[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 97 (Friday, June 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8863-S8865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution expressing support for freedom in 
Hong Kong; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution 
for myself and Senator Kyl regarding the United States' commitment to 
preserving freedom in Hong Kong. It is not simply the responsibility of 
the United States, but also of the Administration of Tung Chee Hwa, 
Hong Kong's chief executive and the People's Republic of China.
  This resolution emphasizes an isolated event taking place on July 9 
of this year--the passage of draconian laws on sedition, subversion, 
and theft of state secrets. This law evokes something out of one of the 
novels of George Orwell. Just as the resolution states, the law, as now 
drafted, is vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion, 
sedition, and official secrets.
  The Secretary of Security, an appointee of the Government of the 
People's Republic of China, would have very broad authority to ban 
organizations not approved by his Beijing masters. Nothing less than 
the survival of

[[Page S8864]]

the Catholic Church in China and the Falun Gong, a quasi-religious 
practice that emphasizes breathing and meditation, are at stake with 
this law. Beijing has clearly targeted these and many other groups 
promoting democracy and human rights.
  In addition, the Secretary of Security would have the authority to 
waive the right to notice and the right to be heard--something that 
person could execute on a whim. This horrendous bill would allow the 
Hong Kong Government to prosecute members of the news media for 
publishing information that would arbitrarily be deemed a ``state 
secret.''
  These ``state secrets'' might include Hong Kong-Mainland cooperation 
on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS. If China handled a 
new outbreak of some contagion the same way it handled SARS, I would 
think the people of Hong Kong should know that their lives might be in 
danger because of the Government's negligence.
  This is the extreme case, however, it must be made clear to my 
colleagues, and to the world, that the legislation to be voted on July 
9, in Hong Kong would create a severe chilling effect on the press to 
freely report information. The Hong Kong Journalists Association, the 
Overseas Press Club, and the Committee to Protect Journalists all 
oppose this bill.
  In addition, the legislation would strip other provisions contained 
in a current Hong Kong law, the Societies Ordinance, of due process 
protections. On top of that, the Hong Kong police would have new powers 
to search without having a warrant. Those two provisions are the 
bedrock of a free society. How does the Hong Kong government think it 
can get away with this?

  It assumes that it can ride out the cries of outrage from inside Hong 
Kong and throughout the world. I hope that Chief Executive Tung's 
administration understands that this resolution only represents the 
beginning. Sir, if you read these comments, please understand you are 
on the losing side of history.
  Hong Kong has been remarkably free in the last six years. That is a 
true statement. The fact that Mr. Tung and his colleagues fail to 
understand is that without these freedoms, Hong Kong will surely fail.
  Unfortunately, the People's Republic of China has increasingly 
interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated the media 
to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors who disagree with the 
Chinese Communist Party's policies.
  The Hong Kong SAR Government, encouraged by the Government of the 
People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's political 
independence, international prestige, and its appeal as a business and 
financial hub of Asia. Recently, the American Chamber of Commerce in 
Hong Kong reversed its position regarding the bill saying that it would 
be a disaster for business in Hong Kong.
  The South China Morning Post reported: ``In a letter to all 
legislators, chamber chairman James Thompson said the bill contained 
worrying provisions, such as that seeking to ban organisations. These 
would jeopardise Hong Kong's distinctive features, in particular its 
transparent legal system and free flow of information.''
  Similarly, the International Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong in its 
submission to the Hong Kong Government opposing the bill stated ``We 
regret that the Administration has chosen to ignore our request, and 
that of many others in Hong Kong for a second round of public 
consultation before bringing the matter to the Legislative Council, and 
rigidly following its own timetable.
  They continued saying, ``The Consultation Document is complicated 
enough, and has taken us much time to prepare a response. The Bill is 
even more difficult to study as it relates to a number of existing 
ordinances, if nothing else. Yet we have to rush to forward our 
comments to meet a deadline. This timetable also puts undue pressure on 
the Legislative Council to finish scrutiny in a hurry. For a matter of 
such great significance, it is to be regretted that it should have to 
be rushed through at the risk of sacrificing quality.''

