[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5837-H5841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR FREEDOM IN HONG KONG
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 277) expressing support for freedom in
Hong Kong.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 277
Whereas Hong Kong has long been the world's freest economy,
renowned for its rule of law and its jealous protection of
civil rights and civil liberties;
Whereas the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration explicitly
guarantees that all of Hong Kong's freedoms, including press
freedom, religious freedom, and freedom of association, will
continue for at least 50 years;
Whereas the Government of the People's Republic of China
pledged to respect Hong Kong's Basic Law of 1990, which
explicitly protects freedom of speech, of the press and of
publication, of association, of assembly, of procession, of
demonstration, and of communication;
Whereas the Basic Law also explicitly protects freedom of
conscience, religious belief, and of religious expression;
Whereas Hong Kong's traditional rule of law, which has
guaranteed all of these civil rights and civil liberties, is
essential to its continued freedom, and the erosion of that
rule of law bodes ill for the maintenance and expansion of
both economic freedom and individual civil rights;
Whereas in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992
Congress declared: ``The human rights of the people of Hong
Kong are of great importance to the United States and are
directly relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong. A
fully successful transition in the exercise of sovereignty
over Hong Kong must safeguard human rights in and of
themselves. Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong
Kong's continued economic prosperity.'';
Whereas since Hong Kong became a Special Administrative
Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China on July 1,
1997, the Hong Kong authorities have changed the system of
electing representatives to the Legislative Council, added
appointed members to District Councils, invited the central
government to reverse Hong Kong courts, and declined to
permit the entry of some American visitors and other foreign
nationals whose views are opposed by the People's Republic of
China;
Whereas, despite the provisions of the Basic Law which call
for a gradual and orderly process toward democratic election
of the legislature and chief executive, and which call for
universal suffrage, the Government of the Hong Kong SAR and
the People's Republic of China have stymied this process;
Whereas the traditional liberties of Hong Kong's 7,000,000
people are now immediately threatened by Hong Kong's proposed
``Article 23'' laws, which were drafted under strong pressure
from the Government of the People's Republic of China,
dealing with sedition, treason, and subversion against the
Chinese Communist Party, and the theft of state secrets;
Whereas the proposed legislation would give the Hong Kong
Government discretion to imprison individuals for
``attempting to commit'' the undefined crime of
``subversion''; would criminalize not only membership in, but
even attendance at meetings of, organizations not approved by
Beijing; and would threaten freedom of religion, membership
in authentic trade unions, political activity of all kinds,
and a wide range of public and private expression;
Whereas the proposed legislation would give Hong Kong's
Secretary for Security, an appointee of the Government of the
People's Republic of China, broad authority to ban
organizations it deemed in opposition to the national
interest, thereby threatening religious organizations such as
the Falun Gong and the Roman Catholic Church;
Whereas under the proposed legislation such basic and
fundamental procedural rights as notice and opportunity to be
heard could be waived by the appointee of the Government of
the People's Republic of China in
[[Page H5838]]
Hong Kong if honoring these rights ``would not be
practicable'';
Whereas the People's Republic of China's history of
arbitrary application of its own criminal law against
dissenters, and its pattern of imprisoning and exiling those
with whom it disagrees, provide strong reasons to oppose the
expansion of Beijing's ability to use its discretion against
Hong Kong's freedoms;
Whereas similar subversion laws in the People's Republic of
China are regularly used to convict and imprison journalists,
labor activists, Internet entrepreneurs, and academics;
Whereas broad segments of the Hong Kong community have
expressed strong concerns about, and opposition to, the
proposed new laws;
Whereas those members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council
elected by universal suffrage oppose the proposed new laws,
but are powerless to stop them against the majority of votes
controlled directly and indirectly by the Government of the
People's Republic of China;
Whereas the scheduled consideration of these proposals to
restrict Hong Kong's freedoms in the Legislative Council on
July 9, 2003, makes the threat to its people clear and
imminent; and
Whereas it is the duty of freedom loving people everywhere
to stand with the people of Hong Kong against this dangerous
erosion of its long-held and cherished rights: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns any restriction of the freedom of thought,
expression, or association in Hong Kong, consistent with the
United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992;
(2) recognizes that because Hong Kong exercises
considerable influence in international affairs, as a
