    [Senate Hearing 119-167]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-167

                            THE STATUS OF DEMOCRACY
                      AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN HONG KONG, FIVE
                    YEARS AFTER THE PRC'S JUDICIAL TAKEOVER

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN
                        HEMISPHERE, TRANSNATIONAL CRIME,
                      CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN
                       RIGHTS, AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                 JULY 22, 2025
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Available via http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    -------

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-656 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2026

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho, Chairman
    PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska                JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    DAVID MCCORMICK, Pennsylvania          CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                  CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee                TIM KAINE, Virginia
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    TED CRUZ, Texas                        BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    MIKE LEE, Utah                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                   JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas
                 Christopher M. Socha, Staff Director
               Naz Durakoglu, Democratic Staff Director
                       John Dutton, Chief Clerk

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, TRANSNATIONAL CRIME,
                  CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS,
                       AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES

                     JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                     TIM KAINE, Virginia
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    TED CRUZ, Texas                        CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut

                                  (ii)

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                   ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Statements

    Curtis, Hon. John R., U.S. Senator From Utah.....................     1

    Kaine, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From Virginia......................     2

                                   Witnesses

    Enos, Olivia, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC....     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7

    Richardson, Dr. Sophie, Co-Executive Director, Chinese Human
      Rights Defenders, Washington, DC...............................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14

    Siu, Joey, Executive Council Member, World Liberty Congress,
      Washington, DC.................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    18

    Gallagher, Caoilfhionn, KC, International Legal Counsel to Jimmy
      Lai, Doughty Street Barristers, London, England................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Chinese propaganda surges as the U.S. defunds Radio Free Asia,
      the Washington Post, June 6, 2025, submitted by Senator Tim
      Kaine..........................................................    43

    CCP cheers RFA Cantonese's demise, Radio Free Asia, July 9, 2025,
      submitted by Senator Tim Kaine.................................    47

    Why a Hong Kong law that is eroding press freedom is also bad for
      business, Committee to Protect Journalists, June 30, 2025,
      submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley..............................    50

                                     (iii)

    THE STATUS OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN HONG KONG, FIVE YEARS AFTER
                          THE PRC'S JUDICIAL TAKEOVER

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2025

                               U.S. Senate,
                Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
                Transnational Crime, Civilian Security,
                               Democracy, Human Rights,
                             and Global Women's Issues,
                                Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in
    room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Curtis,
    chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Curtis [presiding], Scott, Kaine,
    Merkley, and Shaheen.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Curtis. The hearing will come to order.
        And as a first note of business, I'd like to note that if
    your disruptive proceedings of the committee, you'll be
    arrested, and you will be banned for 12 months from this
    committee. I don't know who picked 12 months, but that sounds
    appropriate.
        Second note, that the full title of this subcommittee is
    Western Hemisphere, Transcontinental Crime, Civilian Security,
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues. While the
    subcommittee's focus is on the Western Hemisphere, we also have
    jurisdiction over global health rights and democracy. And
    Ranking Member Kaine and I will be holding some hearings this
    Congress on the topic of global human rights and democracies
    such as this one.
        Five years ago, the Chinese Communist Party imposed the so
    called National Security Law on Hong Kong, an act that marked
    the end of one country, two systems, and culminated in the full
    scale dismantling of Hong Kong's freedoms, rule of law, and
    judicial independence.
        Last year, Hong Kong doubled down on its repression and
    enacted the Article 23 law, a sweeping expansion of the
    National Security Law that introduces dangerously vague
    offenses like external interference and state secrets,
    punishable by life in prison.
        This hearing is not just about an anniversary; it's about
    the people whose lives have been reshaped by the loss of
    liberty and the warning their story sends to the rest of the
    world.
        We meet today to reaffirm a bipartisan truth. Human rights
    do not end where the reach of the CCP begins. The United States
    has a moral obligation to stand firmly with those in Hong Kong,
    whose voices have been silenced, whose rights have been
    stripped, and whose future has been thrown unto uncertainty by
    the Chinese Communist Party.
        In the years since 2020, I've watched as courageous Hong
    Kongers have been arrested, exiled, and silenced. Courageous
    Hong Kongers like Jimmy Lai, prove the CCP's fears of free
    voices. Mr. Lai has spent the last 4 \1/2\ largely in solitary
    confinement. Authorities are so threatened by his image, that
    the last photo of him taken 2 years ago by an AP photographer
    led to that photographer's expulsion from Hong Kong. Since
    then, guards have used umbrellas, tarps, and even boarded up
    windows to keep the world from seeing him.
        I've watched as judges, once seen as guardians of an
    impartial legal system, have become enforcers of Beijing's
    repression. Let's be honest, what was once an imperial legal
    system is now used as a political tool twisting the law not to
    protect rights, but to erase them. That's why I introduced the
    Hong Kong Sanctions Act in the House, to push for sanctions on
    those in the judicial system responsible for the deterioration
    of freedom. As if to prove my point, Hong Kong prosecutors
    responded to this bill by pushing a warrant for my arrest in
    Hong Kong.
        I'm proud to have joined with Senator Sullivan and my
    fellow subcommittee members, Senator Merkley, in reintroducing
    this bill in the Senate. And in the face of this, I have a
    message for those who believe that threats and arrest warrants
    from 8,000 miles away will intimidate us into silence. They
    won't. We will not be silenced. The louder the CCP tries to
    shut us down, the firmer our resolve becomes to defend freedom
    in Hong Kong and anywhere it is under siege.
        Years ago, I spent time in Hong Kong and saw firsthand a
    city alive with energy enterprise and freedom. Now instead of a
    beacon of liberty, Hong Kong has become a key node in a global
    network that assists Russia and other adversaries in evading
    sanctions, money laundering, and circumventing export controls.
    To crack down on Hong Kong's status as a money launder and
    sanctions evasion hub, I've introduced the Stop CCP Money
    Laundering Act.
        The struggle for democracy and human rights in Hong Kong is
    not over. And this subcommittee will continue to shine a
    spotlight on the abuses and advocate for accountability and
    action.
        With that, I now recognize the distinguished ranking
    member, my honor to serve with you, Senator Kaine, for your
    remarks.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    great witnesses and all who are attending.
        As the Chairman mentioned, this subcommittee has one of the
    longest titles of any subcommittee in the Senate. It's 15
    words. Maybe somebody can beat us. But it is important to note
    that while the regional focus of the subcommittee is the
    Western Hemisphere, all of the Foreign Relations subcommittees
    also have subject matter jurisdictions.
        And it's really, really good that this jurisdiction focuses
    on human rights and other really important issues. And the
    chair and I have agreed that while the majority of our hearings
    will likely be within the hemisphere, we will also do some
    global hearings like this one, on important human rights
    issues, which are obviously important in the Western Hemisphere
    as well.
        As we begin, I'm going to address one topic at the
    beginning that ties into the hearing today. It's really
    important for me and my constituents in Virginia, because
    Virginia is home to many thousands of dedicated public
    servants, including those who work at the State Department and
    related agencies. The RIFs in recent weeks at State have really
    focused on efforts to dismantle the Bureau of Democracy, Human
    Rights, and Labor at State.
        I'm not sure our adversaries have vigorous human rights
    portfolios where they think about human rights around the world
    and try to influence them in a positive direction. And I'm not
    sure that their ministries of foreign affairs really focus so
    much on these issues as we do. It's been a hallmark of this
    committee and of our State Department generally, that this has
    been a priority across Administrations of both parties.
        To the State Department employees whose morale is pretty
    low now, and those of you who've received RIF notices, I just
    want to say I really admire your devotion to public service. I
    have visited with you all over the globe. I commend you for
    wanting to make the world a safer place and standing up for
    human rights values. We can proudly proclaim them even though
    we need to be humble always about our own efforts and the need
    to do more both at home and abroad. Whether through political
    means, judicial redress of grievances, legislative advocacy, or
    organizing, please stay engaged.
        And it's directly relevant to our hearing today, I would
    like to introduce, Mr. Chair, an article from June 6, 2025, the
    Washington Post--``Chinese propaganda surges as the U.S.
    defunds Radio Free Asia.'' If I could ask that to be entered
    into the record.
        [Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be
    found in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record''
    section at the end of this document.]
        Senator Curtis. Without objection.
        Senator Kaine. The proposed U.S. 2026 fiscal year budget
    proposes to take 82 percent of the funding out of our global
    media efforts. And we need to fight disinformation in the
    information space. We're not only laying people off; we're
    hobbling those efforts. I don't think we can safely assume that
    we can take the State Department's pro-human rights, pro-
    democracy efforts and just subsume them within the regionals
    and have the priority be what they need to be.
        I also believe that the rescissions package that we passed
    last week will do additional damage to this important priority.
    And I do think it's important for the U.S. again, with the
    humility about our own imperfections to continue to stand up
    for folks around the world who are under the thumb of
    authoritarians and dictators, and you can't do that without
    people.
        All right, this is a really timely hearing, and we're going
    to hear from witnesses about their assessment of where
    democratic values and human rights stand in Hong Kong, as the
    chair said, 5 years after the enactment of the National
    Security Law.
        As you all might know, the PRC imposed this law 5 years ago
    on Hong Kong to clamp down on civil society following large
    scale protests against the bill, allowing the extradition of
    fugitives to mainland China, which many in Hong Kong viewed as
    directly in contravention of commitments that the PRC had made
    with respect to the status of Hong Kong and those living there.
    Some of the drastic impacts of implementation law, including a
    chilling effect on activists, political opposition groups,
    dissidents, and other civil society stakeholders.
        Let me give a couple of quick examples. Hong Kong national
    security police have arrested the father and brother of
    activist Anna Kwok for allegedly dealing with her finances.
    This is the first use of the city's security law to deal with
    the relatives of activists who have had to flee Hong Kong in
    fear of retaliation.
        Many activists, including Ms. Joey Siu, who's here today,
    have bounties for their capture based on spurious accusations
    about their human rights work being driven by collusion with
    foreign actors. As if people who live in Hong Kong can't have
    their own desire for human rights. Why would human rights have
    to be something that could only be ginned up by collusion with
    foreign actors, rather than something that lives within the
    heart of freedom loving people anywhere in the world?
        Let me very be very clear--Oh, I also wanted to mention
    Jimmy Lai, who is still in prison, has been described by
    Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience. Protesting
    should not be a crime. Demanding to live in a free and
    democratic society should not be a crime. Speaking out against
    authoritarianism should not be a crime.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today
    about their experience being unjustly persecuted for wanting to
    live in a democratic society, their assessment of where the
    U.S. policy has had success or could have more success, how
    Congress can play a role in fostering democracy and respect for
    human rights. The shared values of democracy, freedom of
    expression, rule of law, should remain at the core of our
    foreign policy. I know the chairman of this subcommittee
    believes deeply in that, and I do as well.
        Let me turn it back over to the chair to introduce the
    witnesses and then get this hearing underway.
        I see the vote still hasn't started, so we may be able to
    do a really long hearing before we have to go vote.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Senator Kaine. It is really an
    honor to do this work with you, and appreciate your reminder
    when we first met that the committee's jurisdiction was over
    human rights and far broader than just the Western Hemisphere.
        And I jumped into this so quickly, I didn't really have a
    chance to welcome our witnesses. I'm sorry I wasn't here to
    greet you before. This is a very impressive group of witnesses,
    and I'm pleased to have every single one of you here today.
        We're going to start with Olivia Enos, a senior fellow at
    the Hudson Institute, where she writes on a wide range of human
    rights and national security issues in Asia. She's also an
    adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a contributor at
    Forbes. She previously worked as Washington's director of the
    Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation and before that,
    as a sitting policy analyst for Asian Studies at the Heritage
    Foundation, where she wrote about international human rights
    issues including human trafficking, transnational crime,
    religious freedom, and democratic freedoms among other social
    issues in China, North Korea, Burma, and other parts of Asia.
        She received her MA in Asian studies from Georgetown
    University, and a BA in government from Patrick Henry College.
        And the time is now yours. We just jumped right over to
    assuming you all know how to work the buttons. You each have 5
    minutes, so please begin.

               STATEMENT OF OLIVIA ENOS, SENIOR FELLOW,
                   HUDSON INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Enos. Chairman Curtis and Ranking Member Kaine and
    other members of this subcommittee, thank you so much for
    inviting me to testify today.
        Since 2020, freedom in Hong Kong declined precipitously.
    The impacts of this decline affect not only the fundamental
    human rights of Hong Kongers, but also the national and
    economic security of the U.S. and the world.
        Hong Kong was once a bastion of liberty in Asia, but since
    2019, the special administrative region has taken just shy of
    2,000 political prisoners, including well known figures like
    Jimmy Lai, Gwyneth Ho, and Joshua Wong. It has shuttered pro-
    democracy press like Apple Daily and Stand News, and engages in
    transnational repression through the issuance of bounties on
    well known overseas pro-democracy advocates, including U.S.
    citizen Joey Siu, who is testifying here today, my former
    committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation colleague Francis
    Hui, and 17 other Hong Kongers in the U.S., United Kingdom, and
    Australia.
        Hong Kong's near overnight transformation is the result of
    the passage of the National Security Law, which created four
    new political crimes including secession, subversion,
    terrorism, and collusion with foreign and external forces. The
    NSL was compounded by the passage of Article 23 legislation,
    which added an additional five new categories of security
    crimes including treason, insurrection, and sedition, theft of
    state secrets, and espionage, external interference, and
    sabotage activities.
        Hong Kong authorities today act as an extension of the
    Chinese Communist Party. This is most evident in the distinct
    erosions in the rule of law, which have implications that
    extend far beyond the undermining of civil liberties and
    freedoms.
        In a groundbreaking CFHK report, Hong Kong advocate and
    lawyer Samuel Bickett documented evidence for Hong Kong's
    ongoing policies of sanctions evasion on behalf of rogue
    actors, including but not limited to Russia, Iran, and North
    Korea. Bickett's report goes beyond the headlines that we all
    know, that Chief Executive John Lee has openly flouted U.S. and
    international law by refusing to enforce sanctions and provides
    credible evidence that Hong Kong companies engage in ship to
    ship transfers, provide dual use technologies or components,
    and establish shell companies to evade sanctions on behalf of
    rogue regimes.
        Most notably, Hong Kong contributes substantially toward
    Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. From August to
    December 2023 alone, Bickett's report found that Hong Kong
    provided over $2 billion in shipments of banned goods to
    support Russia. Hong Kong presents among the clearest examples
    of what happens when the U.S. does not effectively counter the
    CCP's threats to human rights and good governance.
        And America is not immune from the impacts of Hong Kong's
    decline. As a direct result of the CCP's undermining of rule of
    law, Hong Kong is now a risky place to do business;
    transnational repression including on U.S. soil is increasing,
    and the rights of Hong Kongers continue to be violated.
        Unfortunately, Hong Kong's decline is happening amid waning
    commitments from the U.S. to safeguard and defend human rights.
    Reductions in force at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
    and Labor at the U.S. Department of State, planned cuts to
    nearly all U.S. Government grants supporting human rights and
    democracy globally, and the targeting of Radio Free Asia, which
    recently shuttered its Cantonese service, hamstring U.S.
    ability to advance human rights in Hong Kong and beyond.
        These cuts are being made at precisely the same time that
    the CCP is threatening human rights at historic levels. This
    will have severe implications for U.S. national security in the
    present, and will undercut U.S. efforts to support human rights
    abroad for decades to come.
        While it may be true that in the short term it is unlikely
    that Hong Kong will revert to its previous freedom loving semi-
    autonomous state, it is inaccurate to say that there are no
    tools of the U.S.' disposal to hold the CCP and Hong Kong
    officials accountable and alleviate the suffering of the Hong
    Kong people.
        I ask that my full testimony, which includes more than 20
    policy recommendations, be submitted for the record, but I will
    highlight seven policy actions now. Congress and the
    Administration should first oppose cuts to grants and key
    personnel supporting democracy and human rights at the
    Department of State. Second, issue targeted sanctions against
    individuals and entities responsible for implementing,
    enforcing, prosecuting, and ruling on the NSL in Article 23
    legislation.
        Third, consider whether certain entities or sets of
    transactions in Hong Kong can be designated as primary money
    laundering concerns. Fourth, continue appropriations for Radio
    Free Asia and press for pre-existing funds to be released so
    that they can continue operating and ideally restart at the
    very least the Cantonese, Uyghur, and Tibetan services. Five,
    press for the release of all political prisoners in Hong Kong
    and consider creating an office of political prisoner advocacy
    at the U.S. Department of State.
        Six, consider revoking the Hong Kong economic and trade
    office's special privileges and immunities, and finally,
    continue to provide refugee and asylum safe haven to Hong
    Kongers in need. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Enos follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Ms. Olivia Enos