  The lifeblood of Hong Kong's existence, its business community, 
opposes the bill and the Hong Kong Government pressured by Beijing 
fails to understand why there is all this outrage. The business 
community in this fascinating center for finance, shipping and media is 
well known for its cozy relationship with Mr. Tung, his cabinet and 
other officials, and even for being close with Beijing to get the 
favorable treatment it receives in China.
  Yet, this community, arguably the most influential in Hong Kong's 
affairs, is out right opposed to the effort to suppress freedom in Hong 
Kong. It is not such a large leap to understand that Hong Kong's 
vibrancy results from its freedom.
  I underline these concerns for my colleagues today in the hope that 
it will give pause to legislators in Hong Kong, and deter this and any 
future assaults on freedom in this important territory.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 14

       Whereas Hong Kong has long been the freest economy in the 
     world, renowned for its rule of law and its zealous 
     protection of civil rights and civil liberties;
       Whereas the Agreement between the Government of the United 
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question 
     of Hong Kong, done at Beijing December 19, 1984 (the Sino-
     British Joint Declaration of 1984) explicitly guarantees that 
     all of Hong Kong's freedoms, including freedom of the press, 
     religious freedom, and freedom of association, will continue 
     for at least 50 years after the transfer of Hong Kong's 
     sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic 
     of China on July 1, 1997;
       Whereas in the 6 years since the transfer of the territory, 
     the citizens of Hong Kong have enjoyed a certain degree of 
     individual liberty, religious freedom, freedom of the press 
     and freedom of speech, which keep it both politically vibrant 
     and stable;
       Whereas the People's Republic of China has increasingly 
     interfered in Hong Kong's independent judiciary, intimidated 
     the media to induce self-censorship, and excluded visitors 
     who disagree with the policies of the Chinese Communist 
     Party;
       Whereas the Government of the Hong Kong Special 
     Administrative Region (SAR), encouraged by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China, has eroded Hong Kong's 
     political independence, international prestige, and appeal as 
     a business and financial hub of Asia;
       Whereas the freedoms cherished by the people of Hong Kong 
     serve as a constant reminder to the world and to the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China that such 
     freedoms could, but do not, prevail on mainland China;
       Whereas the traditional liberties of Hong Kong's 7,000,000 
     people are now immediately threatened by a new national 
     security bill proposed by the SAR Government that would 
     revise Hong Kong's laws regarding sedition, treason, 
     subversion, and theft of state secrets;
       Whereas the national security bill, as now drafted, is 
     vague and overly broad in its definitions of subversion, 
     sedition, and official secrets, weakens existing due process 
     protections in the Societies Ordinance, and gives dangerous 
     new powers to the police to make searches without warrant;
       Whereas the proposed legislation would give the Hong Kong 
     SAR Secretary for Security, an appointee of the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China, broad authority to ban 
     organizations not approved by Beijing, 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 Secretary for Security if 
     honoring these rights ``would not be practicable'';
       Whereas the proposed legislation provides for the 
     imprisonment of individuals accused of ``unauthorized 
     disclosure of protected information,'' making it possible for 
     the Hong Kong SAR Government to prosecute members of the news 
     media for publishing any information relevant to relations 
     between the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong;
       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 the members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council who 
     have been elected by universal suffrage oppose the proposed 
     legislation, but are powerless as a minority to block the 
     votes controlled directly and indirectly by the Government of 
     the People's Republic of China;
       Whereas the clear majority of people in Hong Kong have 
     expressed strong concerns about, and opposition to, the 
     proposed legislation;
       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 the people of Hong Kong 
     clear and imminent; and

[[Page S8865]]

       Whereas the United States has consistently supported the 
     desire of the people of Hong Kong to be free, and, as 
     Congress declared in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act 
     of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.): ``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. Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong 
     Kong's continued economic prosperity'': Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress--
       (1) declares that restrictions on freedom of thought, 
     expression, and association in Hong Kong are limits on the 
     fundamental rights of the people of Hong Kong;
       (2) declares that the national security bill would 
     undermine freedom of the press and access to information, 
     both of which are fundamentally important to the economic and 
     commercial success of Hong Kong;
       (3) calls upon the SAR Government to--
       (A) avoid implementing any law that restricts the basic 
     human freedoms of thought and expression, including the 
     proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law of the 
     Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's 
     Republic of China (the Basic Law); and
       (B) immediately schedule and conduct elections for the 
     Legislative Council of the Hong Kong SAR according to rules 
     approved by the people of Hong Kong through an election law 
     convention, by referendum, or both; and
       (4) calls upon the President of the United States to--
       (A) urge the Government of Hong Kong, including Hong Kong 
     Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa and the Legislative Council, 
     not to implement any law, including any law established 
     pursuant to the proposed implementation of Article 23 of the 
     Basic Law, that restricts the basic human right to freedom of 
     thought and expression;
       (B) call upon the People's Republic of China, the National 
     People's Congress, and any groups appointed by the Government 
     of the People's Republic of China to leave all revisions of 
     Hong Kong law to a democratically-elected legislature;
       (C) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to fully respect the autonomy and independence of the 
     Independent Commission Against Corruption and the chief 
     executive, civil service, judiciary, and police of Hong Kong;
       (D) declare that the continued lack of an elected 
     legislature in Hong Kong constitutes a violation of the Sino-
     British Joint Declaration of 1984; and
       (E) call upon the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to honor its treaty obligations under the Sino-British 
     Joint Declaration of 1984.

                          ____________________