[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 215 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7688-S7691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8428

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we had a hearing this week, the 
Immigration Subcommittee of Senate Judiciary, and Senator Blumenthal 
was there with me and others. We listened to people from Hong Kong tell 
the story of what is happening because of the repressive regime in 
Beijing and what is happening to those in Hong Kong who are 
demonstrating in favor of democracy.
  This hearing on the crisis in Hong Kong also raised a lot of 
questions about the United States and our own immigration and refugee 
policy toward those who are being persecuted.
  At the hearing, there was some powerful testimony. I recall one of 
the witnesses, Mr. Chu, who said that he was aware of students--Chinese 
students--currently in the United States who have already been 
designated as enemies of the state by China and who, if they are forced 
to return to China, will face prosecution, imprisonment, and who knows. 
It was a very personal story because these people are friends of his 
who, through no fault of their own, only speaking out against the 
regime in Beijing, now will face long prison sentences if forced to 
return to China.
  I am amazed, as I meet these people from China and Hong Kong, at the 
courage they show. Mr. Chu, for example, had come to the United 
States--been sent to the United States by his father at the age of 12 
because his father had made a practice of helping the Chinese who had 
demonstrated on Tiananmen Square and providing the equivalent of an 
underground railroad for them to escape China. I guess the people in 
Beijing were on his heels, and so to protect his family, he sent his 
12-year-old son to the United States, who has lived here for a number 
of years. He is an American citizen now.
  This repression and the Chinese Government meddling in the lives of 
the people of Hong Kong are appalling. Thousands of protestors in Hong 
Kong have been persecuted for fighting for the liberties that we 
Americans routinely say we enjoy--freedoms of assembly and speech, the 
right to vote, due process, and the rule of law.
  The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese 
Communist Party in June has enabled the ruthless abuse of protesters, 
political leaders, journalists, and teachers. Despite its name, the 
national security law is not about security; it is about fear--fear of 
the voices in Hong Kong calling for reform of democracy and freedom.
  I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my feelings 
about the crisis in Hong Kong, but the question today is, What are we 
willing to do about it?
  Last week, on a unanimous voice vote, the House of Representatives 
passed the bipartisan Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act, which 
would grant temporary protected status to Hong Kong residents currently 
in the United States and provide an opportunity for refugee status to 
Hongkongers facing persecution.
  At Wednesday's Judiciary Committee hearing, we received a clear 
message: Congress needs to pass the Hong Kong People's Freedom and 
Choice Act in the Senate now. We can do it. In fact, we can do it 
today. Think about the message it would send from the United States to 
Hong Kong and to the world if we sent this bill to the President's desk 
to be signed into law. It is bipartisan. It was unanimous in the House. 
It is timely, and it addresses a real problem.
  Under the bill, Hong Kong would be designated for TPS for 18 months. 
To qualify for TPS status, eligible Hongkongers currently in the United 
States would need to first clear a criminal history and national 
security screening and pay a $360 filing fee.
  Some of the critics have said: We can't trust the Chinese in the 
United States. They may be spies.
  That is why we require, under the TPS, that anyone applying for this 
TPS status has to go through a criminal background check and a national 
security screening.
  I want America to be safe--we all do--but just to categorically say 
``If you are from China or from Hong Kong, you are a suspicious 
character, and we don't want you to stay here'' isn't fair. It isn't 
realistic.
  Sixty-seven hundred students are here now legally in the United 
States from Hong Kong and China, and they were admitted to the United 
States under standards and investigations. They are students at our 
universities, and they would qualify for this important temporary 
humanitarian protection so that they aren't forced to return to a 
literally dangerous situation.
  TPS can be granted by the President if he wishes, but the Trump 
administration has failed to protect Hongkongers in need.
  This bill also establishes expedited refugee and asylum access for 
qualified individuals and their family members. This would enable 
persecuted Hongkongers to register with any U.S. Embassy or Consulate, 
or with the Department of Homeland Security if they are in the United 
States.