developed economy, financial center, trading entrepot and
shipping center, reductions in the existing freedom of the
Hong Kong people would be of global significance;
(3) urges the Hong Kong Government and the People's
Republic of China to withdraw the proposed implementation of
Article 23 of the Basic Law insofar as it would reduce the
basic human freedoms of the people of Hong Kong;
(4) calls upon the People's Republic of China, the National
People's Congress, and any other groups appointed by the
Government of the People's Republic of China to leave all
revisions of Hong Kong law to a legislature elected by
universal suffrage;
(5) urges immediate elections for the Legislative Council
of Hong Kong according to rules approved by the Hong Kong
people through an election-law convention, referendum, or
both;
(6) calls upon the Government of the People's Republic of
China to fully respect the autonomy and independence of the
chief executive, the civil service, the judiciary, the police
of Hong Kong, and the Independent Commission Against
Corruption; and
(7) calls upon the United States Government, other
governments, the people of the United States, and the people
of the world to support freedom in Hong Kong by--
(A) making clear statements against any limitations on
existing human freedoms in Hong Kong; and
(B) transmitting those statements to the people and the
Government of the People's Republic of China.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 277, the resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I know the hard work that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) has put into this, along with, obviously, the leadership of
the Committee on International Relations that have made it possible,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), for this resolution to come forward in a
timely basis.
Timeliness is critical here. Time is of the essence because of what
the Chinese Communist regime is seeking to do precisely in these weeks
in Hong Kong. It seems as though, Mr. Speaker, tyranny knows only one
modus operandi, to repress the people by any means necessary to prevent
dissent. We have seen this all too clearly with the dictator only 90
miles off our shores here, off the shores of the United States. And now
a bastion of freedom in the face of one of the most tyrannical regimes
in the world is facing a dire threat. Hong Kong may soon have its
important freedoms destroyed by the so-called People's Republic of
China, the PRC.
In an act of complete cowardice and desperation, the PRC has prepared
new legislation called article 23 of the Basic Law which seeks to
severely restrict the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. The
communist government in Beijing is pressuring the local government in
Hong Kong to pass this legislation before July 9. Freedom of the press
and freedom of expression are in great jeopardy because of this
legislation. The actions of the Chinese regime fly in the face of
promise made by Beijing of ``one country, two systems,'' a 50-year
commitment that was made to the world to preserve Hong Kong's respect
for human liberties. But a mere 6 years after the British handed Hong
Kong to the Communist Chinese, we see that the totalitarianism has no
patience. It cannot stand to see the failures of its regime in the very
face of the shining example that Hong Kong has been of freedom and
civil liberties.
The elimination of freedom of speech holds countless dangers. For
example, the recent SARS outbreak in China and many parts of the world
was hastened in fact by the PRC's inability to deal with the truths.
The regime's lies and deception hamstrung the world from dealing
effectively with the crisis. The truths about the epidemic's extent
were unclear; totalitarianism simply could not face or did not know how
to face reality. Now, this created a grave health threat in Hong Kong
and really for the rest of the world.
Freedom of speech, Mr. Speaker, is important for every aspect of
life. It protects individual citizens from the deception that we saw in
the example of the SARS crisis by offering multiple important sources
of information. The PRC claims that this law it is seeking to impose on
the people of Hong Kong is a means to ensure its national security. The
rest of the world rightly sees it for what it is, an attempts to roll
back liberties that Hong Kong has to thwart any pressure for greater
liberties throughout the rest of China.
Now, if the world does not stand up to the PRC now, this will only be
the beginning of the tightening of its totalitarian grip on the people
of Hong Kong. The United States Government has an obligation to stand
with the people of Hong Kong. The State Department must not fail to
show the outrage of the American people at the destruction of the most
basic liberties which have survived up to now on the island of freedom
that is Hong Kong.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
rise in strong support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith),
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), and the
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for
their strong support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most moving moments of my life in a very sad
sense was the 1st of July, 1997, when I was present in Hong Kong with
our then-Secretary of State Madelyn Albright as the British flag came
down and the flag of Communist China went up. It was a sad moment for
all of us who believe in free and open and democratic government and in
human rights across the globe.
