    [Joint House and Senate Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      HONG KONG'S SUMMER OF DISCONTENT AND

                             U.S. POLICY RESPONSES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                  CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  Available at www.cecc.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-960 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2019

                .....................................................

                  CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

                        LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

    House

                                         Senate

    JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts,    MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman
    Chairman                             JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    THOMAS SUOZZI, New York              STEVE DAINES, Montana
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    BEN McADAMS, Utah                    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey        JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    BRIAN MAST, Florida                  GARY PETERS, Michigan
    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             ANGUS KING, Maine

                         EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

                               Not yet appointed

                        Jonathan Stivers, Staff Director

                      Peter Mattis, Deputy Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                   Statements

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern, a U.S.
      Representative from Massachusetts; Chairman, Congressional-
      Executive Commission on China..................................     1
    Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio, a U.S. Senator from Florida;
      Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China........     3
    Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative from
      New Jersey.....................................................     6
    Joshua Wong, Secretary-General of Demosisto, pro-democracy
      activist, and Umbrella Movement leader.........................     9
    Denise Ho, pro-democracy activist and award-winning Cantopop
      singer and actress.............................................    11
    Sunny Cheung, spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher Institutions
      International Affairs Delegation...............................    13
    Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China and
      Professor of Law Emerita at City University of New York School
      of Law.........................................................    14
    Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., political scientist and author of
      ``Counter-Hegemonic Resistance in China's Hong Kong:
      Visualizing Protest in the City'' (2014).......................    17

                                    APPENDIX
                              Prepared Statements

    Wong, Joshua.....................................................    49
    Ho, Denise.......................................................    50
    Cheung, Sunny....................................................    52
    Garrett, Daniel..................................................    56
    Hom, Sharon......................................................    65

    McGovern, Hon. James P...........................................    72
    Rubio, Hon. Marco................................................    73
    Smith, Hon. Christopher..........................................    74

                           Submissions for the Record

    Witness Biographies..............................................    77

                                     (iii)

           HONG KONG'S SUMMER OF DISCONTENT AND U.S. POLICY RESPONSES

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

                                Congressional-Executive
                                           Commission on China,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00
    a.m., in room 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Representative James P. McGovern, Chairman, presiding.
        Also present: Senator Rubio, Cochairman, Senators King,
    Daines, Young, and Peters, and Representatives Suozzi, Smith,
    and McAdams.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A U.S.
      REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS; CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-
                     EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

        Chairman McGovern. The committee will come to order. Good
    morning and welcome to today's hearing on Hong Kong's Summer of
    Discontent and U.S. Policy Responses.
        This is the second China Commission hearing this year on
    the situation in Hong Kong. During our May hearing, the
    Commission heard compelling testimony from Hong Kong pro-
    democracy advocates, including Martin Lee and Nathan Law, who
    expressed serious concerns about the extradition bill that was
    quickly moving toward becoming law at that time. That
    legislation would have put anyone in Hong Kong, including U.S.
    citizens, at risk of extradition to mainland China where a lack
    of due process and custodial abuse have been well documented.
        Over the last 16 weeks, millions of people from all walks
    of life in Hong Kong have taken to the streets in an
    unprecedented and sustained show of unity. The protesters have
    inspired the world and have risked their lives, their health,
    their jobs, and their education to fight for the future of Hong
    Kong. Thank you for your courage and thank you for your
    bravery. We stand in solidarity with you.
        As protests continued throughout the summer, Hong Kong
    police used excessive and unnecessary force to target those
    engaged in peaceful demonstrations. The U.N. High Commissioner
    for Human Rights has called for an investigation. The U.K. has
    suspended export licenses for the sale of tear gas and crowd-
    control equipment. And the House of Representatives--
    Congressman Chris Smith and I--have introduced H.R. 4270, the
    PROTECT Hong Kong Act, that would prohibit U.S. exports of
    police equipment to Hong Kong. U.S. companies should not be
    selling equipment used to violently crack down on pro-democracy
    protesters. I hope Congress will pass this legislation as soon
    as possible.
        Although consideration of the extradition bill has been
    suspended, the people of Hong Kong are calling for greater
    accountability and democratic participation. It's my
    understanding that the Hong Kong protesters have outlined five
    demands of Hong Kong and Chinese authorities. I look forward to
    hearing from today's witnesses what those demands are
    specifically, what progress has been made by the Chinese and
    Hong Kong governments on achieving them, what remains to be
    done, and how we in Congress and the international community
    might be helpful.
        The ``one country, two systems'' framework was enshrined in
    the 1984 Sino-British Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law.
    This is an international treaty signed by the Chinese
    government to allow Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy with
    the ultimate aim of electing its Chief Executive and
    Legislative Council members by universal suffrage.
        The 2014 Umbrella Movement protests were sparked by the
    Chinese government reneging on its commitment to make Hong Kong
    more democratic. It is the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's
    autonomy and rule of law that fuels the protests in Hong Kong
    today.
        Over the last five years, the Chinese government has
    prioritized control over Hong Kong by stifling free expression
    and restricting the space for democratic participation. We have
    seen the prosecution and sentencing of pro-democracy leaders,
    the disqualification and removal of pro-democracy legislators,
    and the introduction of a new national anthem bill that would
    restrict free expression.
        Anson Chan, the former Hong Kong Chief Secretary and
    Legislative Council member recently offered this insight: ``If
    only Beijing would understand what makes Hong Kong tick, what
    are the values we hold dear, then they can use that energy to
    benefit both China and Hong Kong. Instead, they have this
    mentality of control.''
        While the protests were sparked by concerns about the
    extradition bill, the heart of the discontent is that Hong
    Kong's political leaders do not represent and are not
    accountable to the people. Instead, Hong Kong's leaders are
    beholden to the Chinese government.
        Millions of people would not have to protest in the streets
    if they could freely choose their political leaders. I hope the
    Chinese government would understand that stability and
    prosperity can be achieved if Hong Kong's autonomy is respected
    and if the Chief Executive and Legislative Council members were
    elected without Chinese influence over candidate selection.
        In light of the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy
    and the recent violence against peaceful protesters, I believe
    it is time for the United States to reconsider its policies
    toward Hong Kong. U.S.-Hong Kong relations are governed by the
    U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that commits the United
    States to treating Hong Kong as a separate customs territory
    from the rest of China so long as Hong Kong remains
    sufficiently autonomous.
        I am proud to support H.R. 3289, the Hong Kong Human Rights
    and Democracy Act, sponsored by Senator Rubio and Congressman
    Smith. The legislation would require the Secretary of State to
    certify on an annual basis that Hong Kong is sufficiently
    autonomous in order to justify special economic, financial, and
    trade treatment different from mainland China under U.S. law.
        It is time we put the Chinese government on annual notice
    that further erosion of autonomy or a crackdown in Hong Kong
    will cause the city and by extension mainland China to lose its
    special economic and trade arrangement with the United States.
    Over the years, Hong Kong has prospered and become the
    financial center of Asia because of its strong commitment to
    the rule of law, good governance, human rights, and an open
    economic system. The erosion of this unique system threatens
    not only the people who attempt to speak out, but the economic
    vitality of the city itself.
        So to be clear, we stand together with the people of Hong
    Kong and, indeed, all the people of China when we express our
    concerns about the human rights violations of the Hong Kong and
    Chinese governments. Our focus today is doing right by the
    people of Hong Kong as they seek a democratic future that
    protects Hong Kong's autonomy and rule of law.
        At this point, I would like to yield to the Cochair,
    Senator Rubio.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA;
        COCHAIRMAN, CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA

        Cochairman Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
    this important hearing and for your willingness to host it here
    on the Senate side.
        Chairman McGovern. It's kind of nice over here.
        Cochairman Rubio. It is quiet.
        Chairman McGovern. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Cochairman Rubio. A little different pace. We had four
    votes yesterday. Today people will be exhausted.
        Chairman McGovern. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Cochairman Rubio. But anyway, I want to thank you for doing
    this. I look forward to our continued partnership on this
    Commission, and particularly as it relates to this topic.
        I also want to thank all of our witnesses, especially those
    who are on the front lines and have even been jailed multiple
    times, and we'll hear from them today about the things that
    have been done against them. And your commitment to freedom and
    democracy is inspiring. It really is inspiring for those of us
    who live in this republic. It reminds us of why so many of us
    serve here and what we seek to preserve around the world. And
    that's why we want to stand with you.
        Your fight and the fight of your fellow Hong Kongers is the
    fight of every human who yearns for liberty and dignity and
    demands that their fundamental rights be respected and upheld.
    Let me say at the outset to the people of Hong Kong, We stand
    with you, and by we, I mean this is a bicameral, bipartisan
    commitment, as you will see today and have seen in the past few
    days, on these efforts across both political parties and every
    major figure. And not only that, but many Americans stand with
    you in your fight to keep your long-cherished freedom.
        It was only a few months ago in May that we held a hearing
    on Hong Kong. It was titled ``Hong Kong's Future in the
    Balance: Eroding Autonomy and Challenges to Human Rights.'' At
    that hearing and before, it was highlighted on the facts that
    the Chinese Communist Party has been eroding Hong Kong's
    autonomy and freedoms guaranteed by the Joint Declaration and
    by the Basic Law.
        The May hearing discussed the extradition bill that, had it
    passed, would have exposed everyone in Hong Kong--and that
    includes, by the way, 80,000 Americans who reside there--it
    would have exposed them to the justice system or the so-called
    justice system of the Chinese Communist Party. The same justice
    system that routinely tortures those in its custody, that
    denies critically needed medical care, that arrests lawyers for
    serving their clients, and that places the desires of the
    Communist Party above every and any demand for justice.
        The proposed bill exposed the very real and increasing
    threat to Hong Kong's autonomy. But few of us could have
    anticipated the events that would follow. Since June, the
    people of Hong Kong have bravely taken to the streets for 15
    straight weeks and more than 400 separate demonstrations
    involving more than 8 million people of every age and every
    background.
        Recently there have been very credible reports that have
    emerged of the police's brutal treatment of demonstrators while
    in their custody. This weekend, for example, we saw images of
    the police holding down a protester whose head was bleeding and
    spraying pepper spray into the wound, which is an act of total
    cruelty. We watched the police throw tear gas grenades at
    journalists, many of whom were well far away from the
    demonstrators.
        Since the 21st of July, pro-Beijing thugs associated with
    organized crime and the Party's United Front activities have
    violently confronted demonstrators, journalists, and innocent
    passersby, and the police just looked on, looked the other way,
    and in some cases even cooperated. And while detained
    demonstrators have been beaten or their faces smashed into the
    concrete, journalists have photographed these same thugs in
    ``detention,'' smoking and playing on their cell phones after
    attacking journalists and demonstrators.
        Although Hong Kong's Chief Executive may have promised
    today to withdraw the extradition bill when the Legislative
    Council reconvenes in October, the government's violent
    response to the demonstrations demands accountability. And yet,
    Lam and the Hong Kong government refuse to press for any
    accountability for the violence by Hong Kong security forces
    that was committed and continues to be committed against
    peaceful protesters.
        The Chief Executive did not listen to the outcry against
    the bill in Hong Kong since its introduction, but rather tried
    to ram it through the legislature.
        So what's at stake? The Hong Kong government's stubbornness
    in the face of public outcry has launched one of the greatest
    people-power movements we have witnessed in recent memory. The
    actions of the government and the people demonstrate that there
    are two Hong Kongs. The Hong Kong of the government, totally
    leveraged by the Chinese government, has proven that it is not
    committed to a free and autonomous future for Hong Kong, nor is
    it one of rule of law or of justice. The other Hong Kong, the
    real one, is the one of its people--the students and youth
    activists, artists, journalists, doctors and nurses, lawyers,
    accountants, business people--from every walk of life, the
    city's people, of all ages, who have shown us a Hong Kong with
    a vibrant civic life, prepared to stand up for its own
    autonomy, democracy, and liberty.
        It is clear that these two very different Hong Kongs are
    colliding, and therefore the city is at a crossroads. The fact
    of the matter is maintaining Hong Kong's autonomy is critical
    to U.S. interests and it also has real implications for the
    United States and for the rest of the world.
        Hong Kong's status as an international trade and investment
    hub is threatened just as long as the long-cherished freedoms
    of the Hong Kong people are being threatened. Threatened--by
    the way--not by us, but by the Communist Party of China.
        So it is my belief that it's long overdue for the United
    States and the free world to respond. I hope we quickly pass
    the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which I hope will
    be heard next week in committee so that we can provide this and
    future administrations with updated tools to respond robustly
    and flexibly to the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies who
    are undermining Hong Kong's autonomy.
        The U.S. Government and other democracies need to hold
    Chinese and Hong Kong officials accountable for their failure
    to uphold their commitments. The United States and other
    nations have options precisely--precisely because Beijing
    benefits from Hong Kong's special status, a special status
    which has made Hong Kong an international financial center
    built on the promises that China made to the world with regard
    to Hong Kong which they now seek to break.
        China's leaders must either respect Hong Kong's autonomy or
    know that their escalating aggression will lead them to face
    real consequences, not just from the United States, but from
    the free world. And I issue one final warning in this regard. I
    anticipate fully that they will continue their work to turn the
    system of government in Hong Kong to more resemble the one that
    exists in Macau, one that allows them to intervene in the legal
    system as they wish.
        So we're here today to examine what has happened, to look
    forward to Hong Kong's future. There are many challenges in our
    relationship with China, but Hong Kong must remain a priority.
    Hong Kong is not a Chinese internal affair, and the world has a
    responsibility to help the people of Hong Kong move toward a
    future that protects their individual freedoms and provides for
    civic well-being.
        I look forward to hearing your views and today's
    discussion. I thank you for your courage and for your
    commitment.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
        Let me just emphasize one thing Senator Rubio said. We
    represent up here on this Commission a diverse political
    spectrum, from the left to the right and everything in between.
        We have lots of differences on lots of issues. We probably
    couldn't even agree on what to have for lunch. But we have one
    thing in common, and that is we believe your cause is noble and
    just. And we are honored that you are all here today.
        So we want to welcome this distinguished panel. I will
    introduce each one of them, and then we will go to testimony.
        I yield to Mr. Smith.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
                 A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY

        Representative Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you very much. What a panel of heroes, the best and
    the bravest and brightest. Thank you for being here and bearing
    witness to a very ugly truth as to what Hong Kong is doing.
        It has been a long hot summer in Hong Kong, as we all know.
    The inspiring and courageous protests there are a daily
    reminder of the stark differences between free and
    authoritarian societies.
        The people of Hong Kong have shown the world that a free
    people will not accept the boot of repression without protest.
    The millions of Hong Kong protesters have also done the world a
    great service. They have exposed Beijing's plan to erode
    freedoms guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by international
    treaty. They have exposed Beijing's pernicious and repressive
    behavior.
        And have no doubt about it, the Chinese government is both
    uniquely repressive and incredibly paranoid about maintaining
    its grip on power. Today there are over a million Uyghurs
    interned in Orwellian political education camps. Human rights
    lawyers have disappeared, have been horribly tortured in
    detention. Christians, Tibetans, labor activists, and
    journalists as well face egregious abuse in the most intrusive
    system of surveillance operating in the world today.
        Why would anyone want their political fate determined by
    Beijing? If given a choice, no one would.
        As inspiring as the protests have been, they have also
    raised serious concerns about the actions of the Hong Kong and
    Chinese Communist governments. The violence and the use of
    force perpetrated against the protesters by thugs and police--I
    repeat myself--is extremely alarming.
        Representative McGovern and I were the first Members of
    Congress to call on the Trump Administration to suspend the
    sale of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and other
    crowd-control equipment to the Hong Kong police. And I agree
    with him, we need to quickly pass the PROTECT Act that we
    introduced last week.
        Also alarming are the repeated and irresponsible threats of
    intervention made by Chinese officials, particularly given that
    this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square
    massacre. The Hong Kong and Chinese governments are alone
    responsible for the grievances expressed by the protesters. And
    they alone can peacefully end the protests by addressing the
    demands for universal suffrage and investigation of police
    threats.
        Blaming the United States Government and blaming the U.S.
    Congress for the protests is an act of cowardly propaganda and
    not befitting a nation such as China which has aspirations of
    global leadership. It is time for U.S. policy to respond to
    Beijing's long-term ambitions in Hong Kong and pass the Hong
    Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
        Five years ago, Mr. Chairman, I introduced the Hong Kong
    Human Rights and Democracy Act with my CECC Cochair, Senator
    Brown. The bill allows for a more robust U.S. response to the
    steady erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and human rights. Over
    the years Senator Rubio and I have upgraded the bill--and you
    as well--to reflect the kidnapping of booksellers, the
    disqualification of elected lawmakers, and the political
    prosecution of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Benny Tai, and others.
        However, every time--every single time we pushed for
    passage, there was opposition from the diplomats, the so-called
    experts, the committee chairs of both the House and the Senate,
    and the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. We were told
    not to upset the status quo. We were told that upgrading U.S.
    policy would undermine their efforts with Beijing and its hand-
    selected political leaders in Hong Kong. We were told that our
    bill would cost U.S. businesses.
        It is the exact same advice that we have been hearing on
    China since Tiananmen Square. And the big issue was then MFN.
        China experts have failed the American people, and their
    advice helped to gut parts of our own economy. Their advice
    this time will fail the people of Hong Kong as well.
        Specifically Mr. Chairman, as you know, the bill directs
    the Secretary of State to certify to Congress annually as to
    whether Hong Kong continues to deserve special treatment under
    U.S. law that is different from mainland China in such matters
    as trade, customs, sanctions enforcement, law enforcement
    cooperation, and protection of human rights and the rule of
    law.
        It directs the State Department not--I say not--to deny
    entry visas based on an applicant's arrest or detention for
    participating in nonviolent protest activities in Hong Kong. It
    requires an annual report from the Commerce Department on
    whether the Hong Kong government adequately enforces U.S.
    export controls and sanctions laws.
        It requires the Secretary of State to submit a strategy to
    Congress to protect U.S. citizens and businesses in Hong Kong
    from the erosion of autonomy and the rule of law because of
    actions taken by the Chinese Communist government.
        It requires the President to identify and sanction persons
    in Hong Kong or in mainland China responsible for the erosion
    of Hong Kong's autonomy and serious abuses of human rights.
        We have wide agreement for this legislation. It is time
    that it passed.
        I've heard it said that the business of Hong Kong is
    business. I believe it's clear that the business of Hong Kong
    is freedom. The people of Hong Kong are working to protect the
    rights and rule of law that are the foundation of the city's
    prosperity and unique vitality.
        This Commission and so many of our colleagues in both the
    House and the Senate stand united with the people of Hong Kong
    and will not be silent in the face of threats to their
    guaranteed liberties and way of life. The U.S. and the
    international community cannot be silent or just make noise
    with nothing that backs it up. The whole world has a stake in a
    peaceful and just resolution of Hong Kong and the survival of
    the ``one country, two systems'' model.
        Hong Kong people--Gaa yau!
        I yield back.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        I am proud now to introduce our esteemed panel of expert
    witnesses this morning. Three of our witnesses traveled all the
    way from Hong Kong to provide their testimony to this Congress.
        The panel includes Joshua Wong, a pro-democracy activist
    and the Secretary General of Demosisto. At the age of 15 he
    organized protests against ``patriotic education'' in Hong
    Kong. Subsequently, he rose to prominence as a core leader of
    the 2014 Umbrella Movement.
        Mr. Wong was also one of Hong Kong's first three political
    prisoners since 1997, sentenced in 2018 with Nathan Law and
    Alex Chow for leadership roles in the Umbrella Movement. Most
    recently he was arrested in August 2019 for his role in a
    peaceful protest outside police headquarters during the anti-
    extradition bill movement.
        Denise Ho, a pro-democracy and LGBTQ rights activist, and
    an award-winning Hong Kong-based singer, producer, and actress.
    Ms. Ho is a prominent supporter of the anti-extradition bill
    protests in Hong Kong and a leading figure in Hong Kong's pro-
    democracy movement.
        She was arrested during the 2014 Umbrella Movement for
    taking part in nonviolent protests. The Chinese government has
    banned her from performing in China. In July 2019, Ms. Ho
    addressed the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva on Hong Kong,
    during which she was repeatedly interrupted by the Chinese
    delegation.
        Sunny Cheung, a spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher
    Education International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD), and an
    activist from the Student Union of the University of Hong Kong.
        Established in July of 2019, HKIAD includes all student
    unions of universities in Hong Kong, with the primary mission
    of raising global awareness and support for Hong Kong's anti-
    extradition bill protesters and the pro-democracy movement.
        Mr. Cheung has participated in and organized exchange
    events and conferences in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the
    United States, and at the United Nations, and he recently gave
    a speech in the U.K. House of Commons in support of Hong Kong.
        Sharon Hom, the Executive Director of Human Rights in
    China, where she leads its international advocacy and strategic
    policy engagement with NGOs, governments, and multi-stakeholder
    initiatives.
        HRIC has covered human rights and democracy development in
    Hong Kong extensively, including the 2014 Umbrella Movement.
    Ms. Hom has presented in numerous hearings on a wide range of
    human rights issues before key European, U.S., and
    international policymakers.
        She is a professor of law emerita at the City University of
    New York School of Law and has taught law for 18 years,
    including training judges, lawyers, and law teachers at eight
    law schools in China.
        Daniel Garrett, a Ph.D., an author, photographer, and
    political scientist focusing on Chinese security politics and
    the securitization of Hong Kong. Since 2011, he has documented
    over 600 demonstrations, marches, and rallies in Hong Kong,
    including most recently the anti-extradition bill
    demonstrations.
        Dr. Garrett is a doctoral graduate of City University of
    Hong Kong with approximately 20 years of engagement with Hong
    Kong, and completed his dissertation on ``one country, two
    systems'' under China's national security framework.
        Dr. Garrett was a career national security professional,
    providing strategic counterintelligence and threat analysis,
    and served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, National
    Security Agency, and in the United States Air Force.
        I want to thank you all for being here. We are honored by
    your presence. We will begin with you, Mr. Wong.

     STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WONG, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF DEMOSISTO, PRO-
            DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST, AND UMBRELLA MOVEMENT LEADER

        Mr. Wong. Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman
    Rubio, and members of this Commission. It's an honor to be
    invited back to Capitol Hill to speak about developments in
    Hong Kong.
        You may recall that I last traveled to Washington more than
    two years ago and testified before this Commission in this same
    building on May 1st of 2017. What I said back then was that
    Hong Kong's ``one country, two systems'' was becoming ``one
    country, one-and-a-half systems.'' I don't think there is any
    doubt among observers who have followed recent events that
    today we are approaching dangerously close to ``one country,
    one system.'' The present state of affairs reflects Beijing's
    inability to understand, let alone govern, a free society.
        The ongoing demonstration began on June 9th when one
    million Hong Kongers took to the streets in protest of proposed
    legislation that would have allowed criminal suspects to be
    extradited from Hong Kong to China where there are no
    guarantees of the rule of law. Still, before the night had
    ended, Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the bill's reading
    would resume in three days. Hong Kongers were preparing for the
    last fight on June 12th.
        And then the unthinkable happened. Knowing that Beijing
    controlled enough votes in the Legislative Council, protesters
    surrounded the complex earlier in the morning, successfully
    preventing lawmakers from convening. I was then serving my
    first jail sentence.
        For a moment I wondered why the news channel was replaying
    footage of the Umbrella Movement. It was not long before I
    realized Hong Kongers were back with even stronger
    determination.
        Lam suspended the bill on June 15th but fell short of fully
    withdrawing it. A historic two million people demonstrated the
    following day, equivalent to one in four out of our entire
    population. I'm not aware of anything comparable to this level
    of discontent against a government in modern history.
        I was released exactly three months ago on June 17th and
    have since joined fellow Hong Kongers to protest in the most
    creative ways possible. In addition to the bill withdrawal, we
    demand that Lam retract the label on us as rioters, drop all
    political charges, and conduct an independent investigation
    into police brutality.
        Some of us crowdfunded for newspaper advertisements ahead
    of the G20 Summit in late June, calling for the world not to
    neglect Hong Kong. Others entered the chamber of the
    Legislative Council Complex on July 1, the same day another
    half million Hong Kongers protested peacefully.
        The crowd continued to show up in large numbers in the past
    15 weekends with more rallies taking place almost daily across
    the territories. But the government would not listen. Instead
    of defusing the political crisis, it dramatically empowered the
    riot police.
        The movement reached a turning point on July 21st. That
    night, pro-Beijing thugs with suspected ties to organized crime
    gathered in the Yuen Long train station and indiscriminately
    attacked not just protesters returning home and reporters on
    the scene, but even passersby. The police refused to show up
    despite repeated emergency calls, plunging Hong Kong into a
    police state with more violence.
        On August 5th alone, the day Hong Kongers participated in a
    general strike, riot police shot 800 canisters of tear gas to
    disperse the peaceful masses. Compare that to only 87 fired in
    the entire Umbrella Movement five years ago. The police's
    excessive force today is clear. Their excessive use of pepper
    spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and water
    cannons--almost all of which are imported from Western
    democracies--is no less troubling.
        In light of this, I applaud Chairman McGovern and
    Congressman Smith for introducing the PROTECT Hong Kong Act
    last week. American companies must not profit from the violent
    crackdown on freedom-loving Hong Kongers.
        Cochairman Rubio is also right for recently writing that
    Hong Kong's special status under American law depends on the
    city being treated as a separate customs area. Beijing should
    not have it both ways, reaping all the economic benefit of Hong
    Kong's standing in the world while eroding our freedom. This is
    the most important reason why the Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act enjoys the broad support of Hong Kong civil
    society.
        Lam finally withdrew the bill earlier this month. But just
    as protesters had long ago stopped calling for her resignation,
    so this decision was almost meaningless by then. The movement
    is far from over, because it has moved beyond one bill or one
    person.
        Our most important demand is genuine structural change in
    Hong Kong, which means free elections. Our government's lack of
    representation lies at the heart of the matter.
        As I speak, Hong Kong is standing at a critical juncture.
    The stakes have never been higher. We are confronted by the
    huge Chinese military buildup just across the border in
    Shenzhen.
        President Xi Jinping is unlikely to take hardline action
    before the upcoming National Day in October. But no one can be
    sure what's next. Sending in the tanks remains irrational, but
    not impossible. With China's interference in Taiwan, Tibet, and
    especially Xinjiang, it serves as a reminder that Beijing is
    prepared to go far in pursuit of its grand imperial project.
        I was once the face of Hong Kong's youth activism. In this
    leaderless movement my sacrifice is minimal compared to those
    among us who have been laid off for protesting, who have been
    injured but too afraid of even going to a hospital, or who have
    been forced to take their own life. Two have each lost an eye.
    The youngest of the 1,500 arrested so far is a 12-year-old
    schoolboy.
        I don't know them personally, yet their pain is my pain. We
    belong to the same community, struggling for our rights of
    self-determination so we can build one brighter and common
    future.
        A child born today will not even have celebrated his or her
    28th birthday by 2047, when the 50-year unchanged policy is set
    to expire. That deadline is closer to us than it appears. There
    is no return for us.
        Decades from now when historians look back, I'm sure that
    2019 will turn out to have been a watershed. I hope historians
    will celebrate the United States Congress for having stood on
    the side of Hong Kongers, the side of human rights and
    democracy.
        God bless Hong Kong. Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Ms. Ho, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF DENISE HO, PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST AND AWARD-
                  WINNING CANTOPOP SINGER AND ACTRESS

        Ms. Ho. Thank you, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and
    the members of this Commission for holding this hearing and for
    having us here at this very critical moment for Hong Kong.
        For more than 100 days now, young people in Hong Kong have
    been at the forefront of our resistance. This is a leaderless
    movement with widespread participation from people of all walks
    of life.
        It is a fight for democracy, a fight for human rights, and
    most of all a fight for universal values. What started in June
    as a one-million-people march has morphed into a struggle for
    fundamental political reform in Hong Kong.
        Chief Executive Carrie Lam's misjudgments and arrogance
    worsened the situation, resulting in a total clampdown by the
    Beijing government over Hong Kong's affairs.
        To date, more than 1,500 Hong Kongers, the youngest at the
    age of 12 years old, have been unreasonably arrested. Sadly, it
    has become a daily occurrence to see youngsters being pinned to
    the ground with head concussions, if not being knocked
    unconscious. Meanwhile, riot police and plainclothes officers
    have early on deliberately hidden their I.D. numbers and
    warrant cards, making it impossible for us to even certify
    their legitimacy, let alone hold them accountable.
        On August 21st, police from the special tactical unit
    charged into Prince Edward MTR station, beating up passengers
    randomly. They then shut down the station for 24 hours,
    refusing medical care for those who were injured, raising the
    suspicion of possible deaths in the station.
        Separately, now, they will be charging into secondary
    schoolyards, shopping malls, and buses where young people
    merely dressed in black can be searched or even arrested
    without justification. In other words, merely being young is a
    crime in the police state of Hong Kong.
        The protests began with an extradition bill, but at the
    core it has always been about these fundamental conflicts
    between two very different sets of values. On one hand, the
    China model which has no respect for human rights and the rule
    of law, and our hybrid city that has enjoyed these very
    freedoms for most of its existence, with a deep attachment to
    these universal values that the United States and other western
    societies treasure.
        Hong Kong represents something unique in the world. We have
    long held dear our rule of law, transparent institutions, and
    freedom of expression in a part of the world where these are
    more often threatened than upheld. However, this system is now
    under great threat. Companies like Hong Kong's major airline
    Cathay Pacific have succumbed to political pressure, firing
    dozens of employees due to their political stance. The business
    community is coerced into making political decisions.
        As a singer and activist from Hong Kong, I have experienced
    this oppression first hand. Ever since the Umbrella Movement in
    2014, I have been blacklisted by the Communist government. My
    songs and my name are censored on Chinese internet. Pressured
    by the Chinese government, sponsors have pulled out. Even
    international brands have kept their distance.
        For the past five years and even more so recently, China
    tried to smear and silence me with their propaganda machine,
    spreading false claims. Right now, I am facing threats from
    pro-Beijing supporters and could face arrest and prosecution at
    any time. Not only have I faced difficulties in both China and
    Hong Kong, but the self-censorship has now spread toward global
    institutions and cities.
        Recently the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne,
    Australia denied a venue to an event of Chinese artist Badiucao
    and me due to security concerns. Celebrities from Hong Kong,
    Taiwan, and China are all pressured into voicing their
    unanimous support for the Beijing government and could be
    condemned for keeping their silence.
        Hong Kongers are now living in constant fear and have
    unfortunately lost most of our freedoms. For a city that has
    been famously known as politically indifferent, the younger
    generations have taken up the road to safeguard our home,
    standing up courageously to the corrupt system in spite of
    increased suppression.
        To the rest of the world, the United States is often a
    symbol of freedom and democracy. The freedom Americans enjoy is
    something that the people of Hong Kong have long hoped for.
    Even though our languages and cultures differ, what we have in
    common is the pursuit of justice, freedom, and democracy.
        Through the challenges of Hong Kong, the West is also
    waking up to China's insinuating power on a global scale. Hong
    Kong is connected to the world in multiple ways, but China is
    trying to isolate it to exert control. If Hong Kong falls, it
    would easily become the springboard for the totalitarian regime
    of China to push its rules and priorities overseas, utilizing
    its economic power to conform others to their Communist values
    just as they have done with Hong Kong in the past 22 years.
        The U.S. and its allies have everything to fear if they
    wish to maintain a world that is free, open, and civil. I
    therefore urge the U.S. Congress to stand by Hong Kong and most
    of all to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
    This is not a plea for so-called foreign interference. This is
    a plea for democracy. This is a plea for the freedom to choose.
        And lastly, I would like to quote Eleanor Roosevelt, your
    most beloved first lady. ``You gain strength, courage and
    confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look
    fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, `I lived
    through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes
    along.' ''
        This is a global fight for the universal values that we all
    cherish. And Hong Kong is on the very front lines of this
    fight. We were once fearful of what might have come with our
    silence. And for that, we have now become fearless.
        Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Cheung, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF SUNNY CHEUNG, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE HONG KONG
     HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DELEGATION (HKIAD) AND
                 STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

        Mr. Cheung. Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and
    members of the Commission, thank you for your invitation to
    this hearing.
        Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping said in a closed-
    door meeting that China would never embrace the judicial
    independence of the West. This is why people in Hong Kong are
    trying hard to reject the extradition bill, because we do not
    believe in a country who looks down on human rights,
    disqualifies our legislators, and kidnaps our booksellers. We
    want to protect our legal system as the last barrier against
    Beijing's political interference.
        Apart from asking for the withdrawal of the bill, Hong Kong
    people also demand an investigation into police brutality to
    save Hong Kong from turning into a police state. More
    importantly, we demand universal suffrage.
        We believe that without any structural political reform and
    without a government chosen by the people, there is no
    possibility for Hong Kong to restore prosperity. We cannot have
    a society compromised in the interest of individuals. The voice
    of the people should always be heard. Unfortunately, our
    government ignores our demands by saying that we have no stake
    in the society.
        Our student union members are detained, followed, beaten,
    and threatened. During the detainment, one of our student union
    members was told by the police that it was reasonable for them
    to rape some female protesters when they frequently work
    overtime.
        Besides, the authorities try to stop us from having
    peaceful class strikes when more than 50,000 students are
    participating in it. People who side with Beijing are now
    advocating the installation of surveillance cameras inside
    classrooms to monitor teachers and students who dare to support
    class strikes and support the movement.
        This apparently violates our academic freedom and freedom
    of speech. This is the ``white terror'' created by the Beijing
    government which should alert all people here.
        Nowadays, students and Hong Kong people are even ready to
    die for Hong Kong. And some already have. They believe that the
    only limit to their freedom is their death. This is the
    ultimate sacrifice for the motherland, and we must not forget
    them.
        Many students face strong objections from their families.
    Some of them are even forced to leave home. But they still head
    to the front lines carrying a letter with their last will. They
    are determined. They understand that the price of freedom is
    high. It always has been. But it is a price they are willing to
    pay, and it is a path of liberation they are willing to choose.
        We do not fight for freedom out of passion. Passion will
    burn out. We fight for freedom from a sense of duty and
    dignity. China is rising. China is using its nationalism and
    invasive economic dominance to colonize small countries and put
    intense pressure on people and companies like Cathay Pacific
    who do not conform to them. Teachers, students, civil servants,
    and businessmen are all facing political pressure in Hong Kong.
        This new form of imperialism in China poses a severe threat
    to Hong Kong. This is a crisis of values and systems. We need
    to contain the Communist Party of China.
        Offering help to Hong Kong is the primary move to contain
    China. ``One country, two systems'' will expire in 2047. The
    U.S. Government should help Hong Kong people have the right to
    decide our future. Therefore, we urge the U.S. Congress to pass
    the Human Rights and Democracy Act to expand the current
    sanction list to all individuals who infringe on our human
    rights.
        Moreover, if genuine universal suffrage cannot be achieved
    immediately, our autonomy and rule of law will continue to
    erode. The situation of China manipulating Hong Kong as a back
    door for trading with Iran and North Korea will also continue.
        If this occurs, the U.S. Government should not acknowledge
    the special status of Hong Kong. The U.S. must send a strong
    signal that this special status will be canceled if Hong Kong
    loses its autonomy, in order to put pressure on China.
    Otherwise, China will keep taking advantage of Hong Kong as an
    international society but hollow out our liberal values. With
    such an assertive policy, it demonstrates that America will no
    longer tolerate totalitarianism.
        Hong Kong people will take every step with the last inch of
    our efforts to fight for democracy and freedom. Thomas
    Jefferson once said he would be ``forever against any form of
    tyranny.'' And I believe it is time for Americans to stand with
    Hong Kong.
        Gwong fuk heung gong, si dai gaap ming! [Liberate Hong
    Kong, revolution of our time!]
        Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Ms. Hom, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF SHARON HOM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN
     CHINA AND PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITA AT CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW
                           YORK SCHOOL OF LAW

        Ms. Hom. Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern, Cochair Rubio, and members of the
    Commission, thank you for this opportunity. It's an honor for
    me to stand in solidarity with the frontline activists.
        I want to thank the Commission members for their critical
    support for the Hong Kong people and your leadership on the
    Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the PROTECT Hong
    Kong Act.
        Over the past three months, the whole world has witnessed
    the historic David and Goliath standoff. And against all odds,
    the Hong Kong people are standing up to the powerful
    authoritarian regime in Beijing. In this historic battle they
    are not only fighting for the democratic future of 7.4 million
    Hong Kong people, but they're holding the regional and global
    frontline on preserving human dignity and rights for all
    people.
        As Congressman McGovern has already mentioned, the past
    summer of discontent is in fact part of years of ongoing
    resistance by the Hong Kong people against Beijing's
    encroachment on Hong Kong's autonomy, rights, and freedom. The
    mass demonstrations in the past have included resistance
    against security legislation, official brainwashing initiatives
    and the gutting of the promised genuine universal suffrage.
        After the clearance of the Occupy Central sites, democracy
    activists left a promise inscribed on the concrete sidewalks--
    ``We will return.'' They have kept that promise.
        Instead of Beijing's hope for movement fatigue, the
    protests supported by unflagging solidarity and broad, diverse
    participation of Hong Kong society are moving into the 15th
    week, pressing for now five nonnegotiable demands. The out-of-
    control lawless actions of the Hong Kong police have provided
    mobilization fuel for Hong Kong people to ``add oil.''
        As Chairman Mao said, ``Wherever there is suppression,
    there will be resistance.'' And at the beginning of the
    Cultural Revolution he also said, ``Anyone who crushes the
    student movement will not have a good ending.''
        I want to talk about the rule of law just briefly because
    there are tensions that were baked into the ``one country, two
    systems'' framework, making one country, one system or one-and-
    a-half systems perhaps an inevitable outcome.
        Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen's takeaway from the current
    political crisis hits the nail on the head. Not only is ``one
    country, two systems'' not a viable model for Taiwan, but the
    Hong Kong example proves that dictatorship and democracy cannot
    coexist.
        An independent functioning rule of law is essential, yet
    the Chinese state constitution and numerous high-level policy
    pronouncements legitimize the subordination of law to the
    leadership of the Party. The reintroduction of the Article 23
    legislation that's in the works in Hong Kong will inevitably
    carry imprints of the Party's concepts of national security.
        Second, the demand for complete loyalty to the Party guts
    the independence of key pillars of the rule of law, the legal
    profession, and the media. But Hong Kong is not the mainland--
    yet. Despite efforts like the proposed Hong Kong national
    anthem law and proposed loyalty requirements, loyalty, pride,
    and love cannot be legislated. So it's not surprising that Hong
    Kong people, foreign business, and the international community
    have been alarmed.
        The outrageous and painful excessive violence and abuse of
    law by the police have already been extensively described. I
    will move to, then, talking about what's at stake in terms of
    universal values.
        China's aggressive activism at the U.N. is undermining
    international standards, weakening existing human rights
    mechanisms, and restricting the participation of independent
    civil society. This cuts off the Hong Kong people as well as
    human rights defenders on the mainland, and the Tibetan and
    Uyghur communities from the key international platforms that
    are available to press for accountability.
        With this--instead of the West's hoped-for convergence,
    China is not only not playing by the rules, it is vocally and
    persistently asserting a set of relativist criteria that it
    alone can apply and pushing for Chinese models of human rights,
    democracy, and development; that is, no human rights, no
    development, and no democracy. This rhetoric helps to
    intimidate, silence, and deflect from the accountability of the
    state.
        I want to point quickly to its role in blocking independent
    voices. China sits on the NGO Committee of the ECOSOC of the
    U.N. and, as a result, Chinese GONGOs do not face any
    objections such as the interruptions of Denise Ho's recent
    intervention at the Human Rights Council.
        The intervention last week by Pansy Ho, the representative
    of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, is illustrative. She not
    only defended the SAR government's handling of the protest, but
    she accused the Hong Kong protesters of ``child exploitation''
    and more. Ho, Cochairman and Director of a Macau casino
    operation, is also a Standing Committee member of the Beijing
    Municipal Committee of the Chinese People's Consultative
    Conference.
        Because I am out of time, I want to take time to really
    jump ahead to the problem of a--in addition to the
    disinformation campaign, including the egregious use by China
    Daily on 9/11 of a photo depicting the destruction of the World
    Trade Towers to warn of terrorist attacks by Hong Kong
    protesters. Beijing is advancing a narrative of violence to
    frame the Hong Kong protest that is echoed uncritically by the
    international community.
        Within this framework, the Hong Kong police, protected in
    full tactical gear, armed with rubber bullets, guns, tear gas,
    pepper spray, and batons, wielding the coercive power of the
    state, are presented as one ``side'' of an escalating violence,
    clashes with civilian protesters. Hence, we hear calls for
    ``both sides'' to de-escalate. But this deflects attention away
    from police accountability for its excessive use of force and
    its complicity with nonstate violence.
        Moreover, the narrow violence framing of the situation on
    the ground is intentionally erasing or marginalizing the
    proliferation of diverse, creative, and peaceful protests by
    the Hong Kong people, including by students in boycotts and by
    elderly citizens, silver-hair volunteers protecting the
    children's actions.
        Hong Kong people singing in the malls, in the metro
    stations, in neighborhood gatherings, shouting--the 10:00 p.m.
    shouts of slogans echoing throughout all the neighborhoods in
    Hong Kong--and forming human chains, creating Lennon walls.
        And last Friday was mid-autumn festival. And a small
    family-owned bakery in Sai Wan made mooncakes with protest
    slogans. And in typical humorous Hong Kong fashion, Hong
    Kongers are creating art. This is what is happening. Hong Kong
    people are practicing democracy and exercising their freedoms
    for as long as possible. Hong Kongers are making the road by
    walking it. That is the real revolution already underway on the
    ground.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman McGovern. Well, thank you very much.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Dr. Garrett, thank you for coming, and
    we welcome your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF DANIEL GARRETT, Ph.D., POLITICAL SCIENTIST AND
    AUTHOR OF ``COUNTER-HEGEMONIC RESISTANCE IN CHINA'S HONG KONG:
                VISUALIZING PROTEST IN THE CITY'' (2014)

        Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairmen McGovern and Rubio, distinguished
    members of the Commission. It is an honor and a privilege to
    talk with you regarding the Chinese Communist Party's erosion
    of ``one country, two systems'' in Hong Kong under the pretext
    of national security and its nexus to the extradition bill
    crisis.
        I will begin with five key observations backgrounding the
    current China-Hong Kong conflict and the ``one country, two
    systems'' crisis.
        First, today's ``one country, two systems'' is not the same
    as Deng Xiaoping's notion that proffered peaceful coexistence
    between the Communist and Hong Kong systems. Instead, it has
    been replaced by Xi Jinping's new era ``one country, two
    systems'' model embracing political struggle and enemy-friend
    binary and foregrounding Chinese national security as the
    paramount lens for governing the Special Administrative Region
    and implementing ``one country, two systems.'' Rather than a
    confidence-building mechanism ensuring peaceful coexistence,
    ``one country, two systems'' under Xi Jinping is now intended
    to advance and safeguard China's sovereignty, security, and
    development interests.
        Second, this new era ``one country, two systems'' model is
    informed by Xi Jinping's broader national security concepts
    known as the ``three major dangers'' and ``national security
    with Chinese characteristics.'' The former situates Communist
    China at imminent risk of being invaded, toppled and separated,
    and its development, reform, and stability sabotaged, thereby
    leading to the derailing of China's rise, socialist
    modernization, and the ``one country, two systems'' policy. The
    latter dramatically broadens the notion of Chinese national
    security and radically expands the scope of Chinese
    authorities' prerogatives in administering ``one country, two
    systems.''
        Consequently, it significantly erodes the Special
    Administrative Region's high degree of autonomy, diminishes
    Hong Kongers' freedoms, and widens the threat to U.S. citizens
    and national interests in Hong Kong.
        Third, under Xi Jinping's new security paradigms and new
    era ``one country, two systems'' model, dissident Hong Kongers
    have been systematically enemified and securitized as mortal
    threats to the Party-state and banned or removed from positions
    of political power. Elections have been partially nullified,
    Hong Kongers disenfranchised and terrorized with real and
    rhetorical political violence. The promise of Hong Kong people
    ruling Hong Kong has been effectively replaced with a
    tyrannical ``rule of patriots.''
        Official declarations and Party-state media propagating
    Hong Konger enemy and Hong Kong threat security discourses have
    become ubiquitous, and Cultural Revolution-like mass line and
    United Front denunciation campaigns targeting democrats,
    localists and westernized Hong Kongers have swept the city
    repeatedly over the last seven years since Xi Jinping came to
    power.
        And fourth, since at least 2012, Hong Kong and ``one
    country, two systems'' have been perceived by Beijing as
    Communist China's weakest links in its resurgent totalitarian
    national security state. For Chinese authorities, both are at
    the forefront of ideological confrontation with the United
    States and the West, ``a new Cold War'' in their terms.
        By the end of 2014 and the Umbrella Movement, the struggle
    to rule Hong Kong was said to have matched the intensity
    surrounding the 1997 handover and that China now had to rethink
    how to rule the enclave.
        An influential adviser to senior Chinese authorities said
    that Hong Kong faced a society-wide ``long-term struggle'' to
    eradicate the Party-state's enemies in the city, a de facto
    cultural revolution that would involve at a minimum rectifying
    and sinicizing the judiciary, legislature, media, secondary
    schools, and universities.
        Chinese and Special Administrative Regions' furtive efforts
    to impose the Communists' legal, political, and social norms on
    Hong Kong via the extradition law and unprecedented violent
    suppression of protests have provoked a most severe crisis of
    ``one country, two systems'' as Hong Kongers fight for their
    endangered freedom, identity, and way of life.
        This is not an anomaly. It is the sixth Chinese governance
    crisis involving ``one country, two systems'' since 2003 and
    the fifth since Xi Jinping took control of Hong Kong affairs.
        Each has an underlying Chinese national security nexus
    seeking to broaden Beijing's powers, its so-called
    comprehensive jurisdiction in Hong Kong, and to roll back Hong
    Kongers' high degree of autonomy, liberal freedoms and limited
    democracy by forcibly transforming Hong Kong into a Chinese
    Communist city while maintaining a veneer of ``no changes.''
        My next few observations will quickly touch upon the
    extradition law nexus to national security. Senior Chinese
    officials have described the extradition battle right now as a
    ``battle of life and death'' and a ``battle to defend Hong
    Kong,'' a decisive war defending ``one country, two systems''
    or jeopardizing it.
        Since Xi Jinping came to power, national security is now a
    mandatory obligation for people in the Hong Kong SAR. This was
    never written into the original Basic Law. This has been done
    post facto since 2012.
        Early in the extradition law saga, senior Chinese leaders
    have made extraordinary endorsements of the extradition law,
    expressing their full support. This included two Politburo
    Standing Committee members, Han Zheng and Wang Yang, the head
    of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office,
    Zhang Xiaoming, and the chief of the Hong Kong SAR Liaison
    Office, Wang Zhimin.
        There are also indications that President Xi Jinping, as a
    member of the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and
    Macao Affairs, has weighed in. An influential United Front
    commentator in state media has also observed that if it were
    not for the full support of the central government, the
    legislation would have been aborted.
        Chief Executive Carrie Lam recently lamented in a leaked
    speech that since the issue had been elevated to one of
    national security and sovereignty, it had stripped her of any
    solutions or room for political maneuver.
        Another source explained that because the ELAB involved the
    mainland Special Administrative Region relationship with the
    central government and the implementation of the Basic Law, it
    was not a matter entirely within the autonomy of the Special
    Administrative Region government.
        This touches upon Hong Kongers' five demands as well as
    U.S. national security, and U.S. policy towards Hong Kong.
    Beijing's imposition of Communist legal and political and
    social national security norms on Hong Kong--constitute a
    violation of Article 5 of the Basic Law prohibiting the
    introduction of a socialist system in the territory.
        Moreover, the Party's application of its ``national
    security with Chinese characteristics'' mandate and loyalty
    expectations to the Special Administrative Region and its civil
    servants, effectively dissolves any difference between the
    Communist and Hong Kong systems, thereby posing a significant
    threat to U.S. interests related to the protection of sensitive
    technologies and adherence to export controls.
        My last two comments before I submit the rest of my
    testimony--the Hong Kong police force has been militarized and
    nationalized by the Chinese Communist Party, effectively
    becoming its ``little gun'' in the Special Administrative
    Region. Since the beginning of 2019, mainland police have been
    tasked by President Xi with ``preventing and countering color
    revolutions.''
        China's Public Security Minister subsequently ordered
    police to ``firmly fight to protect China's political
    security,'' and defend its national security and the leadership
    of the Communist Party.
        Earlier, Hong Kong police had received similar national
    security tasking from Vice Premier Han Zheng who in August 2018
    charged them to ``firmly and effectively'' safeguard China's
    national security and rule of law by ``accurately and
    comprehensively'' implementing ``one country, two systems.''
        Also, according to a vice chairman of the State Council's
    Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, the Hong
    Kong police were now ``on the forefront when it came to curbing
    Hong Kong independence,'' which meant their duty was not just
    to maintain public order, but to defend national security, too.
        Chief Executive Carrie Lam, in a leaked speech, also
    iterated that the Hong Kong police were the only solution that
    they currently possess in dealing with the extradition process.
    In no small way, the Hong Kong police have become the Special
    Administrative Region's people's armed police.
        One last comment--Chinese authorities have dedicated
    significant academic, legal, political, propaganda, and United
    Front resources to systematically manipulating and recasting
    Deng Xiaoping-era content and understandings of the Basic Law
    in ``one country, two systems'' to accommodate Xi Jinping's
    totalitarian national security mandates, logics and outlook.
        The Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, a
    shadowy political warfare-like think tank connected to the
    State Council's Hong Kong and Macao Affairs office, is one of
    these new subversive vehicles. Concomitantly, a network of
    Party-state constitutional and Basic Law experts and scholars,
    some attached to the National People's Congress Standing
    Committee's Hong Kong SAR Basic Law Committee have similarly
    contributed significantly to the erosion of ``one country, two
    systems'' policy, mobilized political bans, and informed the
    Central Authority's understanding of the actual situation in
    the region.
        All of these United Fronters are key players in the erosion
    of Hong Kong's freedom and democracy and enable state tyranny.
        Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
        [Applause.]
        I will save my questions until the end. I am going to yield
    now to the Cochair, Senator Rubio.
        Cochairman Rubio. Thank you.
        And I will just ask one question because I know Members
    have places to go and I want them to get in on this.
        The key issue before us is autonomy. If you go back to
    2014, they took away universal suffrage for the election of the
    chief executive. In 2016 and 2017, they disqualified six
    democratic lawmakers from the council seats using a very
    controversial interpretation of the Hong Kong constitution. And
    then in 2019, this effort at the extradition bill.
        So my question to all the panelists is, How would you
    describe the state of Hong Kong autonomy today?
        Mr. Wong. During the last congressional hearing, I was
    strongly aware of how ``one country, two systems'' had eroded
    to be ``one country, one-and-a-half systems.'' But the recent
    political crisis--how the Hong Kong and Beijing governments
    have turned such a global city into a police state with more
    violence and even ``white terror'' I would describe now as the
    collapse of ``one country, two systems.'' We are facing death
    under the current constitutional framework.
        And I think now is also the time and the reason we should
    seek bipartisan support. Supporting Hong Kong's democratization
    should not be a matter of left or right. It should be a matter
    of right or wrong.
        Ms. Ho. In a more cultural and social context, there is
    immense fear among the people to speak their minds, which is a
    result of how the businesses and the government institutions
    have put pressure onto their employees or the people to keep
    their mouths shut, basically. This has a huge impact on the
    economy because without this freedom of speech, it's very
    difficult for the economy and also the society to thrive
    because in a sense, we are already in somewhat of a ``China
    city'' situation where people would fear for their safety if
    they spoke out about their political stance.
        Just for an example, there has been an unofficial Hong Kong
    anthem recently that has been written by an anonymous
    songwriter. And they have opted to keep their anonymity because
    if they had shown their face, then most likely they would have
    been arrested or prosecuted on claims of national threats--
    national security threats. So that's basically the sentiment of
    the Hong Kong people.
        Mr. Cheung. Last year the USCC (U.S.-China Economic and
    Security Review Commission) published a report with concerns
    that Hong Kong is becoming more like any other Chinese city,
    and that means that our autonomy is already gone, and even the
    USCC has issued a report claiming that the autonomy of Hong
    Kong is already in danger.
        In the U.K. when I met some politicians, I would tell them
    that the Chinese government already abridged the Sino-British
    Joint Declaration. And that is why I would say the autonomy of
    Hong Kong is already dead, and that's why we urge the U.S.
    Government and other free-world countries to try to help Hong
    Kong by, for instance, passing the Human Rights and Democracy
    Act.
        And you can pass the Global Magnitsky Act in other
    countries, urge your allies to pass them to let other free-
    world countries stand with Hong Kong.
        Ms. Hom. The economy question, Senator Rubio, is extremely
    important because post-1989, that was a decision made by the
    Communist Party: We're going to go forth, back into market and
    economic reforms, but absolutely no political reforms.
        This has been echoed by the chief executive. When she
    endlessly has been having these kinds of ridiculous press
    conferences where she says nothing, one thing she does say is:
    We need to restore the economy; we need to restore economic
    order--completely ignoring the structural/political issues that
    are causing a lot of the fundamental unrest.
        So the other point I wanted to add is that the Hong Kong
    economy was not delivering the goods to most of the Hong Kong
    people. The tycoons, and probably the triads, were doing quite
    well, but not the majority of Hong Kong people. Hence, we have
    the housing problem, the education problem, the problem of the
    elderly with inadequate care, and so forth, and health care.
        So the economy was not delivering, and I think what needs
    to happen--yes, there should be a renewal of the economy. But
    it's going to be an economy that works for all the people.
        If I could pick up quickly on Sunny's reference to
    autonomy. Autonomy, what it means for the Communist Party is--
    we only need to look at the so-called autonomous regions in
    Tibet and Xinjiang.
        What autonomy means is no culture, no language, no history,
    no right to believe or practice your faith under the
    sinicization of religion, which is an oxymoron. And their
    understanding of autonomy even extends past this life. As you
    know, the Party is trying to now control reincarnation.
        So they are also trying to impose a notion of Chineseness.
    What kind of Chineseness? Well, Xi Jinping's notion of
    Chineseness under the Chinese dream and what is Chinese. But
    Hong Kongers are quite complex as a history, and language, and
    culture. And I think Hong Kongers are negotiating what it means
    to be a Hong Konger, whether it includes being a Chinese. Does
    it mean that?
        And I think that's what it means to be free, the right to
    decide and determine in this complex way, what does it mean to
    be who we are? And that is absolutely antithetical to the DNA
    of the Communist Party and its notion of autonomy because it
    does not exist.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you.
        The ``rule of patriots'' in Hong Kong basically means that
    there is no substantive high degree of autonomy. Basically,
    under Xi Jinping, a democratic centralism is practiced. They
    may solicit input from the Hong Kong government, but once
    Beijing makes a decision, the SAR government has to implement
    it.
        Building on Dr. Hom's comments here, national identity is
    now a national security issue for the Communist Party and Hong
    Kong. They believe that one of the major problems--this goes
    back to 2007 when Hu Jintao told the Hong Kong government on
    the tenth anniversary that the SAR government had to create a
    new generation of Hong Kongers who loved ``one country, two
    systems,'' who loved China, that the recovery of Hong Kong
    would not be complete until Hong Kongers identified with China,
    with Communist China.
        This also touches on Xi Jinping's Chinese Communist
    identity politics, which is attempting to rehabilitate the
    spoiled image of the Communist Party and the spoiled image of
    being a Communist. This is why we start seeing laws protecting
    the national anthem, martyrs and so forth.
        So in Hong Kong, which has always been historically anti-
    Communist to a large degree, there is this effort related to
    the extradition campaign to eradicate so-called anti-Communist
    sentiment, and anti-Communist forces.
        With regard to autonomy, because the Belt and Road
    Initiative and the Greater Bay Area Initiative are key to
    China's development program right now, and because the central
    government believes that the major impediment to Hong Kong
    signing on and strongly supporting these programs has been the
    two systems, has been its democracy, has been its freedoms, it
    is now looking to restrict those in order to force the SAR
    government to support these programs.
        So, once again in closing, I would say there is no
    substantive autonomy. Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Mr. Suozzi.
        Representative Suozzi. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
    Cochairman Rubio, for holding this hearing. We appreciate you
    bringing this together. Thank you, Representative Smith--
    Ranking Member Smith--for the work that you've done on this
    issue for so many years.
        Thank you to the witnesses. We are so grateful to all of
    you for the information you've given us here today and for
    shining a light on this. I know we sit here in this chamber.
    It's very calm. It's very safe. It's very sterile, and you're
    bringing to life what's going on in real people's lives right
    now, when you talk about a 12-year-old being arrested. We hear
    the idea that someone gets pepper spray sprayed into their
    wound, when we hear about people's heads being smashed into the
    concrete and getting concussions. And when we hear about the
    rubber bullets and the tear gas and everything else. And people
    living in fear on a regular basis for standing up, for speaking
    their minds.
        Here in the United States of America, we have believed
    since Nixon went to China that the more that China was exposed
    to our way of life in the United States and to the West, that
    they would become more like us. We always thought they'd
    become--if they saw capitalism, if they saw democracy, sooner
    or later, they'd become more and more like us. And we now know
    that that is not at all the case.
        Whether the hearings that we have held about the Uyghurs,
    or the hearings about Tibet, or now about Hong Kong, we know
    that they are pulling--well, you know we talk about Hong Kong
    as being ``one country, two systems.'' It's really one world
    with two models, and they are meeting each other in Hong Kong
    right now.
        And the question is, which model is going to win? Is it
    going to be the model that we promote here in the United States
    with the rule of law and with freedom of expression, and with
    democracy, or is it going to be authoritarianism, and the
    powerful forces of the government doing whatever they want,
    whatever way they want? They are meeting right there, and you
    are right in the middle of that challenge right now.
        So we're so grateful to all of you. I am concerned about
    the timing of things right now. We're pushing to get this bill
    passed here in the Congress. But right now, we've got--I think
    you talked about it, Joshua--National Day in China is coming up
    on October 1st.
        And I'm concerned about what mainland China's actions are
    going to be in relation to that and whether there will be more
    violence as a result as they try to flex their authority. And
    I'd like to hear each of you talk about that.
        And the second thing I am concerned about is the local
    elections coming up in November. I want to hear from you about
    whether you believe there is an opportunity here for the people
    of Hong Kong to express themselves, or is mainland China trying
    to subvert that by not permitting certain candidates to run and
    not giving them permission to run, which is a foreign idea to
    us here in the United States of America, but so important to
    all of you.
        And the third thing is, let's say a magic wand was all of a
    sudden waved. And mainland China said, we are going to support
    the idea of there being elections in the future in Hong Kong
    for the leader. Instead of Carrie Lam being appointed, there
    will be an election by the people.
        That couldn't happen right away. It would take some time. I
    would like to hear what you think about the timing. So let's
    try and keep it brief. I know I talked a lot myself and used up
    a lot of time.
        But please--October 1st, election day and how impactful
    that can be, and what the timing would be if they were to
    agree, as one of the five demands, that there would be
    universal suffrage?
        So Joshua, you go first, please.
        Mr. Wong. Troops were already moved to the border a few
    weeks ago, a tactic the Beijing authorities have used to
    generate a chilling effect. We are strongly aware that Carrie
    Lam, the leader of Hong Kong, openly declared that she is
    considering imposing an ``emergency ordinance'' in Hong Kong to
    stop the protests. An ``emergency ordinance'' is the colonial-
    era law similar to martial law. It authorizes the chief
    executive of Hong Kong to shut down the internet, cut public
    transport, and even cut air traffic.
        We all know that the political crisis must be solved by
    political system reform. That's the reason we urge Beijing not
    to handpick the leader. Please let us enjoy the right of free
    elections.
        They are considering using this kind of martial law before
    or after Chinese National Day. But I think that's not the only
    reason people defending human rights should care about it. Even
    businessmen that focus on enjoying economic freedom and an open
    business environment should be aware of how Hong Kong is not
    only on the brink of bloodshed, it is also under the threat of
    martial law and ``white terror.''
        So I really hope to have bipartisan support to pass the
    Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
        After explaining what is happening before or after Chinese
    National Day, the upcoming district council elections are
    scheduled on the 24th of November. With the track record of how
    Beijing unseated democratically elected lawmakers, including
    Nathan Law and Agnes Chow, the ones who hoped to run for office
    early last year, we strongly expect and are aware that Beijing
    will still keep its hardline policy toward Hong Kong and block
    or buy youngsters to run for office.
        As one who has engaged in street activism, I also hope the
    voice of the young generation can be heard inside the
    institution. And at the same time, I will also make sure that
    the announcement will be in late September or early October as
    to whether I will run for office on the district council or
    not.
        If the Beijing government bans me from running for office,
    they must pay the price in Hong Kong protests and also in the
    international community.
        Representative Suozzi. So in Hong Kong, there are many pan-
    democrats and many pro-Beijing folks? Is there a chance that
    that could change, that that dynamic could change because of
    the protests that are going on?
        Mr. Wong. In the district council, we have 452 seats, and
    more than 75 percent of the seats are mostly in the pro-Beijing
    camp. And on the 24th of November, we hope the pro-democratic
    camp can get a good turnout to show the power of the people.
        Representative Suozzi. I just want to emphasize the timing
    coming up. October 1 and November 24 are big days that could
    have a big impact on what Beijing is doing and what is
    happening from the people. And it could be a flashpoint--we
    have to be very conscious of that.
        Denise, do you want to go ahead?
        Ms. Ho. Yes, personally, I don't feel that October 1st
    would be something to stop the people from going onto the
    streets as the sentiment is still very, very determined and
    very strong among all walks of life. And so this fight has been
    able to sustain itself because of this sort of creativity and
    flexibility of the people. And I believe that without a sincere
    answer or solution from the government, the people won't be
    backing down.
        And as to how the Communist government might suppress us on
    even an escalating level, personally I feel that there are
    probably already Chinese police among the Hong Kong police
    force. There have been several occasions where the police
    commanders have been heard speaking Mandarin to their officers.
    So on this note, I believe that Hong Kong people are already
    facing this sort of infiltration of the Chinese police into the
    Hong Kong police force.
        Representative Suozzi. Are you concerned about it
    escalating around National Day?
        Ms. Ho. Well, I mean it's already on a daily basis--this
    sort of escalation where the police are patrolling the streets.
    People are arrested just for being young, really. So, I think
    we are already at that stage. That is why we call for the U.S.
    Congress and also the international community to monitor this
    regime--that is, the Xi Jinping regime--because we in Hong Kong
    are protecting these values that we all believe in. And if we
    fail, who knows what would happen to the world and to the next
    stage.
        Representative Suozzi. Thank you.
        Sunny.
        Mr. Cheung. Thank you for the question.
        Personally, I think on National Day, actually, there will
    be more escalation of the movement, because I know that the
    Chinese authorities must want the Hong Kong people to respect
    National Day. But on the other hand, Hong Kong protesters, they
    know that it is important to have some symbolic movement on
    National Day. And that is why there will be some escalation of
    the movement.
        But I doubt if the Chinese government will dare to use the
    emergency law or send out the PLA to Hong Kong because
    currently China relies on Hong Kong very much--much foreign
    investment in China is still coming from Hong Kong. And that is
    why if they deploy the PLA or try to use emergency laws to
    crack down on Hong Kong protesters, I think this is not very
    promising for Hong Kong people nor for the Beijing government.
    The Beijing government will not do something like that, I feel.
        Representative Suozzi. Sharon, if you could talk about the
    elections a little bit also.
        Ms. Hom. I think a couple of things. One is really
    important that has not been raised.
        In addition to the question of infiltration and use of
    decoys, last August 2018, the People's Daily announced the
    planned establishment of a Greater Bay Area police cooperation
    mechanism among Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao. Related to and
    part of this mechanism, the Guangdong public security
    department conducted training of key Hong Kong police personnel
    in Guangdong. This has been followed up on.
        And one of the questions I think is important to press
    either through the U.N. systems is to raise the question,
    ``Really? What kind of training?'' I am pretty sure that the
    training did not include international standards on appropriate
    use of force.
        And the special procedures of the U.N. special experts--
    just last week they issued a joint statement about concern and
    also raising these questions of the need to make the police,
    the Hong Kong police--there are very sophisticated detailed
    standards on the use of force: that you are supposed to
    deescalate, not escalate; you're supposed to reduce harm, not
    create harm; and that there is a whole range of police crowd-
    control mechanisms that they are supposed to choose according
    to proportionality. So I wanted to just emphasize that.
        On the timing of National Day, I think we can't lose sight
    of the fact that Xi Jinping is not as powerful as we may think
    or as he would like us to think, and that it is true that with
    the consolidation of power, etc. and his ``no term limit''--now
    both of the key positions--the fact is, what you're getting to
    see, the tea leaves, if you look a little more closely, is that
    the Party leaders inside are not happy with the way that Xi
    Jinping has ``handled'' the Hong Kong situation.
        Xi Jinping is actually in a lose-lose situation. It's a no-
    win situation. He's stuck between the hardliners--who I am
    pretty much concerned about--they are pushing for military
    force, because he has already shown he's failed.
        Deng Xiaoping took two months, shut down the whole 89
    student and the democracy and free trade union movement. We are
    now in the third month, so under the Party's timeframe on how
    you ``handle'' these mass disputes, Xi has failed. So he's in a
    pretty dicey situation.
        October 1st. This is not just any anniversary. This is the
    70th anniversary. So they have made a year's worth of enormous
    investment in a film festival, special documentaries made. They
    have said that no Chinese entertainment in this Chinese TV
    recently. They have to show the history, etc. There's an
    enormous amount of investment to keep the legitimacy and have a
    wonderful birthday celebration for the country.
        So he's stuck. It can't look bad. On the other hand, he's
    stuck between the hardliners and the others who are saying,
    ``There's got to be a way to handle this. Not the way you're
    doing it because now we look terrible. Now we look like the
    thugs we are.''
        And so I think that that is--what we should be monitoring
    are the messages. And just last week, a very strange editorial
    appeared in Qiushi, which as you know is one of the major party
    organs. And in Qiushi, the editorial pointed out something very
    strange. It said that whether a country's political--this is
    our translation, sorry--``Whether a country's political system
    is democratic and effective, one needs to mainly look at
    whether the country's leadership ranks can rotate or alternate
    in accordance with the law in an orderly fashion.''
        What does this mean? We don't know. Because just the fact
    that the constitution eliminated term limits for the top office
    doesn't mean he'll stay.
        So I think there are some other wild cards that are on the
    table that we need to keep an eye on in terms of how the U.S.
    Government can think about the options and policy options. Of
    course, we support the legislative initiatives--this is very
    important. But I think there's something much bigger underway
    in terms of the politics in Beijing that will absolutely have
    an impact on the decisions that will be made pre-October 1st
    and after.
        Representative Suozzi. Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. All right. Well, why don't we go to
    Senator Young.
        Senator Young. I just have a statement to make and I regret
    I am going to have to leave after this.
        But I wanted to say thank you, Mr. Wong, thank you, Ms. Ho,
    for your courage, for your resolve, for your leadership in the
    face of great trial and tribulation. Thank you for the example