        Since 2020, freedom in Hong Kong has declined precipitously. This
    decline has affected not only the fundamental human rights of Hong
    Kongers but also the national and economic security of the United
    States and the world.
        Hong Kong was once a bastion of liberty in Asia. Since 2019, the
    special administrative region has taken nearly 2,000 political
    prisoners, \1\ including well-known figures like Jimmy Lai, Gwyneth Ho,
    and Joshua Wong. It has shuttered pro-democracy news outlets like Apple
    Daily and Stand News. The Hong Kong government also engages in
    transnational repression through the issuance of bounties on well-known
    pro-democracy advocates who live overseas, including US citizen Joey
    Siu (who is testifying today), my former Committee for Freedom in Hong
    Kong (CFHK) Foundation colleague Frances Hui, and 17 other Hong Kongers
    in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Hong Kong Political Prisoners,'' Hong Kong Democracy Council,
    accessed July 17, 2025, https://www.hkdc.us/hong-kong-political-
    prisoners.
        \2\ ``Hong Kong Issued Bounties on Prodemocracy Activists; TikTok
    Bans in US and Albania,'' Freedom House, January 2025, https://
    freedomhouse.org/report/china-media-bulletin/2025/hong-kong-issued-
    bounties-prodemocracy-activists-tiktok-bans-us.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hong Kong's near-overnight transformation is the result of the
    passage of the national security law (NSL) in 2020, which created four
    new political crimes--including secession, subversion, terrorism, and
    collusion with foreign and external forces. Despite their seemingly
    nefarious descriptions, the NSL criminalizes activities most Americans
    would consider to be fundamental freedoms, including freedom of
    association, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The NSL
    granted the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) an unfettered ability to
    meddle in every aspect of life in Hong Kong, effectively dismantling
    the rule of law and judicial system that made Hong Kong an attractive
    destination for international business. In short, the NSL substantially
    ceded power from Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China (PRC).
        Passage of Article 23 legislation in 2024 compounded the NSL's
    effects and further shifted the environment in Hong Kong. \3\ This law
    uses a broad definition of national security to tamp down on what it
    defines as five new categories of security crimes: espionage and theft
    of state secrets, sabotage activities, treason, insurrection and
    sedition, and collusion with external forces. \4\ According to Hong
    Kong Free Press, the aforementioned are, by and large, new crimes that
    expand the list of political crimes the original NSL outlined.
    Punishment for these offenses can include decades in prison, and
    several crimes involving ``external forces'' are subject to life
    imprisonment. \5\ Article 23 will certainly have a chilling effect on
    what remains of Hong Kong's freedoms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Olivia Enos, ``Hong Kong's New National Security Law Needs a
    Robust US Response,'' Hudson Institute, March 20, 2025, https://
    www.hudson.org/politics-government/hong-kongs-new-national-security-
    law-needs-robust-us-response-olivia-enos.
        \4\ Kanis Leung and Zen Soo, ``What's in Hong Kong's New National
    Security Bill?,'' The Diplomat, March 9, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/
    2024/03/whats-in-hong-kongs-new-national-security-bill/.
        \5\ Chris Lau, ``Hong Kong Unveils Its Second National Security
    Law, Aligning City More Closely with Mainland China,'' CNN, March 8,
    2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/08/world/hong-kong-new-national-
    security-laws-china-intl-hnk/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hong Kong authorities today act as an extension of the CCP. This is
    most evident in the erosion of the rule of law in the region, which has
    implications that extend far beyond the undermining of civil liberties
    and freedoms.
        In a groundbreaking CFHK Foundation report, lawyer Samuel Bickett
    documented evidence of Hong Kong helping rogue actors like Russia,
    Iran, and North Korea evade sanctions. \6\ Bickett's work goes beyond
    what the headlines report--that Chief Executive John Lee has openly
    flouted US and international law by refusing to enforce sanctions \7\--
    and provides credible evidence that Hong Kong companies engage in ship-
    to-ship transfers, provide dual-use technologies and components, and
    establish shell companies to assist rogue regimes in evading sanctions.
    Most notably, Hong Kong contributes substantial funding toward Russia's
    war of aggression against Ukraine. From August to December 2023 alone,
    Hong Kong provided over $2 billion in shipments of goods to support
    Russia. \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Samuel Bickett, Beneath the Harbor (Committee for Freedom in
    Hong Kong Foundation, July 2024), https://thecfhk.org/beneath-the-
    harbor/.
        \7\ Tony Cheung, ``Hong Kong Will Not Implement US Sanctions, Says
    John Lee Having `Laughed Off' Similar Measures Taken Against Himself,''
    South China Morning Post, October 11, 2022, https://www.scmp.com/news/
    hong-kong/politics/article/3195592/hong-kong-will-not-implement-us-
    sanctions-says-john-lee.
        \8\ Cheung, ``Hong Kong Will Not Implement US Sanctions''; Bickett,
    Beneath the Harbor.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Hong Kong presents a clear example of what happens when the United
    States does not effectively counter the CCP's threats to human rights
    and good governance. And America is not immune to the impacts of Hong
    Kong's decline. As a direct result of the CCP's undermining of the rule
    of law, Hong Kong is now a risky place to do business; transnational
    repression, including on US soil, is increasing; and the rights of Hong
    Kongers continue to be violated.
        Unfortunately, Hong Kong's continuing decline is happening amid
    waning commitments from the US to safeguard and defend human rights.
    Reductions in force at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
    at the State Department, planned cuts to nearly all US government
    grants supporting human rights and democracy globally, and the
    targeting of Radio Free Asia (RFA), which recently shuttered its
    Cantonese service, hamstring America's ability to advance human rights
    in Hong Kong and beyond. These cuts are being made at precisely the
    same time that the CCP is threatening human rights at historic levels.
    This will have severe implications for US national security in the
    present and will undercut US efforts to support human rights abroad for
    decades.
        While in the short term Hong Kong is unlikely to revert to its
    previous freedom-loving, semi-autonomous state, the US and the
    international community still have tools they can use to hold CCP and
    Hong Kong officials accountable and to alleviate the suffering of the
    Hong Kong people. A decision to accept Hong Kong's fate would result in
    a repeat of past US foreign policy failures. In essence, it would
    decouple security-driven policy from human rights-based policy when
    crafting US strategy toward China. But as recent history has shown,
    when Beijing undermines its citizens' rights and freedoms, the whole
    world feels the consequences.
        Instead of ignoring the domestic situation in China, Congress and
    the administration should find ways to sustain efforts to support and
    advance universal human rights through US policy, hold Hong Kong
    authorities and the CCP accountable for undermining freedom in Hong
    Kong, and support the people of Hong Kong in their quest for freedom.
        I recommend that Congress and the administration take the following
    actions:

        1. Oppose cuts to grants and key staff supporting democracy and
    human rights at the State Department. \9\ Planned cuts to US grants
    supporting democracy and human rights will have devastating impacts for
    US national security. Cuts are occurring as rights-violating
    authoritarians--including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran--are
    ramping up their security threats against the US. Authoritarian regimes
    rely on human rights violations to maintain their grip on power and
    threaten US interests. While the desire for fiscal responsibility is
    noble, cuts need to be made strategically and should preserve US
    leadership in defending human rights around the globe. However,
    currently planned cuts will severely hit some of the most important
    human rights organizations countering the malign influence of the CCP.
    Bethany Allen at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute covered this
    topic in great detail when stop work orders were issued and grants were
    temporarily suspended earlier this year, and she warned that many
    groups may face extinction if cuts proceed. \10\ Some of the most
    important organizations advocating for basic freedoms for Hong Kongers,
    Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other persecuted groups in China will diminish
    greatly or outright close if current plans proceed. These groups are
    often a critical source of information to the US government and civil
    society about the CCP. Losing access to these resources when the US is
    increasing efforts to counter the CCP is counter-productive and
    potentially crippling to US foreign policy. It's fair to ask why these
    organizations do not have more diversified funding streams. But to put
    it simply, the private sector has too often found funding human rights
    programs to be at odds with its financial interests and desire for
    market access, particularly in China. \11\ That's where the US has
    historically come in. The US is the only country with the technical
    skills and capacity, historical involvement, and funding to support
    human rights efforts at scale.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Olivia Enos, ``Secretary Rubio--It's Not Too Late to Prioritize
    Human Rights,'' Forbes, June 30, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/
    oliviaenos/2025/06/30/secretary-rubio-its-not-too-late-to-prioritize-
    human-rights/.
        \10\ Bethany Allen, ``With US Funding Freeze, China Nonprofits Are
    Facing Extinction. They Need Emergency Assistance,'' Australian
    Strategic Policy Institute, February 6, 2025, https://
    www.aspistrategist.org.au/with-us-funding-freeze-china-nonprofits-are-
    facing-extinction-they-need-emergency-assistance/.
        \11\ ``Elon Musk: Tesla Criticised after Opening Xinjiang
    Showroom,'' BBC, January 3, 2022, https://www.bbc.com/news/business-
    59863859.

        2. Issue targeted sanctions against individuals and entities
    responsible for implementing, enforcing, prosecuting, and ruling on the
    2020 NSL and Article 23 legislation. \12\ The US government can use
    preexisting sanctions authorities under the Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act, the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, and the Global Magnitsky
    Act, among others. Current legislation, the Hong Kong Judicial
    Sanctions Act, puts forth a list of nearly 50 Hong Kong judges and
    prosecutors ripe for sanctioning. \13\ The Congressional-Executive
    Commission on China has also put forth a list of names of individuals
    in Hong Kong to be sanctioned, and the commission has actively called
    for sanctions in response to Article 23 legislation. \14\ Individuals
    responsible for undermining freedom in Hong Kong--and especially those
    responsible for the law's creation and implementation--should face
    consequences for their actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Olivia Enos, ``The US Must Condemn Hong Kong's New National
    Security Law,'' The Hill, April 5, 2024, https://thehill.com/opinion/
    international/4577101-the-u-s-must-condemn-hong-kongs-new-national-
    security-law/.
        \13\ Olivia Enos, ``New Legislation Holds Hong Kong Judges' and
    Prosecutors' Feet to the Fire,'' Forbes, November 6, 2023, https://
    www.forbes.com/sites/oliviaenos/2023/11/06/new-legislation-holds-hong-
    kong-judges--prosecutors-feet-to-the-fire/.
        \14\ ``Letter to Blinken, Yellen to Sanction Hong Kong Officials
    for Human Rights Abuses,'' House Select Committee on the Strategic
    Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party,
    July 17, 2024, https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/letters/
    letter-blinken-yellen-sanction-hong-kong-officials-human-rights-abuses.
    In addition to using sanctions to target those responsible for the NSL
    and Article 23 legislation, the US should make full use of preexisting
    financial sanctions authorities to target CCP officials responsible for
    other human rights violations in China. The Treasury Department should
    issue specific tranches of sanctions at key diplomatic moments to
    advocate for political prisoner release, in particular. The State
    Department should also make full use of its authorities pursuant to
    Section 212(a)(3)(C) that place visa restrictions on individuals
    responsible for wrongful and abusive or unjust detentions of both
    American citizens and foreign nationals.

        3. Consider whether institutions, accounts, or sets of transactions
    in Hong Kong can be designated as primary money laundering concerns
    (PMLC). \15\ The US government can use Section 311 of the USA Patriot
    Act against specific financial institutions, sets of transactions, or
    types of accounts, as opposed to designating an entire jurisdiction as
    a PMLC. It is difficult (arguably impossible) to contend that the
    entire jurisdiction of Hong Kong qualifies as a PMLC; a broad sweeping
    designation should be avoided at this time. However, a PMLC designation
    for an institution, set of transactions, or accounts would (1) signal
    that the situation in Hong Kong is not business as usual and (2) cause
    companies to question whether Hong Kong remains a reputable financial
    market. The executive branch could do this itself, but Congress should
    pass new legislation that issues a reporting requirement to determine
    what institutions in Hong Kong may merit a PMLC designation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Olivia Enos, ``A Policy Roadmap to Support the People of Hong
    Kong,'' Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, January 23,
    2023, https://thecfhk.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/A-Policy-Roadmap-
    to-Support-the-People-of-Hong-Kong.pdf.

        4. Support continued appropriations for Radio Free Asia and press
    for preexisting funds to be released so that RFA can fully operate and
    ideally restart Cantonese, Uyghur, and Tibetan services. Radio Free
    Asia fills a critical void in US foreign policy. The news service is
    both a source of information for policymakers and the American public
    about conditions in closed societies like China, as well as a critical
    lifeline to people living in those societies. RFA is also a cost-
    effective means of preserving the cultures and languages of minority
    groups suffering under authoritarian persecution. Since facing the ire
    of the Trump administration, RFA's Tibetan and Uyghur services went
    dark on May 9, and the Cantonese service followed suit on July 1.
    Shortwave radio broadcasting for many of these services stopped even
    earlier in April 2025. The Uyghur service was the only source of Uyghur
    language broadcasting. Many RFA employees were on employment visas in
    the US, and after the abrupt termination of their employment, they may
    be sent back to their home countries, where they face likely prison
    sentences or even death. Without swift action, the consequences may be
    dire. Congress should lean on the administration to defend RFA as a
    strategic and fiscally responsible means of gathering information and
    supporting freedom in closed societies. RFA had an annual budget of
    approximately $60 million, a drop in the bucket of congressional
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    appropriations and the US budget.

        5. Revoke special privileges and immunities conferred to Hong Kong
    Economic and Trade Offices (HKETOs) and any other Hong Kong government-
    affiliated bodies operating in the US. \16\ At present, HKETOs in
    cities across the US enjoy special treatment akin to diplomatic
    privileges and immunities. After the US determined that Hong Kong is no
    longer sufficiently autonomous to merit separate treatment under US
    law, policymakers should have revoked these privileges and immunities.
    \17\ The passage of Article 23 legislation makes the distinction
    between Beijing and Hong Kong meaningless, so Hong Kong should no
    longer receive separate diplomatic recognition from the PRC. Current
    legislation, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act,
    proposes a process whereby the US government would have to determine
    whether HKETOs continue to merit special treatment. \18\ A move to
    revoke special privileges would diminish the offices' influence and
    rightly recognize the role they play in currying favor for Beijing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Enos, ``A Policy Roadmap''; Enos, ``The US Must Condemn.''
        \17\ ``Hong Kong Has Lost Autonomy, Pompeo Says, Opening Door to US
    Action,'' New York Times, May 27, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/
    05/27/us/politics/china-hong-kong-pompeo-trade.html.
        \18\ Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) Certification Act,
    H.R. 2661, 119th Congress (2025), https://www.Congress.gov/bill/119th-
    congress/house-bill/2661.

        6. Create an Office for Political Prisoner Advocacy (OPPA) in the
    State Department. Amidst the ongoing reorganization of the State
    Department, implementers should look for ways to strengthen US efforts
    to free political prisoners. One way to do this is to create an OPPA
    that should be tasked with coordinating and managing US efforts to
    secure political prisoner release globally. Its priority would be to
    advocate for the release of political prisoners relevant to US national
    security. Congress should require the office to release an annual
    report identifying key political prisoners and what the office, civil
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    society, and Congress have done or can do to secure their release.

        7. Create and appoint a special envoy for political prisoner
    advocacy to lead the OPPA. The special envoy should be Senate confirmed
    and of Ambassador rank, and he or she would serve as a liaison between
    the executive branch, Congress, and civil society. This would
    centralize the processes for securing political prisoner release,
    updating families on the status of political prisoners, and
    coordinating government and civil society responses to extrajudicial
    imprisonment. To streamline the process, the envoy could coordinate
    with other key nodes tasked with political prisoner advocacy in the
    State Department. These include the Office of the US Special
    Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, the Office of International Religious
    Freedom, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the Bureau
    of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Additionally, the special envoy
    could work with the Treasury Department and other relevant agencies
    (e.g., the National Security Council) to identify individuals who could
    be sanctioned for facilitating arbitrary detentions.

        8. Create a designation of arbitrarily detained for political
    prisoners. The US has a robust apparatus for securing hostage release
    for individuals the State Department labels wrongfully detained. While
    the definition of wrongfully detained can apply to political prisoners,
    it usually denotes that someone is a hostage. The department generally
    uses the informal term arbitrarily detained to refer to political
    prisoners. The special envoy and the OPPA should have the power to
    officially label political prisoners as arbitrarily detained, publish a
    list of these individuals in its annual report, and exercise
    authorities similar to those of the hostage release apparatus to obtain
    the freedom of these individuals.

