TODAY IN HISTORY - JULY (AUDIO ONLY)

b&w - mos - Sino-Soviet treaty - Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong - Soviet Union - USSR - China

VS FORMER VICE PRESIDENT WALTER MONDALE ADDRESSES THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION. VS OF A Q&A SESSION. MONDALE TALKS ABOUT THE PERSIAN GULF. HE CALLS IT THE MOST DANGEROUS REGION IN THE WORLD. HE SAYS POLICY IN THAT AREA MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN CONCERT WITH OUR ALLIES AND WITH MATURITY. HE SCORES THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION POLICY IN CENTRAL AMERICA. HE SAYS THE US SHOULD SUPPORT DEMOCRACIES IN THE REGION, SUCH AS ARGENTINA AND PERU. HE TALKS ABOUT SINO / AMERICAN RELATIONS. HE SAYS RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA SHOULD BE NURTURED. HE SAYS TAIWAN IS A NON-ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS PROSPEROUS AND SECURE. HE TALKS ABOUT RECOGNITION OF CUBA. MONDALE ANALYZES THE NO FIRST USE DOCTRINE OF THE NATO (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION) ALLIES. HE COMMENTS ON US / SOVIET RELATION AND THE NEED FOR SUMMITRY. CI: PERSONALITIES: MONDALE, WALTER. POLITICS: CAMPAIGNS, PRESIDENTIAL, 1984.

TAPE: EF01/0373 IN_TIME: 22:11:53 DURATION: 2:03 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Moscow - April 29, 2001 SHOTLIST: 1. Exterior, House of Receptions, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs exteriors 2. Wide shot , Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan coming into hall 3. Cutaway photographer 4. Wide shot talks 5. Close shot, Ivanov 6. Wide shot, Chinese delegation 7. Close shot, Tang Jiaxuan 8. Mid shot, Russian officials 9. Mid shot, Chinese delegation 10. Wide shot, exterior of Kremlin 11. Pan President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Tang 12. Cutaway, Russian officials 13. Wide shot, talks 14. Cutaway, press 15. Mid shot, Tang 16. Mid shot, Putin 17. SOUNDBITE: (Russian) Vladimir Putin, Russian President "We practically have no problems to overshadow our bilateral relations. On the contrary, the relations between our two countries develop intensively and positively." 18. Mid shot, Tang 19. Wide shot, talks STORYLINE: Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan to the Kremlin on Sunday for a high-profile meeting underlining the burgeoning ties between Moscow and Beijing. Tang arrived in Moscow on Friday for a foreign ministers' meeting of the Shanghai Five, comprising Russia, China and three Central Asian countries. Earlier on Sunday he met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who noted that Putin would visit China twice in 2001 and that Chinese President Jiang Zemin was expected to travel to Russia this year, as well. Sino-Russian relations have improved dramatically in recent years following decades of Soviet-era rivalry for dominance in the Communist world. Russia and China have declared a "strategic partnership" and opposition what they describe as a "unipolar world," their term for what the two governments perceive as U.S. global domination. Tang and Ivanov were expected to put the finishing touches on a new, 10-year friendship treaty to be signed by the two countries' presidents this summer. China has become the No. 1 customer for Russia's ailing defense industries, purchasing billions of dollars worth of jets, missiles, submarines and destroyers. But the relationship is not free of tensions. A Siberian physicist, Valentin Danilov, was arrested earlier this year for allegedly illegally selling research materials to a Chinese import-export company. He faces charges of state treason, according to Russian media. Russia and China have tried to increase their influence in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Beijing and Moscow have cooperated in the Shanghai Five grouping, which also includes Kyrgyzstan, Kazakstan and Tajikistan. Tang Jiaxuan will wrap up his visit to Russia with a one-day stopover in St.Petersburg.

NOTES: COL PRINT LOCATION: TEHRAN, IRAN TITLE: HUA PALACE SERVICED DATE: 08/31/78 NO: LNC 96181 DATE SHOT: 08/30/78 LENGTH: 48FT SECONDS: 1.17 SOUND: NATURAL SOUND DATE OF ARRIVAL: FILM SHOWS: CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY CHAIRMAN HUA KUO FENG ARRIVES FOR TALKS WITH SHAH OF IRAN IN TEHRAN. LEAD IN: CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY CHAIRMAN HUA KUO FENG WOUND UP HIS TALKS WITH THE SHAH OF IRAN ON THUESDAY (31/8/78). IT WAS THE SECOND FORMAL MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO HEADS OF STATE, AT WHICH THEY DISCUSSED SECURITY IN THE PERSIAN GULF. ACCORDING TO DIPLOMATIC SOURCES, THE TWO MEN ALSO DISCUSSED GENERAL POLITICAL PROBLEMS IN THE AREA, AND EXPLORED THE POSSIBILITIES OF CLOSER COOPERATION. THE TEHRAN TALKS ROUNDED OFF WHAT THE CHINESE SEE AS A HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL SWING THROUGH BALKAN EUROPE; THE FIRST SINCE MAO'S TRIP TO MOSCOW IN 1957. THE IRAN VISIT ALSO MARKED THE FIRST OCCASION THAT A CHINESE HEAD OF STATE HAS VISITED A NON-COMMUNIST COUNTRY. THE SHAH ARRIVED IN TEHRAN ON TUESDAY (29/08/78) AFTER VISITS TO RUMANIA AND YUGOSLAVIA. IN BOTH COUNTRIES, HE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A SWIPE AT MOSCOW'S POLICIES IN THE NON-ALIGNED WORLD, AND THEIR DANGER TO WORLD PEACE. FEET R/SECS 2 0.03 GV CAR ARRIVES 21 0.34 MS SHAH & FARAH GREET HUA; PAN PRESS 26 0.42 MS PARTY UP STEPS 30 0.48 CU CHANDELIER: TILT TO FLOWERS 38 1.01 MS HUA & DELEGATION; ZOOM IN HUA 44 1.10 MCU SHAH 48 1.17 GV CONFERENCE TABLE COMMENTARY: BUT THE VISIT TO TEHRAN HAS SEEN MORE ACCENT ON PRACTICAL POLITICS, AS HUA GAINED AN INSIGHT INTO THE PROBLEMS OF THE PERSIAN GULF. BOTH IRAN AND CHINA SHARE THE OPINION THAT SECURITY IN THE REGION SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES BORDERING THE GULF AND THE INDIAN OCEAN DIPLOMATIC SOURCES SAY THE IRANIANS HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE RECENT SIGNING OF A SINO-JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP TREATY - WHICH MOSCOW SAYS IS DIRECTED AGAINST IT. THE IRANIANS PLANNED TO DISCUSS THE TREATY IN SOME DETAIL WITH HUA; BUT NO OFFICIAL STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON ON THE SUBJECT. CHINA AND IRAN HAVE, HOWEVER, SIGNED CULTURAL COOPERATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND TECHINCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS. AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT FURTHER CONTACT CONTACTS WILL BE CULTIVATED TO ENCOURAGE TRADE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. TEHRAN GAVE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE PUBLICITY TO THE VISIT - A SIGNIFICANT MOVE, BEARING IN THE MIND THE ATTITUDE OF THE SOVIET UNION - IRAN'S NORTHERN NEIGHBOUR. MOSCOW HAS RECENTLY BEEN ACCUSING PEKINS OF "WOOING" IRAN....THE SOVIET INTERPRETATION IS THAT CHINA WANTS ACCESS TO IRAN'S WARM WATER PORTS AND HER OIL WEALTH. THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR IN IRAN DID NOT ATTEND A SCHEDULED MEETING BETWEEN HUA AND AMBASSADORS IN IRAN; ENVOY VLADIMIR VINOGRADOV WAS OUT OF TOWN AT THE TIME.

FS6 SEN JUDICIARY HONG KONG HRG 1400 CSPAN Supporting Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Movement Through U.S. Refugee Policy DATE: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 TIME: 02:00 PM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room G50 PRESIDING: Chairman Cornyn SUBCOMMITTEE: Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration WITNESSES: Panel I The Honorable Marco Rubio United States Senator State of Florida The Honorable Robert Menendez United States Senator State of New Jersey Panel II Professor Julian G. Ku Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law Hofstra University School of Law Hempstead , NY Ms. Joey Siu Associate Hong Kong Watch Mr. Samuel M. Chu Managing Director Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) Washington , DC Mr. Nathan Law Former Member Legislative Council of Hong Kong London , United Kingdom Ms. Jenny Yang Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy World Relief Baltimore , MD CORNYN: Good afternoon and welcome. The topic of today's hearing is one that I believe all members should be concerned about, all American, all freedom-loving people should be concerned about, and that is the Chinese Communist Party's continued encroachment on the fundamental rights of the people of Hong Kong. In 1984 China and Great Britain agreed that when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty, it would maintain a great deal of latitude and autonomy. The people of Hong Kong were promised freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, association, travel, and religion. That was the deal struck in 1984. The U.S. affirmed that understanding when we passed the United States Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 with bipartisan support. That act recognized that China would exercise sovereignty over Hong Kong but that under a one country two systems framework Hong Kong would retain its current legal, social, and economic systems for at least 50 years. In fact, we said in that legislation that we must safeguard human rights in and of themselves. I would be remiss if I didn't note by the way that our current Majority Leader was the sponsor of that legislation and her colleague, the incoming chairman perhaps of this Judiciary Committee cosponsored it, Chairman Grassley. Over the last six years, in particular, China has reneged on that deal as they struck--that they struck in order to gain sovereignty over Hong Kong. Where I come from, when you make a deal, you sign the agreement you stick to it. China hasn't only gone back on the deal; they have used violence, suppression, and intimidation to chip away at the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. In 2014 the National People's Congress Standing Committee issued a decision that effectively empowered China to screen candidates and limit eligibility for the position of chief executive of Hong Kong to pro-Beijing candidates. When the people exercised their rights and took to the streets to protest this encroachment on their rights, the Hong Kong police force used tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray to force them into submission. Last year an extradition bill was introduced in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong that would have subjected Hong Kong residents to mainland China's opaque criminal justice system. Millions took to the streets in protest, and a Chinese government once again responded with aggressive and brutal tactics. In 2020 the National People's Congress Standing Committee passed the national security law for Hong Kong, which criminalizes secession, subversion, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security. Here's an example of what Beijing considers inciting succession-secession; a 19-year-old girl was arrested for waving a flag emblazoned with the words Hong Kong independents; a 19-year-old man was arrested for possession of stickers printed with the slogan restore Hong Kong revolution of our times. In the United States, we recognize that as free speech and it is fundamentally--fundamental to any free People's way of life but unfortunately just when you think things couldn't go worse they do. Last month the Hong Kong police launched a hotline for people to anonymously report national security law violations. The National People's Congress Standing Committee recently disqualified four members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council for supporting Hong Kong's independence, 15 other legislative council members resigned in protest, leaving the legislative counsel completely dominated by the pro-Beijing voting block. And just days ago, pro-democracy activist and media tycoon Jimmy Lai was charged under the national security law for purportedly colluding with foreign forces and endangering national security. He faces a maximum punishment of life imprisonment for exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Hong Kong, without question, no longer enjoys the autonomy and freedom that China promised it would hold for 50 years. It is imperative that we remember the statement made in the United States Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 we must safeguard human rights in and of themselves. We have done some good work in the 116 Congress to address the Chinese Communist Party's actions. I was proud to co-sponsor legislation to ban the export of crowd control equipment to the Hong Kong police force. A Hong Kong Autonomy Act which passed the Senate by unanimous consent authorize the U.S. government to impose sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials and financial institutions that serve them. But this obviously is not enough; the situation is getting worse, so we are here today to discuss deploying another tool in our toolbox, U.S. refugee and immigration policy. Several members of this body have introduced legislation to extend protection to Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists under our immigration laws. Today, Senators Rubio and Menendez will speak to us about their bill Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. The Ranking Member and I are proud to be cosponsors of that legislation, and I believe it would extend a vital lifeline to the people of Hong Kong who are standing up for their basic liberties against the oppressive communist regime. We have a lot of important work to do in this area, however, and I want to recognize the effort of other colleagues in this area. Our colleague Senator Sasse introduced Hong Kong Victims of Communism Support Act, which would pave the way for Hong Kong activists to be more easily claim asylum in the United States. Senator Cotton introduced the Hong Kong Refugee Protection Act and the House just this last week passed the Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act. To help us think through the decisions we need to make, we have two experts who could speak to the implications of offering refugee status to these demonstrators and these activists and place this legislation in the greater context of the U.S. government's policies in this area, but most importantly I am pleased to welcome these activists who have risked their lives to promote liberty and democracy in Hong Kong, and I hope through their testimony we will gain a better understanding of the threats that demonstrators face to their freedom and what the impact of a pro-democracy movement would be if we decide to act. So thank you to all of the witnesses for coming and with that I will turn it forward to the Ranking Member for any opening--opening remarks. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The free world has been moved by the courage of the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong in the face of increased repression and Chinese government meddling; it is appalling that thousands of protesters in Hong Kong have been persecuted for fighting for liberties that Americans enjoy. The national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese Communist Party has enabled the ruthless abuse of protesters, political leaders, journalists, and teachers. Despite its name, the national security law is not about security but fear, fear of the voices in Hong Kong calling for reform, democracy, and freedom. I will continue to push the leadership of China to respect democracy. