關於 state administrative council ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

//今年10月1日是中共建政71周年，支聯會將聯同友好團體代表於10月1日11時，以倒行形式分組前往中聯辦宣讀聲明及中港在囚異見人士狀況，敦促中共改善人權，落實當年建政的承諾，停止粉飾太平，回應聲明提出的訴求。//

【沒有人權，哪有國慶？停止打壓異見 還我言論自由】聯署聲明全文

(English below)

中共建政71周年，也是中國人民飽受苦難的歷史。建政前，中共以民主、自由、繁榮、富強的承諾，欺騙萬千愛國者為其拋頭顱、灑熱血。建政後首30年，階級鬥爭為綱，政治運動頻仍；經濟冒進失誤，赤地千里，餓殍遍野。接著的10年，推行經濟改革，但仍堅持獨裁專政，打壓人民訴求，導致胡耀邦、趙紫陽下台，更發生「六四」血腥鎮壓。「六四」後31年來，貪污腐敗猖獗，貧富兩極分化，弱勢社群備受壓榨，道德倫理殆盡，維權和異見人士被拘入獄，全國籠罩白色恐怖，人權蕩然。習近平專政下，14億人民仍活在沒有人權、沒有尊嚴中，有甚麼值得慶祝？

今天是中共所謂的「國慶」，但71年來，許多人只因表達政治立場慘遭拘禁和酷刑，直到今天，仍有不計其數人士因言獲罪，身陷囹圄。在這個令人憤慨而非喜慶的日子，支聯會等團體特別關注被所謂「危害國家安全」罪名拘押的中國和香港抗爭者，他們面對獨裁政權迫害，我們在香港也正經歷同樣命運。

對中國異見人士來說，中國政府以所謂「國家安全」為理由作出種種打壓，是每天不能承受的痛。今年，香港人失去法治和自由，自中央政府於6月30日強推《港區國安法》後，多名人士以所謂與「國安」有關的罪名被起訴，12位年輕人更因為逃亡台灣途中「被送中」，香港人自由岌岌可危，與中國異見人士更是唇齒相依。

他們代表不同年齡和不同背景人士對民主自由的渴求，在鐵幕高牆的國度仍不畏強權，以各種方式爭取民主和傳播尊重人權的訊息，但他們合法和合理的行動和訴求，卻被政權以違反所謂「國家安全」惡法無理打壓，他們的案件在中國只是冰山一角，深信還有不少被專制政權迫害而不知名的受害人。

港區《國安法》強推以來僅僅數月，言論自由空間不斷收窄，過往不少可以喊的口號和可以發起的行動，已被政府強詞奪理解讀為違反《國安法》，營造赤色恐怖，企圖噤聲，打壓異己，令香港的自由急速消逝，嚴重侵犯市民的言論自由與集會自由。

我們強烈要求中國政府和香港政府停止粉飾太平，回應以下訴求：
1）平反八九民運，還多年來承受失去至親一個公道！
2）成立獨立調查委員會，調查「六四」及香港自去年「反送中」運動的警暴行為！
3）停止假借「國家安全」名義，肆意破壞香港法治精神和打壓言論自由！
4）立即釋放中港被囚異見人士！

2020年10月1日

聯署團體：(更新 30.9.2020)

香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會
四五行動
林鉅成社會服務處
溫哥華支援民主運動聯合會
天安門母親運動
卡城中國民主促進會
良心之友
中國維權律師關注組
社會民主連線
青衣居民權益服務社
香港社會工作者總工會
新婦女協進會
民主黨
工黨
香港職工會聯盟
郭家麒議員辦事處
民間電台
曾健成議員辦事處
六四行動
民間人權陣線
香港基督徒社關團契
關注綜援低收入聯盟
零售、商業及成衣業總工會
基督徒社工
香港教育專業人員協會
關心香港前途小組
公民黨

’Without human Rights, How Can We Celebrate “National Day”?Stop the crackdown on dissidents; give us our freedom‘

1 October 2020

The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for 71 years now—71 years of suffering for the Chinese people. Before coming to power, the Party promised to make China a democratic, free, prosperous and strong country, but it fooled hundreds of thousands of patriots into sacrificing themselves for the nation. For the first 30 years after the establishment of the regime, class struggle was the main focus and mass political campaigns were frequent. Economic policy was poorly devised, leading to famine and death.

In the following 10 years, the regime enacted economic reform but remained totalitarian. It cracked down on demands for change, leading to the fall of liberal state leaders Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang and eventually the bloodshed of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. In the subsequent 31 years, corruption has been rampant and uneven wealth distribution serious. Underprivileged groups are squeezed by those in power. Ethics and morality have collapsed. Human rights defenders and dissidents are detained and imprisoned. The whole country lives under white terror. There are simply no human rights. Under Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, 1.4 billion people are living in a society without human rights or dignity. What is there to celebrate?

Today is what the Party calls “National Day”. But over the past 71 years, many have been ruthlessly imprisoned and tortured simply for expressing their political views. Countless people are still detained for their speech. On this day we should feel outrage rather than joy,. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and other organizations are particularly concerned about the Chinese and Hong Kong activists facing so-called “national security” charges. While those in China endure the persecution of a totalitarian regime, we in Hong Kong experience the same fate.