    you are setting for the world and for all that you're doing for
    freedom-loving people.
        I want to send a message to Beijing's Communists. And my
    message is, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot seek to
    trade with the wealthy nations of the world and rip off our
    intellectual property. You cannot seek to be a trusted
    international development partner and engage in predatory
    economic practices through your Belt and Road Initiative, and
    you cannot reap all the economic benefits, that you enjoy under
    American law, of Hong Kong's special status while undermining
    the rights of Hong Kongers, while eradicating their political
    identity. We cannot allow this to happen.
        So I look forward to working with you. I will be signing on
    to the legislation offered by the cochairman of this committee
    as you have encouraged us to do. And I will be seeking other
    opportunities, perhaps in the immigration area, to provide
    further relief to Hong Kongers who do not want to be a part of
    this predatory regime that calls itself Communist, but in fact
    is really fascist in many respects. And we must continue to
    press it to change its behavior.
        Thank you so much for your presence here.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith.
        Representative Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        There is no disputing the fact that under Xi Jinping, human
    rights abuses have seriously worsened. You name the area--from
    torture, religious freedom.
        Ms. Hom, you talked about the sinicization of religions
    where every single religion or faith, including the Falun Gong,
    Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, the Uyghurs, all have to comport
    with the Communist model or else face severe torture,
    incarceration, and even death. It is incredible what he is
    doing and his regime and of course, all of that will be imposed
    on Hong Kong unless there is a reversal of this trend.
        On human trafficking, the Trump Administration has
    designated China as a Tier 3 country because of sex and labor
    trafficking. It has gotten seriously worse over the last
    several years.
        So every place you look, it is worse. Xi Jinping is
    bringing dishonor to himself and to his government with his
    abuse of people. I think we need to say that loud and clear.
    The great father of Chinese democracy, Wei Jingsheng, once
    said--and I had him at a hearing and I actually met him in
    Beijing when he was let out briefly to get Olympics 2000, which
    the Chinese government didn't get. So they rearrested him and
    beat him almost senseless.
        Well, he said, you know, you Westerners don't get it. You
    do coddle dictatorship. You do allow and enable by your
    weakness. You've got to look a dictatorship in the eye and say,
    ``We're not kidding.'' Conditionality of human rights either
    occurs or we're not going to be trading with you and allowing
    you to use the economic power that you've got to further
    incarcerate and further repress.
        The lessons of the Soviet Union were not learned when it
    came to China. I got elected in 1981. My first trip was to
    Moscow and Leningrad on behalf of Soviet Jews. And frankly, the
    Reagan Administration stood up strongly to the powers in Moscow
    and said, ``Human rights matter.''
        And it did matter and thankfully we saw a change. Of
    course, under Putin it's still bad, but not as bad as it was
    during those years. I raise all of that because when it comes
    to China, we have not learned the lessons of conditionality
    with regard to human rights. I say that with sadness, with
    great sadness.
        When we did the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986,
    not only did I vote for it, but we had a world coalition saying
    this egregious behavior will not be tolerated. Therefore, we
    are going to hold you to account and no longer provide
    munitions--that was section 317, I believe, of that bill--which
    Mr. McGovern's bill (the PROTECT Hong Kong Act), which I have
    cosponsored, would seek to do with the police. Mr. Garrett, you
    might want to speak to that.
        But we've got to be serious about all of this. And I just
    bring this up because it deeply concerns me that we just keep
    not learning the lessons.
        Nancy Pelosi, Frank Wolf, David Bonior, and I all opposed
    MFN for China after Tiananmen Square. George Herbert Walker
    Bush thought he could manage the whole thing. He was our
    Ambassador to China. And as it turned out, we managed it
    extraordinarily poorly.
        Bill Clinton came in and said, ``Let's link human rights
    with MFN trade.'' One year later, he delinked it. And the
    lesson learned by the dictatorship in Beijing was--profits
    trump human rights.
        And I have tried for five years to get my bill passed, our
    bill. It's a collective bill, House and Senate, bipartisan. And
    the same people who said just trade more and somehow China will
    matriculate from dictatorship to democracy have been proven
    wrong again.
        And if it wasn't for the great people of Hong Kong standing
    up so powerfully at great loss to their liberty, going to
    prison, being arrested, being harassed, and even tortured and
    killed--this Congress needs to wake up and say, finally, at
    long last, we're going to put conditionality on this.
        So if you want to speak to that, I would appreciate it.
    There have been 1,000 arrests since the activities occurred.
    What is the status of the prosecutions?
        Joshua, we know your case. But there are many other cases
    that are in obscurity right now. What has happened to those
    individuals? And just generally on the police--are the police
    largely newer recruits who are more ideologically aligned with
    Beijing? Or are they the old hands who have just now become
    even more repressive than they had been in the past?
        If you could speak to those things, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Wong. With more than 1,500 Hong Kongers arrested in the
    past three months, more than 200 of them have been prosecuted
    already. I am among them and we are also aware of activists who
    were already detained inside prison before any trial started.
    That is the ``sugar-coated'' rule of law and the Hong Kong-
    style legal system under the pressure of Beijing.
        I've been arrested and prosecuted with the charge of
    unauthorized assembly. Even after the experience of being
    jailed for around 120 days, the price I paid is ``a piece of
    cake,'' because lots of our teammates--from my understanding,
    more than 100 of them face riot charges and may be locked up in
    prison for more than 10 years.
        Five years ago during the Umbrella Movement, we were just
    arrested for unlawful assembly and would face maybe months or
    one to two years in jail. But now youngsters at the age of 15,
    who should be enjoying their summer holiday, who should be
    spending time on summer vacation with their friends and family
    but are now being prosecuted and facing trial, and maybe at 15
    or 16--golden years for them--might be already locked up in
    prison.
        And we have activist Edward Leung, who fights for Hong
    Kong's freedom, already being locked up in prison. He faces six
    years in prison.
        Massive arrests and prosecution seem to be Beijing's tactic
    to silence our voice. And yet our movement keeps its momentum--
    just like two weeks ago, more than 200,000 Hong Kongers marched
    to the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong and urged the United States
    to pass the bill and show global solidarity.
        We are also aware that the cabinet of chief executives,
    which means members from the Executive Council, last week
    openly declared that Hong Kong's chief executive enjoys the
    right to appoint any secret police. ``Secret police'' is not a
    term created by activists or created by journalists. It is the
    term written in the current ordinance and regulation. It could
    authorize the Hong Kong chief executive to appoint anyone,
    whether they live in Hong Kong or mainland China, and
    regardless of their background.
        They can be appointed to the Hong Kong police force and
    continue to use life-threatening force to crack down on our
    protests. That is the ``white terror'' and why all of us
    describe Hong Kong as a police state.
        Ms. Ho. I would like to add that among those who have been
    arrested and charged with riot, a lot of them have been on the
    sites, but they have not been on the front lines. They were
    just near the front lines, and some of them have been first
    aiders who have been helping other people get up and get away
    from the sites, social workers and, of course, the legislators
    who have been arrested. They were not charged with riot, but
    that is something that is shocking to the Hong Kong people--to
    have these legislators arrested.
        And so on top of that, I would like to add that the
    situation, that is, in Hong Kong, is spreading into the
    international world where this Communist tactic of silencing
    people with fear and with money, it's everywhere, really. It's
    not only in Hong Kong.
        As I said just now, there have been incidents in Australia
    where government institutions have kept away from me and other
    Chinese artists for fear of being associated with us, and in
    Canada where Hong Kong activists have been banned from a gay
    pride event because of security concerns. So they say.
        The fact is that the Communist government, they use this
    sort of--the money where the brands and businesses, they would
    be adding this sort of suppression onto their employees and
    other people. And then everyone would be just silencing
    themselves.
        So this also is causing a lot of fear among Hong Kongers
    and that is why this movement has been largely anonymous
    because we know for a fact that if we show our faces, then we
    would be arrested and prosecuted for riot or unlawful assembly.
        Mr. Cheung. I would like to supplement what Denise has just
    mentioned about this problematic law. Actually, the Human
    Rights Council of the United Nations has decried the public
    order ordinance, which is a colonial law in Hong Kong. The
    Department of Justice and the police force in Hong Kong can use
    this public order ordinance to prosecute those protesters in a
    very easy way. And when they do, then it is easy for the
    protestors to be assumed guilty. And that's why this law should
    be abolished by the government. And we urge that the
    international community should also be aware of this law.
        And apart from that, I had a personal experience--I had a
    tutorial kid. And he was arrested in one of the political
    disputes around the confrontation during the movement. When
    that kid was arrested, he immediately asked the police officer
    to--asked him can he call his lawyer. And the police officer
    told him, ``Of course you can't . . . because I want to torture
    you. Because I want to make you suffer.''
        These police officers, they said something like that to a
    kid who is just under 18. And this is a real situation in Hong
    Kong. That's why many people are very frustrated and angry
    about the police brutality problem.
        Ms. Hom. The prosecutions are related to the application of
    the public order ordinance that results in an unlawful
    assembly. So the ``notice of no objection'' process contributes
    to that, that's the tool. Hong Kongers then face this
    ridiculous situation where they have to file an application for
    a notice of no objection to a peaceful assembly that is to
    protest police violence.
        So you have the police denying the notice of no objection,
    therefore making it an unlawful assembly for an assembly that
    is to protest police violence. So that's really important that
    through this kind of misuse of that process, they are really
    violating international standards for peaceful assembly by
    imposing this kind of unduly restrictive administrative
    procedure.
        The police, under this procedure, then can act as both
    enforcement, prosecutor--because they are naming this--saying
    this is a riot. But a determination of ``riot'' requires a
    legal process. It's for the court to look at the evidence. It's
    for the court to see if this person engaged in illegal behavior
    and alleged violence, etc.
        So right now, the police are acting as enforcement,
    prosecution, and executioner of orders. And that is part of the
    problem; on top of that, we have concerns with politicized
    decision-making by the prosecution.
        This was also noted by independent U.N. experts several--
    maybe two years ago saying that they were concerned about a
    potential pattern of politicized decisions that were being made
    on whom to prosecute and whom to pursue.
        Mr. Garrett. There is an issue regarding whether Hong
    Kongers can get a fair trial in Hong Kong in the future. And a
    large reason for this is the heavy amount of propaganda coming
    from the Central People's government, whether it is Chinese
    state media organizations or it is so-called mainstream media
    organizations who quote them and cite them ubiquitously.
        So when the Chinese regime characterizes demonstrators as
    separatists, extremists, terrorists, this is already setting an
    expectation for the Hong Kong judiciary to act, as well as law
    enforcement, not only in the charges that they decide to lay
    against a protester, but also the sentences that they're trying
    to give people.
        The pro-Beijing United Front Movement in Hong Kong has been
    very aggressive in attacking judges that it feels have been too
    lenient with protesters. And this goes back a number of years.
    They derogatorily refer to them as ``yellow judges,'' referring
    to the yellow ribbons from the Umbrella Revolution.
        There have been threats made by pro-Beijing people toward
    the judiciary, in general, that have gone unprosecuted. So this
    is a real issue.
        Also, because of the 2016 Oathgate intervention by the
    National People's Congress, there's an expectation that Hong
    Kong judges will uphold the national security of the Communist
    Party. So if you render a decision inconsistent with that
    national security expectation, you may be vulnerable to
    disqualification. Now this has not happened, but this is the
    logic that is being used to disqualify candidates of the
    district council, the Legislative Council elections, and so
    forth.
        Regarding the police--touching on Sharon's comments
    earlier--the Hong Kong police also went to Xinjiang as
    observers to learn how they handle ``mass incidents.'' There
    was very little visibility on that.
        We know that the PLA in Hong Kong, there is some
    interaction with them. The Hong Kong PLA garrison commander has
    observed some of their passing out parades and so forth.
        But one of the most dangerous and I think terrifying things
    for most Hong Kongers is that the Hong Kong police now act
    without wearing uniforms, without any type of identification.
    You can be grabbed off the street. You can be grabbed from your
    home. Nobody shows you any type of formal identification. You
    don't know if they are a police officer. You don't know if they
    are a triad, a patriotic vigilante, or if somebody from the
    mainland is kidnapping you. So this is a major issue.
        Now, as for the Communist Party, they view law enforcement
    as their concept of the rule of law or rule by law. And so the
    support--basically, the Hong Kong police have been given carte
    blanche to do whatever they want. And as Carrie Lam said
    before, the Hong Kong police are seen as the last line in this.
    So the policing issue is a major problem in Hong Kong.
        Chairman McGovern. Senator King.
        Senator King. Mr. Chairman, Representative McAdams was here
    long before I arrived. So I'll defer to him.
        Chairman McGovern. Representative McAdams, go ahead.
        Representative McAdams. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
        Today marks a significant day in United States history. It
    was 232 years ago on this very day that our forefathers signed
    the United States Constitution. So it's, I think, with some
    significance that we welcome you here today to the United
    States Congress, the House and the Senate, to share your
    testimony and as you share in this struggle, this global
    struggle of humanity for freedom and independence.
        That Constitution signed 232 years ago today created a
    federal system, one with a Senate and a House, that oftentimes
    by design there's some tension between these two bodies. It
    created three branches of government--an executive branch, a
    legislative branch, and a judicial branch.
        An outgrowth of that system is our two political parties
    that oftentimes also struggle for our ideas to move forward. It
    created a federal system with now 50 states that also--there's
    a healthy tension, sometimes unhealthy, but there is a tension
    within that system as we struggle to move forward ideas and the
    rule of law. One thing that I think is important to note,
    though, is that we all stand together. This is a legislative
    and executive branch, that we stand together, Republicans and
    Democrats, in support of the struggle for human rights, for the
    rule of law, and for freedom for Hong Kong.
        And I would echo the sentiments that have been expressed
    earlier, that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the
    rule of law and human rights and the struggle for freedom with
    the actions that we see that are undermining the very nature of
    that system in Hong Kong today. And so it's incredibly
    troubling to me to see what we have seen play out over the last
    six months.
        And forecasting into the future, some of the efforts to
    undermine the sanctuaries of democracy and human rights that we
    see right now--some of those sanctuaries and foundations of
    freedom as we've seen in the United States and we also see in
    Hong Kong, the freedom of democracy and government through
    elections, the freedom of academia and for ideas to thrive in
    an academic system, economic freedom for individuals, and
    economic competition, and the rule of law where every
    individual is treated fairly and equally under the law, and
    human rights--are protected.
        So my concern and what I would love for you to comment on
    is where we go from here and with some very troubling signs on
    the horizon.
        So I would like you to comment on, Mr. Wong--let me commend
    all of you who are examples and the founders of freedom whose
    names I hope will be remembered 232 years from now in the
    struggle for freedom in Hong Kong. But Mr. Wong, Ms. Ho, Mr.
    Cheung, and Ms. Hom, thank you for your efforts and struggles
    for Hong Kong.
        I would love for you to comment on--first of all, Mr. Wong,
    the struggle in elections--for individuals to step forward.
    Over the last several years, the government has--as you
    referenced--has repeatedly rejected the nomination of
    candidates running for political office who have supported or
    been affiliated with self-determination. What challenges does
    that impose today and going forward for individuals who are
    willing to put themselves and their names forward?
        Taking that same look at the foundations of freedom of
    thought--to academia--what support do academic institutions
    give to students as they raise their voices in support of
    intellectual freedom and human rights, and also to the free
    economy, as businesses--Ms. Ho, as I believe you spoke about--
    some of the concerns with Cathay Pacific and efforts that
    undermine individuality and freedom of thought in the
    marketplace of ideas and in the workplace. What is happening in
    these respective spheres and foundations of democracy and how
    can we best support freedom of thought?
        Mr. Wong. Just let me explain what is on the mind of the
    young generation. In the past few years after the end of the
    Umbrella Movement, lots of youngsters, even if they uphold
    different kinds of political belief, they still have the
    awareness and consensus. They hope their words can be heard
    inside this institution.
        Apart from taking to the streets joining protests, it is
    also significant for us to push forward political system/
    election reform. Unfortunately, with all the political
    censorship, even I am considering running for office. And I
    will make a formal announcement in late September or early
    October.
        I am still aware of how Beijing hopes to bar this whole
    generation of youngsters from entering the institution. But we
    are lucky that with the determination and courage of Hong
    Kongers, they just turned a whole generation of youngsters into
    dissidents, and not just the baby boomers. Even Gen X and
    millennials have joined the fight with solidarity and unity.
        So I will just make it clear. Hong Kong is not only
    suffering from a political crisis. We are also suffering from a
    humanitarian crisis, especially how the Hong Kong police force
    just hardline suppresses us, whether it be the sexual
    harassment experienced by a young woman arrested, or an injured
    protester pulled down from the ambulance by riot police
    directly. Or how an arrested person--it is really difficult for
    them--being refused the right to contact a lawyer or even seek
    any kind of medical treatment.
        I think this kind of hardline suppression will just turn
    the whole of my generation and the generation younger than me,
    whether on the street or getting inside an institution, we will
    keep on together with this uphill battle and we hope that the
    U.S. Congress can stand with Hong Kong.
        Ms. Ho. Yes, on the cultural side and on the freedom-of-
    thought side of things, 90 percent of it, probably, has been
    eroded--all of ``show business'' has been--is in the control of
    the Communist government. I, along with just a very small
    handful of actors and singers, have spoken up for these
    movements, but the rest of the celebrities have kept their
    silence.
        And they have been forced to participate in these support
    campaigns on social media, ``Oh, I support the Hong Kong
    police,'' or ``I am a protector of the national flag''
    campaigns where they have to voice their support for the
    Chinese government or else they would be prosecuted or
    censored--people like us.
        Businesses, of course, have also been pressured into
    obstructing these freedoms of Hong Kongers, namely the MTR, our
    subway system; they have closed down stations in times of
    protest, thereby making it very easy for the police to arrest
    people and also very difficult for people to leave the sites.
    That was a result--I believe there was an article in the
    People's Daily, the state newspaper, where they have named the
    MTR Corporation, saying that they have been helping the people.
        I do think that in a free society, these businesses and
    corporations have an obligation, a social responsibility to
    keep up this kind of integrity, at least to safeguard our
    freedoms, which they have failed to do. And like, right now, we
    do not have many solutions to these problems because, aside
    from the people protesting, these businesses are exercising
    their suppression onto the people.
        We hope that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
    with these sanctions on government officials--and hopefully
    this could extend to these corporations who have been violating
    the Basic Law, the freedom of speech--hopefully this would be
    monitoring the businesses and also, of course, the government
    institutions in Hong Kong.
        Mr. Cheung. From the academic perspective, I believe we
    need to have a correct understanding of China first. In 1989
    Professor Fukuyama famously declared ``the end of history''
    because he believed democracy was the ultimate form of human
    government and that the ideology of Communism or of terrorism
    would have no place in the coming world.
        But apparently, two decades after he gave his speech, he
    was wrong. And we cannot keep using the mindset of the old
    times that we should continue the engagement policy toward
    China. We should abandon the engagement policy and try to use a
    more assertive way to try to understand China.
        Because on campuses we know that the Chinese government
    tried to establish a lot of Confucius Institutes around the
    world. And with those Confucius Institutes they are creating
    propaganda--trying to influence the youth in other countries--
    including your kids.
        This is not reasonable. Canada's government last year
    started to shut down some of the Confucius Institutes. And I
    believe this is a global fight because when we uphold academic
    freedom and freedom of speech on campus, the Chinese
    government, apparently they do not agree with that.
        And when many Hong Kong people over the past few months
    supported the movement in Hong Kong and have organized a lot of
    rallies across the globe, in Australia, in the U.K., in the
    U.S., they have received a lot of frightening letters, and they
    are being followed. Their home addresses are being posted on
    social media.
        And that is why we need all the countries, including the
    U.S., to support Hong Kong people on campus and to uphold and
    support academic freedom in the long run. Thank you.
        Ms. Hom. I think the question that all of this is related
    to is China's clear exercise of soft, hard, and sharp power.
    And so I want to say a couple of things on the academic front.
        In the U.S., we have over 300,000 Chinese students from the
    mainland and also students elsewhere. I think Joshua saw
    recently, up close and personal, when he spoke at Columbia,
    what the actions of the students are. I'm not raising it to
    suggest that there's an easy answer, but I do think that we
    must be thinking about how we--and I use it for lack of a
    better word--engage the fact that we're welcoming students into
    U.S. institutions.
        I teach a human rights course at NYU as well. And I had
    some mainlanders who were afraid if they took the course, other
    people would report them--if there were students in the class
    who were observers, So, I am saying that mainland students here
    face censorship as well. Some are protesting in support of Hong
    Kong, but we also have to recognize that they are all under
    surveillance, with families back home.
        I really want to echo Denise's call to bring in the role of
    the companies. In particular, as the PROTECT Hong Kong Act
    moves forward in discussions--and I know that it's going
    through the legislative process--I think it would be really
    good to think about and address the question of the U.S.
    companies, because not only will the denial of export licenses
    really address the issue--it will address the issue of no
    longer being complicit-- but will it address the issue of the
    actual category of lethal and nonlethal materials?
        And I wanted to point out that China hosts the China
    International Exhibition on Police Equipment every two years.
    The next one--they're all held in Beijing--will be held on May
    12th to the 15th. That's a really important date. And they sell
    and they have thousands of exhibitors and companies from all
    over the world. And in the past, we have been monitoring. Many
    U.S. companies have gone to exhibit and sell, and then
    afterwards report very proudly on the----
        [Voices from the hall.]
        Ms. Hom [continuing]. Are we singing? Okay. Not yet. Not
    yet, right? Not singing yet.
        But they've also reported on the hundreds, the millions of
    dollars worth of contracts that they were able to secure in
    Beijing.
        So, I think one thought might be to--aside from--or in
    addition to export licenses, what about technology transfers?
    What about collaboration? What about them training the Chinese
    partner companies? What are the other things that need to be in
    place? Because China has been named an economic competitor of
    the U.S. It's not an even playing field. They're an economic
    competitor where the SOEs are dominating the economy. You are
    not investing in all the U.S. companies, but China is investing
    in all the key industries. And that is technology, AI, the
    military sector, financial services, and the major
    telecommunications companies in the ICT sector, are completely
    state-owned enterprises.
        So I want to share one final thought for what can be done
    going forward. At the end of this year, China rotates off the
    Human Rights Council in 2020.
        I think that the U.S. Government has left the Council for
    various analyses of its effectiveness, but that does not take
    away from the fact that the U.S. is still viewed as a leading
    player among all the member states on the Council. You can
    exercise your role as an observer state. You can also exercise
    your very influential role in working with other democratic
    governments to issue joint statements, joint initiatives.
        So I think 2020 is particularly important. And in
    particular, that is the year to push because you are also on
    the NGO committee of ECOSOC. That is the year to support and
    push for the reforms that are needed to allow independent civil
    society groups to be able to participate.
        As you know, my organization had applied for ECOSOC status,
    over the last 30 years, and both times you can't make it out of
    the NGO committee because China goes [gestures slitting of
    throat]. And that's it. It's ``end of story.''
        So I think it's very important that the U.S. can raise the
    issues not only as an observer in the Human Rights Council but
    in the General Assembly. And I know the USG is quite active on
    the Third and Fifth Committees. That's where I think it's
    really important to exercise leadership. 2020 is the year you
    can push because China will be there with its client states and
    threatening proxy states to support them while they're off the
    Council. But the point is, they won't have a vote, so I think
    it's a good year to perhaps get some traction.
        Mr. Garrett. I will just make a couple of quick comments.
        One is the U.S. has law enforcement cooperation with the
    Hong Kong police, and this may need to be reconsidered or
    looked at more strongly in the future. Second, basically as far
    as companies go in Hong Kong, there is a ``one country, two
    systems'' apartheid-like system where patriotic companies are
    privileged over other companies. If you happen to be a pro-
    democracy supporter, you're at the bottom if not an enemy.
        Regarding Hong Kong universities--if I remember my count
    correctly, there are seven public ones. They are all funded by
    the SAR government. So this puts pressure on the type of
    academic agendas, research interests, and so forth. And there
    are real problems if you're considered a sensitive personality
    like Benny Tai, or if you are researching sensitive issues.
    That may or may not be clearly evident.
        There are also a lot of things that happen in Hong Kong
    related to academic and other freedoms that are above the
    waterline and below the waterline. One of the things that the
    Hong Kong police are doing right now is I.D. checks writ large.
        So even if you aren't arrested, your name is being recorded
    and associated as being at a protest site. Now this may come
    down later on in some hiring decision, some vetting process by
    state-owned enterprises or other patriotic Hong Kong companies.
    Former Chief Executive CY Leung discussed such a possibility
    back--I think it was around 2014 or 2012.
        And my last comment would be that Chinese state-owned
    enterprises incorporated in Hong Kong should not be treated as
    Hong Kong companies. Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        I know we have two Senators here. There's a vote on, so I
    am going to yield to Senator King, but if we could just keep
    our answers short so they both can get their questions in, I