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my feelings about the crisis in Hong Kong; the question is, what are we going to do about it. As I've said many times, the Judiciary Committee should be about legislation, not lamentation. I was proud to co-sponsor the bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which became law last year. This legislation produced by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requires sanctions against officials responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong, sends an important message of bipartisan support from Congress to those who are aspiring dem--democracy in Hong Kong, but what about the Judiciary Committee? I am proud to cosponsor the Rubio-Menendez Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act granting refugee status to Hong Kong residents at risk of persecution. That bill was introduced six months ago and referred to this committee. Why aren't we taking action on it? Last week the House of Representatives passed related legislation, the bipartisan Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act, which would grant TPS to Hong Kong residents currently in the U.S. and provide refugee status to Hong Kongers facing persecution. We could take up this legislation today, today on the floor of this Senate and send it to the president's desk to be signed into law. We can't ignore the reality that when we speak of refugees, the policy of the Trump administration on refugees is dramatic--a dramatic departure from what we have done since World War II. Since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980 for example, the United States has resettled an average of 80,000 refugees per year; however, in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world, the Trump administration has set record low refugee admission targets four years in a row culminating in the lowest level of refugees in history, 15,000. How many refugees has the United States admitted from Hong Kong in the last year? DURBIN: Zero. Not one. The Trump administration has also dem--decimated legal protections for Hong Kongers another innocent victims of persecution hopefully our--to our borders. For example, under a new rule issued last week, Hong Kongers could be denied asylum if they transit other countries on their way to the United States, if their prosecutors detain them for only brief periods, or if their persecutors we're not able to carry out the threats before the asylum seeker fled to the United States. The administration's reactions do not evidence support for the Hong Kong democracy movement. They only punish innocent victims of persecution who pose no threat to our security and have turned to America for safety. We must reverse refugee and asylum restrictions that harm those who've been persecuted. We must restore America's statue as a beacon for those fleeing persecution whether they are from Hong Kong, Uyghurs, Syrians, Venezuelans, or Rohingya. America is stronger when we live up to the ideals we represent to the world. I yield. CORNYN: I'd now like to welcome our friends and colleagues, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. Thank you both for joining us today and we look forward to your testimony and any insight you can offer the committee. We'll start with Senator Rubio. RUBIO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member for convening what I think is it very important hearing today and for inviting us both to be part of the opening remarks. Of course, we want to begin by thanking my colleague Senator Menendez. We worked on a lot of legislation together, particularly to counter the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party, including most recently introducing the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act, which we'll talk about today. There's no need to revisit. I think the--both of the entire committee, everyone here is well aware of what Beijing did back in June when they imposed this draconian so-called national security law on Hong Kong. And since then, the authorities have arrested a number of activists. They've even sentenced some of them to prison, including 24-year-old pro-democracy activist Agnes Chow. Last month, Joshua Wong was also sentenced to prison on completely ridiculous charges related to his participation in what they call last year's unlawful protests. Since Xi Jinping took control of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012, they have continuously and consistently encroached on Hong Kong's autonomy, increasingly every single year. But in the last three years, this gradual encroachment accelerated into what is now a full-fledged campaign to crush Hong Kong's long cherished freedoms and autonomy. In August, we woke up to the tragic news The Chinese authorities had detained 12 Hong Kongers who were fleeing the city by boat. They had been held at a detention facility in the mainland not in Hong Kong, in the mainland ever since. They've been repeatedly denied access to legal counsel hired by their families to defend them. After four months of detention, these twelve young people were formally charged earlier today with illegal border crossing. That was the charge. This is unheard of, by the way. You know, boat people, people leaving on boats from Hong Kong, a prosperous place. But it goes to show the circumstances are now so desperate that young people are literally risking their lives to take to the sea and flee. In October, authorities arrested 19 year old student leader Tony Chung on "national security charges" which were based on his political expression such as online activism and discussing Hong Kong independence with his fellow students. Discussing it with his fellow students. In other words, they arrested him on thought crimes. And just last week, media mogul and veteran democracy activist Jimmy Lai was charged under the national security law. The Chinese Communist Party has tried for years to silence his Apple Daily, one of Hong Kong's few remaining media outlets that still publish pro-democracy pieces instead of the pro-Beijing propaganda. So it goes without saying all this--in all of these things, the Chinese Communist Party has violated the commitment it made to Hong Kong's autonomy. Effectively, they have shredded Hong Kong's basic law and the Sino--Sino-British joint declaration. The demands of those in Hong Kong are reasonable demands. There are demands that--that China live up to the things that it said it would respect, the framework of one country two systems, which I might add, was that framework that they created themselves back in the 1980s. I--but I think we all know what to expect and will see in the months and years to come. More broken promises and an underlying effort to crush anything it perceives as threatening, which brings us of course to our proposal, which Senator Menendez will talk about as well. And I just say that I'm under no illusion that it will help every single Hong Konger who is in need. But I also know it's not enough to simply tweet out the hashtag standwithhongkong. We welcome it, but it's not enough. And we certainly can't let our inability to help everyone put us in a position of failing to help anyone. Assisting Hong Kongers or seeking who are seeking refuge is not only the morally right thing to do, but it's also in our national security interest for I deeply believe that Hong Kong is in the front lines of a much larger struggle. It is the broader struggle between authoritarianism and democracy and in that struggle, I hope none of us will be bashful or shy away from saying clearly that democracy is morally superior to authoritarianism. It's for these reasons that Senator Menendez and I filed this bill, the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act--Harbor Act. It would do three things. It would designate Hong Kongers as priority two refugees, which would streamline their admission process. It would also help those in Hong Kong who are in immediate --in immediate danger to apply for asylum and it does outline a set of criteria to be eligible for the status, which I think is important, particularly for individuals such as frontline activists, journalists who cover the protests, first aid responders at the protests, lawyers who provided legal services. All these folks are now in danger. I would close by saying Congress has already taking has already taken clear stance in defense of Hong Kong by passing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which the president signed into law. But I think more needs to be done and I believe what has happened here wake up call to the free world that we must work together to counter the threats of the Chinese Communist Party to freedom worldwide. And for us, I think that starts by doing what we can to assist those in Hong Kong who are in need of protection. So I thank you again for convening these earrings and I look forward to our continued partnership on this timely issue. CORNYN: Thank you, Senator Rubio. Senator Menendez. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Chairman Cornyn and Ranking Member Durbin for calling this hearing. It shows the world that even in the midst of a pandemic and significant budgetary issues that we face that we still pay attention to what is happening in the world, that we can still be a beacon of light to those who pursue democracy and human rights. I want to thank you for doing that in the midst of everything that we're going on through here. We also want to thank you for your co-sponsorship. It's significant in our efforts. And I appreciate the invitation to speak to the Judiciary Committee on the legislation that my dear friend and colleague from Florida and I have introduced regarding the crisis in Hong Kong prompted by Beijing's unilateral adoption of national security legislation this past summer. And the urgent need for the United States to provide refugee status for Hong Kongers who have been persecuted for simply wanting their freedom. As a Cuban American, this issue is one that is close to my heart. As I will understand what it means to have friends and families whose hopes and aspirations for freedom are crushed by a communist dictatorship and the importance of the United States as a safe haven to those fearing persecution. It's no small moment of--in history that two Cuban Americans are before this committee urging you to do something to the people of Hong Kong. It's critical that Congress makes clear to the people of Hong Kong that we stand with them and to make clear to China's leaders that there are consequences for their decisions to impose its security law on Hong Kong, to violate their international agreements and for their decision to end Hong Kong's long cherished autonomy. Years ago, as the chairman pointed out, China made a promise to the international community and to the people of Hong Kong that they would enjoy certain freedoms of speech and assembly, a Free Press, an independent judiciary, and could freely elect their own leaders guarantees that have ensured Hong Kong stability and prosperity. China has now reneged on its promises. Its undertaking a comprehensive assault on the city's autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the basic law and the Sino-British declaration. Beijing now seems set on its decision to bring an end to one country two systems and with it, an undertaking a concerted assault on Hong Kong's democracy activists, human rights activists, journalists, and other everyday Hong Kong citizens on trumped up charges of sedition and national security violations. Given these new realities, it's critical for the United States to stand with the people of Hong Kong. MENENDEZ: We must stand up and make it clear that we are willing and committed to helping Hong Kongers preserve their society at home if they can and to provide refuge for those who face persecution for exercising their rights guaranteed under the joint declaration. We must make clear to the Chinese Communist Party that we stand resolutely with Hong Kong and its residents, and we will ensure they don't fall through the cracks of our broken immigration system if they are forced to flee for standing up for their fundamental human rights. Offering a safe haven through the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act to the people of Hong Kong who have tire--tirelessly fought against tyranny is crucial to demonstrate unequivocally that the United States will not abandon those standing up for human rights. We cannot and must not be silent in the face of flagrant attacks on the freedoms will cherish and deserve, and we certainly can't slam the door in the face of Hong Kongers seeking refuge. Now, I know that many of my colleagues are concerned that, if we provide Hong Kongers eligibility for a priority to refugee status, we may also need to provide similar status for others facing political or human--or humanitarian crisis's elsewhere in the world, starting with their own hemisphere. But for decades, America led the world in humanitarian policies by creating a sanctuary for the oppressed and admitting more refugees annually than all of the countries combined. But it's no secret that, for the past four years under the Trump administration, issues relating to refugees and to immigration have been politically charged, and that the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States has been lowered by some 80 percent, dropping to a record low of 15,000 for 2021. America is currently shutting out the most vulnerable. And to me, that is disgraceful. But we must not forget that our founders had a vision of our nation as a beacon of hope for the oppressor of the world. They enunciated that vision not just because it was right, but because they recognized that in doing so we made our nation stronger. I hope my colleagues recognize that our American values demand we take action when people's lives are in danger, and that is what truly makes America great. Putting the larger debate aside, I also believe that, while we cannot provide assistance to everyone everywhere, that does not mean we should not provide it to anyone anywhere. We must seek to meet our moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong, and this bill is in keeping with that vision. So, I urge the committee to report out the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act to make clear to the people of Hong Kong that we stand with them, that we are all Hong Kongers, and that the cost for China's actions in Hong Kong will be high. China's opportunistic, always pressing for openings to advance its agenda. And while China's authoritarianism and repression has mounted against its own people in Hong Kong, in Xinjiang, in Tibet, the United States has all too often signal to Chinese leaders but they could act with impunity. That is precisely the wrong signal to send and the wrong approach for our nation to take with regards to Hong Kong. Our approach must be tough-minded, undergirded by the bipartisan commitment to Hong Kong's autonomy and to the people which has prevailed for decades. We need a broad new bipartisan strategy on China that will serve us for decades to come. In that, we'll probably hope we can work together in the next Congress. But time does not stand still. We have an opportunity to act in the urgent short-term and take a decisive step that does right by the people of Hong Kong even as we push our broader efforts to counter China's drive towards a more closed and illiberal future. I think this is incredibly important, not just for the people of Hong Kong, Mr. Chairman, but also for our continuing challenge to confront and to compete with China. And it is a relatively small step, but it is a powerful message not just to the people of Hong Kong but beyond. Thank you so much for this opportunity and for your courtesy. CORNYN: Thank you, Senator Menendez. We'll now turn to the next panel of witnesses that I'll introduce now and as they take their seat. The first witness is Julian Ku, the Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at Hofstra University School of Law. He's an expert in the relationship of international law to constitutional law and the law governing U.S. foreign relations. He has published on China's relationship with international law. Prior to joining the Hofstra University Law school faculty, Professor Ku was--served as a clerk to the Honorable Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and as an Olin Fellow and