Expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his kind words but mostly for his strong efforts in behalf of not only democracy in Hong Kong but around the world. I rise in support of H. Res. 667, which expresses the sense of this House in support of freedom and democracy and self-determination for the people of Hong Kong.

Nearly 2 million of Hong Kong's 7 million people voted yesterday and pro-democracy advocates won 25 out of the 30 seats that they were eligible to compete for. But the other half of the 60 seats in the LegCo were not elected through universal suffrage because those seats were decided by so-called functional constituencies, effectively controlled by Beijing. Many observers have compared the functional constituencies to Britain's ``rotten boroughs,'' where a handful of malleable voters held all the power.

Genuine democracy should be allowed under Beijing's oft repeated slogan of ``one country, two systems.'' It ought to be allowed because it is what the people of Hong Kong want. But at present neither Hong Kong's chief executive nor most of its lawmakers are democratically elected. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, shortly after taking power in 1997, assured this Congressman and the United States Congress that, quote, further democratic evolution will depend on the wish of the Hong Kong people. Seven years later, the People's Republic of China has not made good on that promise.

We have been here before.

Last year, the House passed H. Res. 277, responding to a direct threat against freedom in Hong Kong, a Communist-backed law designed to restrict free speech and civil liberties in the guise of punishing subversion. Just days later, more than a half million people in Hong Kong demonstrated against the proposed law. In combination with American and international outrage, this courageous demonstration of people power resulted in a tactical victory for freedom. The law so far remains shelved.

But this year Beijing has returned with a new tactic. Since it is easier simply to prevent democratic elections than it is to completely crush free speech, the Communist regime simply ruled out any possibility of democratic elections for chief executive in 2007 and for the legislature in 2008. They did this on April 6 of this year without even consulting the people of Hong Kong as is required by the basic law. This new interpretation of the basic law bars the legislature of Hong Kong from any actions towards electoral reform until Beijing has granted its blessings. Beijing then sought to ensure that what little democracy the people of Hong Kong were allowed to exercise would be severely manipulated.

These intentions became clear on May 5 of this year. On that day, just a few months ago, the People's Republic of China sailed eight PLA warships down Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong. This overt show of military force, which was the first time that this has happened since the handover in 1997, included four frigates, two submarines, two destroyers, and all the sailors standing at attention atop their vessels. The display left little doubt as to how seriously the Communist regime viewed the question of fully democratic elections and their intention not to have them.

At the same time, the People's Republic of China began a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists. As my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has described, in early May of this year Albert Cheung, a well-known radio host and columnist, was forced to flee Hong Kong after receiving threats against his life from PRC officials. Mr. Cheung left behind an audio recording. It detailed threats of violence made against him and his family. Shortly thereafter, his replacement on the show, Allen Lee, was also forced to quit broadcasting, citing the need to protect his family. He received a late-night threat by telephone from a PRC official who referred pointedly to his wife and his daughter. Media outlets in Hong Kong have been silenced through commercial pressure for supporting or even just reporting on democratic views. Chinese property developers, for instance, boycotted advertising in the Chinese language Apple

Daily newspaper for daring to report on the July 1 pro-democracy demonstrations. This industry has always been the largest ad buyer for the paper. Pro-democracy legislative candidate Alex Ho was detained under suspicious circumstances on a business trip to the mainland in early August. He was accused of consorting with a prostitute and sentenced to 6 months without a trial. According to Asian media outlets, Hong Kong media moguls who steered their outlets towards Beijing's wishes in the run-up to yesterday's elections have been rewarded with political titles and easier mainland China market access.

In mid May, numerous Hong Kong voters called in to local radio shows to report that they were pressured to vote for Beijing's preferred candidates. Several callers reported being contacted by relatives on the mainland and told that if they did not vote for pro-Beijing candidates, their relatives on the mainland would face severe consequences. Human Rights Watch has recounted in a 42-page report on September 9 that one caller reported, quote, a senior staff member of my company asked me to vote for pro-Beijing candidates instead of pro- democracy candidates. To make sure I have done that, he told me to take pictures of my completed ballot with my mobile phone camera.