    think that would be helpful.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Ms. Hom, I'm struggling with the fact that we've got an
    island of democracy in a sea of repression. You've got a
    country which now seems to be perfecting the control state.
    Millions of cameras, facial recognition, oppression of the
    Uyghurs, religion, everything, and yet you've got Hong Kong.
    You have two societies moving in opposite directions.
        Very briefly, what's the solution . . . or is there one?
    Where does this end, as a practical matter? As a practical
    matter, there are 7 million Hong Kongers and almost 800 million
    mainlanders, whatever that number is.
        The other piece that I wanted to ask is, is there any
    sympathy for the Hong Kongers within the mainland? Is there a
    nascent--I wouldn't call it a democracy movement, but at least
    a freedom of expression movement, or is the government in such
    firm control that that's a fantasy? Give me a picture of where
    this goes.
        Ms. Hom. Thank you. I have no answers because this is an
    ongoing struggle. But I do want to say that the control state--
    you've put your finger right on it. China has built a whole
    ecosystem of control through technology, through the law. We
    didn't even talk about the cybersecurity law----
        Senator King. The most thorough in the history of the
    world.
        Ms. Hom. Most comprehensive, because it also is built on
    self-censorship. It's also built on whole social platforms of
    community reporting on each other. So there is this whole
    ecosystem which is pretty comprehensive that feeds each other.
    But the one thing about technology that's interesting is that
    the asymmetry of power that you could have, a very powerful
    authoritarian state, it has not been able--notwithstanding the
    mass crackdown on lawyers, notwithstanding torture on the
    mainland, notwithstanding the killing of untold thousands in
    the 1989 crackdown; they have not--the Communist Party has not
    been able to shut down people, Chinese people, who continue to
    work for a whole range of human rights. So, that's the first
    point.
        The second thing we haven't really mentioned is that Hong
    Kong has always been, since '89, the only city--and I will say
    within formal China--that has over 100,000 people every year on
    June 4th--remembering. It was Hong Kong students, it was Hong
    Kong journalists who went up to Beijing to support the
    democracy movement in 1989. And there are very moving stories
    of the protesters knowing that the tanks were coming. But they
    said let the Hong Kong students through--they must make it
    safely back because they will tell our story.
        Senator King. Can the Beijing regime tolerate Hong Kong?
    Isn't Hong Kong a fundamental threat to this whole control
    regime?
        Ms. Hom. Half of Hong Kong is a fundamental threat. The
    part of Hong Kong that can be its golden goose that lays the
    golden egg, they like that part. But that goose is not living
    on a free-range farm. And they want that golden goose to
    absolutely keep laying those eggs, but with no air, no freedom,
    no this, no that.
        So they're trying to do something impossible. They're
    trying to keep half of Hong Kong denying the reality of who and
    what Hong Kong is because Hong Kongers have--we have had a
    history of freedom. We've had a history of working courts and
    independence. You can't just wipe it away.
        Sympathy from mainlanders, I know, because I also teach
    human rights seminars at some institutions in Hong Kong, that
    mainlanders participate in the demonstrations. And I can tell
    you, when they participate in the demonstrations in Hong Kong,
    their family back home on the mainland will get a knock on the
    door and a visit from the public security saying, your
    daughter, your son, is in those marches. Tell them to stop.
        So mainlanders in Hong Kong are--it's not just what you see
    in the media of Hong Kongers fighting. There are mainlanders
    who support and are inspired by Hong Kongers--that's what
    Beijing is afraid of. They're afraid, that's why they first
    censored everything. And then suddenly they realized, oh my
    gosh. We cannot censor it. Everybody actually has those illegal
    VPNs and they are getting the information.
        So then they started doing the disinformation because the
    blackout did not work.
        The other point is that there have been mainlanders from
    the beginning, in June, who have expressed support for the Hong
    Kong democracy movement online. What has happened to them?
    Arrested, detained, threatened, intimidated, etc.
        So, notwithstanding the full force of an authoritarian
    police state, they're not able to shut it down. And, Mr. King,
    they're not able to tell mainlanders who do see what they're
    seeing, and who are not afraid, and are willing to also pay the
    price to support Hong Kong's movement, because they understand
    that if Hong Kongers can hold the line, then the mainlanders
    who also want democracy and freedom can also have a chance. But
    Hong Kongers are the front line.
        Senator King. Well, I want to join my colleagues in
    thanking you all. It's hard for us to conceive of the courage
    that it takes. There's no doubt that in this room today is
    someone reporting to Beijing about each of your testimony.
        Ms. Hom. That's right. That's right. So, please make sure
    we are stated properly. I don't want any misquotes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator King. And I want to thank you for your courage to
    speak the truth. And hopefully we will be able to pass some of
    this legislation to make it clear to the regime in Beijing that
    democracy is an important value and that we are not going to
    just pay lip service to it. Thank you all very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you all very much.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank this panel for coming before this
    Commission and providing some perspective and expertise on this
    important and very timely topic.
        As many of you know, I spent more than five years living in
    Guangzhou and part of that time in Hong Kong back in the 1990s
    when I was in the private sector raising a family. In fact we
    have four children. Our two youngest children were both born in
    Hong Kong.
        I'm deeply concerned with the ongoing erosion of autonomy
    and human rights in the region, and I will tell you I stand
    with the citizens of Hong Kong. In fact, just this past month I
    helped lead a legislative exchange between the U.S. and six
    LegCo leaders who came to my home state of Montana.
        This event was important to better understand the situation
    in Hong Kong and identifying what some of the key issues were
    and having a very open and free exchange.
        As the leader of the free world, we, the United States, and
    the entire world, must continue to support the autonomy and the
    freedom of Hong Kong. It is ``one country, two systems.''
        I was in Hong Kong on June 30, 1997 and saw the Union Jack
    come down for the last time. The Hong Kong Central Government
    needs to work with protesters to accept the demands put forward
    by the citizens of the country, and the use of excessive force
    by the police must end immediately. We must continue to work
    together towards building a strong relationship between our two
    countries.
        A question--and I'll start with Mr. Wong. The protesters
    have formed a consensus around five demands, including
    withdrawal of the extradition bill and, of course, universal
    suffrage. Does the government need to comply with all five
    demands immediately, or is there a phase or alternative outcome
    that might be acceptable?
        Mr. Wong. Hong Kong people have fought for free elections
    and universal suffrage since three decades ago, even earlier
    than I was born. All five demands are the consensus of Hong
    Kongers who took to the streets in the past three months. All
    those five demands are also within the existing constitutional
    framework, especially Beijing fulfilling promises of the Sino-
    British Joint Declaration and recognizing the importance of
    letting Hong Kong people enjoy freedom and autonomy, especially
    with the goal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.
        So I would say that the democracy movement and protests
    must continue until the day we have democracy, even while we
    strongly experience the state capitalist regime crackdown on
    Hong Kong human rights. So I will say that.
        Now we have continued our summer of discontent--it has
    become the year of discontent. We just hope the world will
    understand more how Hong Kong people are in a difficult time in
    this long-term and uphill battle.
        Senator Daines. Let me in, if I could--and thank you. I've
    got a vote coming up I have to get to, and I am probably going
    to get there quickly.
        A final question. How do you expect Chief Executive Carrie
    Lam will respond to these demands? And how much power does she
    have to make concessions, or would Beijing have the final say?
        Mr. Wong. That's an extremely good question. Carrie Lam
    represents a puppet government hand-picked by Beijing. She is
    not a decision-maker.
        What we realized is--withdraw the bill or not, stopping
    police brutality or not, allowing Hong Kong people to enjoy a
    free election or not, all depends on the Beijing authorities
    instead of the chief executive of Hong Kong. Carrie Lam doesn't
    have a say in it. She's just following orders from the Beijing
    authorities, especially on how the state council in Beijing
    regularly holds press conferences in the past few weeks to
    criticize Hong Kong protests. It has already been shown how
    Carrie Lam can't solve the political crisis through her
    personal capacity.
        Senator Daines. All right. Thank you. I've got to get to--I
    would love to keep the discussion going longer, but I've got to
    go down to the floor and vote.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
        And I think Mr. Smith has one additional question?
        Representative Smith. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. I do appreciate it.
        If I could--and Ms. Hom, you did mention it, and I think it
    bears a little further scrutiny.
        The notion that there is no such thing as a free lunch, in
    my opinion, applies (on steroids) to the issue of Confucius
    Centers, which are just agents of influence pushing the Beijing
    line. In the past in both my Subcommittee on Human Rights,
    which I chaired, and this commission, I've held a series of
    hearings on Confucius Centers as well as on those entities--
    universities, colleges--that get access to mainland China
    especially, and get an enormous number of perks, money, and
    physical plant venues for their colleges or universities,
    including NYU.
        As a matter of fact, I had the chancellor of NYU testify at
    one of my hearings and asked if I could go and speak. And he
    allowed me to come and give a speech or a lecture on human
    rights in Shanghai at the NYU campus.
        But the concern is that they are en route to 1,000 or
    something like that, globally--that is to say the Chinese
    government--with these Confucius Centers. We have 96 in the
    United States. Eighty-two are public. Fourteen are private.
        One of the things that I'm most concerned about--and Rob
    Portman and I asked for a GAO report on this that finally came
    out in February of this year--and that is to look at the terms
    and conditions, which really are mostly secret. But we have a
    situation where hand-picked teachers come to the United States,
    come to Africa, go to Africa, I should say, Latin America,
    everywhere. And they seemingly are doing education in the
    language and culture, but it's all about the worldview and the
    domestic defense of Xi Jinping's policies, including Hong Kong.
        My question very specifically is, what are the Confucius
    Centers? Do you have any insight as to what they are saying
    about what is going on in Hong Kong right now? And those U.S.-
    based universities and colleges that are in China today, what
    are they able to say and do without fear of retaliation, like
    at the NYU campus in Shanghai, about this great human rights
    pro-democracy effort on the part of all of you in Hong Kong?
        Ms. Hom. I will start off. Thank you.
        I think it's important also to note that the Confucius
    Institutes and the pushbacks have also been led by really
    active, wonderful activism by students for Free Tibet and the
    Tibetan community supported by the Uyghurs. And I think they've
    had some really good victories that show you really can push
    back and get the institutions to be more accountable and
    reliable.
        I think the quick answer as to what they are saying is:
    What they can say will always be under the guidelines right
    now. Now the ideological campaign that's under way, where every
    single Party nonmember has to participate in political study,
    that the line of the day--what can be reported in Xinhua, what
    can be reported in the news, everything--will be determined
    from the top.
        If you say anything, and as you know under the new
    regulations, under the Cybersecurity Act for the news, news is
    defined very broadly to include opinion and commentary,
    including blogging. So you can't say, blog, or think anything
    except in conformity with the line that comes down on Hong
    Kong. Currently, the line is, it is a ``riot'' backed up by
    ``black hands,'' led by the U.S. interfering in a domestic
    affair and violating China's sovereignty.
        This is the same old chestnut we all hear over and over.
    They've got to get a better story here. But that's what they
    keep saying. So I think that is now the dominant line on what
    anyone can say. Because if you say anything against that, for
    example, you have a different idea, not only are you violating
    the new news regulations, you're also running the risk of being
    accused of subversion, incitement, because that is defined as
    challenging the Party's views.
        So I think that's why it is so important that the
    authoritarian system in the mainland must change. It's got to
    change. I know I've heard some of my friends and colleagues say
    to the U.S.: Please, save us. I actually have another angle on
    that. I think Hong Kong people will save ourselves. I think
    Hong Kong people are going to do it.
        What I think is necessary from the international community
    is, please help make the human cost less--because it's very
    clear and heartbreaking that the young people are ready to go
    to the mat. And I think the key is, as I think the U.S.
    Government and this Commission are doing, is to stand by so
    that the human costs can be mitigated a little bit.
        Representative Smith. Understood. But how do the teachers
    in the Confucius Institutes get their marching orders?
        Ms. Hom. This is like going inside of a black box, but let
    me speculate. I am pretty sure that all the curricula are
    approved and reviewed. I'm pretty sure they don't exercise
    academic freedom and say, here is a creative thing I can do
    about Hong Kong. I am pretty sure that they are all approved
    curricula.
        How do we know this? Because you will see nothing there
    about '89. There are just big holes in that history. What's
    happening and all of the--you will probably read about the
    diverse ethnic groups in China, happy people, happy Tibetans,
    happy Uyghurs. You'll probably see that version of what is
    happening. I am pretty sure.
        The other thing is if the--those institutes are also
    monitored. So if anyone says anything that actually challenges
    the dominant narrative, I'm pretty sure that teacher will be in
    trouble.
        So I think it's pretty tightly controlled. And the money is
    the enticement to universities. And I think not only just for
    the Confucius Institutes, they sometimes come along with
    perhaps other incentives like an endowed chair, like money for
    a program. So I think there's this kind of institutional
    collapse in the face of this.
        Because Senator Daines left, can I say something to him
    anyway?
        Senator, I'm so sorry, but I really think it's important.
    As you are somebody who loves Hong Kong and personally and
    professionally and as a member from the private sector, I think
    we need to also remember that every single SOE, state-owned
    enterprise, has a Party committee. And now that requirement has
    extended to companies with foreign investments and foreign
    companies.
        I had a Canadian company ask me, how could that be? Why are
    they making us establish a Party committee? I said, you're not
    being targeted. All the companies will have to have a Party
    committee.
        What does the Party committee do? Review your personnel,
    review your management, review your business decisions, make
    sure everybody is ideologically pure, blah, blah, blah, like
    that. Do they hide this? Not a secret.
        Look at past annual reports of China Telecom, China Mobile.
    They have pictures of the annual meeting of the Party committee
    saying, ``We did good. The Party committee's happy with us this
    year. We complied.''
        So I think American companies going in, there are listed
    SOEs. I think Apple Daily reported over 120 that are listed--
    Chinese companies listed on the Hong Kong exchange. They all
    have Party committees within their management structure.
        So I think we need to look at that when you're looking at
    these other actors.
        Chairman McGovern. Well, thank you very much. You have been
    very patient. You have been here for 21/2
    hours. I am the last person. So you have to bear with me a
    little bit more, but this hearing is winding down.
        First of all, let me thank everybody for being here.
    Everybody's testimony has been, I think, informative and has
    given us some marching orders. I appreciate your responses to
    the questions.
        And, you know, Congressman Smith earlier on in the hearing
    referenced the past inaction by the U.S. Government in response
    to human rights abuses in China and we've kind of looked the
    other way, or we thought more trade would do it, or more this
    or that would do it, or whatever. And really things haven't
    gotten any better. Things are continuing to get worse.
        And I think it's fair to say that for the most part, the
    U.S. Government has been very good at kind of talking the talk.
    When it comes to Tibet, we issue the obligatory statement that
    we respect the right of the Tibetan people to practice their
    religion and we respect His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. But the
    repression continues and there's no consequence.
        I think part of what we're trying to do is change that.
    Just talk in and of itself doesn't end up changing anything.
    There needs to be a consequence. So we are trying to move
    legislation forward that would impose that consequence. And I
    think it is very clear from everybody here that the PROTECT
    Hong Kong Act and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act
    are important items for us to pass in the House and Senate. And
    I believe, and I can probably give you an assurance, that we
    will do that. I mean, you know, it does not happen here
    overnight.
        Senator Rubio talked about hearings that are happening in
    the Senate. We have assurances from the relevant committees in
    the House that they will move on this. And I believe they will
    come to the House floor and they will come to the Senate floor
    and they will receive bipartisan support. So that will happen.
    So we get the message on that, and we will follow through. So
    we have our assignments.
        Mr. Wong, and Ms. Ho, and Mr. Cheung, you have traveled
    along with some of your colleagues who are behind you, and I
    want to recognize them as well, have traveled a long way at a
    very critical time in Hong Kong. And you've come here to build
    international support for Hong Kong. And I think it would be
    important for the record for you to say why it is so important
    that the international community and the United States support
    your effort, why that is critical to success and what you are
    doing.
        And I also would like to get everybody's response to this.
    And that is, you know, I have to be honest with you, I have
    not--I've been somewhat disappointed in the current
    administration's--our administration's response to what is
    happening in Hong Kong. I think it should be much more
    forceful. I would appreciate your comments on advice that you
    would give the Trump Administration on what they should be
    saying when dealing with the Chinese government.
        Why don't we begin with Dr. Garrett, because we have been
    going--we will end with Mr. Wong.
        Mr. Garrett. Speaking to what advice we could give the
    Trump Administration, I would say that U.S. responses have to
    be resolute, to use the Hong Kong term. If they're not hard,
    and if they're not unwavering, you will not get any respect
    from Xi Jinping's Communist Party. They will exploit it.
        The strong-man aesthetic is what rules Beijing right now.
    And even in Hong Kong and Tamar. So this dealmaking doesn't
    really mean much to them because whatever deal they make
    they're going to subvert. So it is like with the rule of law,
    just like what universal suffrage, just like what defense means
    in the Hong Kong Basic Law. It means something different. We
    call it Party-speak. And I think the administration has to be
    aware of this Party-speak and understand it.
        Second, as others have alluded to on both sides of the
    Pacific, this is the first ideological confrontation of the new
    Cold War. Whether or not you agree it's a cold war or not, the
    discussions have been out there, but it's perceived by both
    Beijing and people in D.C. to be an ideological confrontation.
        The witnesses here, the people in this room, are looking to
    save Hong Kong's autonomy, to save the two systems. Well, in
    Beijing, and some places in Hong Kong, they are looking to
    weaponize the two systems against the U.S. So this is not just
    an issue of getting a good trade deal from China. It's an issue
    much broader than that.
        The weaponization of ``one country, two systems''--or the
    two systems specifically, is looking at how China can use Hong
    Kong's advantages, such as U.S. customs treatment of it, to
    exploit the world. We've seen it with the recent scandal at the
    United Nations where Patrick Ho was basically found guilty of
    state capture at the United Nations to promote the Belt and
    Road Initiative.
        We've seen it earlier with China getting its first aircraft
    carrier from Ukraine. That was done through a whole series of
    deceptions and manipulations of Hong Kong's special status.
        These types of things are still going on today. But we're
    not looking at them, and this is one of the reasons why, in my
    opinion, it's very important to treat state-owned enterprises
    in Hong Kong and anybody affiliated with the CPPCC or the NPC
    differently than how we would treat regular Hong Kongers. Thank
    you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Ms. Hom.
        Ms. Hom. I really think that's a scary thought to give
    advice to Trump or the administration, but I think that any
    actions by the administration have to hold true to the U.S.'s
    core values. The U.S. has core values on human rights and
    democracy and freedom.
        And I totally echo, Hong Kong should not be made into a
    bargaining chip in some deal that's on the table.
        The ideological confrontation and the battle of the models
    is actually much more than that. It's really China against the
    world. It is not two models of equal legitimacy--because the
    model that China is trying to attack and replace is the model
    that the international community with Eleanor Roosevelt, in
    fact, playing a very key role in the drafting of the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights--it was a new world order that
    emerged to say we will never again have what happened in Nazi
    Germany. We will never again have mass detentions. We will
    never have mass trampling on human dignity.
        So to take down that human rights order, it's not about
    models. The Chinese model is not co-equal. It is a Chinese
    Party model. And I think we should start framing it as China
    against the dominant world order. It is a dominant world order,
    and it still exists, and they can't treat it as if we can now
    just change a model.
        And so I think on no consequences criticism . . . there
    needs to be more consequences, but it is not totally accurate
    to say no consequences. It's very important to recognize that
    there are consequences already. When the U.S. speaks up, when
    the Commission has this hearing, it's being watched, and it's
    being listened to. I'm sure we are in living rooms in Beijing
    right now of some high official watching this. But----
        Chairman McGovern. You're live on C-SPAN.
        Ms. Hom. I'm live on C-SPAN.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms.  Hom. Hong Kong Yan, Gaa yau! (Hong Kongers, Add oil!)
    is what I have to say to them.
        So I think the consequences that we also should keep in
    mind is the Party does want legitimacy. It can't stay in power
    through naked military bullying and force. It can get a long
    way with bullying, but it can't stay in power without
    legitimacy. That's the whole international human rights
    system--the U.S. holding on to core values. You don't have to
    give that up. You say, no, we're not going to give you that
    legitimacy. You're acting like a thug. We don't respect thugs.
    So I think that's really important.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Mr. Cheung.
        Mr. Cheung. A quick response to your question is that China
    is getting more wealthy and is getting mighty. China is picking
    fights with all the other countries in the free world. China is
    expanding their military in the South China Sea. They ignore
    the international court's judgment and claim that they have the
    ownership of the South China Sea, which severely threatens
    security in the Asia-Pacific region.
        They even picked a fight with the Canadians regarding the
    Huawei incident. Who picks a fight with Canadians? Only China,
    I think. This is unreasonable and that explains how assertive
    China is.
        And that's why I believe only the Americans--you are the
    only superpower that can really try to contain China. That's
    why we need support from the U.S. Government.
        And regarding how China is doing a lot of silent invasion--
    I use the word according to Professor Hamilton in Australia--
    they are using a very silent invasion, using their economic
    dominance trying to colonize and control many local societies
    in other countries.
        And many local societies in other countries are already
    compromised, like some East Asian countries such as Sri Lanka.
    They have to lease a military port to China for 99 years.
    Apparently, this is new imperialism for me, and I believe only
    the U.S. can contain China.
        Also secondly, I believe, why the U.S. should be concerned
    about Hong Kong is that you have many interests here and you
    have to secure your interests. For example, a few months ago
    when there was a U.S. sanction that Hong Kong should not allow
    a ship which was carrying oil from Iran.
        And the point is that the Hong Kong government, they
    ignored the U.S. sanction and they allowed the ship from Iran
    to come to Hong Kong and try to carry the oil back to Iran. And
    apparently, this undermines your interests, and that is why
    this is one of the most important reasons you should care about
    Hong Kong and you should do something instead of just maybe
    issuing a statement to support Hong Kong.
        Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Ms. Ho.
        Ms. Ho. This historic fight in Hong Kong has only been
    possible with the determination of the youngsters and of the
    Hong Kong people. And I would really like to take this chance
    to thank the members of this Commission and Chairman McGovern
    and Cochairman Rubio for the continuous attention on Hong Kong
    issues and, of course, to the push of this Act because this has
    contributed in giving hope to the Hong Kong people. And the way
    that it is telling the youngsters that their efforts are
    actually making a change in the world. And that we are not in
    an isolated struggle. It is a global fight. We are on the front
    lines of this global fight to protect these universal values
    that we all cherish.
        So hopefully by passing this Act, we would be seeing
    momentum in the international community where other countries
    might join in and preserve these values and also monitor this
    totalitarian regime that is actually destroying these values on
    a daily basis.
        So thank you very much.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you.
        Mr. Wong.
        Mr. Wong. With the sharp power expansion from China to
    Canada and Australia, the Belt and Road Initiative implies how
    China takes economic advantage in European countries, and how
    China does not respect the international order even after
    entering the WTO, after promises on the Joint Declaration, and
    even after having negotiations with the U.S. on the trade deal.
        We are all aware of the rising China model. It is just the
    expansion of totalitarian rule without any respect for the
    international order with liberal values. That implies and
    explains why Hong Kong matters to the world, because Hong Kong
    people stand at the forefront to confront authoritarian rule,
    and Hong Kong people are aware that Hong Kong is the forefront,
    and we will confront the authoritarian crackdown. If Hong Kong
    falls, then maybe next the free world.
        And I strongly realize now is the time for the U.S.
    Congress to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.
    And also, I hope the U.S. Government could reveal its foreign
    policy to China to prioritize human rights issues, especially
    now. We are not only suffering a political crisis, but a
    humanitarian one as well.
        The first time for me to be in prison was two years ago. I
    remember I watched TV news on how Beijing authorities announced
    no term-limit for presidents in the future, which just let me
    realize that the one who locked me up in prison, which means
    the authoritarian rule represented by President Xi, will be
    Emperor Xi.
        So that's the uphill and long-term battle. In 2047, no
    matter whether it's me, or Sunny, or others, we will be age 50.
    And I hope after 28 years Hong Kong can still be our hometown
    with freedom and democracy.
        And I think it is time to thank all the Congressmen and
    Senators in the past few years, and even in the past few
    decades, for really paying attention to the protest movement in
    Hong Kong. We stand in solidarity. We stand as one. Hong
    Kongers never walk alone.
        Thank you.
        Chairman McGovern. Thank you very much.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman McGovern. Let me thank the staff of the Commission
    for all the work that they did in preparing this hearing. Let
    me thank, again, the panelists. And to our friends from Hong
    Kong, let me thank you for your courage and commitment.
        I think what is prompting action here in the Congress is
    your courage that we see unfolding on our television screens
    and we read about in the newspapers.
        I have to tell you, I think for everybody here, you have
    been an inspiration. And as I said at the beginning of the
    hearing, we are a diverse political group on this Commission.
    But on this issue, we're in solidarity with you. We believe
    that the future of Hong Kong ought to be determined by the
    people of Hong Kong.
        And, again, I can't thank you enough for being here. So
    thank you.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m. the hearing was concluded.]