  Refugees and asylees would be required to meet all legal requirements 
and pass background checks before

[[Page S7689]]

being granted status in the United States. That is just not a minor 
administrative chore. We are serious about it. If you want to come to 
the United States as a refugee or asylee, we will do everything we can 
to make certain that you are no danger to anyone in the United States.
  The refugee policies of this outgoing administration have put at risk 
Hongkongers who are fleeing Chinese persecution, not to mention 
millions of other vulnerable refugees. Since the enactment of the 
Refugee Act of 1980, the United States has resettled on average of 
80,000 refugees a year. That is our annual average since 1980. However, 
in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in history, the current Trump 
administration has set record low refugee admissions figures for 4 
years in a row, culminating in the lowest levels in history this year 
at 15,000--from 80,000 to 15,000.
  How many refugees has the United States admitted from Hong Kong in 
the last year? Zero--not one.
  When you look at what the Communist Chinese Party is doing in China, 
threatening these demonstrators who are marching in the streets for 
things that we say over and over are the underpinnings of our 
democracy, and to think that we have not granted one single person in 
Hong Kong refugee status is hard to imagine. The Trump administration 
has decimated legal protections for Hongkongers and other innocent 
victims of persecution.
  For example, under the rule issued last week, Hongkongers could be 
denied asylum if they transit other countries on the way to the United 
States, if persecutors detain them for only a brief period, or if 
persecutors were not able to carry out their threats before the 
activist fled.
  According to the testimony of the Hong Kong Democracy Council 
executive director, Samuel Chu, on Wednesday--I mentioned him earlier--
the people most immediately at risk in Hong Kong are the approximately 
10,000 individuals who have been arrested by the Chinese Government 
crackdown.
  Make no mistake. We know what the Chinese Communist Party is up to. 
As for these concentration camps--they call them reeducation camps--
that they created for the Uyghurs, we know what they are doing. They 
characterize them in many different ways, but we have seen this 
throughout history. The question is, What are we going to do about it?
  We are going to protest what is happening to the people in Hong Kong, 
but will we take one step--even one small step--to provide them 
security and safety?
  Not all of them are going to wish to leave Hong Kong, I understand 
that. Some of them can't. Some of them may receive assistance from 
another country. The British Prime Minister has offered a path to 
citizenship to up to 3 million Hongkongers eligible for overseas 
passports. The Australian Government has stepped in with visa options 
for students and workers from Hong Kong. Canada announced multiple new 
immigration measures supporting Hong Kong residents, including measures 
to help Hong Kong students in Canada.
  I have a basic question. What are we going to do? You hear this about 
the British stepping up, the Australians stepping up, the Canadians 
stepping up. Where is the United States?
  This is our chance today. Senator Blumenthal is going to make a 
unanimous consent request to actually have the United States do 
something.
  One country cannot take in all the refugees from Hong Kong nor should 
it be expected to, but surely the United States of America, the most 
powerful nation on the Earth and, we hope, a model for democracy in the 
world, cannot protest what is happening to the innocent people of Hong 
Kong and the repressive regime of Beijing and then do nothing.
  Passing the Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act is urgently 
needed. The situation continues to deteriorate. We need to do it and do 
it quickly. We need to protect Hongkongers in need. Think about the 
message that it sends to the world if the United States agrees with 
Senator Blumenthal's request today and passes the measure that has 
already passed the House of Representatives and it becomes the law of 