Lecturer at Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He's a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School. Joey Siu is a Hong Kongese American student activist and associate of Hong Kong Watch, and advisor to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. She's participated actively in Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement through organizing local grassroots campaigns and through her international efficacy for Hong Kong. As an advocate for the people of Hong Kong, she's testified before the U.S. Congress, spoken at the UK Parliament and the United Nations in Geneva, and has delivered briefings on the European Union delegation office--at the European Union delegation office at the United Nations. Samuel Chu is the founding and managing director of Hong Kong Democracy Council, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting Hong Kong's basic freedoms, autonomy in the rule of law. On July 31st, 2020, Chinese state media reported that the Hong Kong authorities had issued arrest warrants against him under the new national security law, making him the first foreign and American citizen to be so targeted. Mr. Chu is the son of Reverend Chu Yiu-Ming, a leading pro-demo--democracy, who co-led an underground operation that rescued dissidents who participate in the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989. Nathan Law is a Hong Kong activist and former member of the legislative council of Hong Kong. Mr. Law pressed--participated in the umbrella movement of 2014. And in 2016, Mr. Law and the other student leaders founded Demosisto. He was elected to the elect--legislative council of Hong Kong as the youngest legislative counselor in the body's history in 2016. He was disqualified after he was found to have improperly taken his swearing in oath. Mr. Law was later jailed for his participation in the umbrella movement. He's currently in exile and based in London, and has also been targeted under the national security law. Our final witness is Jenny Yang, senior vice president of advocacy and policy at World Relief, where she provides oversight for all of the World Relief's advocacy initiatives and policy positions, as well as leading public relations efforts and managing the World Relief refugee caseload. She has more than a decade of experience in refugee protection, immigration policy, and human rights, and has been on an active deployment roster for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Ms. Yang is currently co-chair of the Advocacy Committee of Refugee Council USA and is author of the book Welcoming the Stranger, Justice, Compassion, and Truth in the Immigration Debate. I'd asked the witnesses, please come forward and take your seat in a socially distanced manner. We're--try to keep everybody safe, and I am confident we will, but we're eager to hear from you. Let me first ask you to stand and raise your right hand. Do each of you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? WITNESSES: (OFF-MIC) CORNYN: Thank you. We'll start with Professor Ku with his opening statement, please. KU: Okay. Thank you very much, Senator. I want to thank the--Senator Cornyn and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for inviting me to participate in today's really important hearing. I thought what I would do is--I have longer comments I've submitted for the record, but I'll talk more about some of the details of, one, the national security law and the reasons why it is a real problem and why it violates the guarantees that China made in 1984 and under the basic law, and then also to talk a little bit about Congress's response and the U.S. government's response to some of the gaps in its response and why a refugee act or action on refugee law would be really important in--in fleshing out the response of the U.S. government. So, with respect to the national security law, one thing to keep in mind that I--building on the comments people have--senators have already made, one real problem with it is that--that's unique about the national security law, it was that it was adopted and implemented not by the government of Hong Kong, by the National People's Congress, China's top legislature. This is a clear violation of a just and legal process and lawmaking process of the promises made under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and international treaty between the United Kingdom and China, and the process or under the basic law that's sort of serves as a mini Constitution for Hong Kong. KU: So the process is already a problem, and then the substance of the law as it was read and discussed is very problematic. It's--creates at least four new crimes which seriously endanger the ability of Hong Kongers to enjoy the rights and freedoms that they were guaranteed under the joint declaration. I'm not going to provide a comprehensive analysis, but I will just mention a couple of them that are problematic, unusually problematic. The depth--the laws definition of subversion and collusion with foreign actors is very broad, it is vague enough to encompass mere speech that is found to quote, "Seriously interfere or provoke hatred toward the Chinese or Hong Kong governments." This is, for instance, really dramatically different from the laws in the United States, which require an act not just speech but an imminent lawless action that would trigger--that would be triggered by the speech before there could be any criminal consequences and I will add the extraterritorial scope of the national security law which purports to criminalize actions by people anywhere in the world of any nationality. It means that any of us, including me, could be charged with violating the national security laws simply by testifying here today. An impact of the national security law is not the number of people who have been charged but the knowledge that in Hong Kong, almost anyone can be charged and detained under its extremely broad and expansive definitions. This has really chilled speech and actions by those in Hong Kong who might seek to advocate for Hong Kong's autonomy and freedom, and that is, of course, the intent of this externally imposed, you know, vaguely defined national security law, so I am sure my co-panelist will describe some of that today. Now let me talk about the U.S. response, which has been very vigorous and as many mentioned, the Trump administration has acted, the Congress has acted with passing new--the Hong Kong Human Rights And Democracy Act and the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, and President Trump has implemented Congress' recommendations or requirements under those laws and while I support all of those laws and the way in which they have been executed by think it is fair to say that we can assess it is not enough and if the goal of U.S. policy is to either deter the Chinese government from taking away Hong Kong's freedom and autonomy or to reverse the actions they have already taken we can say that those laws have not had that effect right now. And it is, for this reason, I think the United States needs to start planning for what, unfortunately, is going to be the long game. Hong Kong's freedom is not going to be restored next week for even next year and even under no matter how many sanctions are adopted by the United States. The U.S. needs to work to provide a safe harbor for those Hong Kongers who suffer the negative consequences of exercising their rights and freedoms that this Congress has encouraged them to exercise not just because it's a humanitarian gesture because it is in the national security interest of the United States as Senators Rubio and Menendez have both mentioned, and I think it's important to also put in context that it is important that the United States acts even though other countries might act as well so while the United Kingdom has offered residents rights to holders of British national overseas passport that approach doesn't target relief toward people who have actually exercised or protested the Hong Kong or Chinese governments. So people who might have protested the Hong Kong government may not be eligible for this relief that they get in Britain and so that in other words, that is almost too broad; it covers people who may not even be in support of the Hong Kong democracy and autonomy. The safe harbor law and some of the laws the United--the other laws this Congress is considering would target the relief toward those Hong Kongers who have suffered political persecution or have a well-founded fear of political persecution by the Chinese or Hong Kong governments, and it would give protection for those individuals, for those individuals who stood up for who are in danger of political persecution, not a blank check to anyone from Hong Kong who wants to come to the United States. It is also important that the United States act not just because it really sets a standard for other countries. It is very hard these days for countries to stand up to China without receiving significant blowback. Australia is currently locked in a separate dispute where China is coercing it economically. Canada has been beaten up for its actions in extradite--trying to extradite someone to the United States, a Chinese national. If the United States acts, it will allow those countries a little bit of important cover before they take similar measures that would also help Hong Kong. Let me just conclude by saying this Congress has made clear that a free and autonomous Hong Kong is in the national interest of the United States, but there are no silver policy bullets that are going to achieve this outcome, so Hong Kong is not going to be restored to its past glory any time soon, but it is essential that those who have stood up for Hong Kong for its autonomy and freedoms are given the opportunity to keep fighting. The safe harbor act and laws like it is a key step toward keeping alive the hopes of restoring one day a free and autonomous Hong Kong. Thank you. CORNYN: Thank you, professor. All of your written statements will be made part of the record without objection, and we will turn to Joey Siu for her opening statement. If you all would try to keep that to about five minutes and then we will have time for questions. I know we have votes this afternoon, so we are trying to get this done as thoroughly as we can in the shortest period of time as we can. SIU: Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. I was born in North Carolina and moved to Hong Kong at a young age. In a city I also call home there are my family, my friends, and millions of humble, hard-working people. Last December, I testified here before the House Committee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation on Hong Kong's human rights challenges. At that time, Hong Kongers were processing the trauma of the tragic sieges of universities and celebrated a landslide victory in the District Council election. A year later the situation worsened. The Legislative Council election was canceled, Democratic lawmakers have been disqualified and the newly imposed national security law, criminal license, even the most trivial forms of protesting. By speaking to you here today it is likely that I will also cross a line and become a criminal for saying something that threatens the Chinese Communist Party. Since the implementation of the national security law, 40 Hong Kongers have been arrested under it, including media tycoon Jimmy Lai, activist Agnes Chow and the youngest among them Jenni Ho (SP), a 17-year-old student who now faces between 10 years to life in prison under the fake charges of (INAUDIBLE) of state. The legislation also empowers the chief executive of Hong Kong to designate judges that will handle the cases, and that international security department of Hong Kong itself could also (INAUDIBLE) U.S. government to exercise jurisdiction over cases considered to be complex or serious. This is a fatal blow to Hong Kong's once-independent judiciary, and the Hong Kong government will more frequently exercise these options to avoid judges from rightfully dismissing the most ridiculous charges against protesters. Under the haze of the law and fearing extradition to mainland China Hong Kong protesters are in desperate need to escape from the Chinese communist regime. Among them are the 12 Hong Kongers who were captured by the Chinese authorities while trying to escape to by--by a speedboat to Taiwan. As a U.S. citizen, I am privileged enough to be protected by the U.S. government and can always come home; however, many of my friends and many of those who actually stood on the front line to defend the city's freedom and democracy are not. The United States must not ignore their plight, and we should be joining our closest allies to help Hong Kongers. My organization, Hong Kong Watch, has been working with different countries for a global lifeboat(PH) (INAUDIBLE). In July, this year the UK announced its new policy to provide a pathway to citizenship for British national overseas passport holders from Hong Kong. Also, Australia and Canada declared to offer help to Hong Kongers providing new extended visa options to mainly students and skilled workers, allowing them to remain in the country and eventually to permanent residency. However, people will still fall the gaps in these policies. The (INAUDIBLE) policy does little to help those who were born out of the hangover(SP) in 1997. The young talent schemes require top qualifications and the level of funding, which will exclude some of the most politically exposed protesters in Hong Kong. These decent young Hong Kongers with many virtues are at the most risk of being charged under the national security law as they drove the protest over 2019. Hong Kongers have learned hard lessons from failing to understand the Chinese Communist Party, and the United States cannot afford to make the same mistakes. With limited time left in this Congress, it is important for us to highlight necessary measures to address the problems of getting Hong Kongers out of Hong Kong safely. First, the U.S. should lift foreign refugee capacity for Hong Kongers and expedite refugee processing. The U.S. refugee processing system provides a rigorous filter for applicants, and that this pathway should be more open to Hong Kongers with well-founded fear of persecution. Second, the most at-risk Hong Kongers, including journalist, first-aid responders, organizers, and also those who are already facing protest-related charges, need to get away from Hong Kong quickly and cannot wait for refugee processing. The bar for them to come to the states should be lowered and we should get them out of Hong Kong safely first and then to find a right way to offer them a safe harbor. Third, many Hong Kongers are now living abroad in exile including here in the States. Assistance and solution to the legal limbo such as a temporary protective status should be considered. And aside from the legislative approach, the Congress should also encourage this administration and the next to exercise considerable powers of the executive branch. The administration can develop power (PH) programs such as with the Cuban medical professional power program to channel those at risk to the U.S. when they have left Hong Kong safely. As the Chinese Communist Party readily gradually takes complete control of over Hong Kong and extends its claws to our international allies, U.S. leadership and leading global actions to support Hong Kong has never been more important. A clearer message has to be sent to Beijing then America will always stand with the freedom fighters who are standing on the front lines to defend our shared values. Last but not least, I would like to take this precious opportunity to again call for attention on the 12 Hong Kongers who have been held in detention in mainland China for more than 115 days now. America's continuous attention and assistance to Hong Kongers is much needed. God