        9. Strengthen the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission's Defending
    Freedoms Project. \19\ The Defending Freedoms Project is an invaluable
    resource for political prisoner adoption. But despite the Lantos
    commission's excellent efforts, the process for connecting family
    members of political prisoners with Members of Congress remains opaque.
    The commission should disseminate more resources on how citizens with
    family members or friends who may be eligible for adoption can best
    apply to the program to secure high-level advocacy from Members of
    Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Enos, ``A Policy Roadmap.''

        10. Coordinate efforts to press for the release of all political
    prisoners in China, including Hong Kongers. \20\ The special envoy
    should standardize a process to coordinate advocacy for the release of
    Chinese political prisoners. This should include holding regular
    meetings between congressional and executive branch staff to provide
    updates about political prisoners' well-being, share steps taken to
    secure their release, and make plans for future advocacy. The OPPA
    should also require Members of Congress who adopted political prisoners
    to submit regular updates to the relevant bureaus and offices at the
    State Department. These updates should be included in the newly created
    OPPA's annual report on political prisoners.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Enos, ``A Policy Roadmap.''

        11. Raise the cases of key political prisoners across China,
    including Hong Kongers, at every diplomatic meeting between US
    officials and Chinese counterparts. Each meeting between US and Chinese
    officials presents an opportunity to press for the release of political
    prisoners. US officials' requests should be strong and specific--not
    only for information or for proof of life, but also for the prisoners'
    release. The US should also be prepared to offer asylum in the US or
    coordinate with partner countries to resettle prisoners who desire
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    refuge beyond China's borders.

        12. Form an international political prisoner advocacy task force
    with allies and partners. The task force could identify key diplomatic
    opportunities for political prisoner advocacy, help determine whether
    the US or another country is best suited to apply pressure, and provide
    options for long-term resettlement. Political prisoners with dual
    nationalities may wish to be resettled in a certain country for
    personal or cultural reasons. Many Hong Kongers, for example, have
    British National Overseas status. International cooperation to respect
    the wishes of political prisoners and their families could strengthen
    the US and its partners' efforts to free political prisoners. Canada,
    the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all
    worthy of consideration for inclusion in this task force.

        13. Consider priority asylum and refugee processing for certain
    groups in China. \21\ The US has few more practical options for
    extending relief to communities in need than the US Refugee Admissions
    Program (USRAP). Most Hong Kongers in the US are on the Deferred
    Enforced Departure (DED) program, which does not confer any immigration
    status. DED is a necessary mechanism that provides short-term relief to
    Hong Kongers who have recently fled the region, and many who are on DED
    subsequently apply for asylum. The US government should determine
    whether Hong Kongers, as well as other communities like Uyghurs and
    Tibetans, are eligible for priority processing for asylum and refugee
    cases. Members of these groups face permanent persecution, and the
    lives of former political prisoners who have escaped the country would
    be endangered upon return to China. Long wait times expose asylees to
    human rights violations and other atrocities. Many Uyghurs have waited
    more than 10 years for their asylum hearings in the US, an
    unconscionable amount of time to live with uncertainty about one's
    future safety. One potential priority processing category for Hong
    Kongers is Priority-2 status (P-2). The president or Congress can
    decide to extend P-2 status to Hong Kongers (or any other group).
    Previous legislative efforts in Congress, like the Hong Kong Safe
    Harbor Act, sought to do just that. Extending P-2 to Hong Kongers would
    provide them an expedited means of resettlement that rightly recognizes
    the permanence of the changes in the city-state and offers them
    permanent safe haven within US borders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Ur M. Jaddou, letter regarding the situation of Uyghur Asylum
    Seekers to Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, April 15, 2024, https://
    www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/UyghurAsylumSeekers-
    Massimino.pdf.

        14. Consider reforming humanitarian parole to offer permanent
    pathways for resettlement in the US. Because humanitarian parole is the
    most expeditious route for resettling political prisoners, US officials
    should strategically use it to provide temporary safe haven to
    political prisoners from Hong Kong. But the program's lack of a clear
    permanent pathway to resettlement (besides extending asylum) is
    problematic. Policymakers should research how and whether humanitarian
    parole can be reformed to better protect freed political prisoners from
    further persecution. At a minimum, Washington should expand
    humanitarian pathways for permanent legal status in the United States
    and fund nongovernmental and civil society organizations that provide
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    services for political prisoners.

        15. Define transnational repression and identify what tools the US
    government has to protect and support survivors. Transnational
    repression brings the CCP's human rights offenses directly to US soil.
    Washington and its allies need to develop a plan to respond, with a
    focus on creating readily available legal mechanisms to punish
    perpetrators and provide relief for victims. Congress and the executive
    branch should work together to define transnational repression. They
    should then ensure authorities have the training and legal remit to
    address these situations. Officials should be able to gather and share
    information, collect and report statistics, provide training and
    outreach, and guide survivors to services and support. Means of support
    may include psychological and social services as well as immigration
    and legal aid.

        16. Develop a clear, survivor-centered policy response to
    transnational repression with allies and partners. The US should work
    jointly with friends and allies to raise transnational repression as a
    priority issue and develop international norms to address it. An
    initial working group could include the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan,
    Korea, Australia, and other like-minded nations.

        17. Broaden multilateral cooperation on Hong Kong. The US should
    coordinate with its allies and partners on sanctions, refugee relief,
    and political prisoner advocacy. The US and the UK in particular have
    several overlapping foreign policy priorities. For example, several
    British nationals are currently imprisoned in Hong Kong, and a
    partnership between the two governments may help secure their release.
    Washington also has information on targets that would help London issue
    financial sanctions, and the US can learn from the UK's resettlement of
    Hong Kongers. Cooperation with other partners like the European Union,
    Japan, and Australia could be equally helpful in helping Hong Kongers
    and holding PRC authorities accountable.

        18. Issue grants to support civil society organizations that
    promote information access in Hong Kong. The US should systematically
    thwart CCP efforts to undermine access to information in Hong Kong.
    During the cold war, similar programs in information-insecure
    environments like North Korea, Iran, and the PRC served as literal
    lifelines for people seeking information about their governments'
    actions and global events. Congress should appropriate funds to issue
    grants to groups that are on the cutting edge of applying new and
    emerging technology in information-insecure spaces. Washington should
    also support organizations using older technology that provide such
    places access to information (like the radio programming produced by
    RFA in Cantonese). These grant-making authorities should flow from a
    broader US government strategy to promote information access in Hong
    Kong.

        19. Convene a dialogue between the US government and tech companies
    to discuss best practices for maintaining a free and open internet in
    Hong Kong. A government-led working group could lead to better-
    coordinated efforts that seek to resist pressure from the CCP to
    compromise the safety and security of Hong Kongers. Freedom House
    suggests that US tech firms should ``resist state demands that violate
    users' rights, including by rebuffing requests for user data or to
    remove, block, or otherwise censor content that is protected under
    international human rights standards.'' \22\ Freedom House also
    encourages companies to be transparent about the requests for data they
    receive from the CCP and Hong Kong authorities in order to better
    understand the scope and scale of privacy infringements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Datt, Angeli. ``The Impact of the National Security Law on
    Media and Internet Freedom in Hong Kong.'' Freedom House, October 19,
    2021. https://freedomhouse.org/article/impact-national-securitylaw-
    media-and-internet-freedom-hong-kong#footnoteref80_cgkbb7p.

        20. Discourage the Vatican from expanding its provisional agreement
    with Beijing. The Vatican and the PRC do not enjoy formal relations.
    Instead, a deal inked in 2018 (and renewed in 2020, 2022, and 2024)
    reportedly gives the CCP the authority to appoint future bishops while
    granting the Vatican veto power over these appointments. While the deal
    does not currently cover Hong Kong, reports suggest that Beijing is
    seeking to expand its reach to the city-state. To safeguard religious
    freedom in Hong Kong, the US government should oppose any expansion of
    the deal in the strongest terms and urge the Vatican to repeal the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    agreement.

        21. Monitor deteriorations in religious freedom in Hong Kong. The
    CCP and Hong Kong authorities are already targeting persons of faith in
    Hong Kong. Catholics, Protestants, and other faith groups face distinct
    persecution. The US government should continue to monitor trends in
    religious persecution, and civil society groups should maintain contact
    with persecuted minorities, similar to their relationship with the
    underground church in the PRC. For example, Washington should establish
    safe and secure channels through which persecuted groups can provide
    information on the state of religious persecution in Hong Kong.

        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        We'll now turn to Sophie Richardson, who is a longtime
    activist and scholar of Chinese politics, human rights, and
    foreign policy. From 2006 to 2023, she served as the China
    Director of Human Rights Watch, where she oversaw the
    organization's research and advocacy.
        She speaks Mandarin, and received her doctorate from the
    University of Virginia and her BA from Oberlin College. Her
    current research focuses on the global implications of
    democracies, weak responses to increasingly repressive Chinese
    governments, and is advising several China focused human rights
    organizations.
        Dr. Richardson.

      STATEMENT OF DR. SOPHIE RICHARDSON, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
           CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, WASHINGTON, DC

        Dr. Richardson. Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Kaine,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    join this important and timely discussion about human rights
    and democracy in Hong Kong.
        Over the past 5 years, the Chinese government has
    accelerated its assault on every aspect of what made Hong Kong
    a center for thriving civic life: free media, the rule of law,
    professional law enforcement, and opportunities for democratic
    participation.
        I'd like to start with our collective acknowledgement that
    growing authoritarianism has influenced even who can sit on
    this panel. Successive Congresses have expressed their concern
    about, and solidarity with Hong Kong human rights and democracy
    activists, including those based inside and outside Hong Kong,
    by welcoming them to testify. But aggressive global threats
    have made such participation a gravely risky proposition.
        My organization, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, has
    documented two aspects of Chinese President Xi Jinping's
    nationwide assault on human rights, that illustrates
    significant rollbacks of rights for Hong Kong people.
        First, between 2019 and 2024, according to available data,
    Chinese authorities arbitrarily detained and convicted 1,545
    people, 123 of them in Hong Kong for peacefully exercising or
    advocating for human rights. During this time period, more
    individuals in Hong Kong were convicted of subversion and
    inciting subversion than in mainland China. And the average
    prison sentence in Hong Kong under the 2020 National Security
    Law is more than 5 years.
        Second, CHRD has documented numerous cases of authorities
    inflicting collective punishment on Hong Kong human rights
    defenders. The harassment by police or administrative actions
    taken against persons in a group or a family in retaliation for
    an act committed by an individual.
        There's no legal basis or justification for collective
    punishment in Chinese, Hong Kong, or international law. These
    violations are an affront not only to Hong Kong's obligations
    under the international covenant on civil and political rights,
    but they're also an affront to the laws of democracies in which
    many activists now live. Congress has been key in pushing
    forward some of the most important U.S. support for human
    rights in Hong Kong.
        And with that history in mind, I'd like to offer the
    following recommendations: First, CHRD strongly supports the
    potentially transformative importance of investigating and
    prosecuting Chinese government officials for alleged crimes
    against humanity and genocide targeting Uyghurs. Making the
    prospect of facing justice a tangible reality could make those
    officials reconsider their involvement in widespread and
    systematic abuses.
        Along these lines, an appropriate and initiative with
    respect to Hong Kong could include an effort that would collect
    evidence of government officials' complicity and serious human
    rights violations. Many civil society groups have assembled
    information that can contribute to such an endeavor.
        Second, CHRD encourages sanctioning officials implicated in
    human rights abuses in Hong Kong. Democracy should also
    condition at least symbolic interactions with senior leaders
    from Beijing and Hong Kong on the release of wrongfully
    detained human rights defenders, with a particular urgency for
    those who are reportedly unwell in detention such as Albert Ho
    and Jimmy Lai.
        Recall that we recently observed the eighth anniversary of
    the death in state custody of 2010 Nobel Prize Laureate Liu
    Xiaobo, whom Beijing imprisoned for his pro-democracy calls.
    Democracy should also prioritize its senior levels listing the
    views of Hong Kong human rights and democracy activists in
    policy formulation.
        CHRD urges Congress to reinstate support for Radio Free
    Asia and Voice of America, and urges Congress to reject the
    OMB's recommendation to eliminate China focused funding for
    democracy and human rights work. To erase this work empowers Xi
    Jinping, disadvantages the U.S., and demoralizes and puts at
    risk many people from and across Hong Kong and China who
    courageously worked for human rights and democracy.
        In closing, I would like to recall that in May 2017, just a
    few months before Liu Xiaobo's death, two of Hong Kong's pro-
    democracy icons, veteran barrister and legislator Martin Lee
    and student activist Joshua Wong, testified before the
    Congressional Executive Commission on China, which at the time
    was chaired by then Senator Rubio.
        Senator Rubio stressed the importance of autonomy, free
    speech, and political participation in Hong Kong, noting, ``Our
    hope is to continue to highlight human rights as a key pillar
    of our national security and foreign policy,'' and stressing
    the connection between human rights and economic ties. Lee and
    Wong spoke memorably of their determination to work for human
    rights and democracy in Hong Kong, as a matter of security and
    of values, and come what may for themselves, their families,
    and their allies.
        The U.S. should honor these aspirations and so many
    people's extraordinary work and sacrifices, and challenge
    Beijing at every opportunity to uphold its obligations under
    international human rights law.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Richardson follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Dr. Sophie Richardson

      human rights in hong kong under beijing's ``national security law''

        Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) has documented deepening
    repression under Chinese President Xi Jinping since he assumed power in
    late 2012, including significantly curtailing the human rights of seven
    million Hong Kong people. Although Beijing's tactics there include an
    attempt to gut Hong Kong's legal protections for human rights, it is
    critical to recall that the International Covenant on Civil and
    Political Rights (ICCPR) still applies in Hong Kong, and that Beijing
    also itself has broad obligations under a number of international human
    rights treaties.
        Before the June 30, 2020 imposition by Beijing of a draconian
    National Security Law (NSL), Hong Kong's relatively democratic
    politics, independent legal system, and free press helped make it home
    to an extraordinarily vibrant community of activists and civil society
    groups. But the contrast between pre- and post-NSL Hong Kong is
    especially stark: organizations have disbanded in order to avoid
    prosecution, some activists have sought exile in democracies, and many
    pro-democracy activists are serving harsh sentences on baseless
    charges. Those people include Chow Hang-tung, who has been prosecuted
    for her efforts to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre, in legal
    proceedings that fall woefully short of fair trial rights. Others
    wrongfully imprisoned include people who have testified before previous
    United States Congresses, including Joshua Wong and Lee Cheuk-Yan.
    Journalist Gwyneth Ho, former Legislative Council member Albert Ho,
    nurse Winnie Yu, and media leader Jimmy Lai have all been targeted for
    having done nothing more than try to defend their--and all Hong Kong
    people's--human rights.
        According to research by CHRD, Chinese authorities arbitrarily
    detained thousands and convicted 1,545 prisoners of conscience for
    peacefully exercising or advocating for human rights between 2019 and
    2024; 123 of them in Hong Kong. Over those 5 years, more individuals in
    Hong Kong were convicted of ``subversion'' and ``inciting subversion''
    than in mainland China according to available data, and the average
    prison sentence in Hong Kong under the 2020 National Security Law is
    5.15 years.
        In addition, CHRD has documented numerous cases of Hong Kong
    authorities targeting human rights defenders for collective
    punishment--the harassment by police or administrative actions taken
    against persons in a group or a family in retaliation for an act
    committed by individuals. There is no legal basis or justification for
    this in Chinese, Hong Kong, or international law. These cases are an
    affront not only to Hong Kong's obligations under the ICCPR, but also
    an affront to the laws of the democracies in which many activists now
    live.
        Officials in Beijing and Hong Kong have faced few consequences for
    robbing Hong Kong people of their human rights. No Hong Kong police--
    once considered ``Asia's finest''--have been prosecuted for credible
    allegations of violence against peaceful protesters. A handful of
    officials have been sanctioned for their involvement in human rights
    violations, but officials and corporate interests from Hong Kong and
    their counterparts from democracies have, for the most part, carried
    on--literally and figuratively--with business as usual.