The people of Hong Kong over the decades have made an enormous
contribution to the economic and cultural life of the Asia-Pacific
region, and they set the standards for efficiency and honesty and
integrity in government. Hong Kong has been enormously helpful to us in
the war on terrorism, particularly in cracking down on the use of banks
in the Asia-Pacific region to launder funds for the benefit of
terrorists.
But Hong Kong's hard-earned international reputation is being
severely damaged by the government's pursuit of so-called article 23
antisedition legislation.
This resolution before us expresses our strong concerns and
reservations
[[Page H5839]]
regarding these dangerous trends. And I hope that our passage of this
legislation will influence consideration of article 23 by the
legislature of Hong Kong.
This insidious bill proposed by the government in Hong Kong goes a
long way towards giving the chief executive appointed by a Beijing-
packed committee broad authority to ban organizations if they are
prohibited to function in mainland China for ``national security''
reasons.
If this legislation in Hong Kong should pass, it is very likely that
the government of Hong Kong will immediately face pressure from Beijing
to ban the Falun Gong movement. Hong Kong representatives of
evangelical Christian groups, labor unions, human rights organizations
will find that they may also be banned in Hong Kong, as American labor
activist Harry Wu was prohibited from entering Hong Kong just last
year.
The ability of targeted organizations, perhaps I should say
persecution organizations, to obtain a public hearing can be waived by
the Hong Kong chief executive if he deems such public hearings as not
practicable.
Mr. Speaker, Hong Kong's strength is its commitment to the rule of
law. The legislation proposed by the Hong Kong Government calls that
commitment into serious question. The democratic forces in Hong Kong,
including my good friend Martin Lee, are fighting for Hong Kong's
democratic future and its free and open way of life. We in this body
must support their battle.
Our resolution has the strong support of both the Democratic and
Republican leadership of our House, and I urge all of my colleagues to
support its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's resolution introduced by my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and many, many co-
sponsors on freedom in Hong Kong, raises a sober question for all of us
to ponder. How does a state balance a need to protect itself from acts
of sedition with the equally important need to protect the civil
liberties of its citizens?
This very same issue arose in the early days of our own Republic, in
the year 1798 to be exact. The Adams administration and the Federalist-
controlled Congress used the excuse of the extreme revolutionary fervor
coming across the Atlantic from France to pass a series of legislative
measures known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Act. These
measures were seen as effectively nullifying the First Amendment
guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Public uproar
was such that Congress repealed one of the measures and allowed the
rest to die a natural death through expiration.
The point here is that all governments, as we are acutely aware of
after the tragic events of September 11, have the imperative to protect
their institutions and citizens from sedition, treason, and terrorism.
The question raised, however, is does article 23 of the Basic Law of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to be considered by the
Hong Kong Legislative Council this coming July 9, go beyond legitimate
security needs? Does it, like the Alien and Sedition Act, threaten the
civil liberties of the body politic as a whole? There are disturbing
indications that the answer to these questions is an affirmative
``yes.''
The American Congress expressed its clear concern for the
preservation of human rights for the people of Hong Kong through
adoption of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. When Hong Kong ended
British rule on July 1 of 1997 and was returned to the sovereignty of
the Chinese people, an important pledge was given. That pledge was that
for the next 50 years under a ``one-country, two-systems'' formula,
Hong Kong would continue to independently exercise those economic and
political freedoms which had evolved there over time.
Those who feared the worst on that July day now almost 6 years ago,
the sounds of jack boots in the street of Hong Kong found that their
fears were largely unfounded. There was no immediate descent of the
Bamboo Curtain. Instead, however, like drops of water falling upon a
rock, there has been a slow erosion of those democratic qualities which
made Hong Kong unique.
American citizens of certain political or philosophical persuasions
have been denied entry. An internationally respected Hong Kong
newspaper whose owners turn their eyes towards Beijing have fired its
most effective and outspoken journalists.
An American citizen released from a Chinese prison found the attitude
of the administration at the Hong Kong university where he taught so
hostile that he relocated to the United States. Ever so slowly, the
rock of freedom is being washed away by these slow, but steady, drips
of tyranny.