As the PRC learned to counter potential freedom through the Internet, so has it learned to twist the freedom of wireless communication into just another tool of oppression. On May 19, the office of legislator Leung Yiu-chung was defaced with excrement. This vandalism closely followed Leung's support in the legislature for a pro-democracy resolution. In June, vandals set fire to election posters in the office of pro-democracy legislator Emily Lau and wrote, quote, Chinese traitors must die on the wall outside.

In July, Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption, an anticorruption body admired worldwide, became just another blunt instrument of Communist rule, raiding the offices of local newspapers, including the South China Morning Post, Apple Daily, Oriental Daily News, the Sun, and Sing Tao. Even the ostensibly pro-Communist Ta Kung Pao newspaper was not spared. Some investigators remained on the scene for up to 10 hours. Journalists' homes were searched and many were not so cordially invited for further questioning. Since the commission is answerable to Hong Kong's unelected chief executive, C.H. Tung, it is unlikely that orders came anywhere but from the top.

All these examples constitute a strange melding of criminal elements. The director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Law Yuk-kai, has said, quote, we believe the Ministry of State Security and Hong Kong triads are collaborating in this political violence and intimidation. Yet this campaign of intimidation and harassment had a goal more important than simply winning yesterday's elections. It was about the PRC making Hong Kong voters understand that supporting democratic forces carries a heavy price. Despite the very real threats from the Communist regime, the people of Hong Kong still went to the polls in record numbers and they returned a near totality of the democratically elected seats in the LegCo. The people of Hong Kong have shown that they will not be intimidated or silenced.

Stephen Vines wrote in the Hong Kong Standard on August 4, 2004, ``Those of us who work in the media have been accused of crying wolf far too often, but maybe we have not cried wolf often enough.'' According to Vines, the way to prevent such erosions of freedom is not to wait for dramatic events like editors being murdered in Russia or newspapers being forcibly closed in mainland China. ``If we need to wait for the worst before speaking out,'' he said, ``we will have waited too long.''

More than 400 academics declared in an advertisement in the Apple Daily newspaper on May 27 that, quote, in the face of autocratic and political pressure, we will not be silent. The people of Hong Kong know that they must defend their democracy and their way of life against Communist oppression. Now it is up to us to remind them that the American people stand with them.

This House demands that Beijing guarantee all revisions of Hong Kong law reflect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong as expressed through a fully democratically elected legislature and chief executive. A high degree of autonomy is what was promised to the people of Hong Kong in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong's Basic Law stipulates that Beijing has authority over defense and foreign affairs but that Hong Kong itself should have autonomy for most domestic affairs, driven by an independent electoral democracy. Beijing's attempts this year, as in the past, constitute a blatant violation of the rights of the people of Hong Kong, of the Basic Law and of the People's Republic of China's treaty obligations.

An act of this Congress, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, directly ties our commercial interests in Hong Kong to the freedom of Hong Kong's people. The President of the United States has the authority under the act to suspend many of the special treatments we extend to the territory in areas including export controls, customs, air service and cultural and educational exchange because Beijing's ham-fisted violation of the Hong Kong autonomy violates that act. The Communists were caught off guard by the massive popular demonstrations in July, both this year and last. For ages, Beijing has maintained the belief that any complaints about autonomy and democracy were really veiled economic frustrations, that the people of Hong Kong could be satisfied with some economic sweeteners. Now perhaps the Communist regime may begin to understand. Business interests can be purchased and bureaucratic machinery can be controlled, but the hearts and minds of the people of Hong Kong are not for sale.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's elections were part of a broader fight for the soul of Hong Kong and ultimately the future of China. We believe that Communist China must follow Hong Kong's example of freedom, not the other way around. Hong Kong's 7 million people remain the best hope for freedom and democracy for billions of other people in China and throughout Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 667, expressing support for democracy in Hong Kong. I would like thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), as well as the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Lantos), for sponsoring this timely and important resolution.

As my colleagues are aware, this is the seventh year after Hong Kong's reversion to China. As the Department of State noted in an April 2004 report to Congress (as mandated by the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) remains an international city whose residents continue to enjoy protections of the rule of law and broad civil liberties.

As is also well-understood, the U.S. maintains substantial economic and political interests in Hong Kong and promotes Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty. Washington works closely with the authorities in Hong Kong on a wide range of international issues, not the least of which is cooperation in the global campaign against terrorism.