    ?

    =======================================================================

                                 A P P E N D I X

    =======================================================================

                              Prepared Statements

                                  ----------

                            Statement of Joshua Wong

        Good morning, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio, and members of
    the Commission. It's an honor to be invited back to Capitol Hill to
    speak about developments in Hong Kong. You may recall that I last
    traveled to Washington more than two years ago and testified before
    this commission, in this same building, on May 3, 2017. At the time, I
    warned about the probable disqualification of my friend Nathan Law, who
    had been Asia's youngest democratically elected legislator and who is
    in the audience this morning. I also warned about massive political
    prosecution. Unfortunately, both materialized: Nathan lost his seat
    that July, and we were both imprisoned in August for our roles in the
    Umbrella Movement. Further legal troubles in relation to the 2014
    protests prevented me from traveling abroad.
        While I said then that Hong Kong's ``One Country, Two Systems'' was
    becoming ``One Country, One-and-a-Half Systems,'' I don't think there
    is any doubt among observers who have followed recent events that,
    today, we are approaching dangerously close to ``One Country, One
    System.'' The present state of affairs reveals Beijing's utter
    inability to understand, let alone govern, a free society.
        The ongoing demonstrations began on June 9 when one million Hong
    Kongers took to the streets in protest of proposed legislation that
    would've allowed criminal suspects to be extradited from Hong Kong to
    China, where there are no guarantees of the rule of law. Still, before
    the night had even ended, Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced the
    bill's reading would resume in three days. Hong Kongers were bracing
    for their last fight on June 12.
        And then the unthinkable happened: Knowing that Beijing controlled
    enough votes in the Legislative Council, protesters surrounded the
    complex early in the morning, successfully preventing lawmakers from
    convening. I was then serving my third jail sentence. For a moment, I
    wondered why the news channel was replaying footage of the Umbrella
    Movement, though it was not long before I realized Hong Kongers were
    back. Lam suspended the bill on June 15, but fell short of fully
    withdrawing it. A historic two million people demonstrated the
    following day, equivalent to one in four out of our entire population.
    I'm not aware of anything comparable to this level of discontent
    against a government in modern history.
        I was released exactly three months ago, on June 17, and have since
    joined fellow Hong Kongers to protest in the most creative ways
    possible. In addition to the bill's withdrawal, we demanded that Lam
    retract the characterization of us as ``rioters,'' drop all political
    charges, and establish an independent investigation into police
    brutality. Some of us crowdfunded for newspaper advertisements ahead of
    the G-20 summit in late June, calling for the world not to neglect Hong
    Kong. Others broke into and occupied the Legislative Council complex on
    July 1, the same day another 550,000 Hong Kongers protested peacefully.
        Crowds continued to show up in large numbers every weekend, with
    smaller rallies taking place almost daily across the territory. But the
    government would not listen; instead of defusing the political crisis,
    it dramatically empowered the police. The movement reached a turning
    point on July 21. That night, thugs with suspected ties to organized
    crime gathered in the Yuen Long train station and indiscriminately
    attacked not just protesters returning home and reporters on the scene,
    but even passersby. The police refused to show up despite repeated
    emergency calls, plunging Hong Kong into a state of anarchy and mob
    violence.
        On August 5 alone, the day Hong Kongers participated in a general
    strike, the police shot 800 canisters of tear gas to disperse the
    masses. Compare that to only 87 fired in the entire Umbrella Movement
    five years ago, and the police's excessive force today is clear. Their
    increasingly liberal use of pepper spray, pepper balls, rubber bullets,
    sponge bullets, beanbag rounds, and water cannons--almost all of which
    are imported from Western democracies--are no less troubling. In light
    of this, I applaud Chairman McGovern for introducing the PROTECT Hong
    Kong Act last week in the House of Representatives. American companies
    mustn't profit from the violent crackdown of freedom-loving Hong
    Kongers.
        Cochairman Rubio is also right for recently writing that ``Hong
    Kong's special status'' under American law ``depends on the city being
    treated as a separate customs area, on open international financial
    connections, and on the Hong Kong dollar's peg to the U.S. dollar.''
    Beijing shouldn't have it both ways, reaping all the economic benefits
    of Hong Kong's standing in the world while eradicating our
    sociopolitical identity. This is the most important reason why the Hong
    Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act enjoys the broad support of Hong
    Kong's civil society, a point which I want every member of Congress to
    take note of.
        Lam finally withdrew the bill earlier this month, but just as
    protesters have long stopped calling for her resignation, this decision
    is almost meaningless now. The movement is far from over, because it
    has long moved beyond one bill or one person. Our fifth and most
    important demand is genuine structural change in Hong Kong. Our
    government's lack of representation lies at the heart of the matter.
        As I speak, Hong Kong is standing at a critical juncture. The
    stakes have never been higher. Authorities have all but stopped issuing
    permits known as ``letters of no objection,'' so virtually every
    demonstration is an ``illegal assembly.'' Moreover, we are confronted
    by the huge Chinese military buildup just across the border in
    Shenzhen. President Xi Jinping is unlikely to take bold action before
    the upcoming 70th National Day in October, but no one can be sure
    what's next. Sending in the tanks remains irrational, though not
    impossible. Chinese interference in Macau, Taiwan, Tibet, and
    especially Xinjiang, serves as a reminder that Beijing is prepared to
    go far in pursuit of its grand imperial project.
        I was once the face of Hong Kong's youth activism. In the present
    leaderless movement, however, my sacrifices are minimal, compared to
    those among us who have been laid off for protesting, who have been
    injured but too afraid of even going to a hospital, or who have been
    forced to take their own lives. Two have each lost an eye. The youngest
    of the 1,400 arrested so far is only a 12-year-old schoolboy. I don't
    know them, yet their pain is my pain. We belong to the same imagined
    community, struggling for our right of self-determination so we can
    build one brighter common future.
        A baby born today will not even have celebrated his 28th birthday
    by July 1, 2047, when Hong Kong's policy of ``50-year no change'' is
    set to expire. That deadline is closer to us than it appears; there's
    no return. Decades from now, when historians look back, I'm sure that
    2019, much more so than 2014, will turn out to have been a watershed. I
    hope, too, that historians will celebrate the United States Congress
    for having stood on the side of Hong Kongers, the side of human rights
    and democracy.
                                     ______