Bless America and God bless Hong Kong. Thank you. CORNYN: Thank you very much. Mr. Chu. CHU: Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman--Thank you, Chairman Cornyn and Ranking Member Durbin and members of the committee for organizing this timely and urgent hearing today and for the opportunity to contribute to this committee's work in supporting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. On the evening of July 30th, I fell asleep watching reruns of Law and Order. The next morning, I woke up a fugitive. Chinese state television had reported overnight that Hong Kong authorities issue arrest warrants for six pro-democracy activists overseas. I was one of the six. My alleged crimes in citing successions including with foreign powers. Both part of the national security law imposed on June 30th this year. Both crimes are punishable for up to life in prison. It doesn't matter that I've been an American citizen for 25 years, having left Hong Kong in 1990 to live in the United States. My surprising status as a wanted fugitive, and I consider it a badge of honor, illustrated the imminent threats to freedom posed by China. Yet, because I reside in the U.S., my fate pales in comparison to those of the thousands of freedom loving Hong Kongers facing the very real prospect of years behind bars today. Hong Kong has fallen. It's gone from being the freest city in China to a quasi-police state where someone like Jimmy Lai could be charged a crime for simply following that Taiwanese President Tsai on Twitter or coming to D.C. joining me for a meeting with members of Congress on the Hill as we learn from the charges that is levied against him last week. My own personal coming to America story has a unique connection to this hearing today. Just over 30 years ago, my father, the Reverend Chu Yiu-Ming helped build the Underground Railroad, codenamed Operation Yellow Birds that rescued hundreds of protesters who participated in Tiananmen Square protest in '89. They were smuggled out of the mainland and found safe harbor in Hong Kong before resettling in Western nations, including the US. Hong Kongers like my father took great personal risk to preserve a generation of brave young protesters. And as a part of the fallout, my father sent me to the U.S. in 1990 as a 12-year-old to head off any potential retaliation against him and my family by the Chinese Communist Party. Hong Kong was a safe harbor for pro-democracy activists from China then, but now, Hong Kongers need a safe harbor. The U.S. and this Congress in particular has been a leader in the global response to China's crackdown in Hong Kong by revoking the special treatment that Hong Kong enjoys with the United States, by sanctioning Hong Kong and Chinese officials who participated in the crackdowns. But the United States can add to this approach with another kind of threat. Undermining the CCP regime and its global competitive edge by offering a lifeline to Hong Kongers. This is why HKDC is proud to support the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. The act gives courageous Hong Kong activists the status of Priority 2 refugee. Historically, the U.S. has used this special refugee status as soft power tool. From Southeast Asian refugees who arrived after the fall of Saigon in '75 to those from Iraq in Afghanistan post 2001 and to the Soviet Jews and Cubans, refugee policy has been used as a way to challenge and undermine Socialist or authoritarian regimes without going to war. China's loss would be America's gain. And the influx of Hong Kongers and their knowledge and skills, money, entrepreneurship with the deep cultural economic ties, the U.S. would be a social and economic boom for the United States. Yet currently, Hong Kongers have limited ways of coming to the U.S. Applying for political asylum requires you to be physically in the U.S. on that student visa, or a tourist visa. Securing this visa can be difficult and has been difficult because of the pandemic. And even harder because of travel and exit banned in Hong Kong and the increased likelihood of bail being denied to activists who have been charged. Hong Kong could apply for refugee status outside of the U.S. and the administration has allocated spots specifically to Hong Kongers, but the increased surveillance and monitoring by police and security forces but these activists seeking protections at heightened risks of arrest. That's why the provisions involved in the Safe Harbor Act is so critical. Hong Kongers facing threat of persecutions require multiple ways to safety, which is why I encourage this committee and urge this committee to move forward to the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act but also to support the Hong Kong freedoms and Choice Act of 2020 that was passed by the House last week. By passing these bills, Congress would show that America is open to store to not just brave activists and protesters, but also with generations of the bravest and brightest. Finally, in passing and supporting Safe Harbor, does not and should not be interpreted as a sign of surrender by the pro-democracy movement. By contrary, your action would be an immediate and unmistakable boost. The action by U.S. and its allies will help preserve the bravest and brightest leaders of the Hong Kong movement. Individuals like Nathan Law, who you will hear from, like Joey Siu and her colleagues to continue the fight overseas. And as resources are being restricted and Hong Kong government are moving to freeze bank accounts of individuals and leaders and organizations in support of our protests, a promise of safe harbor would lead to more investment and people in Hong Kong safeguarding their assets and money overseas, even if they stay in Hong Kong. A promise of Safe Harbor in the U.S. would ensure that resources and funding could continue to support Hong Kong. Let me close by saying that the time has come. When we launched HKDC last year, we did so knowing that there might come a time where Hong Kong would no longer be able to speak and fight without risk of prison. We are now the frontline and we need actions to continue this fight. 31 years ago, my father saved a generation of freedom fighters who escaped Tiananmen and could not and would not have happened without quick action and generosity of countries like the U.S., the United Kingdom, and France. My father might not have imagined today's hearing 31 ago years ago when he put me on a plane to come to the U.S. But he had faith that America was a beacon of hope for refugees. That was the faith that he had when he sent the Tiananmen Square protesters here, when he sent me here. I might have started my life in the U.S. under the fear of retaliation and persecution by the CCP, because of the safe harbor I found here, I have grown to be a fugitive and a thorn in the side of the Communist Party in China. With your action and support, the American dream can become the CCP's worst nightmare. Thank you. CORNYN: Thank you. Mr. Law, are you with us virtually? LAW: Yes. Indeed. CORNYN: Please proceed with your statement. If you'd keep it to five minutes, then we'll get to Ms. Yang and then we'll take a brief recess so we can go cast our--our votes on the floor. Please go ahead, Mr. Law. LAW: Sure. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin, Senator Rubio, Senator Menendez, and other members for having today's hearing. It's my honor to be able to testify in front of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration. The title of today's hearing is supporting Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement through U.S. refugee policy. I think this is exactly the stance that we should take. As we all are aware, the Hong Kong we used to know is gone now. After a year-long protest and the dreadful responses from the authority, the confidence of Hong Kong people towards the one country, two system framework has basically vanished. With the draconian national security law, Beijing has the arbitrary power to detain, rest, and prosecute any political activists or dissidents that they don't like. The sole purpose of the law is to quash our freedom of expression, any desires for political changes, and the right to protest. It has created widespread psychological terror and fear across the city. With the latest arrest of Jimmy Lai, we can see how absurd the law is being used. He was charged under the national security law for colluding with foreign forces and denied bail. He is kept in custody until next April, when you can finally appeal in court. The police draw evidence on a wide basis that everyone could have crossed the line. These evidence include 53 followers on Twitter, including Taiwanese President Tsai, U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, human rights activist Ben Rogers, and others. Interviews with Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg, the New York Times, BBC News, are also seen as evidence of him colluding with foreign forces. This is a trumped (PH) up charge, and many others including (INAUDIBLE), are submitted to these threats. Beijing is also suddenly blurring the boundary of the national security law, as the national security judges can now oversee non-national security law cases even though suspects have not been charged under the legislation. As the recent ruling on activist Tan Tai Chi (SP) shows, the move has set a bad precedent, since it implies dissidents, ex-pats, and foreign companies will have higher risk of falling into the trap. The deterioration in Hong Kong has pushed more political figures and young professionals to leave the city. Therefore, it is much needed for the democratic communities to provide safe exit to these politically persecuted protesters in Hong Kong. The UK and Canada, as the previous speaker have mentioned, have adopted measures that allow millions of people a pathway to citizenship. This is a signal showing how severe the situation in Hong Kong is. The U.S. should take reference from these experiences and implement measures to help the people in Hong Kong. Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act and the Safe Harbor Act and others are the answers to provide these provisions and necessary channels. Thousands of young people can be saved from political persecutions and live free from the threat of the Chinese Communist Party. The policy recommendations and list in the bills can also be achieved by administrative measures. Even if the bills are unable to be passed in this term due to time constraints, I would hope that the administration to accept these recommendations and applies them accordingly. It is important that the global communities continuously vow their support to the freedom loving people in Hong Kong. 2020 is a tough year for everyone living under the pandemic, especially those in Hong Kong with also being--facing constant intimidation from the Chinese authority. While there is a lot of hope in ending the pandemic because of the emergence of vaccines, there aren't much good news on working towards stopping the totalitarian rulings in China. This is a time that we should be determined to safeguard our shared values. Alliance should be formed and actions should be coordinated. Meanwhile, Hong Kong people will never give up and will fight until the end. Thanks. CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Law. Ms. Yang? YANG: Chairman Cornyn, Ranking Member Durbin, and distinguish members of the subcommittee, I want to thank the subcommittee for holding this important hearing at this moment in history when there are an estimated 80 million people who have been forcefully displaced from their homes, a record number since World War II. I also want to recognize and thank my co-panelists for their bravery and courage in testifying today. Your commitment to human rights in Hong Kong and for people everywhere continues to inspire millions around the world. Each of you demonstrates that the refugee crisis is not just about the millions, it's ultimately about the one individual and his or her story that puts a face in a name to those who are displaced. I'm speaking today on behalf of Global Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, that was founded over 70 years ago in response to individuals that were displaced conflict. We currently work in 14 countries around the world and in 17 communities across the United States to resettle refugees and serve immigrants, including in North Texas and in four communities across Illinois. I'm also here on behalf of Refugee Council USA, a coalition of 29 U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations dedicated to the protection and welcome of forcibly displaced peoples. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, which was passed unanimously in the Senate. At that time, Congress recognize that the United States needed to show specific leadership and codify into law specific processes so that those who are forcibly displaced can find protection in the United States of America. For over four decades, the United States has become the world leader in resettling refugees. Our ability to welcome anyone fleeing persecution, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion, has been a hallmark of our democracy and a principal position that we have taken against communist regimes that stifle and oppress its people. And now, as we are witnessing the draconian effects of a new law in Hong Kong, where people in--are living in fear in Hong Kong and are forced to flee elsewhere, the United States needs to show leadership again. But in order for the United States to truly help the people of Hong Kong, Congress must work with administration to restore the refugee missions program and build it back from the systematic dismantling that has happened over the past several years. As such, I want to briefly go over for areas in which Congress can work with the administration to do this. First, we need to increase the refugee admissions number from the historic low of 15,000 to the historic norm of at least 95,000 refugees per year. By increasing the presidential determination, we are allowing more spots to be available from those for those from Hong Kong and elsewhere to find refuge in the United States. Secondly, we need to increase the flexibility and capacity of the United States to process refugees. The inclusion of residents of Hong Kong in the FY '21 presidential determination was a step in the right direction, but the significantly reduced overseas processing capacity has meant that there is a long and lengthy wait for individuals who would seek immediate protection from finding so in the United States of America. We need to not only reschedule circuit rides to the region in which there large number of refugees, but break through current processing logjams so that those who are vulnerable can find protection in the United States of America. Thirdly, we need to explore creative ways to process Hong Kong refugees wherever they may be. This includes exploring in-country processing, increasing capacity for the U.S. embassy and NGO referrals, and exploring other alternative pathways to protection for those who are facing extreme danger. But refugee resettlement is not the only way through which those from Hong Kong can find safety in the United States of America. For those who show up in the United States, we must also make sure that our asylum processes work to protect them as well. The recently finalized rule on asylum would significantly hamper, if not altogether make impossible, the ability for many Hong Kong asylum-seekers to find refugee in the United States of America. The new rule would deny asylum for those who transit through other countries without first seeking the protection of those countries before coming into the United States, as well as narrow the definition of persecution based on political opinion so that such activities relate to the ability to change political control