Having said that, developments over the last year have raised serious concerns, in the former British colony as well as around the world, regarding Beijing's commitment to respect the ``high degree of autonomy'' it has promised Hong Kong.

From a Congressional perspective, it appears self-evident that advancing democratization and constitutional reform--including universal suffrage--would contribute to the city's political stability and economic prosperity. The authorities in Beijing should realize that a vibrant, democratic and prosperous Hong Kong would be a tremendous asset to China. Hong Kong will only become a threat if China makes it so.

Even though the Basic Law may not technically require fuller democracy by 2007-2008, wisdom as well as respect for autonomy dictates the embrace of democracy for Hong Kong. Having traveled to Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines earlier this year, all of which have held successful local and national elections, I see no reason why Hong Kong--with all its wealth and sophistication--cannot do so also.

The people of Hong Kong made plain their aspirations for greater democratic autonomy, aspirations fully within the framework of the ``one country, two systems'' formula, when they so impressively demonstrated on July 1 last year. In the aftermath of those peaceful demonstrations, the Hong Kong government appeared to listen to the people and withdrew controversial national security legislation pending additional consultations with the populace of the city. The people of Hong Kong again showed their keen interest in participatory democracy when they turned out in record numbers for District Council elections last November, and in another large and peaceful pro-democracy demonstration on July 1st of this year.

In addition, in elections held on September 12, turnout was a record 1.784 million voters (55.63 percent of registered voters). However, pro-democracy candidates, perhaps stung by scandal, managed to gain only three seats for a total of 25, a disappointing outcome since opinion polls indicated stronger results under Hong Kong's complex electoral system.

The election results notwithstanding, one has the sense that the pace of democratization in Hong Kong appears inconsistent with the desires of a majority of the Hong Kong people. Indeed, recent decisions by Beijing setting limits on constitutional development in Hong Kong appear to be inconsistent with the ``high degree of autonomy'' promised by the central authorities in the 1982 Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

Equally dismaying has been a series of incidents in Hong Kong--from several political talk show hosts complaining of apparent threats against them, the appearance of a Chinese flotilla sailing through Victoria Harbor, an attack on the office of legislator Emily Lau, and recent allegations of harassment against the print media--that many perceive to be part of a campaign of intimidation against pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong. Likewise, a new element in the September elections has been the concern of pro-democracy groups that mainland authorities were attempting to influence the outcome of the vote.

Although mainland officials insist that they continue to support the Basic Law's commitment to universal suffrage in Hong Kong, Beijing's actions indicate that the central authorities are profoundly concerned about the extension of democratic rights in the HKSAR. It is hard to know precisely why China has resisted Hong Kong's democratic aspirations, but what might be termed Beijing's ``three confusions''-- that reform might spin out of control, that democracy in Hong Kong would create a potentially destabilizing precedent for China, and a mistaken conflation of the situation in Hong Kong with the situation in Taiwan--are all possible explanations.

Whatever the reasons, they are uncompelling. One has the sense that China is moving into the world with increasing sophistication, yet maintains major misconceptions about Hong Kong.

There is also a ``fourth confusion'' which the United States itself should seek to avoid in its policy toward Hong Kong. By that, I mean America needs to find ways to strongly support the Hong Kong people's desire for democracy, electoral reform and universal suffrage without precipitating unnecessary Sino-American confrontation, damaging the interests of the people of Hong Kong or inadvertently undercutting the cause of Hong Kong's democrats.

Like Beijing, the U.S. has an enormous vested interest in the success of the ``one country, two systems'' model in Hong Kong. In this context, I believe it would be unwise and counterproductive at this time for the U.S. to review Hong Kong's treatment under the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act, as has been suggested in some quarters.

America needs to keep perspective. While the speed and scope of political change may be frustrating, Hong Kong still stands out on the Asian landscape as an enduring beacon for the rule of law and civil liberties.

I stress this because often in relations between states well- intentioned positions can be considered counterproductive. The U.S. Congress is obligated to comment on the importance of the people of Hong Kong being permitted to determine the pace and scope of constitutional developments and to move forward with democracy and electoral reform. However, we have no desire to be confrontational.

What is critical at this juncture is that all parties take credible steps to restore dialogue, build confidence, and seek compromise.