Article 23 in its present form is a major step in that erosion. This
view is held not only by the overwhelming majority of the American
Congress. Internationally respected Hong Kong leaders, including
political leaders like Martin Li, and religious leaders like Roman
Catholic Bishop Joseph Zen have reached the same conclusion, that
article 23, as it is presently constructed, will open the door to a
slow, steady decline of liberty in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong men and
women in the street have also voiced their concerns over the
implementation of article 23 and its corrosive effect on the right to
peaceful assembly, such as is annually done on the streets of Hong Kong
on June 4, the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Mr. Speaker, as a symbol of hope for the future of China, Hong Kong
has great significance beyond that of a small urban enclave of
international trade and commerce.
{time} 1215
What happens there is closely watched in Taiwan, in Beijing and in
greater Asia beyond. A slow twilight, sunset of liberty in Hong Kong,
therefore, will have repercussions and very negative ones far beyond
its own borders.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield as much time as she
might consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the
Democratic leader who has spent her professional life fighting for
human rights and specifically fighting for human rights for the people
of Hong Kong.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on International Relations for yielding the time and for
his tremendous leadership.
What an honor it is to be on the floor today with my friend the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the vice chair, I understand, of
the Committee on International Relations, and with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), two champions of human rights every place in
the world. By their leadership and their tireless energy, boundless I
would say, on behalf of freedom, they have set an example, freed
people, made the world a freer place, and we are all in their debt.
I am pleased to join my colleague the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) as well as we speak to the issue of the preservation of freedom
in Hong Kong. So it is with appreciation to all of my colleagues here
present on the floor and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox),
who is one of the authors of the resolution, that I join in calling for
the preservation of freedom in Hong Kong, keeping promises made to the
people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Speaker, when the Sino-British Joint Declaration was initiated in
1997, it guaranteed the preservation of freedoms basic to life in Hong
Kong. Just 5 years later, those freedoms, freedom of press, freedom of
religion, freedom of association, are under assault.
The House must act today to make clear to the Hong Kong government
and to the People's Republic of China the seriousness with which the
United States views any action that would subvert the promise of human
rights contained in the joint resolution.
The draft provisions to implement Article 23 of Hong Kong's basic law
would give Beijing the ability to determine what types of organizations
could exist in Hong Kong and which views could be expressed. Many of us
received a delegation led by Martin Lee, the very distinguished
democracy advocate in Hong Kong, just a few weeks ago,
[[Page H5840]]
where they expressed their concern and the impact that this action
would have on Hong Kong, as we have known it, as a dynamic society
where business has flourished because information has been able to flow
freely.
This action is a significant threat to Hong Kong's autonomy and to
the freedoms that make it a center for the exchange of information and
ideas. It is an even greater concern because the movement toward
popular democracy, as required under the basic law, has not begun.
I commend President Bush on the administration's forceful opposition
last Thursday to the Article 23 proposal. The administration statement
emphasized that: ``Hong Kong's special status, endorsed by the United
States under the Hong Kong Policy Act, depends on the local
authorities' protection of human and civil rights and the preservation
of the territory's autonomy. The United States opposes any law that
threatens the territory's unique identity, including the current
version of Article 23 legislation.'' That is from the President's
statement.
Hopefully, after leaders in Hong Kong and Beijing reflect seriously
on those words and the strong sentiments contained in the legislation
we are considering today, they will move to amend the proposal to
preserve the freedom of the people of Hong Kong that they were
promised.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leadership again of the Committee on
International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), and the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) in introducing this legislation. I was pleased to join him in
doing so.
The Committee on International Relations has provided an opportunity
for the House to go on record in favor of the preservation of human
rights in Hong Kong in opposition to actions that threaten them. I urge
overwhelming adoption of this measure to underscore our commitment to
the cause of freedom in Hong Kong.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), my good friend.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Today, I rise in strong support of the Hong Kong resolution. I doubt
many of us in this Chamber will forget the Cold War and the United
States' dedication to protect any country threatened by a Communist
regime.
Today, I ask, have we forgotten the image of that one Chinese student
blocking a barrage of tanks or the hurriedly erected plaster Lady
liberty proudly emulating our own Statue of Liberty displayed so
prominently as a symbol of the Chinese people's desire to be free? How
can we ever forget the hundreds of Chinese martyrs killed on that warm
June night in Tiananmen Square 14 years ago?