of the government at that time. Lastly, the United States Congress must robustly fund the U.S. refugee missions program. We are recommending $4.35 billion for the migration and refugee assistance account, as well as $6.34 billion for the refugee and interest assistant account through Labor/HHS. We are rightly here to explore every avenue of protection available for those from Hong Kong, but we must also extend protections to other refugees from China, including Uyghurs and other Muslims who are found to be detained in more than 1,300 concentration camps throughout China. The ability of the United States to operate a flexible and more robust U.S. refugee admissions program directly impacts not just our ability to help those from Hong Kong, but the thousands of others who oftentimes languish in refugee camps and urban settings around the world who have no durable solution in sight. The United States had the--has a creative capacity and the ability with the support of local communities to process and welcome Hong Kong refugees as well as the thousands of others who have nowhere else to go. What it will take is the political will, resources, and leadership from Congress to get the job done. Fewer than 1 percent of the worlds refugees will ever be resettled to a third country, and Congress needs to act now to preserve what has been called the crown jewel of U.S. humanitarianism. The United States ability to offer protection through a strong and flexible United States refugee admissions program is a direct indicator of our commitment to human rights and will have impact on our ability to promote democracy abroad. Whether the residents of Hong Kong will avail themselves at the protection of the United States may very well depend on how agile and efficient the process actually is; thus, the United States should not only strengthen our own refugee and asylum processes but work with other countries like Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom and others to keep their pathways of protection open as well. I want to conclude by saying that I would be remiss if I didn't mention the season that we are in right now. We are a week away from Christmas when those of us in the Christian tradition celebrate the birth of Jesus. Jesus found temporary shelter in a bar but was immediately after that a refugee when he had to flee into Egypt in order to save his own life. We remember that Jesus became a refugee, and those of us who follow Jesus are followers of a Middle Eastern refugee. We know about the Christmas story that Jesus didn't choose the distance himself from those suffering in the world but that he chose to directly enter into it. At this time of unprecedented forced migration in the world, the United States has a moral responsibility to do as much as we can to meet the needs of our vulnerable neighbors. When we promote our values of democracy and freedom through a strong and flexible United States refugee admissions program we are not just reflecting our national history, we are ultimately reinforcing our national character. As Congress explores the challenges and opportunities associated with helping Hong Kong refugees, world relief, and the broader refugee Council, USA community look forward to working with you and the administration to meet these objectives. CORNYN: Thank you very much. The committee will stand in recess so Senator Durbin and I and any other members can go vote. For the benefit of the witnesses, it will probably be about 15 minutes or so. Thank you. (RECESS) CORNYN: We'll reconvene. Thank you very much for your patience. I'll start with a few questions and we'll do five minute rounds. I'd like to get each of you to comment on what are the potential consequences to the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong if other nations do not offer some sort of refugee or asylum protection. Is it really a matter of survival given the aggressive nature in which the Communist Party of China is squelching freedom of speech and freedom of association? This--let me see. I guess Professor Ku, are you still with us? KU: I am. I am. CORNYN: What do you think--what do you think the consequences would be if Congress did not act? KU: I do think it is problematic. I think the U.S. is a country most able to take punishment from China, so to speak. Like, it's really much harder for a country like Australia and Canada, the other typical--or New Zealand, places where Hong Kongers might typically immigrate. Where I think it would be, you know, if the United States is not able to act or is unwilling to act, I think the leaders in Australia and Canada I think, for instance, who are ready already feeling a lot of Chinese blowback are going to wonder why should they go out on a limb and take the Chinese blowback themselves when the U.S. is not willing to take it? And we're just so much--it's not great to be punished by China economically or otherwise, but the U.S. is much better positioned to take that. And if the U.S. isn't willing to do that, then I think it it's a bad sign for other countries. And I think it also shows other countries in Europe, also the same thing, Germany is much less likely to act I think of the U.S. is unwilling to act. CORNYN: Ms. Siu? SIU: Thank you, Senator for the question. So there are a few examples that are happening in Hong Kong that shows the vagueness and also the whiteness of the new national security law. So there is an example of the protestor Tonya Kid (PH) who was arrested for inciting succession and also engaging terrorism. And what he did, and also what he committed is all about displaying a flag with slogan Liberate Hong Kong Revolution of Our Times. And we have also gotten a pro--pro-democracy political figure Tam Tak-chi being arrested for sedition because of uttering slogans Liberate Hong Kong Revolution of Our Times and also Five Demands, Not One Less. So all of these examples in Hong Kong are showing us how big and how wide the national security all is. And if the USA is not imposing refugee policies or asylum--asylum policies to help Hong Kongers, it is--it is a very great threat to the Hong Kong protesters because they would lose away to go to a safe harbor. And it is also undermining the confidence from our international allies because, as I have mentioned in our testimony and as was mentioned by Professor Ku that a lot of our international allies are also under the threat of being encroached by the Chinese Communist Party. So it is very crucial for us to impose our refugee policies to not only help Hong Kong protesters, but also to give the confidence to our international allies and also the Beijing government that America would never back down and we will always stand with the freedom fighters in Hong Kong and also in the other countries. Thank you. CORNYN: Mr. Chu, let me--let me change the question a little bit since you have the unfortunate experience of being targeted with arrest warrants under the new national security law, even though you're, as you point out, an American citizen. Do you worry about the Chinese Communist Party attempting to act on those arrest warrants unless--or are you in jeopardy if you don't return to--to Hong Kong physically? CHU: Thank you, Senator. I--I think that this is the tactic that is very common by the Communist Party of trying to extend a threat by leveraging, taking hostage, leveraging families members and--and I think that what I would say is that I--I'm the fortunate one because I am in the U.S. I am a U.S. citizen. And despite the fact that I can't return to Hong Kong without risking arrest and go to countries that has diplomatic or economic ties to China and--but I think that I make--have accepted the reality that we are--our work, HKDC, my personal work here in the U.S. are being monitored and being surveilled constantly. But I do not feel and will not yield to that level of threat because it's a tactic that I think the Chinese government have used. And to your point about I think we--what would happen is that I think we have seen now that one of the tactics is to strangle any support resources from funding, money fund raising through people so that the Chinese government think that if they do that, they can strangle the movement right in Hong Kong. And I think by acting to provide this outlet, this lifeline, we are preserving really what the Chinese government would consider existential threat, which is the Resist Movement in Hong Kong really has taken and the global advocacy that you're seeing right here done by Hong Kongers overseas. And I think we have seen how sensitive the Chinese government is to that kind of critic and the dissidents that are overseas. CORNYN: Well, you mentioned--you mentioned leveraging the families of the--of the people who are subject to these arrest warrants like you even though they may not be able to execute that arrest warrant against you personally, they can intimidate, threaten, otherwise, well, jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of relatives back in China, correct? CHU: Correct. And my family currently still lives in Hong Kong, both my immediate family, my parents and my brother and his family continued to reside in Hong Kong. But I think that--and Nathan can also speak to this of his experience of having to sever ties publicly with their families. Activists who have said, posted on social media and Facebook that they're severing ties with their parents, with their immediate family because they do not want to put them in jeopardy. But I think that that, again, is a very common and used tactic by the Communist Party both in the mainland and in Hong Kong right now. And that's why I think that a--concept--promise of safe harbor has such powerful political message behind it as well as a humanitarian impact. CORNYN: My--my time has expired. Senator Durbin. DURBIN: Let me ask this question. See if you can put it in perspective. When the House passed the Hong Kong people's freedom and choice act, it created temporary protective status, the act would, to Hong Kong residents currently in the United States. Can any of you give me examples of people you know currently in the United States who need that protection? CHU: Thank you, Senator. Yes. So for example, an advisory board members of HKDC, Jeffrey Grau (SP) who's PhD student here in the U.S. right now studying at Georgetown. He is on a student visa. He is probably one of the people that will be and likely targeted if returned to Hong Kong. Brian Leung, who is also a member of our advisory board is a PhD student in Washington State University and he was one of the protesters that was--took off his mask during the Letchko (SP) protest of last summer when they went into the chamber to protest the--the lack of accountability of the government. He already has an arrest warrant that is out for him. If he were to return to Hong Kong, he would face immediate arrest and imprisonment for sure. DURBIN: And let me ask you this question. The second half of the bill, as I understand it, provides refugee status to Hong Kongers facing persecution--prosecution or persecution both. Let me ask if you can--usually, application, I'm sure Ms. Yang could fill me in on even more detail, application for a refugee status is not a quick process. It is a lengthy process. Lengthy background checks before people are given security clearances to even be considered refugees in the United States. So can you put that in perspective of the current threat in Hong Kong and whether the providing a refugee status is realistic? YANG: Well, I think the--of the House bill is a step in the right direction and it in that it recognizes the vulnerability of those in Hong Kong who are fleeing persecution. I think the challenges with just offering refugee status is that we need the process the process through which those refugees can find protection to be able to work. Right now, with the lengthy security screenings that refugees are undergoing, it means that refugees normally takes years for them to pass through this these processes and find protection in the United States of America. That's why I think it's critically important that the U.S. not only look at the refugee resettlement program, but look at alternative ways for individuals that are facing immediate danger to find protection in the United States. We've done this in our history, for example. We have paroled an individual that are in immediate danger, after which point they have to also apply for asylum once they're here, but there are creative ways that we can offer this-- YANG: --While also making sure that our refugee processing works as efficiently as possible. DURBIN: So, can--when it comes to this refugee status, I understand many critics say that refugees are takers. All they do is create expenses for the American taxpayer. Can you tell me what the experience has been with the refugees that you've worked with? YANG: Sure. Well, I can testify that, from the many refugee communities that have resettled in Illinois and in Texas, that they have contributed back to the U.S. economy. There is a short time period in which they work with churches and local organizations to learn English and be quickly employed. But the New American Economy, for example, they did a study where they found that there are more refugees that become entrepreneurs and small business owners than other categories of immigrants. They've also found that in Texas and Illinois and other states that they are huge economic contributors and contribute back not just economically but socially to their local communities as well. DURBIN: Does anyone know whether or not there's a travel advisory issued by the State Department to Americans seeking to travel to Hong Kong? CHU: There is currently travel advisory. DURBIN: Is it pandemic related or otherwise? CHU: Both, actually, to pandemic and the security risk of being arrested, potentially, under the national security law. DURBIN: So, if you are a student like the--your friend at Georgetown who is being sought by the communist political party to be prosecuted for his activities and such, and your student visa's about to expire, then you're being asked to return to a country where or saying to Americans don't go back--don't travel there, and we know that there is some personal danger to this individual from the possible action by the Communist Party when he returns. Is that accurate? CHU: Correct. And that's why I think that the House measures you referred to and the reference on the TPS protections is--is another options, because first of all not everybody might--many--many of the activists want to return eventually. That's why they're in the fight. It is their home. But providing an option to allow them, you know, not to face--basically, if they land in Hong Kong and get off the plane, we almost certain that they will be arrested and--and charged and convicted immediately. DURBIN: And last question, Mr. Chairman. Can anyone give me an estimate of the number of people immediately a risk in Hong Kong who could benefit from being given safety in the U.S. under refugee or asylum programs? CHU: So, I think that Professor Ku mentioned that the--the UK has a system about the BN(O), and I think that targets a different group. But the group that you're referring to, there have been over 10,000 arrests that have been made. There have been over 2,000 that has actually been brought up to charges that are in some form of court proceedings. And so, I think that that would be the first immediate tier of folks who are facing the most immediate danger. The answer to that is complicated again, because some of them have had their passport and travel document confiscated. Some of them are already in detention and under the denial of bail under the new national security law. But that is sort of the universe that I think is the most at risk is just the-- DURBIN: --Has Great Britain or any other country offered refugee status or asylum status to Hong Kong residents? LAW: I'll just say-- SIU: --Well, Senator-- LAW: --Oh, go ahead. Sorry. SIU: Yeah, Senator. So, right now, the UK, Australia, and also Canada have introduced their policies to assist Hong Kongers who have the need to leave the city. So, for right now, the UK's has introduced this BN(O) policy to provide a pathway to citizenship for Hong Kongers. And 750,000 BN(O) passport holders who are currently in Hong Kong are expected to take up the scheme. And also, this scheme will also come into force in January 2021. And for Australia and Canada, they have offered a scheme called Young Talent Scheme for Hong Kongers who have recently graduated in Hong Kong or in--or in Canada or in Australia. And they are also actively recruiting skilled laborers from Hong Kong and also those already in the country to--to apply for extended visa and also to--eventually to permanent citizenship, yeah. DURBIN: Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