                             Statement of Denise Ho

        Thank you, Chairman McGovern, Cochairman Rubio and members of this
    Commission for holding this hearing and for having us here at this very
    critical time for Hong Kong. We hope that our personal accounts will be
    helpful in your deliberations on what the United States Congress and
    American people can do to help the Hong Kong people in the face of the
    erosion of our liberties and autonomy.
        For more than 100 days now, the Hong Kong youth have led our city
    into the historic fight of our times. It is a leaderless movement, with
    widespread participation from people from all walks of life. It is a
    fight for democracy, a fight for human rights, and most of all, a fight
    for universal values and freedoms.
        What started out as a million-people march against an extradition
    bill morphed into a determined fight for fundamental political reform
    in Hong Kong. Misjudgments and arrogance on behalf of Carrie Lam, the
    Chief Executive Officer of Hong Kong, resulted in a total clampdown by
    the Beijing government over Hong Kong affairs, at the same time that
    the reluctance of both governments to fully implement ``One country,
    Two systems'' in Hong Kong surfaced.
        With Carrie Lam hiding behind the police force for months, refusing
    to resolve political issues with sincerity, she has given the police
    full authority to suppress the protests at all costs.
        Since June, the Hong Kong police have shown excessive brutality in
    their use of force, arresting and beating up peaceful protesters
    heavily on uncountable occasions. More than 1,400 people have been
    arrested to date, with even more (including journalists, first aiders
    and social workers) severely injured by tear gas, rubber bullets, water
    cannons, and the police's indiscriminate use of batons. On a personal
    note, it has been extremely difficult to be away from home and to watch
    the people safeguard the city from afar, especially in the past weekend
    where we have seen police behavior getting out of control.
        Sadly, it has become a common daily scene to see youngsters being
    pinned to the ground, with bleeding head concussions and some even
    knocked unconscious, but still refused medical care by the police.
        Riot police and plainclothes officers have shown no restraint while
    performing their duties. From the early weeks, they have deliberately
    hidden their ID numbers, refused to show warrant cards even on request,
    therefore making it impossible for citizens to verify the legitimacy of
    plainclothes officers, nor to hold any police officer accountable for
    their violations.
        Last month, a university student in possession of ten laser
    pointers was arrested and detained for 48 hours. A first aider was shot
    in the eye by a beanbag round dispersed from above head level, risking
    permanent loss of sight. On August 31st, police from the Special
    Tactical Unit charged into Prince Edward MTR station, beating up
    passengers randomly. Consequently, they shut down the station for 24
    hours, refusing medical care for those who were injured, raising
    suspicion of possible death in the station. They have recently charged
    into secondary schoolyards, shopping malls and on buses, where young
    people merely dressed in black clothing could be searched or even
    arrested without justified reasons.
        In short, in our Hong Kong today, being young is a crime. We are
    now officially a police state, where people live in constant fear of
    political repercussions.
        In addition, on July 21st, in an infamous mob attack that occurred
    in the Yuen Long MTR station, where white-shirt-clad thugs attacked
    civilians indiscriminately, the police failed to arrive in a timely
    manner, only making their appearance 39 minutes after the incident,
    despite hundreds of emergency calls for help. Similar situations
    occurred later in the protests, where police would give favorable
    treatment to mobs and pro-Beijing supporters, helping them leave the
    sites after having attacked protesters, showing clear and continuous
    collusion between police and triad members.
        On August 11th, police prevented pro bono lawyers from providing
    legal assistance to arrested protesters in the Sun Uk Ling Holding
    Center, violating the legal rights of 54 persons. There were also
    claims from female protesters of sexual harassment inside the police
    station, and of physical abuse on numerous occasions.
        Since July, more than thirty ``no objection applications'' for
    rallies and marches have been systematically denied, including the 1.7
    million-people rally on August 18th, where protesters gathered and
    marched peacefully despite the ban. According to Hong Kong Basic Law
    and international standards, Hong Kong residents have the freedom of
    assembly and demonstration, where peaceful public assembly is a
    legitimate use of public space. By banning the assemblies, the Hong
    Kong government is violating the people's right to peacefully protest.
        With police violations accumulating by the day, Hong Kong people
    have been demanding that an independent investigative council be
    formed. The Chief Executive Carrie Lam has refused to do so, claiming
    we have ``a well-established (IPCC), set up for exactly this purpose.''
    This existing watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
    is in fact entirely appointed by the CE herself, has no legal power to
    summon witnesses nor to force the police to provide sufficient
    documents, and is therefore powerless in bringing justice to the
    situation.
        On its face, it all started with an extradition bill. But at the
    core, it has always been about fundamental conflicts between these two
    very different sets of values: on one side, the China model, which has
    no respect for human rights and the rule of law and demands their
    people's submission. And the other, a hybrid city that has enjoyed
    these freedoms for most of its existence, with a deep attachment to
    these universal values that the United States and other western
    societies are also endeared to. Unfortunately, with the rise of the
    present iron regime of Xi Jinping, ``One country, Two systems'' is
    racing towards its death.
        Hong Kong represents something very unique in the world--as a
    crossroads that is strongly rooted in its own Asian cultures and yet
    has come to be known for its values and rule of law, transparent
    institutions, and freedom of information and expression. We represent
    the hope that as nations develop, they will evolve towards these
    universal values which protect individuals everywhere.
        These protections are why over 1,500 multinational companies have
    chosen to place their regional headquarters in Hong Kong, the biggest
    proportion of these by country, from the United States. Hong Kong has
    become one of the most globally interconnected, financially important
    trading economies in the world, helping bring countries closer together
    through finance and today, through the flow of data, goods, ideas,
    culture and people.
        However, this system is now under threat like never before.
    Companies such as Hong Kong's major airline Cathay Pacific have
    succumbed to political pressure, firing dozens of employees due to
    their political stance, some only over a mere facebook post. Business
    people are coerced into making political decisions. MTR Corporation,
    our subway system, has deliberately shut down stations during rallies
    and marches due to pressure from a state newspaper, resulting in more
    than hundreds of arrests and unnecessary injuries.
        As a singer and activist from Hong Kong, I have experienced the
    suppression first hand. Ever since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, I
    have been blacklisted by the communist government. My songs and my name
    are censored on Chinese internet, and I have been ``called out''
    several times by state newspapers. Pressured by the Chinese government,
    sponsors have pulled out; even international brands have kept their
    distance in fear of being associated with me. For the past five years,
    and even more so recently, China tried to silence me with their
    propaganda machines and smearing campaigns, making claims that are
    completely false. Right now, I am facing threats from the communist
    government and pro-Beijing supporters, and could face arrest and
    prosecution at any time.
        Not only have I faced increased difficulty in continuing my singing
    career in China and Hong Kong, but the self-censorship has now spread
    towards global institutions and cities. Recently, the National Gallery
    of Victory in Melbourne, Australia denied a venue to a collaborative
    event of Chinese artist Badiucao and myself, due to ``security
    concerns.'' The 2019 gay pride event in Montreal, Canada banned Hong
    Kong activists due to similar reasons. Celebrities from Hong Kong,
    Taiwan, and China are all pressured into taking a political stance,
    voicing their unanimous ``support'' for the Beijing government on
    social media, and could be condemned for keeping their silence. Even
    the songwriter of the new unofficial ``anthem'' for Hong Kong has opted
    to stay anonymous, in fear of future reprisal.
        Hongkongers are now living in constant fear and have unfortunately
    lost most of our freedoms. For a city that has been infamously known as
    politically indifferent, the younger generations have taken up the role
    of safeguarding our home, standing up courageously to the corrupt
    system in spite of increased and ruthless suppression. They have
    awakened other Hong Kong people, and together we have taken the world
    by surprise with our continued fight.
        To the rest of the world, the United States is often a symbol of
    freedom and democracy. The freedom Americans enjoy is something the
    people of Hong Kong have long hoped for. Even though our languages and
    cultures differ, what we have in common is the pursuit of justice,
    freedom, and democracy.
        Through the challenges of Hong Kong, the West is waking up to
    China's insinuating power on a global scale. Hong Kong is connected to
    the world in multiple ways (institutional, social, economic, personal),
    but China is trying to isolate it to exert control. If Hong Kong falls,
    it would easily become the springboard for the totalitarian regime of
    China to push its rules and priorities overseas, utilizing its economic
    power to conform others to their communist values, just as they have
    done with Hong Kong in the past 22 years. The U.S. and its allies have
    everything to fear if they wish to maintain a world that is free, open,
    and civil.
        I therefore urge the U.S. Congress to stand by Hong Kong, and most
    of all, to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. This is
    not a plea for so-called foreign interference, nor for Hong Kong
    independence. This is a plea for universal human rights. This is a plea
    for democracy. This is a plea for the freedom to choose.
        And lastly, may I quote Eleanor Roosevelt, your most beloved First
    Lady: ``You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience
    in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say
    to yourself, `I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing
    that comes along.' ''
        This is a global fight for the universal values that we all
    cherish, and Hong Kong is on the very front lines of this fight. We
    were once fearful of what might come with our silence, and for that, we
    have now become fearless.
                                     ______

                           Statement of Sunny Cheung

        My name is Sunny Cheung. I am the spokesperson of the Hong Kong
    Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD), a group
    which represents over 100,000 students from all student unions in Hong
    Kong. We aim to garner international support through raising awareness
    and concerns with the international community. Our mission is to
    mobilize support for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of
    2019. In August, we held a peaceful rally in central Hong Kong. Over
    60,000 people attended to communicate their support for the Act.
    Currently, we are deeply involved in organizing a large-scale class
    boycott to put pressure on the government.

    Background to the Current Protest Movement: The Umbrella Movement and
    Hong Kong Identity

        The 2014 Umbrella Movement was a watershed moment in Hong Kong's
    story. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated and protested for democracy,
    but the government granted us nothing but prosecution. We lost hope and
    realized Beijing would not grant Hong Kong democracy as promised.
        Under the ``one country, two systems'' blueprint, Hong Kong is
    gradually becoming more and more like China. The grand plan and
    ambition of the Greater Bay Area project is to completely erase our
    identity as Hongkongers. Hong Kong could become just another city in
    China. The ``two systems'' framework has not been able to defend us
    from prosecution under harsh and unfair laws.
        But the younger generation will not accept Beijing's cultural
    invasion. Hong Kong has 177 years of history since 1842, for almost all
    of which Hong Kong was separate from China and developed its own unique
    culture and identity. Freedom and the rule of law are our core values.
    Culturally, Hong Kong is different from China. We consider ourselves
    Hongkongers rather than Chinese. A recent survey conducted by Hong Kong
    University found that only 11% of respondents see themselves as pure
    Chinese. We want so much to preserve our local language, Cantonese, and
    also our traditional Chinese characters in written Chinese which are
    different than the simplified version used in China.

    Anti-extradition Protest and Five Demands

        Hong Kong's extradition law protests began as a protest against
    amendments to the city's extradition legislation which could have
    marked the end of Hong Kong's autonomy. The Hong Kong government was
    trying to change the legislation so that it would become legal to
    extradite people to mainland China. China's courts have no
    independence, and this move would have permanently compromised Hong
    Kong's rule of law and autonomy which are protected under the Sino-
    British Joint Declaration and the one country, two systems principle.
        On June 9, 2019, 1 million people took to the streets to say ``no''
    to the extradition law. Carrie Lam ignored our cry. Students have
    played a major role, although this movement is leaderless. On June 12,
    2019 hundreds of thousands of us occupied the streets. The police
    committed appalling brutality, firing rubber bullets and tear gas at
    peaceful protesters. Among them were lots of students, including high
    school students. Carrie Lam was forced to ``suspend'' the bill. On June
    16, 2019, 2 million people marched to ask for a full withdrawal of the
    extradition bill, an independent inquiry into police brutality, and the
    retraction of rioting charges.
        The government said ``no'' to these reasonable demands, despite
    calls from senior judges and business leaders. They could have defused
    the situation then, but they chose not to. The scene was set for months
    of protest. A dozen young people jumped to their deaths in protest.
    Many students took to the streets, leaving behind a note of last wishes
    as they prepared to die for Hong Kong in each protest. This is the
    fight for freedom and democracy. We do it because we love our city.
        The police force was instructed to stamp out the protests by force.
    Instead of intimidating the brave people of Hong Kong, their actions
    have strengthened our resolve.
        The people of Hong Kong drew up five demands which have been at the
    core of the protests since June. They are:

         The complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the
    legislative process.
         The retraction of the ``riot'' characterization.
         The release and exoneration of arrested protesters.
         An independent inquiry into the police brutality.
         Universal suffrage for the city's leadership and the
    parliament.

        In September, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, finally agreed to
    propose the withdrawal of the bill in the city's Legislative Council.
    But this is too little, too late, particularly after months of police
    violence.

    Police Brutality

        What is now driving the protests is the ongoing violent actions of
    the police. Beijing has given the Hong Kong Police Force complete free
    rein, and their actions have horrified the Hong Kong public. Their
    actions include randomly firing tear gas at the general public and
    journalists, firing tear gas inside train stations, shooting rubber
    bullets to the head, as well as the mistreatment and torture of
    detainees. This has led to a collapse of trust in the government and
    the police force. Compromise will not be possible until the government
    calls for an independent inquiry into police brutality.
        There have been multiple horrifying events. The events of July 21,
    2019 were a key turning point. White-shirted members of triad gangs
    entered Yuen Long MTR station carrying wooden sticks and beat up
    civilians, journalists, protesters returning home, and the lawmaker Lam
    Cheuk-ting. Lam's arm was broken, and many were hospitalized, including
    a number of journalists. The images were broadcast throughout Hong
    Kong.
        The police did not respond to emergency phone calls for the first
    forty-five minutes and failed to stop the gang members or arrest anyone
    that evening. Images appeared of members of the mob standing alongside
    police officers earlier in the evening, holding the sticks they later
    used to attack protesters. Police inaction has granted immunity to
    these thugs who now routinely attack protesters and civilians. Another
    awful evening was August 31, 2019, when the police indiscriminately
    attacked civilians in the Prince Edward MTR station. One of the victims
    was a representative of HKIAD. On that traumatic and horrifying night,
    he was wearing a suit and passing through the Prince Edward train
    station. Yet, with the blockade created by the police, countless
    innocent civilians were trapped and the press was ordered to leave the
    scene without justification. He was outflanked on an escalator
    alongside a group of innocent civilians, who were just trying to get
    safe passage out of the station, which had become a hunting ground for
    the police. Then the passengers were insulted, arrested, struck, and
    stepped on by the police with batons and shields. They arrested them
    despite knowing they were innocent. Besides, we student union members
    frequently received threatening letters targeting us and our family,
    saying we would soon be killed. The threats against Student Union
    leaders are real and common. The Chair of the Hong Kong University
    Students' Union has resigned and fled the city after he was beaten
    violently. There is a collapse of trust in the government and the
    police force. Compromise will not be possible until the government
    calls an independent inquiry into police brutality.

    Why Does Hong Kong Matter? Asia's Prominent World City Is Dying

        Hong Kong's story matters. Hong Kong is one of the world's top
    international financial centers and one of Asia's few liberal cities.
    Our people care about freedom and democracy. We disprove the lie that
    Asian cities cannot have democratic values.
        This is particularly true for young people. We will not compromise
    our dignity, freedom, and democracy for superficial prosperity. How we
    see our future and the meaning of life is different from the older
    generation. The older generation--especially those who are now
    ministers in the government and leaders of businesses--see material
    gain as the ultimate goal and success in life. But in Hong Kong,
    prosperity is only for the few. Twenty-two years after the change-over
    of sovereignty, we have to wake up to the fact that we cannot
    compromise our dignity and freedom for the sake of stability and
    prosperity for the rich and those who are in power.
        Over 1 million Hongkongers are living below the poverty line.
    Inequality in Hong Kong is at extreme levels for a developed country
    and getting worse. An Oxfam report last year found that the median
    monthly income of the top decile of the population was 44 times higher
    than the lowest decile in 2016, up from 34 times in 2006. Hong Kong
    people live in some of the smallest apartments in the world because the
    government controls the supply of land and releases it slowly, in the
    interests of developers rather than the population.
        Our system is corrupt because we do not have democracy as promised
    in the Basic Law. We cannot vote for our leader, and the Legislative
    Council is rigged by a functional constituency system, which means that
    big businesses and vested interests decide who represents 50% of the
    seats. Successive Chief Executives have done dirty backroom deals with
    property tycoons to keep home prices artificially high. Democracy is
    and will be one of our core demands for this reason.

    Hong Kong Is on the Front Line of the Battle for Freedom and Against an
    Authoritarian China

        Since joining the World Trade Organization, China has been
    utilizing the benefits of free trade to consolidate its authoritarian
    governance. The rise of an authoritarian China puts liberal democratic
    values in danger.
        Domestically, the Communist Party suppresses activists in Hong Kong
    and mainland China. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in Xinjiang,
    where the Chinese authorities have built concentration camps and
    subject ethnic minorities to mass surveillance, torture, killings, and
    arbitrary arrests. On this subject, the UN decried China as a shameful
    country last year.
        Globally, under China's money diplomacy tactic, many small
    countries have already been compromised and lost their control over the
    local society. Sri Lanka has to lease a strategic port to China for 99
    years. Scholars describe this phenomenon as economic colonialism and
    the new imperialism. It is crystal clear that China is using its
    economic dominance to penetrate foreign societies, business sectors,
    political parties, and universities to gather intelligence and thereby
    undermine their autonomy. Fortunately, several countries have woken up
    to this reality and finally realize how China intends to negatively
    impact the world. One year ago, Canada started to shut down the
    Confucius Institutes, stopping China from preaching their propaganda to
    affect youth in Canada. Australia's parliament also ratified amendments
    to their national security law to prohibit foreign interference,
    targeting China, apparently.
        Over the past few months, Hong Kong's people have demonstrated to
    the world that we believe in democracy and liberty, even though we face
    a harsh crackdown from the Chinese Communist Party regime. Hong Kong is
    an international city. China has benefited from its special customs
    status; 70% of foreign investment in China comes from Hong Kong. China
    utilizes Hong Kong to do illegal trading with North Korea and Iran and
    even purchases weapons from European countries which should have a
    weapons embargo on China. Therefore, international powers also have a
    say in the city's future. Hong Kong is on the front line of the battle
    against authoritarianism. It is vital that the United States work with
    like-minded countries to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Hong
    Kong's people are protected.