                                   us policy

        Following the 1997 handover of Hong Kong sovereignty from the
    United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China--a development in
    which Hong Kong people's right to political participation was
    disregarded--United States policy tried to support the principle of
    ``one country, two systems,'' treating Hong Kong as a distinct entity.
    That approach is reflected in the 1992 US-Hong Kong Policy Act.
        But revising that perception, and the policies that flowed from it,
    did not keep pace with Beijing's--and especially Xi Jinping's and his
    Hong Kong appointees'--clear threats to human rights in Hong Kong. Then
    and now, too many officials from democracies found it convenient to
    express hope that Beijing would uphold its obligations under the Sino-
    British Joint Declaration, rather than grapple with the reality that Xi
    had no intention of doing so. As has been the case with respect to
    human rights in the mainland, successive US administrations have
    continued to believe that pressuring Beijing to curtail its repression
    would incur costs to other interests in the relationship, and so opted
    for a mixture of strong rhetoric, symbolic gestures, and weak
    penalties, even as human rights violations worsened.
        The options made possible by the 2019 Hong Kong Human Rights and
    Democracy Act helped in two ways: by making clearer to Beijing that
    threats to Hong Kong's autonomy could produce adverse consequences, and
    by paving the way toward the invocation of sanctions. And since the
    imposition of the NSL, the US's response has involved stripping Hong
    Kong of its special trade status, sanctioning some officials and
    entities, and issuing business advisories. It has tentatively offered
    modestly greater protections to people from Hong Kong.
        But these are minor irritants to Beijing, ones it has largely built
    into its business model, and it continues to expect impunity for its
    human rights violations in Hong Kong, across the mainland, and beyond
    China's borders. If the US wants to bring sufficient pressure to bear
    on Beijing and Hong Kong that might prompt positive changes--such as
    securing human rights defenders' releases or a commitment to repealing
    ICCPR-violating laws--it needs to try new approaches.

                                recommendations

        The challenge for US policy is to bring to bear pressure on Beijing
    and Hong Kong that might prompt positive change.
        CHRD has recommended elsewhere the potentially transformative
    importance of investigating and prosecuting Chinese government
    officials for alleged crimes against humanity and genocide targeting
    Uyghurs. Making the prospect of facing justice a tangible reality for
    Chinese government officials could make them reconsider committing
    widespread, systematic abuses. Along these lines, an appropriate
    initiative with respect to Hong Kong could include an effort that would
    collect evidence of HK government officials' complicity in serious
    human rights violations; many civil society groups have assembled
    information that could contribute to such an endeavor.
        CHRD encourages not only sanctioning officials implicated in human
    rights abuses in Hong Kong, we also suggest explicitly conditioning
    symbolic interactions with senior leaders from Beijing and Hong Kong on
    the release of wrongfully detained human rights defenders, with a
    particular urgency for those who are reportedly unwell in detention. A
    failure to do so normalizes their complicity in human rights
    violations. Recall that we recently observed the eighth anniversary of
    the death in state custody of 2010 Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo,
    whom Beijing imprisoned for his pro-democracy calls. In parallel,
    democracies should prioritize eliciting the views of Hong Kong human
    rights and democracy activists in policy formulation.
        CHRD also urges reinstating support for Radio Free Asia and Voice
    of America, critical sources of independent information on Hong Kong,
    and urges rejecting the Office of Management and Budget's
    recommendation to eliminate China-focused funding for democracy and
    human rights work. To erase this work empowers Xi Jinping,
    disadvantages the US, and demoralizes--and puts at risk--many people
    from and across Hong Kong and China who courageously work for human
    rights and democracy.
        Finally, Congress could consider requiring US companies to conduct
    human rights due diligence to ensure that their activities do not
    create or worsen human rights violations; such assessments are already
    strongly recommended by the United Nation's 2011 Guiding Principles on
    Business and Human Rights. Perhaps because the operating environment in
    other parts of China has become considerably more difficult, US firms
    continue to enjoy the relative ease of Hong Kong, where they often
    enjoy access to the highest levels of government. For example, in
    November 2023, executives from BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan
    Stanley, among others, joined senior Hong Kong officials at a summit
    entitled ``Living with Complexity.'' We see little evidence that those
    businesses used that opportunity--or any similar opportunities--to call
    for the releases of people whose work promoting free speech and the
    rule of law underpins the ability to generate profits. It is difficult
    to imagine significant change in Beijing and Hong Kong officials'
    thinking as long as these dynamics remain unchanged.
        In May 2017, just a few months before Liu Xiaobo's death, two of
    Hong Kong's pro-democracy icons--veteran barrister and legislator
    Martin Lee, and protest organizer Joshua Wong--testified before the
    Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which at the time was
    chaired by then-Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio stressed the importance of
    autonomy, free speech, and political participation in Hong Kong, noting
    ``Our hope is to continue to highlight human rights as a key pillar of
    our national security and foreign policy.'' Lee and Wong both spoke of
    their utter determination to work for human rights and democracy in
    Hong Kong, as a matter of security and of values.
        The US should honor these aspirations, and so many peoples'
    extraordinary work and sacrifices, and challenge Beijing at every
    opportunity to uphold its obligations under international human rights
    law.

        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Dr. Richardson.
        Joey Siu, it's nice to have you with us. Nice to see you
    again.
        Joey is a spokesperson of Amnesty International Hong Kong
    overseas. She also serves on the executive council of the World
    Liberty Congress, a global coalition of pro-democracy
    advocates. As a student leader, she played a crucial role
    during the 2019 pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong organizing
    both on campus and citywide demonstrations, which is when I
    first met her.
        In December 2023, the Hong Kong authorities issued an
    international arrest warrant for her, a U.S. citizen, for
    allegedly violating the draconian National Security Law with
    her advocacy, offering a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars.
    I might just note too, just to note the bipartisan nature of
    this, our next two witnesses are here as bipartisan witnesses
    as well.
        So, Ms. Siu.

    STATEMENT OF JOEY SIU, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEMBER, WORLD LIBERTY
                        CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Siu. Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Kaine, Senators
    Merkley and Shaheen, and this committee, thank you so much for
    having me.
        The PRC's implementation of the National Security Law of
    2020 severely restricted Hong Kongers' freedoms and rights. And
    with that we saw the erosion of Hong Kong's freedom of
    expression with the forced closure of Apple Daily and other
    media outlets. Journalists and publishers, including Jimmy Lai,
    have been persecuted simply for publishing dissent, resulting
    in an absolute chilling effect where censorship is now the norm
    in Hong Kong.
        Freedom of assembly has also been eradicated. For 30 years,
    Hong Kong was the only place under PRC rule where June 4
    candlelight vigils were allowed. But since 2020, commemorations
    have been banned, and lighting a candle is now a crime in Hong
    Kong. What was once a symbol for remembrance and courage is now
    treated as subversion.
        And then there is also the destruction of the freedom of
    association. Last month, the League of Social Democrats, Hong
    Kong's last functioning pro-democracy party, was forcibly
    disbanded. And since 5 years ago, almost a hundred labor
    unions, churches, student organizations, and civil society
    groups have been intimidated into silence.
        And to suffocate the already shrinking and limited
    political space, the Hong Kong authorities further introduced a
    Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, which is also known
    as Article 23, creating new national security offenses and
    increasing penalties for existing ones. It granted the Hong
    Kong government sweeping enforcement powers under the PRC's
    broad and vague national security and state secret grounds.
        With this subcommittee's focus on Western Hemisphere, I
    want to note that today across all of the Latin America region,
    a region of over 660 million people, there are around 3,300
    political prisoners. And in Hong Kong a tiny little city of
    just 7 million people, the number is currently at 1,940. And I
    think this staggering figure speaks to the scale of the PRC's
    repression and takeover of Hong Kong in the past 5 years.
        And among these people, I would like to note that there is
    Chow Hang-tung, a human rights lawyer now arbitrarily detained
    for organizing June 4 commemorations and spending her days and
    nights now in solitary confinement. There is also Leung Kwok-
    hung, a former legislator who was persecuted for participating
    in peaceful democratic primary elections.
        And then there are also young leaders like myself,
    including my friend Owen Chow, a freshly graduated nurse who
    was once the city's brightest rising political star, now
    serving 12 years and 10 months in prison solely for being a
    voice of the Hong Kong people. And unfortunately, all sign
    indicates that there is something darker ahead for Hong Kong.
        The court system in Hong Kong now seeks total isolation of
    dissidents rather than just arrest and prosecution. Just last
    week, the Hong Kong government tightened the prison rules to
    restrict lawyer and chaplain visits on vague national security
    grounds, cutting these detainees off from legal counsel even
    before conviction. This black box for potential torture and
    inhumane treatment profoundly undermines the presumption of
    innocence and weaponizes incarceration as a psychological
    warfare.
        I will also like to note that the judiciary in Hong Kong
    right now is also exploited as a vehicle for persecution,
    delivering pre-ordained convictions, with legal definitions
    that are manipulated and expanded endlessly to fit the PRC's
    agenda. Waging illegal warfare decriminalizes not just speech
    and behavior, but also thought.
        The government's campaign against a so called soft
    resistance inside of Hong Kong is the latest iteration of this
    effort, where a blank piece of paper or a silent gesture are
    all considered national security threats that can land you in
    prison for up to 10 years or for life. And a national security
    apparatus continues to expand beyond the democracy and human
    rights scope. With new economic security mandates leading to
    business surveillance and censorship, cultural correctness
    campaigns, now regulate art, literature, themes, productions,
    and even school curriculum in Hong Kong.
        And unfortunately, what is more is that the PRC's takeover
    of Hong Kong does not stop at the borders. As the chairman
    mentioned, on December 13, 2023, I woke up to the news that I
    had begun the first, and by far, the only U.S. citizen wanted
    by the Hong Kong authorities for allegedly violating the
    National Security Law by, ``colluding with a foreign country,''
    the United States, my own country, and with a 1 million Hong
    Kong dollar bounty out there for my arrest.
        This growing transnational oppression against me and the
    overall crackdown of Hong Kong, I think both illustrate the
    PRC's blueprint for its export of authoritarian practices. And
    if we the United States allow it to destroy Hong Kong without
    consequences, it will soon spill over to Taiwan, the Indo-
    Pacific and Latin America. Any United States must respond with
    moral clarity and strategic commitment, by first prioritizing
    human rights as a core U.S. foreign policy principle.
        Second, to continue to press for the immediate release of
    all Hong Kong's prisoners' of conscience, specifically Chow
    Hang-tung, Jimmy Lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Owen Chow. Third, to
    sustain and increase Federal funding for organizations that
    support Hong Kong's resistance, including but not limited to
    the National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Free Asia among
    others.
        And last but not least, to guarantee humanitarian
    resettlement pathways for Hong Kongers, because these brave
    voices and people deserve a safe haven to tell stories that
    alarmed the world of the PRC's aggressions.
        And with that, I want to end with a quote from Owen, my
    dear friend. ``Evil always wrecks more havoc when the forces of
    good have been weakened.'' So let us latch onto the good and
    hold fast.
        And once again, I want to thank you for your attention on
    this important matter and for being that force of good. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Siu follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Ms. Joey Siu

        I became an activist as Hong Kong's historic pro-democracy movement
    began, during which I experienced firsthand the erosion of our rights
    to freedom of expression, assembly, and association. I fought back and
    became a target of the government, forcing me to flee and return to the
    United States (U.S.). My personal story is one that reflects the
    People's Republic of China (PRC)'s systematic dismantling of Hong
    Kong's democracy and human rights.

                      the collapse of rights and freedoms

        The PRC's implementation of the widely criticized National Security
    Law (NSL) in Hong Kong in 2020 imposed harsh restrictions on
    Hongkongers' exercise of freedoms--ones that the Hong Kong authorities
    were obligated to protect under the city's Basic Law. Over the past 5
    years, the world has witnessed the NSL being systematically weaponized
    to suppress dissent, erode civil liberties, and dismantle the city's
    once vibrant civil society.
        We see the erosion of Hong Kong's freedom of expression. The forced
    closure of Apple Daily and Stand News, once bastions of independent
    journalism, sent shockwaves through the city's media landscape.
    Editors, writers, and publishers, including the 77-year-old Jimmy Lai,
    have been persecuted and jailed under the draconian NSL simply for
    publishing dissent \1\. The chilling effect is absolute: today, self-
    censorship is the norm in Hong Kong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Hong Kong: Prisoner of Conscience Jimmy Lai Must Be Released
    as National Security Trial Resumes.'' Amnesty International, December
    6, 2024. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/11/hong-kong-
    prisoner-of-conscience-jimmy-lai-must-be-released-as-national-security-
    trial-resumes/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Freedom of assembly, too, has been eradicated. For thirty years,
    Hong Kong was the only place under PRC rule where June Fourth
    candlelight vigils in commemoration of victims of the Tiananmen
    Massacre were allowed. Since 2020, the vigils have been banned, and
    lighting a candle is now a criminalized act. What was once a symbol of
    remembrance is now treated as subversion \2\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Hong Kong: Overturning of Chow Hang-Tung Tiananmen Acquittal
    Another Blow to Rule of Law.'' Amnesty International, January 31,
    2024.https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/01/hong-kong-
    overturning-of-chow-hang-tung-tiananmen-acquittal-another-blow-to-rule-
    of-law/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And then there's freedom of association, which has collapsed under
    the weight of repression. Last month, the League of Social Democrats,
    the city's last functioning pro-democracy party, was forcibly
    disbanded. Over 90 labor unions, churches, student organizations, and
    community associations have been dissolved or intimidated into silence
    \3\. What remains is a city where forming a group, voicing a view, or
    holding a sign can land you in prison for up to 10 years or even for
    life.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Lai, Eric Yan-ho, Olivia Chow, and Thomas E. Kellogg. Rep.
    Anatomy of a Crackdown: The Hong Kong National Security Law and
    Restrictions on Civil Society. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
    Center for Asian Law, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To further diminish the already-limited political space, the Hong
    Kong Legislative Council passed the Safeguarding National Security
    Ordinance (SNSO or Article 23) in March 2024, creating new national
    security offenses and increasing penalties for existing charges. It
    granted the Hong Kong government sweeping enforcement powers under the
    PRC's broad and vague definitions of ``national security'' and ``state
    secrets,'' which encompass almost any conduct or information \4\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ "The State of the World's Human Rights: April 2025." Amnesty
    International, April 28, 2025.https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/
    pol10/8515/2025/en/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Following the adoption of the SNSO, at least 15 people were
    arrested under its sedition provisions, with four subsequently charged.
    In September 2024, three were convicted and sentenced to prison terms
    of between 10 and 14 months in separate trials for wearing a T-shirt
    and a mask printed with pro-democracy slogans; expressing anti-
    government political comments on social media platforms; and writing
    protest slogans on bus seats.

                       a city of prisoners of conscience

        Today, across all of Latin America, a region of over 660 million
    people, there are around 3,300 prisoners of conscience. In Hong Kong, a
    city of just seven million, there are 1,940 \5\. With over 300 people
    arrested under the draconian NSL \6\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Hong Kong Political Prisoners.'' HKDC, June 11, 2025. https:/
    /www.hkdc.us/hong-kong-political-prisoners.
        \6\ ``Hong Kong: Human Rights Update as of July 2024.'' Amnesty
    International, July 25, 2024.https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/
    asa17/8362/2024/en/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This staggering figure speaks to the scale of the PRC's repression.
        Among them are the ``Hong Kong 47,'' the city's most prominent pro-
    democracy figures, convicted of ``conspiring to subvert state power''
    under the NSL, simply for participating in a peaceful primary election,
    marking the largest trial of its kind in the city's history.
        Amnesty continues to campaign for those unjustly detained in Hong
    Kong, including:

         Chow Hang-tung (Human Rights Lawyer)--arbitrarily detained
    and has been spending her days and nights in solitary confinement.

         Jimmy Lai (Apple Daily Founder)--arbitrarily detained for
    over 1,700 days, and currently undergoing a politically charged trial
    without a jury.

         Leung Kwok-hung (Long Hair) (Former Lawmaker & Social
    Activist)--persecuted for taking part in peaceful protests and
    participating in the democratic primaries.

         Owen Chow (Nurse & Youth Activist)--a freshly graduated
    nurse who was once seen as one of the city's brightest rising stars, is
    now serving a 12-year and 10-month prison sentence solely for
    peacefully exercising his freedoms of expression and assembly.