the land. How will the Chinese Government pass that off as 
insignificant, when all of these countries are basically saying their 
treatment of the people of Hong Kong is abominable?
  We should act quickly. The Senate Judiciary Committee has failed to 
raise another bill, the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, sent to it 6 months 
ago. So they have had their opportunity in the committee to do 
something. Under the Democratic majority, the House did their job and 
acted quickly with a bipartisan bill.
  We have seen a lot of speeches on both sides of the aisle about how 
mad we are at the Chinese Government. The question today, in the next 
few minutes, is, Are we mad enough to do something?
  Do something significant. I ask the Senate to join the House in 
passing the Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act now. Let's send 
this bill to the President and send a strong message to the people of 
Hong Kong that they are not in this alone.
  How fortunate I am to have a colleague like Dick Blumenthal. We see 
eye-to-eye on this issue. He jumped on the measure and said he wanted 
to move on it, and I thought, darn, I wish I would have been the first 
one, but I am happy to accompany him on this effort.
  I sincerely hope that this is truly bipartisan. If our protest 
against the Communist Party of China is meaningful and bipartisan, it 
will be powerful
  I yield to my colleague, Senator Blumenthal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am really honored to follow Senator 
Durbin, a staunch and steadfast champion of refugees and immigration 
reform who, year after year, has shown the courage to stand up on this 
issue.
  And to emphasize a point that he has made, there is an urgency to our 
acting. There is a sense that time is not on our side for the lives at 
stake here. The world has watched in horror as China has cracked down 
on the incipient democracy movement in Hong Kong. We have seen the 
yellow umbrellas. We have seen the marchers in the streets and the 
brutality and the cruelty of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese 
authorities, using clubs and guns with the kind of thuggishness that 
has come to characterize the Chinese anti-democracy movement there and 
around the world. We have an opportunity to take a stand and speak out 
and do something in defense of the brave protesters who are risking 
their lives.
  We have seen this kind of democracy movement before. We know it is in 
the great tradition of our country to stand with those protestors and 
those marchers who are saying to the Chinese Government: We will not 
let you break the agreement that you did in 1984 with the United 
Kingdom to preserve these freedoms and to make Hong Kong an outpost of 
democracy in the repressive regime of China. We will not let you chip 
away at our rights or extradite our people to China. That law was the 
spark that ignited these protests. We will not let you mock our demand 
for freedom and democracy.
  The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020 was passed 
unanimously in the House of Representatives with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, and it would very simply give those protesters 
protective status in this country, the greatest Nation in the history 
of the world, saying to them: We will give you a safe harbor. We will 
give you a place where you can be protected.
  And remember, what the Chinese are saying is: You can be indicted. 
You can be arrested. No matter where you are in the world, if you 
violated our law, we will bring you back.
  And we would say to those protestors who are simply demanding 
fundamental freedoms that often we take for granted here: We will give 
you protective status. We will give you temporary protective status 
right away. We will make sure that you have that safe harbor.
  Now, I know that my colleagues, Senators Rubio and Menendez, have a 
bill that is actually called the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. We had a 
hearing on it the other day in the Judiciary Committee. All of my 
colleagues expressed support for the individuals who came to us asking 
us to act on that measure.