Because we are a Nation that does not forget the human tragedy and
sufferings committed by Communist regimes in the last century, we
cannot watch silently today as the freedoms enjoyed by the people of
Hong Kong are being stripped away.
Prior to 1997, Hong Kong was not only an economic powerhouse, it
served as a beacon of hope that one day rule of law, transparency and a
republican form of government would be a reality in the People's
Republic of China. However, rather than adopting Hong Kong's free
society, China now flexes its oppressive muscles over Hong Kong
themselves, depriving them not only of the freedom of speech, religion
and association agreed to by the British and Chinese Government in
1997, but these freedoms that are guaranteed because they are
inalienable and endowed to all members of the human race. As our
President has said, that freedom is a right of every person and the
future of every Nation.
Today, I rise to join in solidarity with the often lonely voice of
Hong Kong's Bishop Joseph Zen, who is a tireless advocate of the people
of Hong Kong and a vocal fundamental critic of the Chinese government's
disregard of the fundamental rights of the governed. Bishop Zen risks
his own life by speaking with moral authority, and his commitment to
protect the dignity of each human person should be supported.
Congress must send a clear message to the Chinese Government that we
expect them to abide by the premise of Hong Kong's basic law which
grants gradual progress towards the democratic election of the
legislature and chief executive. Furthermore, the United States must
continue the fight against communism, an oppressive regime that denies
each individual his or her dignity and holds countries that violate
human rights accountable.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution because it
protects what America has, what America stands for and what Hong Kong
does not want to lose, the gift of freedom.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his important
resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
While we are waiting for the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the
prime author of this legislation, to arrive here let me just again
reiterate a few things.
I like many others have followed the ongoing human rights abuses by
the People's Republic of China, and many of us had hoped, and this hope
is now at grave risk, that Hong Kong might avoid the same kind of
repressive regime visited upon it that other people in the People's
Republic of China live with and endure each and every day.
Our hope is that the Chinese Government, especially with its work in
the WTO, with its attempt to join the world leaders as a major player,
that it would respect the democratic rights of Hong Kong and learn from
it. Hong Kong can be a beacon for them not only economically, but also
in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The dictatorship
in Beijing really has nothing to fear but fear itself by giving in, it
seems to me, to basic and fundamental human rights.
Over time, if the PRC were to do that, they certainly would be
respected, but if they do the opposite, they will be held in contempt,
and what this resolution says, it is a cautionary flag, do not do it,
do not bring the repressive policies that you have foisted upon your
own people to the people of Hong Kong. The PRC has already promised, as
we all indicated earlier, that there would be at least a 50-year hiatus
where at least a semblance of freedom would be experienced.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox), my friend and colleague.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of H. Res. 277, expressing the sense of this House
in support of freedom in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a jewel. We are all
admirers of Hong Kong on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and
Republicans.
Hong Kong has had for years what is probably the freest economy in
the world, and along with that they have had civil rights and civil
liberties of which Hong Kongers themselves have been jealously
protective. Nothing has changed in that respect except that under the
one country-two systems formula the government of the People's Republic
of China is getting ahead of themselves by many decades.
They promised 50 years, and instead, they are now seeking to replace
the traditional civil law of Hong Kong with a subversion law, with a
national security law that will take away fundamental rights of speech,
association, membership in labor unions, journalists doing their job.
The scope, the breadth, the discretion given to the executive in this
proposed law is absolutely breathtaking, and we feel compelled for this
reason because these legal changes are imminent in Hong Kong to express
ourselves in support of the people of Hong Kong.
An article in the South China Morning Post just this Saturday
reported on a controversy ignited by two causes here in America: first,
this resolution, the fact that it has been reported by the Committee on
International Relations and has come to the floor; and second, a White
House statement in support of freedom in Hong Kong. In response to
these modest congressional and presidential expressions of support for
freedom, noting that the Article 23 legislation being considered in
Hong Kong ``could harm local freedoms and autonomy over time,'' a
spokesman for
[[Page H5841]]
the foreign ministry in the People's Republic of China said that other
nations should not interfere in the debate about free expression in
Hong Kong because it is an ``internal affair.''