        This mass imprisonment of any Hongkonger who dared to disobey the
    PRC is not a side effect of their authoritarian practices but their
    core strategy to silence the voices of Hong Kong.
        The system is no longer content with arrest and prosecution. It now
    seeks total isolation. Just last week, the Hong Kong government
    tightened its prison rules, allowing authorities to bar lawyer and
    chaplain visits on vague grounds related to national security \7\.
    Detainees can be cut off from their families, legal counsel, and the
    outside world, often before they are even convicted. This is an
    apparent attempt to isolate detained dissidents from external access
    and support, creating another black box for potential torture and
    inhumane treatment. These policies invert the presumption of innocence
    and weaponize incarceration as a tool of psychological warfare.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Leung, Kanis. ``Hong Kong's New Prison Rules May Curb Lawyer
    and Chaplain Visits on National Security Grounds.'' AP News, July 19,
    2025.https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-prison-rules-national-
    security-political-activism-ef9513d1c54425dd4dec7de3b6ef9b84.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 future trends

        Unfortunately, all signs indicate something even darker--the PRC's
    complete erasure of democracy and human rights.
        There are no more opposition parties. No independent unions. No
    credible dissent. We are seeing the judiciary--once a source of
    integrity in Hong Kong--weaponized and now serving as a vehicle for
    persecution. Courts hand down preordained convictions. Legal
    definitions extend endlessly to accommodate the state's whims, and
    ambiguous legal tools are expanded to serve the purpose of ``lawfare''
    \8\ A legal warfare to criminalize ordinary speech, thought, and
    behavior. The campaign against so-called ``soft resistance'' is the
    latest iteration of this effort. A blank piece of paper, a silent
    gesture, and a shared memory are all treated as threats to national
    security in today's Hong Kong.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Lai, Eric. ``National Security Law Five Years on: Unpacking
    Five Major Trends in Governance.'' [Chinese characters] Green Bean
    Media, July 1, 2025. https://greenbean.media/national-security-law-
    five-years-on-unpacking-five-major-trends-in-governance/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The national security apparatus continues to expand in scope. Under
    new economic security mandates, businesses are being surveilled and
    censored. Cultural correctness campaigns now regulate art, literature,
    and even school curricula. Most troubling of all, Article 23
    criminalizes ``theft of state secrets,'' a term so vague it effectively
    bans investigative journalism and obstructs access to public
    information.
        The trajectory is clear. The PRC does not merely want to control
    Hong Kong; it wants to rewrite its identity, erase its memory, and
    replace it with engineered obedience.

             prc's transnational repression and illiberal influence

        The PRC's takeover of Hong Kong does not stop at its borders.
        On December 13, 2023, I woke up to the news that I had become the
    first and, by far, only U.S. citizen wanted by the Hong Kong
    authorities for allegedly violating the NSL by ``colluding with a
    foreign country or with external elements to endanger national
    security,'' with a one-million-Hong Kong-dollar bounty for my arrest
    \9\. The bounty led to countless threats against my life. This includes
    a concerning number of suspicious emails I received in January offering
    life insurance for ``accidental events'' and funeral and burial
    coverage in the event of my death.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ ``Wanted Persons and Reward Notices of National Security
    Cases.'' Hong Kong Police Force, 2023. https://www.police.gov.hk/
    ppp_en/06_appeals_public/nsc/detail.html?id=20230011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, my case is the tip of the iceberg.
        In the past 5 years, the Chinese and Hong Kong governments have
    been acting in lockstep to escalate transnational repression in both
    scope and sophistication against Hongkongers worldwide under
    extraterritorial clauses of the NSL and SNSO, including here in the
    U.S.
        The PRC's assault on Hong Kong is not just a Hong Kong issue. Their
    takeover of Hong Kong is a reflection of their blueprint for the global
    export of authoritarian practices. What we see in Hong Kong is being
    mirrored in Taiwan, across the Indo-Pacific, and increasingly in Latin
    America.

                             policy recommendations

        The U.S. must respond with moral clarity and strategic commitment:

        1. Prioritize human rights as a core principle of U.S. foreign
    policy.

        2. Press for the Hong Kong government to immediately drop all
    criminal charges against and release prisoners of conscience who have
    been detained or imprisoned simply for exercising their right to
    freedom of expression or other human rights, specifically Chow Hang-
    tung, Jimmy Lai, Leung Kwok-hung, and Owen Chow.

        3. Sustain and increase Federal funding for organizations that
    support Hong Kong's resistance against the PRC's erosion, including the
    National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America,
    among others.

        4. Guarantee humanitarian resettlement pathways for politically
    exposed Hongkongers. No one should be forced to choose between exile
    and imprisonment, silence and statelessness.

        5. Enforce human rights due diligence against U.S. companies
    trading with the Hong Kong and PRC governments.

        What's at stake is not just Hong Kong's future but the future of
    global democracy. If the U.S. allows the PRC's authoritarian practices
    to continue to metastasize in Hong Kong without consequence, it will
    spill over to other parts of the world.
        I will end with a quote from my dear friend Owen, ``Evil always
    wreaks more havoc when the forces of good have been weakened, so let us
    latch onto the good and hold fast.''

        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Ms. Siu. I'm not sure how to
    take it, that my arrest warrant came with no bounty and yours
    was a million dollars. I think that tells us a little bit about
    your work.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Curtis. Finally, Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC is an
    international human rights lawyer. Over the past 25 years, she
    has acted in many leading human rights cases in the UK, Europe,
    and internationally. Her caseload includes leading the
    international legal terms for Jimmy Lai, the publisher and pro-
    democracy campaigner unjustly imprisoned in Hong Kong.
        Alongside her practice as a barrister, she is a
    commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,
    Ireland special reporter on child protection, a board member of
    the Committee to Protect Journalists, a fellow of the Royal
    Society of Arts, and an adjunct full professor at University
    College Dublin. In 2023, she was awarded the President of
    Ireland's Distinguished Service Award in recognition of her
    work.
        We're glad to have you with us today, and you now have 5
    minutes.

      STATEMENT OF CAOILFHIONN GALLAGHER KC, INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
       COUNSEL TO JIMMY LAI, DOUGHTY STREET BARRISTERS, LONDON,
                                ENGLAND

        Ms. Gallagher. Thank you, Chairman Curtis, and Ranking
    Member Kaine, and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me
    to give testimony today about this important topic: The status
    of democracy and human rights in Hong Kong.
        And that topic and the fate of one man are inextricably
    linked, and my client Jimmy Lai, about whom you've heard from
    the other witnesses. Jimmy Lai's case is emblematic of the
    crackdown on human rights, media freedom, and democracy in Hong
    Kong that we've seen in the past half-decade.
        Now, as you've heard, Hong Kong was until relatively
    recently a beacon in the region, a bastion of the free press, a
    place for the flourishing civil society, adherence to
    international standards, the rule of law was intact. Businesses
    and foreign investment benefited from this stable and certain
    environment.
        But Hong Kong's descent into a very different place has
    been precipitous. It has plummeted down the press freedom
    rankings, for example, it's tumbled from 18th in the world a
    decade ago to now languishing at the bottom of the league table
    in the red zone, 140 out of 180 countries in the world. It's
    nestled in the table most recently with Kazakhstan and Rwanda,
    beaten by Guatemala and Congo.
        Now, in these brief opening remarks, I wish to address
    three topics. First, a very brief overview on Jimmy Lai and
    what he stands for, with the man being emblematic of Hong
    Kong's freedoms, which we've seen lost. Second, a brief
    overview of what's happened to him in the past 5 years,
    emblematic of Hong Kong's deterioration. And then third and
    critically, what must be done.
        So, first of all, very briefly, and there's more detail in
    my written testimony, Jimmy Lai is a remarkable man--brave,
    brilliant, dogged, forged in fires as his deputy and right hand
    man, Mark Simon, who sits here today, often says. He came as a
    child refugee to Hong Kong, aged only 12, stowing away on a
    boat, and he became one of the most successful businessmen in
    the region.
        But since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre,
    he's been a leading figure in the Hong Kong pro-democracy
    movement, and he used his wealth for good. He's a well known
    and high profile advocate for democracy and peaceful assembly,
    a fearless critic of the government and authorities of the PRC.
    Apple Daily quickly became one of Hong Kong's most popular
    newspapers. And it was the largest independent Chinese language
    media outlet in the region until its forced closure in June
    2021.
        And for Mr. Lai, access to free and independent information
    gives people choice, and choice is freedom. And through his
    fearlessly independent journalism and his peaceful pro-
    democracy activism, he became a figurehead in the Hong Kong
    pro-democracy movement, a courageous critic of human rights
    violations perpetrated by the authorities. And to use his own
    words, he said this, ``I think it is my duty to do whatever I
    can to fight for freedom and keep the rule of law here.''
        And second, the lawsuits he's faced since 2020. Again, more
    detail in my written testimony. Mr. Lai has over the years trod
    on powerful toes, and the authorities have long hated him for
    it and targeted him for it in multiple ways, including
    financially with his business and his home being firebombed,
    him being targeted in multiple ways to try to silence him. But
    in the past 5 years, the most powerful tool of all has been
    used effectively against him. And that's the law.
        And what we've seen is a series, a barrage, of spurious
    lawsuits and prosecutions against him, all designed to do one
    thing, to silence him and to have a chilling effect on any
    others who might dare to speak truth to power. And since his
    arrest in August 2020 under the draconian National Security
    Law, he has served four sentences of imprisonment. He's
    currently serving a fifth.
        The United Nations Working Group in arbitrary detention has
    found that he shouldn't have served a single day in prison.
    That every single one of those sentences and every single one
    of those prosecutions involve multiple violations of his fair
    trial and due process rights. And they found that his detention
    is arbitrary. He's now on trial for alleged sedition and
    conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. A vaguely defined
    offense under the NSL that allows for its arbitrary application
    to legitimate acts of free speech. And if convicted, he faces
    life imprisonment, which in reality, given his age means a
    death sentence.
        He's currently facing trial for sedition, which is
    essentially conspiracy to commit journalism. And under the
    National Security Law for collusion with foreign forces. and
    U.S. Government and U.S. lawmakers are at the heart of the
    allegations against him. Meeting with Senators, meeting with
    members of the U.S. Government, is presented as being criminal.
        But most urgently of all are the humanitarian issues. Time
    is frankly running out for Mr. Lai. The conditions of his
    detention, his age, and his health, make this case
    exceptionally urgent. He will turn 78 later this year. He has
    now spent almost half a decade in solitary confinement, when
    international law makes clear that anything over 14 days is
    problematic. He's denied natural sunlight. He's incarcerated in
    a tiny, airless cell for over 23 hours per day. And put
    frankly, this in itself poses a threat to his life, as does the
    long sentence he will face if as is inevitable, he's convicted
    under the National Security Law.
        And just finally, multiple governments, including the U.S.
    Government and the UK government, multiple parliaments and
    international bodies have now called for Jimmy Lai's immediate
    and unconditional release. And we welcome that. The
    international consensus is clear on what should happen. He
    should be released. The key question now is how to ensure it
    does happen before it's too late.
        We've seen with U.S. leadership, political will and
    creativity and joint working with partners resulting in
    remarkable releases in recent months, including on Friday from
    Venezuela, and that remarkable deal last August involving the
    Russian releases. We now need political will and creativity and
    working with partners in order to ensure that we don't see this
    man die behind bars for being a journalist and for standing up
    for values the U.S. holds dear.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC

                                  introduction

        1. My name is Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC. I am a barrister (King's
    Counsel) and international lawyer, specialising in human rights and
    media law. My clients are based around the world: I regularly act for
    individuals targeted by, or imprisoned in, a range of countries,
    including the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), the Islamic
    Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Russia. Many
    of my clients are journalists, human rights defenders, peaceful
    protestors, lawyers and other individuals who have been targeted by
    state or non-state actors and subject to other forms of reprisal,
    including arbitrary detention and threats to their life, because of
    they seek to vindicate their internationally protected rights or the
    rights of others, or to expose the unlawful conduct of individuals,
    government, and/or corporations. Many of my clients are businesspeople,
    targeted by authoritarian regimes in order to wrongly appropriate their
    assets or seize their businesses.
        2. I am an expert in both arbitrary detention and accountability
    for crimes against journalists. My caseload includes leading the
    international legal teams for renowned pro-democracy activist and
    publisher Jimmy Lai, imprisoned in Hong Kong; for the bereaved family
    of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, assassinated in Malta; for over
    150 BBC News Persian and hundreds of Iran International journalists,
    subjected to transnational repression by Iran; and for Maria Ressa, the
    Nobel Peace Prize winning journalist (and US citizen) targeted for her
    work in the Philippines. I was appointed an expert by the Inter-
    American Court of Human Rights on the safety of female journalists
    (Jineth Bedoya Lima v. Colombia) and I have given expert testimony to
    Parliamentary inquiries and committees in the USA, Council of Europe,
    United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the European Union.
        3. I would like to thank the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's
    sub-committee for inviting me to give testimony today about the status
    of democracy and human rights in Hong Kong, five years after the PRC's
    judicial takeover. That topic and the fate of one man are inextricably
    linked: Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai is a journalist, a publisher, a businessman
    and a prisoner of conscience. For his public interest journalism, his
    defence of press freedom and democratic values and his courage in
    speaking truth to power, Jimmy Lai has been imprisoned in solitary
    confinement in Hong Kong since December 2020, has faced a barrage of
    spurious prosecutions, and is currently being subjected to a long,
    unfair trial on charges of sedition and alleged violation of the
    draconian Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding
    National Security in the Hong Kong and Special Administrative Region
    (``NSL''). His case is emblematic of the crackdown on human rights,
    media freedom and democracy in Hong Kong.