Whether the 21st Century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous will depend on whether the world's most populous country can live

with itself and become open to the world in a fair and respectful manner. Hong Kong is central to that possibility. As such, it deserves our greatest attention, respect, and good will.

Hong Kong is important unto itself; it is also a model for others. In particular, what happens there is watched with great interest by the people of Taiwan. In a globalist world where peoples everywhere are seeking a sense of community to serve as a buttress against political and economic forces beyond the control of individuals and their families, it is next to impossible to reconcile political systems based on unlike institutions and attitudes. Mutual respect for differences is the key to peace and prosperity in a world in which history suggests conflict has been a generational norm.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 667) expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 667 expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong. This resolution comes to the floor at an important time. Yesterday, the people of Hong Kong went to the polls to elect the members of their Legislative Council, and for the first time in Hong Kong's history, half of the seats in the Legislative Council were directly elected through universal suffrage.

Unfortunately, the remaining seats are still distributed among a cadre of narrow constituencies that receive disproportionate power over Hong Kong's governance. The people of Hong Kong, along with all other human beings, deserve universal suffrage and full, complete democracy. There is no city in the world that is better equipped to make the transition to self-governance.

Renowned for its open economy, transparency, and excellent rule of law, Hong Kong is widely regarded as the freest economy in the world. Hong Kong is also celebrated for its tradition of respect for civil liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.

However, despite a rich tradition of democratic values, the people of Hong Kong still lack the most basic of freedoms, the freedom to elect their own government. This year's massive pro-democracy march on July 1 attracted half a million of Hong Kong's residents. It was powerful evidence that the people of Hong Kong are interested in far more than just economic prosperity. The record voter turnout in yesterday's legislative elections was further proof that the people of Hong Kong want to participate in the political process.

The people of Hong Kong have already been promised universal suffrage in their mini-constitution, known as the ``Basic Law,'' but the document fails to outline a timetable for full democracy.

Last April, Hong Kong's legislature was robbed of its tremendous opportunity to implement complete democracy when the People's Republic of China abused its authority to reinterpret Hong Kong's ``Basic Law.'' The National People's Congress in Beijing made the decision that Hong Kong could not have universal suffrage in the election of the chief executive in 2007 and in the election of the legislature in the year 2008. This outrageous decision unacceptably interfered in Hong Kong's internal affairs, it halted the city's orderly progress toward universal suffrage and crushed the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Beijing proved yet again that it cannot be trusted to keep its commitments.

Last summer, the Chinese Communist Party tried to exert more authority over Hong Kong by pushing through anti-sedition legislation that could be used to target groups such as the Falun Gong. Thankfully, a people's power movement in Hong Kong stopped this legislation from going forward.

Last winter, the Chinese news media launched vicious attacks against pro-democracy legislators in Hong Kong, using vitriolic rhetoric that harkened back to the days of China's cultural revolution. In the spring, freedom of the press in Hong Kong was compromised when three prominent radio talk show hosts resigned from their talk shows due to intimidation and threats relating to their participation in the democracy movement.

Over the past year, there have been numerous reports of vandalism against pro-democracy legislators. Even yesterday's election was marred by accounts of voter intimidation, as is documented in a recent report published by Human Rights Watch. Such tactics show that the Chinese Communist Party continues to distort the truth, relies on intimidation to control the people, and rules by coercion. While Beijing may not have directly precipitated all of these events, they have certainly fomented the sentiment behind them.

It is my hope that the people of Hong Kong will soon realize their hope for democracy. We congratulate them on the completion of yesterday's election and call on the PRC to respect the ``one country, two systems'' model and allow the people of Hong Kong to come up with a timetable for democratic reform.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the people of Hong Kong as they work to realize their hope of real democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the principal sponsor and the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I also have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this important resolution and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well, and I would first like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for introducing this important and timely resolution. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is a fighter for human rights and democracy in Asia and throughout the world, and I am delighted to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control in 1997, some of us who cared deeply about the future of Hong Kong went to witness that event. We feared that the Chinese government would not be true to its word that the people of Hong Kong would be able to maintain their free and open way of life and that they would be free of interference from the Mainland government. My worst fears about China's intentions have now materialized.