    Our Call: Pass the Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019

        This is why we are calling for the Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act to be passed. The legislation provides critical
    strengthening to the Hong Kong Policy Act, which will act to place the
    rights and freedoms of Hong Kong's people at the heart of U.S.-Hong
    Kong policy. Also, we hope the U.S. Government can protect Hong Kong
    people who unfortunately have criminal records due to participation in
    protests in Hong Kong. We hope the U.S. Government can still grant
    visas to them through a regular routine if they intend to study or work
    in the States. The Hong Kong government intentionally prosecutes
    protesters with an ancient and colonial law which is the Public Order
    Ordinance. With this law, Hong Kong's people can easily be found guilty
    even if they do not participate in a protest. We sincerely ask for you
    all to ensure that people who have taken part in protests are not
    barred from receiving visas to the U.S.
        Lastly, we hope the U.S. Government can keep up the good work in
    monitoring the rise of an authoritarian China. The invasive economic
    dominance, reprehensible communist ideology, and deteriorating human
    rights situation of China should deeply concern the U.S. Government.
    Fifty years ago, U.S. President Truman famously gave a speech, which is
    the Truman Doctrine. He warned America and the world that the danger of
    Communism was real. He argued that it was the responsibility of the
    U.S. to support the free world. Fifty years later, Communist China
    poses a threat to international peace and the world liberal system.
    Hong Kong is now at the front line in the battle against
    totalitarianism. We never hesitate to take every step, with the last
    inch of our effort, to fight for freedom. The grandest of our ideals is
    an unfolding promise since the last world war that each human being
    deserves a chance to live with dignity and to live in liberty. Hong
    Kong is at a critical moment in its history. We are calling for the
    U.S. to stand with us in our fight for freedom, democracy, and dignity.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                          Statement of Daniel Garrett

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                            Statement of Sharon Hom

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                      Statement of Hon. James P. McGovern

        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on ``Hong Kong's Summer
    of Discontent and U.S. Policy Reponses.''
        This is the second China Commission hearing this year on the
    situation in Hong Kong. During our May hearing, the commission heard
    compelling testimony from Hong Kong pro-democracy advocates including
    Martin Lee and Nathan Law, who expressed serious concerns about the
    extradition bill that was quickly moving towards becoming law at that
    time. That legislation would have put anyone in Hong Kong--including
    U.S. citizens--at risk of extradition to mainland China, where lack of
    due process and custodial abuses have been well documented.
        Over the last 16 weeks, millions of people from all walks of life
    in Hong Kong have taken to the streets in an unprecedented and
    sustained show of unity. The protesters have inspired the world and
    have risked their lives, their health, their jobs, and their education
    to fight for the future of Hong Kong. Thank you for your courage and
    bravery. We stand in solidarity with you.
        As protests continued throughout the summer, Hong Kong police used
    excessive and unnecessary force to target those engaged in peaceful
    demonstrations. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called
    for an investigation. The U.K. has suspended export licenses for the
    sale of tear gas and crowd-control equipment.
        In the House of Representatives, Congressman Chris Smith and I have
    introduced H.R. 4270, the ``PROTECT Hong Kong Act'' that would prohibit
    U.S. exports of police equipment to Hong Kong. U.S. companies should
    not be selling equipment used to violently crack down on pro-democracy
    protesters. I hope Congress will pass this legislation as soon as
    possible.
        Although consideration of the extradition bill has been suspended,
    the people of Hong Kong are calling for greater accountability and
    democratic participation. It's my understanding that the Hong Kong
    protesters have outlined ``Five Demands'' of Hong Kong and Chinese
    authorities.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses what those demands
    are specifically; what progress has been made by the Chinese and Hong
    Kong governments on achieving them; what remains to be done; and how we
    in Congress and the international community might be helpful.
        The ``one country, two systems'' framework was enshrined in the
    1984 Sino-British Declaration and Hong Kong's Basic Law. This is an
    international treaty, signed by the Chinese government, to allow Hong
    Kong a ``high degree of autonomy'' with the ``ultimate aim'' of
    electing its Chief Executive and Legislative Council members by
    universal suffrage.
        The 2014 ``Umbrella Movement'' protests were sparked by the Chinese
    government reneging on its commitments to make Hong Kong more
    democratic. It is the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and
    rule of law that fuel the protests in Hong Kong today.
        Over the last five years, the Chinese government has prioritized
    control over Hong Kong by stifling free expression and restricting the
    space for democratic participation. We have seen the prosecution and
    sentencing of pro-democracy leaders, the disqualification and removal
    of pro-democracy legislators, and the introduction of a new national
    anthem bill that would restrict free expression.
        Anson Chan, the former Hong Kong Chief Secretary and Legislative
    Council member, recently offered this insight: ``If only Beijing would
    understand what makes Hong Kong tick, what are the values we hold dear,
    then they can use that energy to benefit both China and Hong Kong.
    Instead, they have this mentality of control.''
        While the protests were sparked by concerns about the extradition
    bill, the heart of the discontent is that Hong Kong's political leaders
    do not represent and are not accountable to the people. Instead, Hong
    Kong's leaders are beholden to the Chinese government. Millions of
    people would not have to protest in the streets if they could freely
    choose their political leaders.
        I hope the Chinese government would understand that stability and
    prosperity can be achieved if Hong Kong's autonomy is respected and if
    the Chief Executive and Legislative Council members were elected
    without Chinese influence over candidate selection.
        In light of the continuing erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and the
    recent violence against peaceful protesters, I believe it is time for
    the United States to reconsider its policies toward Hong Kong. U.S.-
    Hong Kong relations are governed by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of
    1992 that commits the United States to treating Hong Kong as a separate
    customs territory from the rest of China, so long as Hong Kong remains
    ``sufficiently autonomous.''
        I am proud to support H.R. 3289, the ``Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act,'' sponsored by Senator Rubio and Congressman Smith. The
    legislation would require the Secretary of State to certify on an
    annual basis that Hong Kong is ``sufficiently autonomous'' to justify
    special economic, financial, and trade treatment different from
    mainland China under U.S. law.
        It is time we put the Chinese government on annual notice that
    further erosion of autonomy or a crackdown in Hong Kong will cause the
    city, and by extension mainland China, to lose its special economic and
    trade arrangement with the U.S.
        Over the years, Hong Kong has prospered and become the financial
    center of Asia because of its strong commitment to the rule of law,
    good governance, human rights, and an open economic system. The erosion
    of this unique system threatens not only the people who attempt to
    speak out, but the economic vitality of the city itself.
        To be clear, we stand together with the people of Hong Kong, and
    indeed all the people of China, when we express our concerns about the
    human rights violations of the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. Our
    focus today is doing right by the people of Hong Kong as they seek a
    democratic future that protects Hong Kong's autonomy and rule of law.
                                     ______

                         Statement of Hon. Marco Rubio

        I want to thank all of our witnesses, especially those who are on
    the front lines and have even been jailed multiple times, and we'll
    hear from them today about the things that have been done against them
    and your commitment to freedom and democracy. It is inspiring. It
    really is inspiring for those of us who live in this republic. It
    reminds us of why so many of us serve here and what we seek to preserve
    around the world, and that's why we want to stand with you. Your fight,
    and the fight of your fellow Hong Kongers, is the fight of every human
    who yearns for liberty and dignity, and who demands that their
    fundamental rights be respected and upheld. Let me say at the outset to
    the people of Hong Kong: We stand with you. And by we, I mean that this
    is a bicameral, bipartisan commitment, as you will see today and have
    seen in the past few days, on these efforts, across both political
    parties and every major figure. Not only that, but many Americans stand
    with you in your fight to keep your long-cherished freedoms.
        It was only a few months ago, in May, that we held a hearing on
    Hong Kong. It was titled ``Hong Kong's Future in the Balance: Eroding
    Autonomy and Challenges to Human Rights.'' At that hearing, and even
    before, it was highlighted on the fact that the Chinese Communist Party
    has been eroding Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms guaranteed by the
    Joint Declaration and by the Basic Law. The May hearing discussed the
    extradition bill, that, had it passed, would have exposed everyone in
    Hong Kong--and that includes, by the way, 80,000 Americans who reside
    there--to the justice system or the so-called justice system of the
    Chinese Communist Party. The same justice system that routinely
    tortures those in its custody, that denies critically needed medical
    care, that arrests lawyers for serving their clients, and that places
    the desires of the Communist Party above every and any demand for
    justice. The proposed bill exposed the very real and increasing threat
    to Hong Kong's autonomy. But few of us could have anticipated the
    events that would follow.
        Since June, the people of Hong Kong have bravely taken to the
    streets for 15 straight weeks in more than 400 separate demonstrations
    involving more than 8 million people of every age and every background.
    Recently, there have been very credible reports that have emerged of
    the police's brutal treatment of demonstrators while in their custody.
    This weekend, for example, we saw images of the police holding down a
    protester whose head was bleeding, and spraying pepper spray into the
    wound, which is an act of total cruelty. We watched the police throw
    tear gas grenades at journalists, many of whom were well far away from
    the demonstrators. Since the 21st of July, pro-Beijing thugs--thugs
    associated with organized crime and the party's United Front
    activities--have violently confronted demonstrators and journalists and
    innocent passersby. And the police just looked on, looked the other
    way, and in some cases, even cooperated. And while detained
    demonstrators have been beaten, or their faces smashed into the
    concrete, journalists have photographed these same thugs in
    ``detention,'' smoking and playing on their cell phones after attacking
    journalists and demonstrators.
        Although Hong Kong's Chief Executive may have promised to withdraw
    the extradition bill when the Legislative Council reconvenes in
    October, the government's violent response to the demonstrations
    demands accountability. And yet, Lam and the Hong Kong government
    refuse to press for any accountability for the violence that was
    committed and continues to be committed by Hong Kong's security forces
    against peaceful protesters. The Chief Executive did not listen to the
    outcry against the bill in Hong Kong since its introduction, but rather
    tried to ram it through the legislature.
        So what's at stake? The Hong Kong government's stubbornness in the
    face of public outcry has launched one of the greatest people power
    movements we have witnessed in recent memory. The actions of the
    government and of the people demonstrate that there are two Hong Kongs.
    The Hong Kong of the government, totally leveraged by the Chinese
    government, has proven that it's not committed to a free and autonomous
    future for Hong Kong, nor is it one of the rule of law or of justice.
    The other Hong Kong, the real one, is the one of its people--the
    students and youth activists, artists, journalists, doctors and nurses,
    lawyers, accountants, business people--from every walk of life, the
    city's people of all ages who have shown us a Hong Kong with a vibrant
    civic life prepared to stand up for its own autonomy, democracy, and
    liberty. It is clear that these two very different Hong Kongs are
    colliding, and therefore the city is at a crossroads. The fact of the
    matter is that maintaining autonomy is critical to U.S. interests, and
    it also has real implications for the rest of the world. Hong Kong's
    status as an international trade and investment hub is threatened as
    long as the long-cherished freedoms of the Hong Kong people are being
    threatened--threatened, by the way, not by us but by the Communist
    Party of China.
        So it is my belief that it's long overdue for the United States and
    the free world to respond. I hope we quickly pass the Hong Kong Human
    Rights and Democracy Act, which I hope will be heard next week in
    committee, so that we can provide this and future administrations with
    updated tools to respond robustly and flexibly to the Chinese Communist
    Party and its proxies who are undermining Hong Kong's autonomy. The
    U.S. Government and other democracies need to hold Chinese and Hong
    Kong officials accountable for their failure to uphold their
    commitments. The United States and other nations have options precisely
    because Beijing benefits from Hong Kong's special status--a special
    status which has made Hong Kong an international financial center built
    on the promises that China made to the world with regard to Hong Kong,
    which they seek to break. China's leaders must either respect Hong
    Kong's autonomy or know that their escalating aggression will lead them
    to face real consequences--not just from the United States but from the
    free world. And I issue one final warning in this regard: I anticipate
    fully that they'll continue their work to turn the system of government
    in Hong Kong into something resembling the one that exists in Macao--
    one that allows them to intervene in the legal system as they wish.
        So we're here today to examine what has happened and look forward
    to Hong Kong's future. There are many challenges in our relationship
    with China, but Hong Kong must remain a priority. Hong Kong is not a
    Chinese internal affair, and the world has a responsibility to help the
    people of Hong Kong move towards a future that protects their
    individual freedoms and provides for civic well-being. I look forward
    to hearing your views in today's discussion. I thank you for your
    courage and commitment.
                                     ______

                      Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith

        The people of Hong Kong have shown us this summer--in often
    creative and inspiring ways--that a free people will not accept the
    boot of repression without protest. The protests roiling the streets of
    Hong Kong for the past three months are a daily reminder of the stark
    differences between free and authoritarian societies.
        I believe that the Hong Kong people have done the world a great
    service. Before a global television audience, they have exposed
    Beijing's plans to erode the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong by
    international treaty--in the process laying bare the perniciously
    repressive tactics used to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power.
        And have no doubt about it, the Chinese Communist government is
    both uniquely repressive and incredibly paranoid about maintaining its
    grip on power. There are now over a million Uyghurs interned in
    Orwellian political education camps. Human rights lawyers have
    disappeared and been horribly tortured in detention. Christians,
    Tibetans, labor activists, and journalists face unacceptable abuses and
    the most intrusive system of surveillance operating in the world today.
    Why would anyone want their political fate determined by Beijing? If
    given a choice, no one would.
        As inspiring as the protests have been, they have also raised
    serious concerns about the actions of the Hong Kong and Chinese
    Communist governments. The violence and use of force perpetrated
    against the protesters by thugs and police is extremely alarming.
        Representative McGovern and I were the first members of Congress to
    call on the Trump Administration to suspend the sale of tear gas,
    rubber bullets, pepper spray and other crowd-control equipment to the
    Hong Kong Police. I join now in Representative McGovern's call to
    quickly pass the PROTECT Hong Kong Act, which would end sales of such
    equipment to the Hong Kong Police.
        Also alarming are the repeated and irresponsible threats of
    intervention made by Chinese officials, particularly so given that this
    year marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.
        The Hong Kong and Chinese Communist governments are alone
    responsible for the grievances expressed by the protesters and they
    alone can peacefully address their demands for universal suffrage and
    investigation of police tactics. Blaming the U.S. Government--and this
    Congress--for the protests is cowardly propaganda and not befitting a
    nation with aspirations of global leadership.
        Beijing's long-term plan is to undermine Hong Kong's autonomy and
    U.S. interests there. It is time that U.S. policy actively counters
    this plan. The first step is to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act.
        Five years ago, in the midst of the Umbrella Movement, I introduced
    the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act with my then-CECC Cochair
    Senator Sherrod Brown. The bill allows for more flexible and robust
    U.S. responses to the steady erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and human
    rights.
        Over the years, Senator Rubio and I upgraded the bill to reflect
    the kidnapping of booksellers, the disqualification of elected
    lawmakers, and the political prosecutions of Joshua Wong, Nathan Law,
    Benny Tai and others. However, every time we pushed for passage there
    was opposition from diplomats, experts, committee chairs, and the
    American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong.
        We were told not to upset the status quo. We were told our bill
    would cost U.S. businesses. We were told that upgrading U.S. policy
    would undermine diplomatic efforts to work with Beijing and its hand-
    selected political leaders in Hong Kong. It is the same bad advice that
    we have been hearing on China since the 1990s. It is clear by now that
    China experts have failed the American people and their advice helped
    gut parts of our economy. Listening to their advice this time will fail
    the people of Hong Kong as well.
        It is time to pass this legislation in Congress. We have wide
    agreement for passage of this bipartisan and bicameral legislation.
    Specifically, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:

          Direct the Secretary of State to certify to Congress
    annually whether Hong Kong continues to deserve special treatment under
    U.S. law different from mainland China in such matters as trade,
    customs, sanctions enforcement, law enforcement cooperation, and
    protection of human rights and the rule of law.

          Direct the State Department not to deny entry visas based
    on the applicant's arrest or detention for participating in nonviolent
    protest activities in Hong Kong.

          Require an annual report from the Commerce Department on
    whether the Hong Kong government adequately enforces U.S. export
    controls and sanctions laws.

          Require the Secretary of State to submit a strategy to
    Congress to protect U.S. citizens and businesses in Hong Kong from the
    erosion of autonomy and the rule of law because of actions taken by the
    Chinese Communist government.

          Require the President to identify and sanction persons in
    Hong Kong or in mainland China responsible for the erosion of Hong
    Kong's autonomy and serious abuses of human rights.

        I've heard it said that the business of Hong Kong is business, but
    it is clear to me now that the business of Hong Kong is freedom. It is
    freedom that undergirds the city's prosperity and its unique vitality.
    The U.S. and the international community have a clear interest in
    protecting the rights and rule of law promised to the Hong Kong people.
        I stand united with the people of Hong Kong and will not be silent
    in the face of threats to their guaranteed liberties and way of life.
    The U.S. and the international community also cannot be silent. The
    whole world has a stake in a peaceful and just resolution in Hong Kong
    and the survival of the ``one country, two systems'' model.
                              Witness Biographies

                                  ----------

        Joshua Wong, Secretary-General of Demosisto, pro-democracy
    activist, and Umbrella Movement leader

        Joshua Wong is a pro-democracy activist and the secretary-general
    of Demosisto. At the age of 15, as the convenor of Scholarism in 2012,
    he organized protests against the government's plan to introduce
    patriotic education in Hong Kong. Subsequently, he rose to prominence
    as a core leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement. He was nominated by
    Time as Person of the Year in 2014, listed as one of the ``world's
    greatest leaders'' by Fortune magazine in 2015, and nominated by
    members of the U.S. Congress for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017. He was
    also one of Hong Kong's first three political prisoners since 1997,
    sentenced in 2018 with Nathan Law and Alex Chow for leadership roles in
    the Umbrella Movement. Most recently, Wong was arrested in August 2019
    for his role in a peaceful protest outside police headquarters during
    the anti-extradition bill movement.

        Denise Ho, pro-democracy activist and award-winning Cantopop singer
    and actress

        Denise Ho is a pro-democracy and LGBTQ rights activist and an
    award-winning Hong Kong-based singer, producer, and actress with 12
    studio albums and many film credits to her name. Ho is a prominent
    supporter of the anti-extradition bill protests in Hong Kong and a
    leading figure in Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement. She was arrested
    during the 2014 Umbrella Movement for taking part in non-violent
    protests and named as one of BBC's ``100 Women'' in 2016. The Chinese
    government has banned her from performing in China. Ho has been invited
    to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum in Norway, the Global Summit in the
    United States, and Antidote in Australia. In July 2019, Ho addressed
    the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Hong Kong, during which she
    was repeatedly interrupted by the Chinese delegation.

        Sunny Cheung, spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher Institutions
    International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD) and student at the University
    of Hong Kong

        Sunny Cheung is a spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher
    Institutions International Affairs Delegation (HKIAD) and an activist
    from the student union of the University of Hong Kong. Established in
    July 2019, HKIAD includes all student unions of universities in Hong
    Kong in the primary mission of raising global awareness and support for
    Hong Kong's anti-extradition bill protesters and the pro-democracy
    movement. Cheung has participated in and organized exchange events and
    conferences in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, the United States, and
    the United Nations. He recently gave a speech in the U.K. House of
    Commons and met parliamentarians from Taiwan, Australia, Germany, and
    the United Kingdom to advocate for Hong Kong's struggle against Chinese
    authoritarian rule.

        Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China and
    professor of law emerita at City University of New York School of Law

        Sharon K. Hom is the executive director of Human Rights in China
    (HRIC), where she leads its international advocacy and strategic policy
    engagement with NGOs, governments, and multi-stakeholder initiatives.
    HRIC has covered human rights and democracy developments in Hong Kong
    extensively, including the 2014 Umbrella Movement. Hom has presented at
    numerous hearings on a wide range of human rights issues before key
    European, U.S., and international policymakers. Hom is a professor of
    law emerita at the City University of New York School of Law and has
    taught law for 18 years, including training judges, lawyers, and law
    teachers at eight law schools in China. She also teaches human rights
    seminars at New York University School of Law and the University of
    Hong Kong Faculty of Law. In 2007, she was named by the Wall Street
    Journal as one of the ``50 Women to Watch.''

        Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., political scientist and author of ``Counter-
    Hegemonic Resistance in China's Hong Kong: Visualizing Protest in the
    City'' (2014)

        Daniel Garrett, Ph.D., is an author, photographer and political
    scientist focusing on Chinese security politics and securitization of
    Hong Kong. Since 2011 he has documented over 600 demonstrations,
    marches, and rallies and several elections in Hong Kong--including,
    most recently, the anti-extradition bill demonstrations. Garrett is a
    doctoral graduate of City University of Hong Kong with approximately 20
    years of engagement with Hong Kong and has completed his dissertation
    on ``One Country, Two Systems'' under China's national security
    framework. His first book, ``Counter-Hegemonic Resistance in China's
    Hong Kong: Visualizing Protest in the City'' (2014), examined Hong
    Kong's protest culture. Prior to academia, Garrett was a career
    national security professional providing strategic counterintelligence
    threat analysis and served at the Defense Intelligence Agency, National
    Security Agency, and in the United States Air Force.