                  jimmy lai and apple daily: brief background

        4. Since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, Mr Lai
    has been a leading figure in the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement. He
    is a well-known and high-profile advocate for democracy and peaceful
    assembly, and fearless critic of the government and authorities of the
    PRC. His response to the Tiananmen Square events was to found Apple
    Daily, which quickly became one of Hong Kong's most popular newspapers.
    It was the largest independent Chinese language media outlet in the
    region until its forced closure in June 2021. For Mr Lai, access to
    free and independent information gives people choice, and choice is
    freedom. Through his fearlessly independent journalism and his peaceful
    pro-democracy activism, Jimmy Lai became a figurehead in the Hong Kong
    pro-democracy movement and a courageous critic of human rights
    violations perpetrated by the authorities. In his words, ``I think it
    is my duty to do whatever I can to fight for freedom and keep the rule
    of law here''.
        5. Under his leadership, Apple Daily was an ally to the pro-
    democracy movement, including in its support for the `Umbrella
    Movement' that swept Hong Kong in 2014. As activists ceased their
    protests in 2015, the front-page editorial of Apple Daily
    proclaimed,``We will put away our umbrellas so that one day we can
    reopen them again.''
        6. Following the pro-democracy protests of 2019 and 2020, police
    repeatedly raided Apple Daily, confiscating documents, arresting senior
    staff and freezing the newspaper's assets. Marched from the newsroom in
    handcuffs in August 2020, Jimmy Lai was among the first to be arrested
    under the controversial, authoritarian NSL. Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a
    professor of political science at University of Notre Dame has said,
    ``It would not be an overstatement to say that the national security
    law was made for Jimmy.''
        7. Apple Daily itself was forced to close following the freezing of
    its assets under the controversial and draconian NSL.
        8. Due to his work and his pro-democracy campaigning, Mr Lai has
    faced a barrage of spurious prosecutions. He was arrested under the NSL
    in August 2020 and has been arbitrarily detained in a maximum-security
    prison and in solitary confinement for over 4 and a half years, since
    December 2020. He has served four sentences of imprisonment already and
    is currently serving a fifth in circumstances where the U.N. Working
    Group on Arbitrary Detention (``WGAD'') has found that the actions
    against Mr Lai are ``intended to prevent him from exercising his right
    to freedom of expression'', \1\ and he has faced multiple violations of
    his fair trial and due process rights such as to render his
    imprisonment on all previous cases arbitrary. \2\ He is now on trial
    for alleged sedition and ``conspiracy to collude with foreign forces'',
    a vaguely defined offence under the NSL that allows for its arbitrary
    application to legitimate acts of free speech. \3\ If convicted, Mr Lai
    faces life imprisonment--which in reality, given his age, means a death
    sentence. Given the near-100 percent conviction rate under the NSL, and
    Mr Lai's profile, we expect the worst.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ WGAD Opinion no. 34/2024 concerning Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-ying
    (Hong Kong/China), 26th September 2024, Sec. 100.
        \2\ Ibid, Sec. Sec. 107 and 112.
        \3\ Ibid, Sec. Sec. 103-105.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        9. Mr Lai's sedition and NSL trial began on 18th December 2023,
    after much delay. Originally slated to last 80 days, his trial is still
    ongoing and has been subject to further lengthy and unreasonable delay.
    There was a lengthy adjournment to the trial in 2024, resulting in a 6-
    month hiatus in evidence being heard. The trial resumed on 18th
    November 2024 when Mr Lai took the stand. Mr Lai gave his testimony for
    52 days, including a lengthy period under cross-examination, until 6th
    March 2025. The trial has been adjourned again until 14th August 2025,
    when the prosecution is expected to present its closing argument. The
    prosecution case makes abundantly clear, as found by the WGAD, \4\ that
    Mr Lai is being accused of engaging in legitimate political debate and
    discussion with politicians and in his newspaper, Apple Daily, of
    raising human rights concerns, and of calling for accountability for
    human rights violations in Hong Kong. The US Government and US
    lawmakers are front and centre of the Prosecution's case: engaging with
    US politicians and officials to discuss human rights concerns and the
    destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong is presented as criminal
    conduct--``collusion with foreign forces.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Ibid, Sec. 115.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        10. In addition to the serious issues raised by Mr Lai's case that
    are directly relevant to his ongoing imprisonment in violation of his
    rights and the suppression of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, this
    case also raises issues that are directly relevant to the security and
    safety of individuals outside Hong Kong, including in the US, the UK,
    Australia, Canada and EU Member States, and persons traveling
    internationally. The Hong Kong authorities have responded to those
    advocating on Mr Lai's behalf, including me and my team of
    international lawyers, and his son, Sebastien, with acts of
    intimidation and threats of prosecution, as highlighted in the
    Secretary General's Annual Reports on Reprisals, 2023 and 2024. \5\
    This response is emblematic of the increasing attempt by China to
    intimidate and threaten lawyers, \6\ pro-democracy activists,
    parliamentarians, and others advocating on Mr Lai's and others' behalf
    and for the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to be held accountable
    for serious human rights violations committed by them.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ As highlighted by the U.N. Secretary General's Annual Reports
    on Reprisals, 2023 (A/HRC/54/61) and 2024 (A/HRC/57/60).
        \6\ See for example, Fiona Hamilton, `Jimmy Lai lawyers face
    threats from China for defending Hong Kong mogul', The Times, 30th
    September 2023; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/15/uk-based-
    lawyers-for-hong-kong-activist-jimmy-lai-targeted-by-chinese-state, The
    Guardian, 15th February 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        11. The destruction of fundamental rights and freedoms in Hong Kong
    under the guise of protecting national security was further entrenched
    on 19th March 2024 by the adoption of the Safeguarding Nationals
    Security Bill, legislation enacted pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic
    Law (``Article 23 legislation''). The adoption of the legislation, that
    includes vaguely defined provisions regarding ``sedition'', ``state
    secrets'', and ``collusion with an external force'' \7\, prompted a
    chorus of criticism from states, including the US with respect to its
    ``far reaching implications'' for the rule of law and the protection of
    rights of freedoms of all people living and working there. The U.N.
    High Commissioner for Human Rights, \8\ the US, \9\ the European Union,
    \10\ and Canada \11\ have all raised grave concerns about potential for
    enforcement overreach, the failure of the new law to safeguard human
    rights and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law, and the fundamental
    conflict between respect for the rule of law on the one hand and the
    implementation of the Chinese security apparatus on the other.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the legislation, for the purposes of
    the legislation, ``external force'' means a government of a foreign
    country; the authority of an external place, a political party in an
    external place; any other organisation in an external place that
    pursues political ends; an international organisation; a related entity
    of a government, political party or organisation; a related individual
    of a government, authority, political party, organisation or entity.
        \8\ OHCHR, Press Release, `Rushed adoption of national security
    bill a regressive step for human rights in Hong Kong--U.N. Human Rights
    Chief', 19th March 2024.
        \9\ See, for example, US Department of State, Press Statement,
    `Hong Kong's New National Security Law', 22nd March 2024.
        \10\ Council of the European Union, Press Release, `Hong Kong:
    Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on
    the adoption of new national security legislation', 19th March 2024.
        \11\ Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Press release,
    `Hong Kong national security legislation: UK statement', 19th March
    2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              inhumane conditions

        12. The conditions of Mr Lai's detention, his age and his health
    make his case exceptionally urgent. He must be released before it is
    too late. Mr Lai is now 77 years old, and will turn 78 later this year.
    A diabetic with associated symptoms and other age-related health
    complications, Mr Lai is denied natural sunlight and incarcerated in a
    tiny airless cell for over 23 hours per day in a climate of extreme
    heat and humidity.
        13. He has already spent almost half a decade in prison, in
    prolonged solitary confinement, in inhuman conditions. This in itself
    poses a threat to his life, as does the long sentence he will face if--
    as is inevitable--he is convicted under the NSL.
    Key Concerns
        14. Mr Lai's case raises several key concerns regarding the
    violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms, as found by the WGAD,
    including the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, a
    fair trial, and the prohibitions of arbitrary detention and of torture,
    cruel and inhuman treatment, and the treatment of elderly persons in
    prison. Moreover, Mr Lai's case is emblematic of the rapid destruction
    of the rule of law in Hong Kong since the NSL was enacted in 2020, and
    now the ``home grown'' Article 23 legislation, and the misuse of
    criminal laws to silence voices critical of the Chinese Communist
    Party, to silence calls for accountability for human rights violations,
    and to suppress any discussion or debate of political ideas in Hong
    Kong.

         Mr Lai has been detained in prolonged solitary confinement
    for over 4 years, since December 2020, raising serious concerns for his
    health and wellbeing.

         As found by the WGAD, Mr Lai has been arbitrarily detained
    in relation to all the cases he has faced since 2020. \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ WGAD Opinion no. 34/2024 concerning Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-ying
    (Hong Kong/China), 26th September 2024, Sec. 119.

         Mr Lai has already been prosecuted and sentenced to
    lengthy sentences of imprisonment for his peaceful participation in
    pro-democracy protests in violation of his rights to freedom of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    expression and peaceful assembly, and to a fair trial.

         In an unprecedented case, he has been convicted and
    sentenced to nearly 6 years' imprisonment on spurious allegations of
    fraud said to arise out of the breach of a commercial lease--the first
    time a landlord and tenant dispute has been the subject of a criminal
    prosecution in Hong Kong. His conviction and sentence were condemned by
    the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office \13\ and the US
    Department of State, \14\ among others, and the WGAD has found that the
    trial, as with all the trials he has faced, was manifestly unfair and
    his resulting imprisonment arbitrary. \15\ His appeal against
    conviction was heard on 14th and 15th January 2025. The appeal court's
    judgment is pending, expected 6 months from the date of the hearing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\  https://x.com/annietrev/status/
    1601958104463204353?s=20&t=1xDoFw9v4gdtDy0Mqyvi4g
        \14\ https://twitter.com/StateDeptSpox/status/
    1601638664697942018?s=20&t=xx0iJWcEVA_SufPE1wWQ4w; https://
    www.state.gov/jimmy-lais-fraud-case-verdict/
        \15\ WGAD Opinion no. 34/2024 concerning Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-ying
    (Hong Kong/China), 26th September 2024, Sec. Sec. 82 & 112.

         Mr Lai is now being prosecuted for alleged sedition and
    alleged conspiracy to collude with foreign forces under the NSL for his
    journalism and his pro-democracy activities, in clear violation of his
    rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and to a fair
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    trial.

         There is publicly available credible evidence that the
    testimony of a key prosecution witness in the case against Mr Lai, Andy
    Li, has been obtained by torture, as raised by the U.N. Special
    Rapporteur on Torture with China, on 31st January 2024. \16\ China has
    so far failed to respond to the Special Rapporteur's concerns.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ OHCHR, Special Procedures, Press release, `Hong Kong SAR: U.N.
    expert warns against admission of evidence, allegedly secured through
    torture, in Jimmy Lai case', 31st January 2024.

         China has failed to allay concerns, as raised with China
    by WGAD and four U.N. Special Rapporteurs in a joint communication
    concerning Mr Lai's case sent on 17th March 2023, \17\ that engagement
    with the U.N. could amount to a crime under the NSL. In its response to
    that concern, China stated ``[w]hether a particular act constitutes an
    offence would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and
    hence over-generalisation is neither possible nor appropriate''. \18\
    No clarity has been provided as to how criminal sanction may be
    avoided. China's position is alarming, and is clearly threatening to
    any individual inside or outside Hong Kong, or mainland China, who
    seeks to engage the U.N. human rights mechanisms on their own or on
    others' behalf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Joint Communication to China, AL CHN/1 2023, 17th March 2023.
        \18\ China's reply to Joint Communication, CH/HR/2023/46, 1st May
    2023, at Sec. 56.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             us and uk governments

        15. Multiple governments, Parliaments and international bodies have
    now called for Jimmy Lai's immediate and unconditional release,
    including the US Government, the UK Government, the Australian
    Government, the Canadian Parliament, the European Parliament, the U.N.
    WGAD, five U.N. Special Rapporteurs, and Roman Catholic leaders. The
    international consensus is clear on what should happen. The question
    now is how to ensure it does happen, before it is too late. How can the
    principle be converted to practice?
        16. The US and UK Governments are key to securing Jimmy Lai's
    release. He is a British citizen and his case is also intimately
    connected to the US, in many ways--including that many of his investors
    and his executives are US citizens, and the NSL prosecution has
    weaponised his links to the US, Congress and the US Government against
    him.
        17. Mr Lai's case has been and continues to be a priority for the
    US Government. The various prosecutions, verdicts and sentences have
    been repeatedly condemned by the United States' Government \19\,
    politicians from every stripe of each side, and civil society. In
    response to Mr Lai's sentence in unfounded fraud proceedings (based on
    alleged violation of a commercial lease) a spokesperson for the State
    Department, stated that, ``the United States condemns the grossly
    unjust outcome of Jimmy Lai's latest trial sentencing. By any objective
    measure, this result is neither fair nor just'', and called upon China
    to respect freedom of expression, including for the press, in Hong
    Kong. \20\ The US Government has described the charges against Mr Lai
    as spurious and has further expressed its ongoing deep concern, ``about
    the deterioration in the protection for human rights and fundamental
    freedoms and the systematic dismantling of Hong Kong's autonomy under
    the National Security Law (NSL)'', and the efforts by the Hong Kong
    authorities to use the NSL to ``suppress independent media, to silence
    dissenting views, and to silence freedom of speech.'' \21\ US President
    Trump has repeatedly expressed his commitment to securing Mr Lai's
    release \22\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ US Department of State, Press Release, `Trial of Jimmy Lai
    Under the Hong Kong National Security Law', 17th December 2023; State
    Department: Democracy, Human Rights & Labor, https://twitter.com/
    StateDRL/status/1706700113907712198, 26th September 2023.
        \20\ See https://twitter.com/StateDeptSpox/status/
    1601638664697942018?s=20&t=xx0iJWcEVA_SufPE1wWQ4w
        \21\ See https://www.state.gov/jimmy-lais-fraud-case-verdict/
        \22\ https://hongkongfp.com/2025/05/09/us-president-trump-to-raise-
    hong-kongs-jailed-tycoon-jimmy-lais-case-in-china-trade-talks/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        18. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and members and officials at
    every level of the UK government \23\ continue to raise Mr Lai's case,
    including during the July 2025 meeting between the Foreign Secretary
    and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi \24\. The Foreign Secretary has
    made clear in Parliament the UK government's view that it would be ``a
    catastrophe'' were China to allow Lai to die in jail \25\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ From Prime Minister Starmer down: https://
    www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-xi-jinping-meeting-
    g20-b2648912.html
        \24\ https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1943718892045738364
        \25\ https://www.youtube.com/live/PVLgxTC2w00?t=7009s
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        19. Mr Lai has been the victim of targeted judicial and
    prosecutorial harassment and had his key assets in Hong Kong dismantled
    and expropriated. Mr Lai's trial marks yet another milestone on the
    grim journey by which Hong Kong has travelled from relative freedom and
    prosperity to authoritarianism and decline. The bold revelations by the
    prosecution have confirmed that Mr Lai is indeed being prosecuted and
    will likely be condemned to life imprisonment for his journalism, for
    discussing political ideas, and for calling for accountability of
    individuals responsible for human rights violations. The credible
    information that a key prosecution witness, Andy Li's, evidence has
    been procured by torture underlines the cruel lengths the Hong Kong and
    Chinese authorities will go to, to secure Mr Lai's conviction.
        20. This case is now extremely urgent. Mr Lai risks dying in
    prison. Now is the time to turn the call for his release into action to
    ensure that Mr Lai is released and brought home before it is too late.
        21. At a time when world leaders are looking to build bridges,
    particularly economic bridges, with China it is essential that Mr Lai's
    case is not forgotten. As attention turns to the US and UK
    relationships with China, it is essential that Jimmy Lai's case is
    resolved before any talk of normalisation is allowed to progress. Mr
    Lai must be released before China is taken seriously as a credible
    negotiating partner.