[[Page S7690]]

  The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020, in fact, would 
go beyond that measure, only to say that you don't have to be formally 
charged in China and you don't have to be in specific categories of 
protestor. You can be a journalist, and you can get temporary 
protective status. It would also say that you don't have to demonstrate 
individually a fear of persecution, but you do have to be screened. You 
do have to demonstrate that you are not going to be a national security 
threat.
  My colleague Senator Durbin is absolutely right to make this point. 
Nobody wants Chinese spies in this country. There would be a background 
check and a screening just as there are for other refugees under this 
measure.
  The other day, at this hearing, we heard from Samuel Chu and Nathan 
Lau and we heard from Joey Su. These activists are fighting for their 
freedom. We heard their stories, so powerful and moving. Their faces 
and voices should be heard and heeded in this body.
  We are far removed here in this sedate setting from the clamor and 
the cruelty of those streets in Hong Kong, where men and women have 
stood bravely against the physical brutality and force of the Chinese 
regime. But we should send a message to the world: We are going to 
stand with those refugees who come here heeding the lady who stands in 
New York Harbor with a message of hope and freedom. The same lady who 
many of our forebears in this Chamber saw when they came to this 
country--like my dad, in 1935, at the age of 17, alone, seeking to 
escape persecution in Germany, speaking no English, knowing virtually 
no one, having not much more than the shirt on his back but believing--
believing--that America would offer him the safety of freedom as a 
refugee.
  That is our tradition in this country. It goes beyond party, 
geography, race, or religion. It is what makes America truly great. We 
are a nation of immigrants and refugees, and my hope is, as I stand 
here, that we will have the same unanimity in this body as the House 
did, despite all the other divisions that persist at this point; that 
we will have the respect for the moral imperative to act now and make 
sure that we fulfill the message of America now that is more important 
than ever before in light of the repressive regimes, even in our own 
region, whether it is Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, where 
we can say to the world: We are going to stand by our principles, and 
we are going to do it now because of the urgency of this moment and the 
need of these refugees for temporary protective status.
  Let us act now.
  So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 8428, and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, today, we 
have good news and bad news. The good news is that our Democratic 
colleagues are finally discovering that the Chinese Communists are not 
our friends. They are finally acknowledging that the Chinese Communists 
are murdering, torturing, oppressive tyrants, and our Democratic 
colleagues are likewise discovering that Hong Kong is a beacon for 
democracy and a beacon for liberty. That is, indeed, good news.
  The bad news is, the bill that they have put forth is not designed to 
do anything about it. This is not a Hong Kong bill. It is, instead, a 
Democratic messaging bill because House Democrats made, I think, a 
cynical decision to try to exploit the crisis in Hong Kong to advance 
their longstanding goals of changing our immigration laws.
  It is not news to anyone who has been watching the political battles 
of recent years to discover that our Democratic colleagues embrace open 
borders; that when it comes to illegal immigration, their preference is 
to make all immigration legal. This bill advances that longtime 
partisan political agenda that the Democrats have.
  When it comes to standing up for Communist China, for 8 years I have 
led the fight in this Senate to stand up to Communist China. China is, 
I believe, the single greatest geopolitical threat facing the United 
States for the next century.
  In October of last year, I traveled to Hong Kong as part of a friends 
and allies tour throughout Asia, met with the Hong Kong dissidents--
those brave, young students standing in the streets, standing for 
freedom, and standing up against Chinese tyrants. I did a satellite 
interview on an American Sunday show from Hong Kong dressed in all 
black in solidarity with those protesters because Hong Kong today is, 
as I have said many times, the new Berlin. It is the frontline in the 
battle against Communist tyranny.
  This bill, however, is not designed to fix that problem. Right now, 
today, under current law, individuals in Hong Kong are already eligible 
to become refugees under our immigration law. In fact, in July, 
President Trump explicitly expanded the number of refugee slots 
available and allocated them to Hong Kong. This bill, instead, is 
designed and would dramatically lower the standards for both refugee 
and asylum status to the point where individuals would qualify even if 
they cannot establish an individualized and credible fear of 
persecution.
  The Senator from Connecticut just listed that as a virtue of this 
bill--that no longer would you have to establish a credible fear of 
persecution; instead, this bill would dramatically lower that standard. 
There is no reason to lower that standard, and there is particular risk 
when doing so, we know, would be used by the Chinese Communists to send 
even more Chinese spies into the United States.
  The Senator from Connecticut assured us: Well, don't worry. We will 
do a background check.
  Well, the last I checked, when the Chinese Communist Government sends 
spies into our country, they are quite willing to concoct a bogus 
background portfolio of materials. Who do you think the Chinese 
Government would be seeing coming in? We just recently had news of 
Chinese spies targeting Members of Congress--targeting prominent 
Democrats. This is an espionage threat America faces of our adversaries 
taking advantage of our laws and targeting our leadership.
  The truth also is that China has confiscated passports and, I am 
told, stopped issuing exit visas to persons deemed problematic. As a 
result, China is highly unlikely to let actual dissidents leave Hong 
Kong, so this bill isn't directed to help them.
  But I will say this: We urgently need to have a real, substantive, 
bipartisan conversation about countering the Chinese Communist Party, 
about defending the United States of America, about standing up and 
winning this battle. This bill doesn't advance that objective, but what 
I am going to do is I am going to give our Democratic colleagues the 
opportunity to actually support legislation that would stand up to 
China.
  So, momentarily, I am going to ask unanimous consent for one bill and 
discuss a second bill that I also later intend to ask unanimous consent 
to pass. But first, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I really regret this attack on a bill 
that was passed unanimously--Republicans, unanimously, and Democrats, 
unanimously--a bipartisan bill by the House of Representatives. If my 
colleagues are serious about moving a bill to the desk of the 
President, only this bill will do it because only this bill has been 
passed by the House of Representatives.
  There is an urgency to this cause for the sake of these refugees who 
haven't been permitted to leave their country, haven't been sent by 
China, haven't simply come into this country as potential espionage 
agents. They have come here because they fought for freedom in their 
country. So to say that we have discovered that we need to stand up to 
China, sorry about that, but it is just preposterous.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the question through the Chair. Isn't it true