INT BROLL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WHILE AT NETHERLANDS NUCLEAR SUMMIT Monday, March 24, 2014 TRANSCRIPT: White House Press Briefing by Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Benjamin Rhodes DC SLUG: 0820 WH HAGUE PATH1 RS33 73 + 1315 WH HAGUE PATH1 RS33 73 12:47:35 JAY CARNEY: Thank you for being here. Thank you for joining us on this trip. Ben Rhodes, the President's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, is joining me today. He can go over the meetings the President has had today thus far as well as preview some of the meetings he will have later today. He'll take questions on those subjects or any other subjects that you have for him and I will stand by for questions on other matters. With that, I give you Ben Rhodes. 12:48:07 BENJAMIN RHODES: Thanks, everybody. And thanks for people joining us virtually. I'll just give a brief readout of the President's meetings this morning. You saw his comments with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands after their meeting. I'd just note in particular that there was strong agreement in their meeting about the need to support the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian government; to continue to impose costs on Russia for its actions. And as one of our key allies here in Europe and in NATO, we'll be consulting closely with the Dutch going forward. We also very much welcome the announcement made today by the Dutch to join the effort that the United States is leading to end financing for coal-fired plants abroad as part of our efforts to combat climate change. Turning to the meeting with President Xi of China, first of all, the President expressed his thanks, as he did publicly, for the welcome and hospitality the First Lady and his family has received in China. The President also indicated his condolences for the loss of life in the recent terrorist attack in China, and also noted our determination to work with the Chinese to continue to try to locate the Malaysian airliner that has gone missing, and expressed his sympathies to the Chinese families. In terms of issues, the President reviewed a number of global and bilateral issues with China. On climate change, the President stressed a need for the United States and China to work together to set a strong example in terms of reducing our emissions as we head into the 2015 climate negotiations; also noted the importance of continuing to work together to phase out HFCs, something that was committed to at Sunnylands. And we're working to bring other countries into a global effort to phase out the use of HFCs. On the situation in North Korea, the President underscored the need for close coordination in sending a clear message that there needs to be denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and that any discussions or dialogue among the six parties around the situation in North Korea needs to be based upon actions taken by North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated its willingness to come to the table seriously. 12:50:20 We've had good cooperation with China in applying some pressure on North Korea, but we as an international community need to continue to insist that North Korea abide by its obligations. 12:50:31 On Iran, the President welcomed China's leadership within the P5- plus-1, where they've been a constructive partner. The two leaders agreed that we have a good opportunity here to reach a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. The President reviewed a number of bilateral economic issues, including our desire to continue to see China move to a more flexible and market-based exchange rate, expressing our concerns in that regard. The President also discussed a range of other economic issues, including our continued interest in seeing China move forward with the economic reform package that President Xi has put forward, the importance, for instance, of transparency in Sino enterprises, and also the potential for greater energy cooperation between our two countries. 12:51:16 On cybersecurity, the President once again underscored the need for the U.S. and China to cooperate closely on this issue. He raised, again, our concerns about the theft of trade secrets for commercial purposes, reiterated that the United States does not engage in intelligence for the purpose of gaining a commercial advantage. The two leaders welcomed the good progress that's been made on military-to-military exchanges and agreed to continue to expand those exchanges. On maritime security and regional security issues, the President reiterated our concern over the Chinese ADIZ that was recently announced. He also expressed a concern over the need to reduce tensions in the East and South China Sea, noting that the United States is not a claimant. He underscored the need for resolutions to these issues based on dialogue and international law, and expressed continued U.S. support for that effort. In that context, of course, the President reiterated his support for the security of our allies, Japan and the Philippines. 12:52:16 The two leaders also discussed the need to cooperate on counterterrorism issues. The President also raised issues related to human rights and the rule of law in China, specifically expressing concern over the recent lack of visas to U.S. media outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg and Voice of America. 12:52:40 On Ukraine, the President reiterated our interest in seeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine respected, reaching a diplomatic resolution that deescalates the crisis and allows for the Ukrainian people to make decisions about their own future. With that, we'd be happy to take your questions on this or any other matters. Yes, Steve. Q: Did it come up, the NSA report having to do with China? Did the Chinese President bring that up? And, secondly, how do you interpret this Russia troop buildup along the border? Is that an ominous sign? Do you see signs of -- 12:53:24 MR. RHODES: Well, President Xi did raise those recent reports in the context of their discussion on cybersecurity. What President Obama made clear to him is that, again, the United States does not engage in espionage to gain a commercial advantage. We don't share information with our companies. Both the United States and China, understandably, like other countries in the world, engage in intelligence activities on behalf of our national security. But there's a clear distinction, in our view, between intelligence activities that have a national security purpose versus intelligence activities that have a commercial purpose. And what we've tried to stress to the Chinese in our cyber dialogue is that while we understand that different nations are going to have approaches to cybersecurity and intelligence collection, that we need to cooperate in setting clear rules of the road that wall off theft of tradecraft related to commercial entities, theft of intellectual property. And so that was President Obama's message on those issues generally, including when those recent reports were raised. With respect to the Russian troop movements, we've been very concerned by the potential for escalation into eastern and southern Ukraine. We've monitored very closely Russian troop movements along the border of Ukraine and, frankly, it underscores the need for there to be a de-escalation because any further steps into eastern and southern Ukraine would represent a very dangerous escalation of the situation. At the same time, I think we've sent a clear message that we are prepared to continue escalating our response to Russia and imposing costs for that type of activity. To take one example, the executive order the President signed gives us the authority to sanction and designate major significant sectors of the Russian economy. And the message to Russia is clear: They're already facing consequences. They're already going to face costs. Should there be any further escalation, we have the ability, together with our partners here in Europe and around the world, to dramatically escalate those costs on Russia. Jim. Q: In his interview with de Volkskrant, the President was asked what he would say the members of the EU with regard to imposing heavy sanctions against Russia and he said, "There have to be consequences. And if Russia continues to escalate the situation, we need to be prepared to impose a greater cost." What the EU has announced has been short of what the U.S. has -- the steps the U.S. has taken. The economic sanctions are not as specific as the executive order the President signed. So I wonder what will we see from the G7 today and the EU tomorrow that goes beyond just harsh rhetoric against the Russians? 12:56:10 MR. RHODES: Jim, I'd say a few things. First of all, the EU has moved with us in a coordinated fashion and imposed sanctions on Russia. They've implemented visa bans, asset freezes, designated individuals, often in coordination with us. Their lists coordinate broadly with ours, for instance, in terms of the individuals who we've designated. They've also moved to politically isolate Russia, cancelling several upcoming meetings and engagements. So we've had good cooperation to date. And in that European Council statement, they indicated clearly that there would be broader for the Russian economy going forward if the situation continues. In terms of the meetings coming up with the G7, I think what we want to send is a strong message in several respects -- number one, that there will be growing costs for Russia for its actions. And frankly, Jim, the type of consequences we'd like to see are what the President foreshadowed in his executive order. So we identified sectors of the Russian economy. We believe that those broader sanctions have the ability to send a powerful message to Russia that it will face costs. And so, consistent with the European Council's statement that foreshadows consequences for the Russian economy, I think out of that G7 meeting we're looking to send a message that we're not done with building out the types of sanctions that we would impose upon Russia for its actions. We'd also, though, I think, importantly, with the G7, want to underscore our support for the Ukrainian government and people, our support for a very robust IMF package getting done as soon as possible, and our support for individual member states of the G7 and of the EU providing assistance to the Ukrainians as well. Q: Is there any talk -- obviously a lot of those sanctions are something for the EU and in those countries. Is there any talk in the conversation with the Chinese President about China putting any economic pressure on Russia? 12:58:03 MR. RHODES: They had a good discussion on Ukraine. Again, what the President said is China has always held sovereignty and territorial integrity as a core of its foreign policy and national security approach and that that principle needs to be applied to Ukraine, and that China's interest should be in working with us to deescalate the situation in a way that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Chinese leader did affirm again that the principle of the independence and sovereignty of nations was fundamental to their approach and that they did want to see a de- escalation and a political resolution to the conflict. In terms of economic pressure, the Chinese have not generally moved to the types of sanctions that we have with the Europeans, so I think that would be a more dramatic action on their part. I think we would find it as a constructive step for them to continue to refrain from supporting Russia's action, and to speaking out for the principle of the rule of law, international law, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Doing so I think further isolates Russia on the international stage, as they were at the U.N. when it was a 13-1-1 vote in the Security Council. Q: Is there anything specific that the President asked the Chinese to do vis-a-vis Ukraine? 12:59:34 MR. RHODES: Well, I think his specific request is one that he would make of any country, which is that all of us have an interest in an international system that upholds the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, and that that is the position that we would like to see China stand behind in its international engagements. And we're going to continue to work with them to try to deescalate the situation. Furthermore, China has a relationship with Russia insofar as they can be constructive in urging de-escalation and a political resolution -- they could play a constructive role in that regard as well. Q: On the G7 meeting (inaudible) -- 13:00:16 MR. RHODES: We'll also be discussing that at the meeting. I don't want to get ahead of it, but clearly we believe that there's no reason for the G7 countries to engage with Russia going forward based on its behavior. So I think the leaders will discuss the upcoming future of the G7 and the G8. I think the very fact of a G7 meeting here in the Netherlands -- which is extraordinary in its own right; it's not common for the G7 to meet in a country that is not a G7 country itself -- I think speaks to both the need for the G7 to mobilize as an entity to isolate Russia and support the Ukrainian people, but also speaks to Russia's isolation from an organization that they've been a part of now for almost two decades. Q: Are you looking for any G7 sanctions -- 13:01:09 MR. RHODES: No, we wouldn't. We are looking to coordinate our sanctions in the G7. The G7 as an entity doesn't impose sanctions, but every member state of the G7 has already imposed sanctions -- because in addition to the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada and Japan have also come along with us in imposing sanctions as well -- Germany, of course. So what we want to do is take the G7 as a platform to coordinate the national actions that we're taking and then to work with our European partners as they formulate responses through the EU and European Council so that we have the strongest unified voice in imposing sanctions -- because the more we coordinate the designation of individuals and entities and potentially sectors of the Russian economy, the more that's going to have an impact on Russia. Q: (Inaudible.) MR. RHODES: I think what you'll have is you've seen a steady ratcheting up of the pressure on Russia. You've seen a response to that ratcheting up, continued market plummeting in Russia, downgrading of Russia as a place to do business, investors staying away from Russia. So we are already seeing the impact of sanctions. I think we would like to see a steady ratcheting up of that pressure. I think the outcomes that we're seeking in the coming days are a continued unified front in terms of our ability to impose sanctions and to go further as necessary; continued support for our Eastern European NATO allies to reassure them of our commitment to their security; and also, importantly, robust economic assistance from the IMF to individual member states to provide the support that the Ukrainian people in government really need at this time. Q: So two questions -- and it was hard to hear some of the questions, so I apologize if I repeat, but are there specific things that you want to come out of this G7 meeting tonight, specific statements? Are you hoping that there will be a formal declaration that Russia is no longer a part of the G8 and it's now the G7? And is there some way to measure how well the discussion goes by trying to get a sense of what you're hoping the seven nations actually agree to coming out of it tonight? 