        Senator Curtis. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses.
        I'll now begin the question round by yielding myself 5
    minutes to begin the question. And I have a question initially
    for all of you. We'll start over here with Olivia.
        The United States has tried several policy tools,
    everything from sanctions to public diplomacy in response to
    this repression that you've all have articulated so well. I'd
    like to know what specific steps you would like to see Congress
    take and maybe narrow that down to just the one or two, and
    specifically what the legislative branch can do.
        Ms. Enos. Thank you.
        So, I have one overarching recommendation and then three
    very quick ones that are specific to Hong Kong. I promise I'll
    be quick. The first is we just have to continue to support
    funding and grants and the continuation of DRLs good work.
    Because apart from it, there are many organizations that will
    be shut down who are essential to maintaining the continuation
    of solid work on Hong Kong, but on China generally.
        And without those grants, many of them will close even as
    soon as the end of the summer. Some for sure by the end of the
    year. My three Hong Kong specific ones are, first, I would love
    to see a primary money laundering concern designation issued
    for Hong Kong. Congress can hold the Administration's feet to
    the fire by putting them on a specific timeline or reporting
    requirement, asking them to investigate whether certain
    entities or sets of transactions qualify as a primary money
    laundering concern. This is so important because it's a cross
    cutting measure. It speaks to the fact that rule of law is
    undermined and that that business as usual is not, you know, it
    is not business as usual.
        The second is to press for the release of all political
    prisoners in Hong Kong. We have to be doing that daily. Members
    of Congress can adopt political prisoners. They should do so
    for Hong Kongers. And then the third is to ensure the extension
    of deferred enforce departure for Hong Kongers past its
    original deadline, but also to ensure long term permanent
    pathways for resettlement. Sorry,
        Senator Curtis. Ms. Siu.
        Ms. Siu. I think Olivia already noted several
    accountability tools that the U.S. has in hand and can utilize
    in terms of protecting Hong Kong's democracy and human rights.
    And I would also like to note that how the funding cut has been
    impacting the Hong Kong diaspora community and organizations
    that have been supporting Hong Kong's resistance, especially,
    particularly regarding the National Endowment for Democracy and
    Radio Free Asia.
        With the forced shutdown of Apple Daily, Stand News, and
    other media outlets, we're seeing that there is a huge gap in
    terms of ensuring that the news from Hong Kong is coming out.
    And for so many years, especially over the past 5 years, Radio
    Free Asia has filled that gap. And we need to ensure that the
    funding is sustained for organizations including the RFA and
    VOA to ensure that we understand what is happening in Hong Kong
    currently to inform the U.S. policy.
        And also in regards to the net, I think it is really
    important that we restore the funding that is dedicated to
    supporting the freedom of human rights inside of Hong Kong
    because I believe it is very, very important that we make sure
    that we're not just supporting the underground resistance
    verbally, but then also through meaningful contributions. So, I
    would say that was the number one priority.
        And second, I think there are also several legislations
    currently in the Congress that we should be passing, including
    the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Certification Act,
    which I know that the chairman also supports. For so long
    [unclear] has been used as a tool to expand the CCP's influence
    in the United States and very recently infiltrate the Hong Kong
    diaspora community, and their status must be reviewed.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        Dr. Richardson.
        Dr. Richardson. Very quickly, I think Congress should start
    considering requiring U.S. businesses to conduct human rights
    due diligence on their operations in Hong Kong to make sure
    that they are not creating or contributing to violations. I
    think this both helps make sure that the ICCPR and other laws
    are upheld. I think it also would help end the mixed messaging
    that results from seeing U.S. businesses showing up and working
    with precisely some of the same people who are responsible for
    carrying out human rights violations.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        And am I going to pronounce this right, Kelin?
        Ms. Gallagher. Keelen. Yes. OK. It's got rather a lot of
    letters, but it's just pronounced Keelen. As you can imagine, I
    get called all sorts of things.
        Senator Curtis. I can imagine, yes.
        Ms. Gallagher. So, I just raised a few things. The first
    thing is to say China is of course not unusual in targeting
    dissidents, journalists, those who speak truth to power. But
    something which is a little different with Hong Kong is that
    fig leaf of due process, and the fact that it's essentially a
    police state, but trying to masquerade still as a place where
    you can do business as usual. It's trying to still masquerade
    as a place which is a financial center.
        And indeed, just recently they've announced a new
    international court where they want to challenge the
    International Court of Justice and have their own form of court
    there. So, they do want to maintain that fiction of one
    country, two systems. And seems to me that that gives us real
    leverage because we know it's in their policy interests to have
    Hong Kong return to being a place where the rule of law is
    intact. So, highlighting the false narrative in the way that
    this hearing is doing is hugely helpful, is the first thing I
    would say. Second thing I would say----
        Senator Curtis. Alright, just quickly, I'm over time, but
    go ahead.
        Ms. Gallagher. Of course.
        Senator Curtis. I think my colleagues will give me just a
    minute of grace.
        Ms. Gallagher. Of course. Second thing I would say is, it
    seems to us that the U.S. and UK governments working together
    should be key to securing Jimmy Lai's release. He's a British
    national, but his case is intimately connected with the U.S. in
    many ways.
        And for Senators in particular, we would ask that in your
    interaction with the State Department and NSC staff in the
    coming months, given that there's just been coverage suggesting
    that there may be some high level engagements at APEC toward
    the end of October, and also potentially even a high level
    visit to China. It's essential that the release of Jimmy Lai is
    raised in all of the preparatory meetings before any high level
    engagement. And it should be front and center of the agenda in
    the coming months.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you. All wonderful answers. I made it
    through one question of my many pages.
        I would like to point out before I pass the microphone
    that, and I was going to ask you all about this, but I think
    you'd agree, if we don't pass any new Hong Kong measures this
    Congress, there is a risk that that's interpreted by the CCP as
    silent. That silence is that we're accepting what's happening
    over there. I'd just like to point that out.
        And with that I yield and give 5 minutes to the Ranking
    Member.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And just on the Jimmy Lai, I just want to acknowledge
    Senator Risch, the chair of the committee, has also been pretty
    active with many of us in repeated statements on behalf of
    Jimmy Lai. I know that will continue.
        Ms. Siu, you've testified here before, and so you know that
    people in the room and people watching are a mixture of experts
    in the topic who care deeply about it and people who are coming
    to the topic new and who care deeply about it.
        So, I'm going to ask you a very basic question. Why is the
    CCP afraid of you? You're a 26 year old who started your
    advocacy when you were about 17 or 18. Why would they be afraid
    enough of you to put a HK$1 million bounty on your head?
        Ms. Siu. I think that's because I create troubles. I've
    been doing that since I became a student activist in 2019. And
    unfortunately, I think my personal stories mirror as one of
    Hong Kongers' overall resistance.
        I met the chairman, Chairman Curtis, back in 2019 when I
    was a student activist organizing citywide protests, and you
    know demonstrations on campus. That was also when Hong Kongers
    in a small city of only 7 million people, as I noted, 2 million
    took on the street to say no to the CCP's suppressions. And
    following that, CCP has doubled down on this crackdown on our
    freedoms to assembly, expression, and association.
        Senator Kaine. And by trouble you mean assembly?
        Ms. Siu. Yes.
        Senator Kaine. Which we are guaranteed in this country, the
    right to peacefully assemble to petition government for redress
    of grievances, expression, protest. I don't view peaceful
    activity as trouble, but apparently some do. Is that right?
        Ms. Siu. Yes, that is correct. The CCP's sees our
    exercising of our rights to freedoms of assembly, association,
    and expression as a huge trouble. And that is why I think,
    precisely the reason why they decided to further introduce the
    Safeguarding National Security Ordinance on top of the National
    Security Law.
        Senator Kaine. And if I could just--on the expression side,
    you referenced briefly in your testimony, but didn't explain,
    but again, for those who are here who care, but may not be
    experts, the blank paper protests.
        So, in Hong Kong and other parts of China, the degree of
    suppression of expression was so great that creative activists
    began holding up blank sheets of paper with no figures on them
    whatsoever, as a way of demonstrating there are things we would
    like to say, but the repression of this government means that
    we cannot even put anything on this sheet of paper. And then
    the Chinese government has cracked down on the use of blank
    sheets of paper. Am I right about that?
        Ms. Siu. You're correct.
        Senator Kaine. And they've not only cracked down on it, but
    they've scrubbed social media accounts because Chinese citizens
    were searching blank sheet of paper, wonder what this is all
    about. And there has been a crackdown on the availability of
    even that search for Chinese citizens to find out what a blank
    sheet of paper means.
        Ms. Siu. Yes, that is correct. And you see, after the
    introduction of Article 23, there had also been arrests and
    convictions made in Hong Kong for people who have worn a t-
    shirt with protest slogans. There have been arrests of
    individuals who have written protest slogans on buses and held
    blank pieces of paper in protests of the government with
    nothing written on it. And I think that speaks to the scale of
    the PRC's takeover and repression in Hong Kong.
        Senator Kaine. Let me ask you one other question. There's
    an article that I'd like to introduce in the record. It's from
    Radio Free Asia, the title ``CCP Cheers RFA Cantonese's
    Demise,'' dated July 9, 2025, recently. Talk a little bit about
    what Cantonese language Radio Free Asia has meant to Hong
    Kongers.
        Ms. Siu. As I said Senator Kaine, for the past 5 years,
    especially following the closure of Apple Daily and Stand News,
    RFA has become one of the few sources that kept on reporting
    about what has been developing inside of Hong Kong with Article
    23 and the National Security Law.
        It was not just a source for Hong Kongers outside of Hong
    Kong or the international community to understand what the PRC
    is doing inside of Hong Kong, but also a source for people who
    are on the ground to understand what is happening, given that
    the PRC has revoked visas for international journalists and
    shut down other media outlets reporting on court news and
    everything else.
        And I cannot stress enough how important the Cantonese
    service of RFA has been to the people of Hong Kong. And just
    last month, the month before RFA's forced shutdown down due to
    the funding cuts, because they have reached 1.2 million people,
    readers online. And I think that speaks to the importance of
    RFA.
        Senator Kaine. With that I'll yield the remainder of my
    time back.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        I'd like to recognize the Senator from New Hampshire for 5
    minutes.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here.
        Last week, the minority members of the Senate Foreign
    Relations Committee, the entire committee, released a report
    that highlights how the Trump administration's actions in the
    first 6 months in office have undermined our ability to compete
    with China.
        This is the report, if you haven't already seen it, I would
    offer it for anyone's interest. A clear example of this is the
    one you were just referring to, Ms. Siu with Senator Kaine, and
    that is the Administration's silencing our voice in Hong Kong
    through Radio Free Asia.
        Since Hong Kong's handover to China in 1998, Radio Free
    Asia, as you pointed out so well, has served as a beacon of
    independent media. The Administration's decision to withhold
    congressionally appropriated funds resulted in the closure of
    Radio Free Asia's Cantonese operations exactly 5 years since
    the enactment of the Draconian National Security Law.
        And what I think is significant, and you alluded to this,
    is that Chinese officials celebrated this news, calling it, ``a
    huge victory for real Asian journalism.'' So, Ms. Siu, you
    talked about what the consequences are of abandoning this
    independent media in Hong Kong. Can you and any other members
    of the panel also talk about how the PRC is taking advantage of
    that closure?
        Ms. Siu. Sure. Thank you, Senator Shaheen for the question.
    And I will try to be quick about that.
        With the shutdown of RFA on July 1, unfortunately there is,
    you know, little to no independent media that is still
    operating in Hong Kong that can actually report about the on
    the ground developments. And unfortunately, that created a huge
    gap, which is filled by Chinese state affiliated media such as
    Ta Kung Pao, TVB, et cetera, et cetera. And I think that also
    creates this huge information gap that really does not help
    when it comes to informing U.S. policy in regards to Hong Kong.
        So, I do think it is so, so, so important that we resume
    the funding so that the Cantonese service and as well as my
    panelists Olivia has mentioned, the Tibetan and Uyghur service,
    because those have been really the beacon of democracy and
    independent media voices. So, I will stop there and yield.
        Senator Shaheen. Yes, Dr. Richardson.
        Dr. Richardson. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen.
        I actually wanted to thank you for a different point that's
    made in that report, which is about the U.S. withdrawal from
    the Human Rights Council. This is one of the only institutions
    available for human rights activists from across China to try
    at enormous risk, to bring forward issues, to get some redress.
        The Chinese government consistently tops the league tables,
    year after year for reprisals against activists for trying to
    engage with U.N. human rights mechanisms. The Chinese
    government has become extremely adept at influencing that
    system, changing how it works, shutting its critics out. And
    it's a byzantine institution. It's not the one I would design.
    But let's be clear, leaving it to an authoritarian regime that
    has lots of resources and a clear commitment to making it not
    about human rights, is deeply problematic. So, thank you for
    flagging that.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. And can you talk a little
    bit about what kind of message that sends to the people of Hong
    Kong and to others who are looking at our withdrawal from that
    organization?
        Dr. Richardson. Well, briefly, I think it is confusing and
    demoralizing. I think it's already extremely difficult for
    Chinese activists and activists from Hong Kong to interact with
    that system and to not necessarily have the leadership and the
    air cover, so to speak, that democratic governments can bring
    to bear in keeping those institutions open for their
    participation, pushing to make sure that they're admitted, that
    events reflect their views, that their reports are contributed,
    that their voices are heard. That's an incredibly, I assume you
    would agree, an incredibly important part of how activists can
    bring their issues forward. Thank you.
        Ms. Siu. And if I may just add Senator Shaheen, I think
    there is a widespread confusion among the Hong Kong people who
    are still resisting on the ground, as in why we are conceding
    the space, this very, very important narrative space to the
    Chinese Communist Party. And I do think there is also huge
    concern shared by the Hong Konger community, as in who is going
    to take over that gap, that is being left out by the forced
    closure of Cantonese service under RFA. And we all know that
    that is going to be the CCP.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Ms. Enos.
        Ms. Enos. I just wanted to add that the CCP is already
    overtaking the short-wave frequencies that Radio Free Asia
    used, and that's not just in the Chinese context. I also work
    on Korea, and this is happening in the North Korean context as
    well. And I think what is happening with Radio Free Asia is a
    microcosm of the broader challenge that we're having, where the
    U.S. says, we're going to leave human rights promotion and
    democracy promotion up to other people around the world who
    don't share our same values.
        And I would also just note that one of the most important
    things that Congress can do on this is to ensure that Radio
    Free Asia has a separate line item, not underneath the USAGM
    auspices, but a separate line item for appropriations that make
    it possible for Radio Free Asia to be depoliticized in the
    current context.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        I would also add to that, that the defunding of the U.S.
    Agency for Global Media has significantly also limited the
    operations of Voice of America's 450 Latin American affiliates.
    And since the subcommittee deals with those issues, I think
    it's important to add that into the record as well.
        Thank you all very much.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        I'd like to yield the Senator from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you, Chairman.
        Well, first thanks each of you for being here. Thank you
    for what you do each and every day.
        Anyone who pays attention to the evils of the Chinese
    Communist Party knows the name Jimmy Lai. Jimmy is a great
    advocate for free press and a hardworking entrepreneur who is
    being held as a political prisoner in Hong Kong, because he
    didn't cower to Xi Jinping or censor the atrocities he
    committed.
        What the Chinese Communist Party is doing to him is
    disgusting. Let's be clear, Xi Jinping and his thugs are
    responsible for this abusive treatment of Mr. Lai, not the
    government of Hong Kong, which is nothing more than a puppet of
    Beijing. Jimmy's a friend, it's an honor to speak on his behalf
    and do whatever I can to help return him to freedom. To each of
    you, what can be done to help Jimmy Lai and other political
    prisoners? However, you want to start.
        Ms. Enos. I think that Jimmy Lai is, you know, such an
    important figure because he represents, as you said, freedom in
    general. I think there are several things that Congress can do
    and several things that the Administration can do. First, it
    was encouraging to see that Jimmy has been adopted by a Member
    of Congress. That's an important move. But I think that beyond
    this, it would be great to see State Department expanding its
    ability to prioritize political prisoner release at the
    executive branch level.
        I advocated in my Hudson Institute report, which I
    published last December, for the creation of an Office of
    Political Prisoner Advocacy, that would augment the work of the
    special envoy for hostage affairs and make it so that it is
    squarely within the U.S.'s realm to be able to not only
    advocate for U.S. hostages abroad, but also for individuals
    like Jimmy Lai, who are not American citizens, but who are
    equally worthy of our best efforts.
        Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you. How do you guys want
    to go?
        Ms. Gallagher. First of all, Senator Scott, may I thank you
    for your very powerful advocacy for Jimmy Lai. He's extremely
    lucky to have you in his corner. We're very grateful for
    everything that you've done in relation to his case.
        I agree entirely with the remarks that you've made about
    Jimmy Lai and the importance of his case. And there is such
    urgency to his case now given his state of health. And just to
    put that very starkly in context, there's a very strong
    evidence based showing that there is a much elevated risk of
    death in circumstances where you have elderly prisoners who are
    held on solitary confinement, that is elevated further when you
    have an elderly prisoner who's diabetic, right?
        Dr. Richardson. With no sunlight.
        Ms. Gallagher. With no sunlight, that's right. With no
    sunlight, limited fresh air, very limited meaningful human
    interaction. So, in any circumstances, regardless of the
    conditions, there's an elevated risk of death when you have
    someone held in solitary confinement for that length of time.
    International law is clear that once you hit 15 days, that's
    problematic. He's been held in solitary confinement for over
    1,600 days. That's what we're dealing with, since December
    2020. There's an elevated risk of death in any event. And
    because of his age and his state of health, that is a very real
    risk.
        Now, it seems to us that it is simply not in China's
    interests for Jimmy Lai to die in prison. You heard the name
    Liu Xiaobo earlier. It seems to us that as the Chinese
    Communist Party repeatedly say, they consider Jimmy Lai to be a
    notorious anti-China element and to be a risk to national
    security and so on, turning him into a martyr doesn't seem to
    be in their own interests either.
        We think there's a critical moment coming up now because as
    more focus is turning to U.S. and UK relationships with China,
    it seems to us it's essential that Jimmy Lai's case is
    resolved, before any talk of normalization or closer relations
    with China progresses. Our view is that Mr. Lai must be
    released before China is taken seriously as a credible
    negotiating partner, and we need to start seeing conditionality
    and consequences to engagement with China while Mr. Lai remains
    behind bars.
        Senator Scott of Florida. Thank you.
        Ms. Siu. Senator Scott, thank you for your attention to
    this very, very important measure. I know that you were in Hong
    Kong in 2019, so I think your experience with Hong Kong also
