[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.

                          ____________________