to remain in china for the protection of

her friends. i just think that her courage and commitment is to be commended and admired. ch chen guangcheng has taken up several legal matters and long a member of chen's legal team and has suffered violence on a number of occasions. most recently according to media reports, he simply tried to visiting whiching whi chen guan beating so fearly he apparently lost hearing in one of his ears. after he was severely beat rchen and it way clear his nephew was charged with intentional homicide, which carries a death sentence, john chungyong stood up for chen guangcheng and said the charge of homicide with intent was trumped up and it really should be wounding with an intent. so -- this is,