13:14:14 MR. RHODES: Well, what I think we'd like to see coming out of it is, again, a foreshadowing of what economic sanctions Russia will be faced with if it continues down this course; a commitment to provide support to the Ukrainian people that's going to lead to concrete outcomes -- an IMF package, economic assistance that reaches the people and government of Ukraine -- reassurance for the allies here in Europe who are eyeing very warily the events in Ukraine; continued political isolate of Russia. And with respect to the future of the G7, that's something that the leaders will discuss tonight. Our view is simply that as long as Russia is flagrantly violating international law and the order the G7 has helped to build since the end of the Cold War, there's no need for the G7 to engage with Russia. And so I'm sure that that's a topic that the leaders will take up as well. Q: Not to put too fine a point on this, but are you saying that the President will be seeking expulsion of Russia from the G8? Is that what you're saying? I know you're saying you don't want to get ahead, but it sure sounds like that's what you're suggesting. 13:15:37 MR. RHODES: I don't want to suggest -- what we're looking at is how we engage with Russia in the coming months and years. The G7 is an entity. If there came a point where Russia would deescalate the situation and abide by international law, we would not want to foreclose the potential that the G7 would engage with them. So I'm speaking more about how do we engage with Russia going forward here in the context of the crisis in Ukraine. Again, the door is open for Russia to deescalate the situation, to abide by international law, to come back in line with the international community. I think the message is, so long as they don't do that, they're outside the rules of the road. And I'd just note one other thing, which is that people speak of a new Cold War. The fact is Russia is leading no bloc of countries. There's no ideological entity, like communism, that Russia is leading that has global appeal. There's no bloc of nations, like the Warsaw Pact, that they're leading. They're isolated in what they're doing in Ukraine. And I think that's very much the message that we want to send at the G7, with the EU, with NATO over the course of the next several days. Q: On flight 370, Malaysia flight 370 -- has the Malaysian government communicated anything to the White House in terms of what has happened to that flight? What have you heard? 13:17:03 MR. RHODES: Yes, we've been in very regular contact, as you know, with the Malaysian government. We have teams on the ground that are working with them on a daily basis. The Prime Minister's announcement today tracks with, frankly, where we've dedicated our assets, which is in the Indian Ocean, in pursuit of recovering the flight. So we feel like we have very good lines of communication with the Malaysians. We're going to continue to support them. We have resources dedicated, as we speak, not just to the investigation, but also to the recovery of the plane if we can locate it. And we're focused, as the Prime Minister said, on that southern corridor. Q: How concerned are we about the Russian military movement on the border with Ukraine? The comments from NATO military commander, concern about what they may be doing. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister yesterday said he thinks chances of all-out war with Russia are higher than they have ever been. And there was also the suggestion out of NATO that Russia may reposition itself to move into Moldova. What is our current sense of how concerned we are about Russia's next step? 13:18:26 MR. RHODES: Well, again, our current sense is that we are deeply concerned about Russian movements along that border. We are watching it very closely, as is NATO, as is the Ukrainian government. And again, we believe that Russia stands an enormous amount to lose in terms of economic pressure, international isolation should they take this escalatory step of moving into Ukraine. There is a pathway to deescalate, but if they don't want to take that they're going to be faced with growing pressure, condemnation, sanctions from the international community. With respect to Moldova, similarly, the President met with the leader of Moldova recently at the White House. So did the Vice President. We've expressed our support for their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we believe that there, too, we would strongly stand up for the principle that Moldova should be able to make determinations about its own future. Again, that's further down the line. We have not seen actions taken yet that directly compromise Moldova's security, although we would note that we watch very closely the situation in Transnistria and our position is going to be very clear in support of Moldova and its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Q: -- an army preparing to invade or is it consistent with the Russians' plan, which is military exercises? 13:19:58 MR. RHODES: Well, the Russians have claimed a lot of things in recent days that didn't bear out. So they've said that these are for the purposes of exercises. We'll see whether or not the troop movements are consistent with military exercises. We believe that there's every reason to be skeptical of Russian assertions, which is why we're watching the situation very closely, as are the Ukrainians. I'd note that to date the Ukrainians have shown extraordinary restraint in how they've responded to the situation in Crimea, in particular, but also more broadly. And that continues today with the manner in which they are pulling back their forces in Crimea. Q: This is the first time a lot of these leaders have gotten together since the crisis in Crimea, and I wonder -- any atmospherics in the sense of either shock or dismay about what Russia has done, and if the President is bringing to this meeting a sense of urgency about what's at stake for all the things he's talked about, like collective security and international law, taking a stand against Russia. Is he using this as an opportunity to identify this as a huge turning point, potentially? And is that working? 13:21:19 MR. RHODES: Absolutely, we come here, Major, with a sense of urgency. And it's not just because these are things the President has spoken about. These are things that all of these institutions have built over many years in terms of respect for international law, respect for nations to make their own decisions, leaving behind the days in which major powers made decisions about the futures of other countries over their heads. That's what the EU is about. That's what NATO is about. That's, frankly, what the United Nations is about. And so what Russia has done is in violation of that entire international order that has been built up over many decades. And it's for that purpose that we are focusing on this issue here. We have the right people at the table to have that discussion at the G7 here today, and on Wednesday in Brussels, the President will meet with leaders of the European Union, with the leaders of NATO, to underscore that message. And we do feel that leaders are coming to the table with a sense of urgency because this is a matter of not just European security, it's a matter of whether the international order that all of us are so invested in can stand up to this Russian aggression. And as I said, what's different about the past, what's different about now versus the Cold War, is that Russia is finding itself totally alone. It does not have some bloc of nations that is standing with it in support of its position in violating Ukraine's sovereignty. They are isolated among these nations that are gathered here at the Nuclear Security Summit and they are going to find themselves more isolated if they do not take steps to de-escalate this crisis and engage in dialogue with the government in Kyiv and to pull back their forces. Q: Quickly back to the plane. I just wanted to specifically try -- the Malaysian Prime Minister also said that he believes all lives have been lost on that plane based on the new analysis they've had. I just wonder, specifically, has the President been briefed on that piece of information either by the Malaysians or by White House officials, and does that assessment square with what the U.S. believes about the flight? 13:23:22 MR. RHODES: Ed, we'll have to get our own independent confirmation on that. We obviously noted the Malaysian Prime Minister's statement. They are very much in the lead for this investigation. We're sharing information. But I don't want to indicate that we have independent confirmation of the fate of the passengers on that plane. What we are focused on is the same southern corridor space where we've dedicated our resources in trying to recover the plane. And so that's where our current focus is. The President is briefed on a daily basis about our efforts to support the Malaysian government and to locate the airliner. We'll continue to do that. Q: This is on Ukraine. Mitt Romney went on CBS yesterday and claimed that he believes the President is naive on Ukraine and Russia. Dick Durbin, another Democrat, pushed back on that, but I wonder if the White House wants to weigh in. MR. RHODES: Well, look, we've been very clear-eyed about our Russia policy from when we came into office, which is that we will cooperate when we have common interests and we can form common positions, but we'll be very clear when we have differences. And it was the right thing to do to pursue cooperation in the beginning of the administration that helped us put in place Iran sanctions; that helped us supply our troops in Afghanistan; that helped us reach the New START Treaty; and frankly, helped us to advance in some of the nuclear security objectives we were talking about here at the summit, like the removal of highly-enriched uranium from a number of countries. At the same time, we've stood up to Russia when we've had differences. And there's nothing new about the United States and Russia having differences. I would note that, as we've said before, we've heard this criticism that somehow the President's inaction in terms of taking military -- using military force in Syria has anything to do with the situation in Crimea or Ukraine. When George Bush was President we went to war in Iraq, we went to war in Afghanistan; that did not in any way deter Russia from going into Georgia in 2008. So time and again, we have seen the Russians push the boundaries of international law, particularly when it relates to countries that are near their borders. And what we're doing is standing up to that aggression and mobilizing the entire international community to stand up to that aggression. And, frankly, in terms of the steps that we've outlined and the steps that we're taking, they go far beyond any previous steps that have been taken in response to Russian aggression. In terms of the sanctions that you saw not just on Russian officials but on members of Vladimir Putin's inner circle, in terms of designating for potential sanction sectors to the Russian economy, that goes well beyond any response, for instance, to the incursion into Georgia. So we believe we have a record of standing up for our interests. Again, that means working with countries when we have overlapping interests, which was the case with Russia earlier in the administration. But, increasingly, as Russia has taken a different turn, particularly under President Putin, that involves standing up and mobilizing the international community to isolate Russia when they take the types of steps that they've taken. Q: Hey, Ben, I want to go back to your readout on China. When you were asked specifically if China would participate in any of the sanctions, you essentially said, no, that they'd talked about the importance of sovereignty. And then you said before that everybody that's attending this summit is basically of the position of isolating Russia. Is there something substantial that China is going to do vis- a-vis Russia in punishing them in some way or participating in this isolation, beyond this readout? Is there something tangible that you can point to? 13:27:23 MR. RHODES: Look, I think it matters -- Russia cares a lot about its standing in the world, its world position. And it matters if traditional friends of Russia cannot express support for their position, and indeed -- or express support for the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity that Russia is currently violating. We've said that the costs that Russia is going to face run across the board. A big piece of those, and the most significant thing we can do, frankly, is impose economic costs on Russia. And that's what we're doing with our sanctions, and those are already sinking in. We've said we can politically isolate them by separating them from institutions like the G7; by cancelling the types of engagements that the U.S. and the EU traditionally has with Russia. But also, it's a blow to their international standing when they are not able to look and find support for their positions. That's what happened at the United Nations. So that is a consequence for Russia. It is going to lead to an erosion of Russia's position in the world. And I think the reason is, is because they're in violation of the international order. And as I said, China, as they speak to their own national security interests, has always put front and center this notion of sovereignty and territorial integrity when you look at different regions of China, like Tibet. And so it's very much in their interests to stand up for the notion that a nation should make decisions about its own future and not have external actors come in and make those decisions for them. And that's the conversation we'll continue to have with China going forward. Q: So you're saying because China is not supporting the Russian government in their move in Crimea, that that in itself is significant? 13:29:10 MR. RHODES: I would say that if you look at the pattern, Chuck, just of voting at the U.N. Security Council, generally China and Russia are aligned. Generally, they're aligned on political and security issues on the world stage. And it says something when Russia is completely isolated as they were at the United Nations Security Council. And it, I think, foreshadows a future that Russia is going to face if they continue down this course where they can't even look at traditional places for full support for their positions. And they're just going to face continued isolation if they don't take this opportunity to deescalate the situation. Q: (Inaudible.) 13:30:02 MR. RHODES: We are -- the way -- we are in the sense that when you target certain individuals and entities, it has a chilling effect on the broader economy. So I think it's important to understand that when we sanction individuals with significant resources who are in President Putin's inner circle, when we sanction a bank that is associated with one of those individuals, not only does that have a direct impact on them, but it has a broader chilling effect on the Russian economy that makes investors think twice about putting their money into Russia. That has an effect, a knock-on effect on the ruble, on the Russian market in ways that sanctioning me does not have on the U.S. market and the U.S. currency. Q: I know we talked a lot about the possibility still of de- escalation, but can you give us a sense, even a general sense, of what de-escalation would be at this point? Because wouldn't you agree that there's really no way Russia is going to leave Crimea at this point? 