[[Page S7691]]

that this bill that we are promoting, which just passed the House 
unanimously on a bipartisan basis, also protects the 6,700 students 
here in the United States with student visas from being forced to 
return to Hong Kong when our State Department is warning Americans it 
is unsafe for them to travel to Hong Kong? Is that not true?
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, and I 
was just going to, as a matter of fact, make that point because I think 
it is central to the objection that has been raised.

  In fact, the people in danger here are already here. They are in 
danger if they are sent back, as they would be without that temporary 
protected status. So that point, I think, refutes, essentially, the 
argument that has just been made by our colleague from Texas.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield further for a question--and 
this notion that the Chinese in the United States are all suspect 
spies, is it really--is that the point you want to make? Is that really 
the point you want to make? Do we have background checks involved here? 
Do we have screening involved here?
  We are all intent on keeping America safe, but to categorize a group 
of people as all potential spies--and, therefore, they are going to all 
be fed to the lions of Beijing if they are returned--seems to me to be 
fundamentally unfair and not consistent with what America has learned 
about immigration. There were suspicions in World War II about all 
those people coming from Europe, and they were turned away, many of 
them to their death. We can't make that mistake again. If there is any 
suspect person, there is a way to determine that with screening, 
criminal background checks, and the like.
  So the 6,700 who are here, we were told at the hearing--I think you 
were there; it may have been a minute or two before you arrived--one of 
them is a student of Georgetown, for example, who now has a price on 
his head from the Chinese Communist Party, and the question is whether 
we are going to force him to return into imprisonment. I don't think we 
want anyone who is suspected of spying on the United States at all, but 
to dismiss all of these people as possible spies doesn't sound to me--
does it sound to you?--as consistent with who we are as a people.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. To answer the Senator from Illinois very directly, it 
is totally antithetical to the principles of democracy in the United 
States of America. It is totally abhorrent to the values of our 
constitutional Nation, and it is, frankly, absurd.
  Here we are, according to my colleague from Texas, standing up and 
being tough on China, and we are doing what? We are sending back their 
opponents so they can imprison them and kill them? That is the notion 
of being tough on China--to enable them to imprison and kill their 
political opponents?
  I ask my colleague from Texas to rethink the practical implications 
of this measure and to consider why the House of Representatives 
unanimously passed this. It doesn't lower the standards for political 
refugees coming to this country. It doesn't eliminate any security 
checks. It takes people, many of them living here already--not spies, 
by any means--and sends them back to the meat grinder of the repressive 
Chinese Communist Party. It may sound like good rhetoric to oppose this 
bill, but my colleague from Texas heard the testimony of these freedom 
fighters and why they need temporary protected status and why they 
support a safe harbor.
  So I continue to insist that this bill, like the Rubio-Menendez bill, 
protects essential American values, and I ask him to reconsider his 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.