On the surface, much about Hong Kong remains the same. The people of Hong Kong continue to play a role in the running of their economy. Just this past weekend, elections were held for half of the seats of the Legislative Council. Opposition is strong and growing in the Hong Kong legislature, and the local press often criticizes those who govern Hong Kong. But, Mr. Speaker, there are very troubling signs that the Chinese government has lost its patience with Hong Kong's independent way of life and is moving steadily to bring the people of Hong Kong under the firm grip of Beijing.

Last year, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens turned out on the streets after the Hong Kong government at the Mainland's demand attempted to erode civil liberties in the name of protecting national security. Three prominent members of the press who often criticize the Chinese government recently resigned their positions after threats were made to the safety of their families.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Chinese government recently declared that universal suffrage would not apply to the election of the chief executive in 2007 or to the election of members of the Legislative Council in 2008. Despite the solemn promise of the Sino-British Joint Declaration that democratic reform would continue in Hong Kong towards universal suffrage, the Chinese government has clearly had enough of Hong Kong's independent voices.

The Chinese leadership fights full democracy in Hong Kong for a very simple reason: they fully understand that Hong Kong would thrive and prosper under a fully democratic government. Such democratic success would make it impossible to tell the rapidly growing middle class in Shanghai, Beijing, and other cities throughout China that the Chinese people are not ready for open and free elections and that chaos would ensue should such elections occur.

Yesterday's election results from Hong Kong demonstrate clearly the need for fundamentally changing Hong Kong's electoral system. Even though Hong Kong democrats made gains in the elections, they can never win a majority in the Legislative Council because half the seats are chosen by pro-Beijing committees, not the people of Hong Kong. This situation is unacceptable.

Our resolution makes clear that the United States is deeply dissatisfied with these negative trends in Hong Kong, particularly the Chinese government's refusal to ensure that all elected officials in Hong Kong are elected by popular vote. It also calls upon the Chinese government to honor its treaty obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Mr. Speaker, it remains my modest hope that the Chinese government will recognize the error of its current approach to Hong Kong and give the people of Hong Kong the full democracy they so richly deserve. I support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the results of the elections in Hong Kong on September 12

make two things clear: The people of Hong Kong overwhelmingly support the pro-democracy movement, and the Chinese government has created an electoral system intended to ensure that that support cannot be translated into political control.

In the months leading up to the election, the Chinese government engaged in a systematic crackdown to deny the people of Hong Kong the right to choose their own leaders and to suppress freedom of expression. In April, Beijing issued a new ``interpretation'' of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which serves as the territory's constitution, to prevent direct elections of Hong Kong's next leader in 2007 and for all lawmakers in 2008. As H. Res. 667 concludes, that result is inconsistent with international agreement, and the United States should take a strong position in favor of true democracy in Hong Kong.

The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 codified the understanding of the United States that Hong Kong would have a degree of autonomy from the People's Republic of China. After reversion, it was expected that this autonomy would be a catalyst for the development in Hong Kong of political institutions and procedures that would reflect the will of the people of Hong Kong, regardless of whether they were consistent with the views of government leaders in Beijing. The PRC, however, has thwarted these efforts at every turn.

Beijing has created a climate of political fear in Hong Kong through well-documented intimidation of the media and efforts to challenge the patriotism of pro-democracy supporters. In March, three of Hong Kong's leading broadcasters had to resign their positions after receiving death threats and having their businesses vandalized because of their criticism of the Chinese government. Throughout the year, pro-democracy lawmakers and activists have also suffered threats and vandalism. Hong Kong's delegate to Beijing stepped down from his position saying he was powerless to effect change.

The Chinese government's campaign to crack down on freedom in Hong Kong will only succeed in shining a spotlight on the courage and leadership of Hong Kong's democratic movement. The United States must stand solidly with the people of Hong Kong and their desire for democracy.

Reminding Beijing of its obligations under previously-signed agreements must be our constant message. Tepid remarks by Bush Administration officials are not a sufficient response to protect the nascent democracy in Hong Kong. President Bush should not hesitate to define the U.S.-China relationship in terms of the willingness of the Chinese government to discharge the commitments contained in those agreements.

U.S. policy toward Hong Kong should be consistent with the provisions of the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that require autonomy and empower the President to halt existing agreements with Hong Kong or take other steps if he determines that Beijing is interfering unduly in Hong Kong's affairs.

H. Res. 667 conveys that message in a clear and forceful manner, and deserves the support of this House.