NTD Television, 25 June 2012: "Last week the US House of Representatives held a hearing for the 'Chinese Media Reciprocity Act,' a bill proposed by congressman Dana Rohrabacher last year. The bill seeks to limit the number of media visas the United States issues to state-run Chinese media entities and journalists, so it’s equal to the number China issues to US journalists. In 2011, 811 Chinese journalists were allowed to enter the US, whereas only two from the US were allowed to enter China. The 'Chinese Media Reciprocity Act' would, if passed, seek to change the US Immigration and Nationality Act 'by establishing a reciprocal relationship between the number of visas issued to state-controlled media workers in China and in the United States.'"

Heritage Foundation, 25 June 2012, testimony by Nick Zahn, Heritage Foundation Asia Communications Fellow: "In 2011, the U.S. Department of State approved 868 (I) visas for Chinese state journalists. The Chinese continued the abysmal precedent of allowing Voice of America only two press visas to work in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The two visas belong to Voice of America. China’s government has consistently rejected visa applications for Radio Free Asia staff since 1998, when three personnel were denied travel by China into the PRC with President Bill Clinton. So in addition to the well-known disrupting of VOA and RFA broadcast signals into China, the PRC has precluded RFA from staffing a bureau there."

See also House Judiciary Committee, 20 June 2012, hearing notice with video.

Most Chinese journalists in the United States are "state-controlled," while most of the US journalists in China are from private media. This is because of the nature of the media in each country. The explusion of most "state controlled" Chinese journalists from the United States would probably result in the expulsion from China of most journalists of US private media. And the bill equates VOA and RFA journalists with those of CCTV and Xinhua. The United States should continue to show that it is different from China by not restricting access by journalists from anywhere. Publicity of the non-reciprocity would be good public diplomacy. The Chinese Media Reciprocity Act, if passed, would be the opposite.