13:31:22 MR. RHODES: Well, again, the path to de-escalation is open to Russia in part because the government in Ukraine has indicated a willingness to have a discussion about how to ensure that ethnic Russians, for instance, are protected within their territory. For instance, the government of Ukraine has indicated an openness to having a dialogue on constitutional reform. As a part of that, they could look at autonomy for regions like Crimea. They can look at different solutions to provide an assurance that people in different regions and people of different ethnicities are being protected. But, frankly, they should not have that conversation in the context of military threats and coercion. So what we've said to the Russians is: Deescalate the situation; put it back onto a political and diplomatic track; pull back your forces; engage in a discussion directly with the government in Kyiv -- not over their heads. The international community will support that process. And precisely because the government of Ukraine has indicated a willingness to pursue constitution reform, and precisely because they have an election coming up in the spring, there is a pathway that could be taken that could lead to a de-escalation of the situation. We have not seen Russia take that pathway yet, which is why we've pivoted to the pressure that we've applying, but we've kept the diplomatic lines open and we'll continue to urge the Russians to engage in that dialogue directly with the Ukrainian government. Q: Just one quick question, Ben. There are 58 leaders here; is the President going to try to build consensus among them so that maybe something can be written up against what Russia has done in Crimea? Something will appear in the declaration or on the side of the declaration? 13:33:03 MR. RHODES: Well, I think we're engaging with enough nations and entities that we can send that message through the outcome of the G7 meeting, through the U.S.-EU Summit that is upcoming on Wednesday, through the meeting with NATO on Wednesday, and some of the President's bilateral engagements. The Nuclear Security Summit is going to remain focused on the agenda at hand, which is securing nuclear materials so they can't fall in the hands of terrorists. We had some important announcements today, including Japan taking an historic step to get rid of an enormous quantity of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium. We want to continue to encourage other nations to take similar steps and build up their security practices. I'd note that Ukraine was one of the countries that showed leadership in recent years in getting rid of its highly-enriched uranium as well. So the Nuclear Security Summit is going to continue to tackle that agenda, but if you look at all the President's other engagements with the relevant transatlantic and European security and political entities, as well as his bilateral engagements on the margins of the summit, we will be able to touch a broad representation of that leadership that is here at the summit in The Hague, and I think sent a clear message on where we are in Ukraine. Q: I want to talk real quick on the plane crash. Is the announcement by the Malaysian Prime Minister today -- and I know Malaysia is handling the investigation primarily, but does the announcement this afternoon give you guys any more clarity on what presumably happened to this plane, whether it was a mechanical failure or something more sinister? 13:34:35 MR. RHODES: I don't want to get ahead of that determination yet. I think the Malaysian Prime Minister was speaking above all to the location in which they're focused now in the southern corridor. So I don't think determinations have been made about the cause. But we'll continue to support them as they work to locate the plane and also to try to make a determination on the cause. Q: Is the FBI still investigating? MR. RHODES: The FBI is still working with the Malaysians, as is the NTSB, the FAA, and all our other entities. Q: Are you facing any reluctance from the Europeans to go along with the sort of wide sanctions that you're wanting to do against Russia -- financial sector, energy sectors? 13:35:20 MR. RHODES: Well, look, clearly, we know that those have an enormous impact. And as the President said in his own statement, those would be an impact on the global economy; those would have an impact on the European economy. But we believe it's necessary to be prepared to use that leverage and to impose those costs on Russia. And we've had, frankly, good talks with the Europeans about it. Their announcements, again, the other day tracked roughly what we were announcing in terms of political isolation, individual designations, but also an indication that we would move towards broader consequences for the Russian economy going forward. So I think they get it. Obviously, they are critical in making that cost higher for Russia, given the interconnection between the European and Russian economy. But we believe we've had good cooperation. The President has talked to Chancellor Merkel about this, Prime Minister Cameron, President Hollande. We believe that they are moving with us in lockstep in terms of how we're looking at sanctions. We're also looking at things like energy cooperation in terms of how we deal with the current situation. And the President has designated Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz to engage in a dialogue with Russia -- sorry, with Europe about how they can continue to diversify some of their energy sources, which could be a mitigating factor in terms of their concerns about the sanctions that may be imposed on Russia, including on the Russian energy sector. So we'll continue that side of the dialogue as well in the days to come. Q: In stressing economic sanctions to Ukraine you're still facing a problem with Congress in trying to get that package through, and reluctance from House Republicans to accept the IMF quota reforms. Is the administration willing to decouple those two in order to get this through quickly and to provide an example to the rest of the Europeans? 13:37:17 MR. RHODES: The fact is, Jim, that you can't decouple the IMF quota reform from the support package to Ukraine because it has a direct impact on the ability of the IMF to provide a more robust assistance package to the Ukrainian government on the order of several billion in additional funds that could be available in an IMF package. So we believe that the bill that is making its way through the Senate is, frankly, the right approach, because it couples, again, both punitive measures on the Russian government, $1 billion in loan guarantees and additional technical assistance for the Ukrainian government, but also that quota reform, which is going to allow for a substantially larger IMF package for the Ukrainian government. So people in the House who talk about supporting Ukraine can't decouple the IMF piece from what the Ukrainians need because, frankly, the best thing that could happen for the Ukrainian economy today is for a very robust IMF package to be put in place. That would stabilize their economy. That would strengthen the government in Kyiv. That would allow them to move forward with reform. That would allow them to meet the basic needs of their people and strengthen them vis-a-vis any Russian attempt to destabilize the government. So our message is clear to Congress: If you want to support the Ukrainian government, you need to support this IMF package as well as the loan guarantee program that is making its way through the Senate. Q: Hey, Ben, it's Julie. MR. RHODES: Double AP here. Q: Double AP. You guys have glossed over this a little bit, including in Michelle's question here -- but is Crimea gone? Can you just lay that out for us? 13:38:46 MR. RHODES: If you look at the nations of the world, there is a broad rejection of the referendum. So the United States doesn't recognize the results of the referendum; Europe doesn't recognize the results of the referendum. I think if you look across Asia, Africa and the Americas, there are not a lot of takers for recognizing an illegal annexation of a part of another country. So, in that regard, we're just not going to recognize a new status quo that allows for the annexation of one piece of Ukraine over the heads of the Ukrainian government. Q: If the U.S. and other countries don't recognize it, does that change anything for Russia? Is Russia going to in any way change the treaty that they signed for annexation? 13:39:33 MR. RHODES: Well, what I will be candid about, Julie, is that clearly we have to affect the calculus of the Russian government here over time. And the tools that we are giving ourselves with these sanctions have the ability to do that. And, frankly, what has to happen is the Russian leadership needs to see that ultimately this is leading into a dead-end for them of greater economic pain, of greater international isolation. But we see Crimea as part of that. To be clear, we've already taken steps based on what they've done in Crimea. So while we're deeply concerned about escalation into eastern and southern Ukraine, which would be a very dangerous and destabilizing move by the Russian government, our concerns about what they've already done in Crimea stand. Q: Just to go back to the readout of the meeting with President Xi, are China and the United States on the same page regarding Russia and Ukraine, or is there a difference there? How would you describe that half of the meeting? 13:40:39 MR. RHODES: Look, Jeff, candidly, obviously the United States in general is far more willing to move towards the use of aggressive, punitive actions like sanctions not just with respect to the situation in Ukraine, but with respect to other international issues -- precisely because, by the way, the Chinese have a principle of respecting the sovereignty of other countries. So, clearly, we are going to go farther in terms of the punitive measures that we're going to impose on Russia. Where we want to be on the same page is on this principle that sovereignty and territorial integrity and the independence of nation states is the abiding principle of the international system and needs to be the abiding principle that deescalates and resolves the situation in Ukraine. And there we believe the Chinese have been very clear in their expressions of support for de-escalation, a political resolution, and their general commitment to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nation states, including Ukraine. Carol. Q: (Inaudible.) 13:41:48 MR. RHODES: I don't have any update on that. You will have to go to State on that. Q: Can you talk about how (inaudible) Russia's ability to veto efforts on other issues like Iran and Syria? In the President's interview, he said that it was Russia's responsibility to (inaudible) on chemical weapons in Syria. So you have to acknowledge the power that Russia has of -- its ability to (inaudible) transition in Syria. So do you anticipate or have you seen any change in their posture (inaudible) in terms of Iran or Syria? 13:42:21 MR. RHODES: Well, if you look at the Syria chemical weapons issue, that's actually moving in very good pace, and we're about at the 50-percent milestone in terms of Syrian chemical weapons being removed from the country, taken into the custody of the international community. So on the chemical weapons issue we've seen continued cooperation. Russia has invested a lot in that project. Frankly, they have nothing to gain from seeing that project go off the rails, in large part because there are extremists in Syria that Russia doesn't want to have -- gain access to chemical weapons who might pose a risk to them. So on the chemical weapons issue we've had good cooperation. Frankly, more broadly, Russia has not been cooperative on Syria in general in terms of the political resolution, in terms of some of the humanitarian access that we sought. So we'll continue, again, to try to pursue those ends, but it's not as if we were dealing from a position of very strong cooperation from Russia on non-chemical weapons-related issues in Syria. Similarly, on Iran, Russia has no interest in destabilization or nuclear proliferation or conflict in the Persian Gulf. That's why they've been invested in the P5-plus-1 talks. To date, we've seen no change in their posture in those talks. The political directors just met last week in Vienna. So we haven't seen a change. And, frankly, Russia would only be isolating themselves from the world further if they were to walk away from an entity like the P5- plus-1 that they've been a part of for several years now. And the last thing I'd say on this is that the Iranians, they have an interest in gaining access to the global economy, to European and other markets. So the incentive for them is to not just make some agreement with Russia. The incentive for Iran in these discussions is to reach a comprehensive resolution with all of the parties that are at the table. Ultimately, that's what's going to bring the sanctions relief that they're seeking. Q: Ben, you just mentioned the Russian interests, and you've been telling us about how this really upended a lot of the architecture that's been in place and a lot of assumptions made about Russia based on their behavior. Ambassador McFaul argues that Putin pivoted away from his strategy, becoming more integrated in the world economy by doing this. And I'm wondering if you have a clear sense anymore for what their interests are, and if the interests are the same of what you thought they'd be in a place like Iran or anyplace else. 13:44:45 MR. RHODES: Well, I think Ambassador McFaul made a number of good arguments that, frankly, represent the type of analysis that we've had, which is that clearly by doing what he's done in Ukraine, President Putin and the Russian leadership is acting with the knowledge that they're going to face pressure from the international community and the United States. Frankly, we believe that we can over-perform in terms of the types of sanctions that we put on Russia. We believe that the types of sanctions that we put in place last week, for instance, went far beyond anything that Russia has faced in the post-Cold War era. So they're in new territory here, too. The question is, to what lengths will President Putin and the Russian government go to, particularly in the countries that are on their borders, what lengths will they go to and at what cost to them in terms of international isolation and economic pressure. Ultimately, what we've said very clearly since the Cold War is that we want to integrate Russia into the global economy, that Russia has a place in the community of nations and a significant place, given their role in the world. However, that's got to be based on them playing by the rules. So they can't have one set of rules in the former Soviet states and another set of rules in the rest of the world. And I think that's what's at stake right now -- is that the same rules that apply in any country in the world have to apply in Ukraine, have to apply in Moldova; certainly apply in NATO allies like Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. And that's really what's at stake in this conflict. And I think President Putin needs to understand over time that the costs to him are going to be extraordinary in terms of Russia's international standing and its economic position. So we'll have the G7 meeting this evening. And then the President has dinner hosted by the King and with the other leaders here at the summit. And we'll get you additional readouts of those meetings to come. MR. CARNEY: Thanks, everybody. Thanks to everyone in the filing center.