[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3813-S3814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Hong Kong

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this past week we saw the largest protest 
in Hong Kong since 2014. Millions turned out in order to protest the 
erosion of civil rights, human rights, and good governance in Hong 
Kong, violating the commitment that was made during the July 1, 1997, 
transfer of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China.
  We saw China backtracking in 2014 on its electoral changes, when the 
candidate for the Chief Executive had to be screened by the Chinese 
Government, contrary to the commitments that were made when Hong Kong's 
relationship with the United Kingdom ended.
  The protests in 2014 were called the Umbrella Movement because a 
large amount of protesters, who were being attacked by the police with 
tear gas, were using umbrellas to protect themselves from the tear gas 
itself. The ``one country, two systems'' that was developed after the 
United Kingdom relinquished its control in 1997 was a commitment that 
Hong Kong would be a capitalistic system and the way of life that 
existed before the transfer to the Chinese would be upheld and 
unchanged. That was the commitment that was given, and that commitment 
has not been lived up to by China.
  There is the Chinese interference we saw in 2014, and then this time 
we saw the government of Hong Kong try to implement an extradition law 
that provided real concern about people who disagreed with what is 
happening in China and who wanted to protest about their universal 
rights of being subjected to extradition to China.
  This is not hypothetical; this is a real concern. Two million people 
went to the streets this month in Hong Kong to protest that erosion of 
rights in Hong Kong, basically at the insistence of the Chinese 
Government.
  This is not theoretical. Lam Wing-kee is one example. I can give many 
examples. In 2015, he mysteriously disappeared. He was selling 
literature in Hong Kong that was banned by the Chinese Communist Party 
in China, not Hong Kong, supposedly. He disappeared from the streets 
and ended up in China, in solitary confinement in one of their prisons. 
He was ultimately allowed to leave with certain commitments. He decided 
to flee to Taiwan and stay safe there.
  There are so many other examples of individuals who are in jeopardy. 
The extradition law that was being proposed really put the fear into 
those people who live in Hong Kong and visit Hong Kong that if they did 
anything that would upset the Chinese Government, they could be charged 
with a crime in China and extradited to China, never to be seen again.
  Millions turned out in protest. As a result of the protests and, 
quite frankly, the international spotlight on what was happening in 
Hong Kong, the government decided to withdraw the extradition--the 
proposed law, but they didn't say they would withdraw it permanently 
and made no commitments about any future. And, of course, the current 
chief executive remains there, which is very much against the reforms 
that were supposed to take place.
  The United States has spoken on this issue. The United States-Hong 
Kong Policy Act of 1992 allows the United States to treat the territory 
as separate from the rest of China politically, economically, and 
otherwise under certain conditions. Those conditions are that Hong Kong 
remain sufficiently autonomous from China and that the rights of its 
citizens be protected. That is specific in our law.
  I question, as I think many of us do, whether Hong Kong and China are 
complying with the conditions under which the United States passed the 
United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that allows for preferential 
treatment in Hong Kong that is not enjoyed by China.
  Last week, Senator Rubio and I, with the support of the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced 
the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. It reaffirms the act that 
we passed in 1992 to make it clear that Hong Kong's recognition by the 
United States and its trading relationship with the United States and 
its special relationship with the United States--much different from 
China--only exist if the conditions on autonomy are maintained.
  Under this legislation, we require the administration to periodically 
certify to us that Hong Kong is, in fact, in compliance with the 
conditions of the 1992 law. If not, special exceptions would no longer 
be valid. We also put into this statute sanctions against those who are 
responsible for abridging the human rights of people in Hong Kong. This 
is similar to what we did in regard to the Magnitsky statutes.
  I am very proud of the work this Chamber did, particularly the work I 
was able to do with our late colleague Senator McCain on passing the 
Magnitsky laws. We first applied it to Russia. We then applied it 
globally. Now we have seen other countries also apply these sanctions 
where if a person violates basic, internationally recognized human 
rights, that individual is denied the opportunity to visit America by 
not allowing any visa or the use of our banking system. We extend those 
types of sanctions in regard to those who are violating the rights of 
the people of Hong Kong.
  Let me point out that our foreign policy--our strength is American 
values. It is the values we stand for as a nation--democracy, support 
for human rights, the basic freedom of people, religious freedom. Those 
are the values America brings to our engagement globally. It is 
important that we be on the right side of history in regard to Hong 
Kong and that the Congress and the American people stand in solidarity 
with the people of Hong Kong; that we stand with them and the 
commitment that was given in 1997 that Hong Kong would be different and 
autonomous from China and the rights of their people would be 
protected, as they were under British control.
  It is important today that the Senate, the Congress, the American 
people, and our government stand by those commitments and stand with 
the people of Hong Kong. We saw millions show up this week to show 
their support for these principles. We must stand with those people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S3814]]

  

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.