    reflects PRC's takeover. In regards to Jimmy Lai, I think in my
    opening remarks, I mentioned two recommendations. One is to
    prioritize human rights as a core U.S. foreign policy
    principle, and second, for the U.S. to urge for the release of
    Hong Kong's prisoners of conscious, including Jimmy Lai, Chow
    Hang-tung, Leung Kwok-hung, and Owen Chow.
        And I think it is a very, very crucial moment that we
    mention these names in every conversation that we are having
    with the PRC, including in regards to AI and trade. I think
    it's so crucial that we continue putting that pressure from the
    Congress and from the executive branch in regards to call for
    the release of Jimmy Lai and the others.
        Dr. Richardson. I agree completely with all of these
    suggestions. I would just add that you and or members of the
    subcommittee, other members of the Senate, people in the
    Administration, should relentlessly ask to see him, even if you
    know you're going to be denied, and insist on his release.
        It could be transactional, it could be situational, but the
    reality is that one of the ways that the U.S. and the German
    governments eventually secured the release of Liu Xiaobo 's
    widow, who is arbitrarily detained for 8 or 9 years after his
    death, confined to solitary in her apartment in Beijing, was
    that they just kept asking.
        Angela Merkel just kept asking every single time she saw Xi
    Jinping. She just said, you have to let her go. You have to let
    her go. And it was just that consistency and that the requests
    were made at that level. And I think that's something that
    easily people who were as committed to this issue as you are,
    could do. Thanks.
        Senator Scott of Florida. Thanks for what each of you do.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Senator Scott.
        I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank
    you for putting this hearing together.
        And I'm struck about the similarity between what you're all
    presenting here, what was presented before the China
    Commission, which both then Senator Rubio and I had turns in
    chairing, and what came in the last September in the Committee
    for Freedom in Hong Kong. Perhaps we'll see all of you at the
    third annual gathering of that here in September. And some of
    the things you mentioned, just continue to strike of chord,
        Ms. Siu, that lighting a candle is a crime. That suggests
    how dramatically Hong Kong has changed.
        And Ms. Richardson, your support for investigating crimes
    against humanity that China's involved in, including against
    the Uyghurs. And I co-wrote the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention
    Act. I would like to see other countries adopt a similar
    presumed assumption that things that are made in certain areas
    of China have been made with slave labor.
        You can--we have a safe harbor for companies can prove that
    it's not, but it's really, I think, the only effective answer,
    and only America's taken it. So, we see goods rejected here,
    shipped to Canada, which is unacceptable.
        Ms. Enos, your 21 recommendations, and Ms. Gallagher, your
    fierce conversation about the inhumanity of the way that Mr.
    Lai has been treated. His son, Sebastian has come up here
    repeatedly and along with others to keep making that case.
        There are two bills that this committee, and I think, Mr.
    Chairman, you mentioned in your opening remarks, so I wasn't
    here. The Hong Kong Judicial Sanctions Act with Senator
    Sullivan and Curtis and myself are leading it, mandate
    sanctions on Hong Kong and judicial officials complicit in
    human rights abuses.
        Do any of you support getting that done? I see nodding
    heads across the board.
        The second is the Stop CCP Money Laundering Act. Senator
    Curtis and I are co-leading that. And one of you mentioned
    money laundering as a significant factor. Does anyone see any
    reason not to proceed with getting that passed?
        Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your suggestion that if
    our failure to pass legislation out of Foreign Relations on
    Hong Kong would be an implicit statement about our lack of
    concern, I don't want that to happen. I hope we'll build on the
    foundation of those bills and many of the ideas that are
    presented here today to proceed.
        One thing that has really troubled me is the persistent
    business activity that Hong Kong has so valiantly tried to
    sustain and to give themselves cover. And of course, it's kind
    of a key vulnerability. If companies were to translocate, is
    there any sort of strategy in the works to try to move the
    financial operations, the firms that participate, and say it's
    really unacceptable to be locating and contributing to what
    China has done in Hong Kong.
        Ms. Enos.
        Ms. Enos. It's not business as usual in Hong Kong, and we
    all know this here, but I think many businesses would prefer to
    look the other way. We have to make it so that they can't look
    the other way. And this is a huge part of the reason why I have
    long advocated for a primary money laundering concern
    designation, especially for subsets of transactions or specific
    institutions, because that has the potential to shift risk.
        And we know this because a primary money laundering concern
    designation was used against North Korea. And the bank said, oh
    my goodness, we're not going to touch Bank of Delta Asia, once
    it had that primary money laundering concern designation
    issued. We need to start doing that for Hong Kong because
    businesses are continuing to buy the propaganda from John Lee
    and others that Hong Kong is just fine.
        But we know that they are actively supporting Russia's war
    of aggression against Ukraine. They're actively supporting
    other rogue actors like Iran and North Korea. And we know this
    because of a fabulous report that Sam Bickett did, called
    Beneath the Harbor, which I would encourage if it's possible to
    submit that entire report to the record if it's possible.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, we ask that the report be
    submitted for the record.
        [Editor's note.--The information referred to can be
    accessed at https://thecfhk.org/research/beneath-the-harbor/.]
        Senator Curtis. Without objection.
        Ms. Enos. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Anybody else like to weigh in on this?
    Thank you.
        Ms. Gallagher. Yes. Just in relation to business Senator
    Merkley, it's very important to say, I briefly referred to what
    happened to Apple Daily, and what's happened with Apple Daily
    is state sponsored theft of a hugely successful business.
        So, as well as being, of course, a real blow to press
    freedom, it's also a real cautionary tale for the over 1,300
    U.S. businesses, which currently operate in Hong Kong, the
    84,000 U.S. citizens currently based in Hong Kong. Because so
    vaguely defined are the offenses under the National Security
    Law that anyone who's operating in that environment is at real
    risk.
        And what I would also say is that what we see with Hong
    Kong is it essentially becoming a bay of broken promises, a
    safe harbor for human rights violators. And it's essentially an
    authoritarian regime masquerading as a free market, free trade
    hub, finest laundromat for cleaning money in the East. And I'm
    always struck by those very powerful words, which former
    Congressman Mike Gallagher used where he described golden
    blindfolds being worn by individuals, staring out the windows
    of their glass offices onto Victoria Harbor.
        And I think it's really critically, because we know how
    important it is to Hong Kong and to China to have Hong Kong
    seen as a place where it's safe to do business. And we must
    keep calling out the fact that in its current guise, it is not
    a safe place to do business. And could I also ask that we read
    into the record, there's a very powerful piece which was
    recently written by the Committee to Protect Journalists on why
    what's happening under the National Security Law in eroding
    press freedom is also bad for business? It's from the 30th of
    June, and they pointed out that actually Hong Kong's economic
    boom happened because journalists could work without
    interference.
        And that what you now have is fading financial appeal, in
    part, because of Hong Kong trying to continue being seen as an
    international financial center in circumstances where it has
    such gross restrictions on information and such a crackdown on
    press freedom. So, it's bad for press freedom, it's also bad
    for business.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, can we put that report in
    the record?
        [Editor's note.--The information referred to above can be
    found in the ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record''
    section at the end of this document.]
        Senator Curtis. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. And could I follow up one point here? I
    know, I'm over time.
        So, as we think about the manufacturing that goes on with
    the Uyghurs in China, we're able to say to companies, consider
    moving to Vietnam. Not that their human rights record is
    perfect, but we're continuing to work closely with Vietnam and
    hopefully to see a much better situation there than with the
    Uyghurs or other places in Asia that have the potential for the
    same sort of manufacturing.
        But is there an alternative for the financial center in
    Hong Kong where you can say to a business, you could be in
    Kuala Lumpur, or could be--is it partly that there's no like
    magnet alternative that keeps these big companies doing their
    financial business in Hong Kong? Is there not a feasible
    alternative?
        Dr. Richardson. I'll try to answer both those questions.
    Olivia will do a better job on the alternative location
    question. but Senator Merkley, just very quickly, first of all,
    thank you for all of your hard work with the CECC. But the
    story of the last 40 years involves a lot of U.S. business
    activity and money flowing into China, as the Chinese
    government got progressively more repressive.
        And as extraordinary and accomplishment as the UFLPA is, it
    should not have taken credible allegations of crimes against
    humanity and genocide to get us to that point. You know, we've
    had 40 years of occasionally a story floats up that, you know,
    X American company has been found using forced labor, or you
    know, Y companies dealing with labor unrest inside China. What
    are we waiting for? These variables, I think are extremely
    clear.
        And until U.S. companies and any companies are required to
    show that they are not part of the problem, we're going to keep
    having this conversation and will only be able to pass laws
    when the situation has gotten exponentially worse than it
    should have. You know, this is not the direction everybody
    wanted to convince themselves we were going in post-Tiananmen.
    The argument was, let businesses invest. People will make
    money, repression will lessen, it'll all get better. That's not
    how it's turned out.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Enos. I'm so glad Sophie raised UFLPA. I have lots of
    thoughts on that, but I want to address that. I'll go ahead and
    address. I think Singapore has been offered as a credible
    alternative, it has its drawbacks because it's very close with
    China and the CCP. But that has been the one that has come up
    most frequently. I think though we should be encouraging folks
    to just be more focused on like the UK and the U.S. which are
    the stronger financial centers to be focused on at this
    particular juncture.
        And I think that that should be an area of focus. I believe
    in the resilience of the market. I believe that businesses can
    be agile and can change directions. They're just choosing
    woefully to look the other way in the face of as Sophie pointed
    out, just incredible evidence of ongoing genocide and crimes
    against humanity for Uyghur, the near dissolution of freedom
    overnight in Hong Kong. I mean, it's fairly breathtaking over
    the last several years. So, I think we're beyond the point of
    kind of saying it's OK, businesses, you just didn't know, they
    absolutely know and are continuing to look the other way.
        Senator Merkley. I would love to see a press story in which
    25 major financial companies altogether say, we are moving to
    Singapore, and we're doing it 6 months from now, If X, Y, and
    Z, don't change. We need some kind of shock wave to change the
    dynamic.
        Ms. Enos. Well, and it's going to require folks like Jamie
    Dimon of JP Morgan and Chase, who's continuing to underwrite,
    you know, public offerings for Hong Kong companies to say, I'm
    not doing that anymore. We can't verify this because the rule
    of law is so undermined. And they have to stop coming when John
    Lee invites them for big, flashy business conferences where
    there's just tons of executives lining up.
        Senator Merkley. Thanks so much.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you. Great, great line of
    questioning, if the witnesses will indulge us, the Ranking
    Member, and I would like to just finish with a question or two
    ourselves. We can't pass up the opportunity to have you here
    and appreciate your expertise, and I'll yield to the ranking
    member.
        Senator Kaine. Great, thank you Mr. Chair.
        I have two topics that I'd like to address briefly. Ms.
    Enos, you testified, and I was kind of taken aback with it,
    that it's not only that the U.S. has shuttered RFA operations
    with respect to China, that would be in Cantonese, Tibetan, and
    Uyghur, and then in North Korea. But did you indicate that the
    CCP is taking over the shortwave frequencies that the U.S. was
    using for those broadcasts?
        Ms. Enos. That's my understanding.
        Senator Kaine. So that's pretty amazing. I mean, if we had
    just terminated the broadcast, but let's just broadcast white
    noise, which I guess is the audio version of a blank sheet of
    paper, we could have stopped the CCP from taking over the
    frequencies that we're using. But by terminating these programs
    and doing nothing, we're actually allowing the CCP
    communication channels that they didn't have before.
        So, it's not just like the reduction of a U.S. effort, the
    reduction of the U.S. effort has handed an asset to the CCP
    that they're now using to further disinformation and
    oppression. Well, that's sort of a stunner.
        Now the second thing I want to ask is this, I referenced in
    my opening testimony, but we didn't get into it in the Q&A, Ms.
    Siu, and I want to offer it to all of you. In the Uyghur area,
    among Uyghurs, and we have many Uyghurs who live in Virginia,
    the persecution of Uyghurs in China to sort of punish the human
    rights activists living in Virginia and the United States is
    kind of a thing, and we've seen a lot of examples of it.
        Are we seeing the same with respect to the persecution of
    Hong Kongers because of the activity of activists who've left
    Hong Kong living in the United States, living elsewhere, does
    it put their family members at risk who still live in Hong
    Kong?
        Ms. Siu. Yes, absolutely. Senator, last month, I testified
    before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, where we talked
    about the trends and policy approaches to transnational
    oppression. And I referenced that actually a lot of the
    situations that our Hong Kong diaspora community is facing
    really mirrors what the CCP has been doing with the Uyghur and
    Tibetan communities, including this tactic of coercion by
    proxy, where also they're taking our family members, friends,
    and loved ones, including former colleagues and friends, back
    home as hostages.
        We have had cases of Uyghur Americans in the Virginia area,
    their family members calling from East Turkistan, which is
    controlled by the PRC, asking their family members overseas to
    stop speaking about the Uyghur genocide or else their family
    members are going to be taken to concentration camps.
        And we're seeing very similar tactics being employed
    against the Hong Kong community right now, where our family
    members and friends are constantly taken into interrogation,
    being asked by the police about our activities here in the
    United States. We've also had cases mentioned in the very
    beginning about Anna Kwok's father and brother being taken into
    interrogation and charged for having contact with her.
        I think that all illustrates the trends of transnational
    oppression against the Hong Kong community as going toward the
    direction of what the Uyghur community has experienced. And
    unfortunately, that includes myself. I live in Virginia and
    unfortunately, even after leaving Hong Kong, I still do not
    feel safe. Thank you.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you.
        Ms. Gallagher, and then back to the Chair.
        Ms. Gallagher. Yes. I just want to pay tribute to Joey and
    to Anna Kwok and to the others who've put up with such horrific
    targeting, and essentially using human collateral in Hong Kong
    to try to put pressure on Americans and American residents here
    and people around the world. At the tactics which are now being
    deployed by the Hong Kong authorities in relation to
    transnational oppression are horrendous and they're expanding.
    We've seen the headlines, of course, about the bounties and
    what they do there in relation to family members, but they're
    also broadening it and using it far, far more widely. And that
    includes, for example targeting individuals outside the
    diaspora or exile communities.
        So, for example, I and my colleagues simply for acting as
    international lawyers for Jimmy Lai have been threatened with
    prosecution, called enemies of the state, have had a whole
    range of threats sent to us. I'm acutely conscious that because
    we do not have family members in Hong Kong, we are not under
    the same level of pressure. But it's important to say that this
    is now a new tactic, which is expanding and anyone who dares
    stand up to the Hong Kong authorities is being targeted.
        And may I highlight in particular, Sebastian Lai, who of
    course has given testimony before this committee, simply for
    being a son, speaking out for his father. Sebastian has been
    threatened with criminal prosecution. He's been threatened with
    criminal prosecution for addressing the United Nations. He's
    been accused of committing criminal offenses, and as a result,
    he has not seen his father since December, 2020, and he will
    never see his father again unless the trajectory changes and we
    can secure Jimmy Lai's release.
        Senator Kaine. Thank you very much.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        I'll be brief.
        Ms. Gallagher, just one quick question and if the others
    want to weigh in on it. Mr. Lai's a UK citizen, how would you
    assess London's response so far, and what coordination actions
    should the United States be taking with the UK and other allies
    to magnify all the things we've talked about today?
        Ms. Gallagher. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He's only a British
    citizen, that is not recognized by the Chinese authorities who
    consider because he's ethnically Chinese, he's Chinese, which
    of course should send a chill down the spine of anyone, who
    because of their ethnicity, could then be faced with the long
    arm of the Chinese state using those TNR tactics.
        The British government was slow out of the blocks, it's
    fair to say, to deal with this case. For a very long time there
    was no commentary whatsoever coming from the UK about the case.
    And in fact, the U.S. Government showed real leadership in this
    space. We're very grateful for it. The U.S. Government called
    for Jimmy Lai's immediate and unconditional release before the
    UK government did so.
        And in fact, the UK Government in December 2023 had a U
    turn on its policy and finally called for Jimmy Lai's immediate
    and unconditional release, thanks to work which was done by
    members of this committee, who just happened to be here on the
    day when I was testifying in December 2023, and when the then
    foreign secretary, Lord Cameron, was here.
        So, what happened in Washington fundamentally altered the
    UK's position and gave the UK steel in this case. What we now
    need to see with the UK and U.S. Government working together,
    is them using the leverage that they've got. He's a British
    citizen, but it's a case which intimately is connected to U.S.
    Government interests. U.S. Government and U.S. officials are at
    the heart of the prosecution. U.S. investors and U.S.
    executives have had their assets appropriated, people who work
    for Apple Daily and worked for Jimmy Lai.
        And we're very grateful to see that the U.S. President now
    has twice referred to Jimmy Lai and the importance of securing
    his release both on the campaign trail and since he's come into
    office. And we're very grateful to see the support that we're
    now getting from [unclear], from State, and from others.
        We want to see close working between the U.S. and the UK to
    use the leverage that they've got. And most importantly, we
    know there's a series of high level engagements coming up in
    the next number of months. And Prime Minister Keir Starmer is
    due to be traveling to Beijing. Our view is that Prime Minister
    Keir Starmer should not travel to Beijing unless he sets as a
    condition that he will not go unless and until Jimmy Lai a
    British citizen is freed. And we would ask for your support
    here, to ensure that the U.S. hammers that message home in its
    bilateral engagement with the UK, to ensure the UK uses the
    leverage it's got to secure the release of their citizen.
        Senator Curtis. Very well spoken.
        We're close to time, but if you--Dr. Richardson, go ahead.
        Dr. Richardson. Sure. I'm sure you're familiar with the
    phrase, nature abhors a vacuum. Nature has not got anything on
    the Chinese Communist Party. We have spent the last hour
    talking about what happens when democracies fail to advance
    protections or step back from protections of open democratic
    spaces. The Chinese government steps in--media, business, the
    United Nations, human rights, and democracies, citizens of
    democracies elsewhere.
        It's my view that, even as of a few years ago, like minded
    democracies had radically underinvested in the project of
    protecting democratic spaces and institutions, both for
    themselves and for people inside China, Hong Kong, who wanted
    the same things, right? We need more coordination; we need more
    resources. We need much higher ambition, much better
    interactions between the like minded democracies, not less.
        Senator Curtis. Great. It's a great way to end.
        Thank you all, thank you to our witnesses for attending
    today. Thank you to the ranking member. For the information of
    the members, the record will remain open until the close of
    business tomorrow, July 23. We ask the witnesses to respond as
    promptly as possible. Your response will also be made part of
    the record.
        With that, I thank the committee, and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]