With all due respect to the PRC foreign ministry, the freedom of
people to think, to express themselves, to belong to organizations, to
associate with others is not an internal affair. It is a fundamental
human right. The human dignity of the people of Hong Kong is of itself
sufficient reason to approve this resolution, but if that were the sole
justification for this resolution, then we would probably be
considering thousands like it.
A second reason we act today is because it is in the interests of the
United States to do so. In the Hong Kong Policy Act, approved
unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President on
October 5, 1992, the United States declared that, ``Hong Kong plays an
important role in today's regional and world economy. This role is
reflected in strong economic, cultural and other ties with the United
States that give the United States a strong interest in the continued
vitality, prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.''
Our law also declares that ``support for democratization is a
fundamental principle of United States foreign policy. As such, it
naturally applies to United States policy toward Hong Kong. This will
remain equally true after June 30, 1997,'' that of course being the
date of the handover from the British to the Chinese of the territory
of Hong Kong.
Finally, the law says, ``The human rights of the people of Hong Kong
are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant
to United States interests in Hong Kong. A fully successful transition
in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong must safeguard human
rights in and of themselves.
``The United States should play an active role, before, on, and after
July 1, 1997, in maintaining Hong Kong's confidence and prosperity,
Hong Kong's role as an international financial center, and the mutually
beneficial ties between the people of the United States and the people
of Hong Kong.''
That is why we are here today. If we think back to the time prior to
the handover, prior to 1997, we were assured that this could not
happen, that it would not happen, and yet through an excretion of
changes in the law, through inroads that are being made on the
traditional freedoms that Hong Kongers have enjoyed, so slowly perhaps
as to be imperceptible but now this one fell swoop suddenly very
noticeable, the PRC is taking away the freedom of one country-two
systems, that was guaranteed in 1997.
{time} 1230
Our former colleague, Connie Mack, warned us in 1994, on the 10th
anniversary of the Sino-British Declaration on the question of Hong
Kong, of the failure of the Communist Government of China to respect
the declaration, even as of that date: ``Immediately after signing the
Joint Declaration, the PRC started working on the Basic Law, Hong
Kong's post-1997 'mini-constitution.' The Basic Law was enacted not by
Hong Kong's Legislative Council, the Legco, but by Beijing's rubber
stamp National People's Congress that contravened the Joint
Declaration. It subordinates the Legco to a Beijing- appointed
executive; assigns a power of judicial interpretation to the Standing
Committee of the National People's Congress, rather than to Hong Kong's
courts; and it requires a law against `subversion,' a concept unknown
in the common law.''
It is that illegitimate law against subversion that today the House
revisits. This is what is about to take place in Hong Kong. If the
world is silent, as this interruption, as this deprivation of freedom
moves forward, then our liberties, too, will be at greater risk.
Hong Kong is a jewel for the entire planet. It is our hope that the
freedom that Hong Kong has traditionally enjoyed will spread northward
throughout the People's Republic of China, that that will be the
ultimate result of one country, two systems, not the other way around.
But what is happening now, as we meet here today, is that this island
of freedom is being weighted down by the long-standing rule of the
Communist Party in the People's Republic of China; that the law is
simply a tool of the party itself and not independent.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the careful consideration that this Chamber
is giving to this resolution. I want to thank the chairman and the
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations for bringing
this resolution to the floor in a timely fashion, and I expect that all
of our colleagues will vote in support of freedom at this important
time in both China's history and our own.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H. Res.
277, a resolution supporting freedom and democracy in Hong Kong.
Throughout its modern history, Hong Kong has stood as a beacon of
freedom and stability. With the Hong Kong people's ingenuity and hard
work, the territory became a stable and prosperous democracy.
Since Hong Kong's 1997 change of status, the citizens of Hong Kong
have faced the challenge of maintaining their civil liberties and
democratic self-governance. While the Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong
fifty-years of self-governance and freedom, the Beijing-appointed
government of Hong Kong has been working to limit freedom in the
territory.
I strongly support the goals of H. Res. 277. As a long-time friend
and supporter of Hong Kong, I believe we must continue to support the
Hong Kong people's efforts to preserve and advance the cause of freedom
and democracy. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for
sponsoring this resolution and I will continue to work with my
colleagues to protect and advance freedom, democracy, and the rule of
law in East Asia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has expired.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 277.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________