Chinese dissidents suffer unbearable pain every day as the Chinese government uses the pretext of “national security” to crack down on them. In this year, Hongkongers have lost rule of law and experience diminishing freedoms. Since the central government forcibly imposed the Hong Kong national security law (officially the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”) on 30 June 2020, dozens of individuals have been charged with so-called “national security” crimes. Twelve young people fleeing to Taiwan were taken to China. Hong Kong people’s freedoms are at greater risk than ever. Hong Kong people’s fate is even more interconnected with the Chinese people’s.

Many, diverse in age and background, desire democracy and freedom. They do not fear challenging the government despite dictatorship. They fight for democracy and share information about human rights. But their legal and legitimate actions and demands have been punished by the government with so-called “national security” charges. Their cases are only the tip of the iceberg in China. There are many unknown people persecuted by the regime.

The Hong Kong national security law has been in force for several months. Freedom of expression is drastically diminishing. Protest slogans are now interpreted by the Hong Kong government as violations of the national security law. The government creates red terror, attempts to silence dissenting views, and cracks down on dissidents. Hong Kong’s freedoms are quickly disappearing. Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are seriously infringed.

We call on the Chinese and Hong Kong governments to stop whitewashing the daunting situation in China and Hong Kong and respond to the following requests:

1. Vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement and give victims’ families a fair explanation, apology and compensation;

2. Establish an independent commission to investigate the Tiananmen Massacre as well as police violence during the Anti-Extradition Bill protests in Hong Kong since last year;

3. Stop using “national security” as an excuse to ruthlessly destroy Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedom of expression;

4. Immediately release all detained Chinese and Hong Kong dissidents.

Signatories: (updated on 30.9.2020)

Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China
April Fifth Action
Community service office of KS Lam
Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement
Tiananmen Mothers Campaign
Movement for Democracy in China (Calgary)
Friends of Conscience
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
League of social democrats
Tsing Yi Residents Rights and Interests Service Society
Hong Kong Social Workers` General Union
The Association for the Advancement of Feminism
The Democratic Party
Labour Party (Hong Kong)
Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions
Office of Dr. Kwok Ka Ki, Legislative Council Member
Citizens Radio
Office of Tsang Kin Shing District Councillor
June 4th Action
Civil Human Rights Front
Hong Kong Christian Fellowship of Social Concern
Concerning CSSA and Low Income Alliance
Retail, Commerce and Clothing Industries General Union
Christian Social Workers
Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union
Concern the Future of Hong Kong
CIVIC PARTY

—————
註：六四紀念館已於9月15日重新開放，繼續舉辦「走在抗極權最前線——從『八九六四』到『反送中』」主題展覽，同時舉辦「中港被囚異見人士」專題展（至10月31日），介紹異見人士的事蹟，誠邀參觀及報導。查詢：2459 6489（電話/WhatsApp）、 64museum@alliance.org.hk （電郵）
—————

#十一 #六四 #反送中 #人權 #言論自由 #humanrights #freedomofspeech #june4

To DQ or To Postpone? (Lee Yee)

To DQ or To Postpone? That’s probably the ultimate question for the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government and Carry Lam around the issue of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Election right now.

Since the waterloo of the District Council Election, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, and the Constitutional Affairs Bureau have all been restructured. The Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are ensuring that there will not be a slip in the LegCo Election in September. Forcing the National Security Law was to use the law to screen the candidates, but they had not foreseen the international backlash and that would place China under siege from all around. Moreover, Hongkongers have not retreated despite the threats of the National Security Law, but rather, a large number of youngsters from the resistance camp ended up winning in the pro-democracy primaries.

A month ago, US Secretary of State Pompeo called the September LegCo Election in Hong Kong an important indicator of whether the Election can be held smoothly, and to observe whether China is respecting Hong Kong’s freedom. In other words, if the Carrie Lam administration uses the National Security Law as a threshold to disqualify a large number of Hongkongers’ rights to be elected, the US is bound to employ more aggressive measures against China and Hong Kong.

As a result, the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are directing their efforts in these two days to spread the word regarding the increasing severity of the epidemic, which would increase the likelihood of the virus being spread in crowded polling stations, and therefore suggested for a postponement of the Election. The truth was told by Tam Yiu-chung, who said, “Those who moved to the Greater Bay Area will need to quarantine for 14 days when they return to Hong Kong, but they don’t have a place to stay. Indeed, we’ve seen truckloads after truckloads of “voters” coming to Hong Kong from the mainland, so what will happen now?

However, the pro-democracy primaries also attracted huge crowds, but none of the recent confirmed cases contracted the virus from being in line to vote; Singapore has a worse epidemic situation than Hong Kong, but the general election was held as usual. Therefore, whether it is to disqualify through the national security law, or to postpone with the epidemic as an excuse, the US is bound to view whether the LegCo Election gets to happen as a significant indicator of Hong Kong’s freedom. For the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists, both disqualifications and postponement would lead to a dead end.

Those who are interested in running for LegCo should not worry about whether to sign the confirmation letter or not. In the nomination form, there is already a provision: “I will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.” The additional confirmation letter added in 2016 is nothing more than a regurgitation of requiring candidates to confirm their support for Articles 1, 12, and 159 (4) of the Basic Law, which is already stated in the nomination and no need to additional confirmation. In 2016, those who signed the confirmation letter were still disqualified, and all the pan-democratic candidates who refused to sign the confirmation letter received the notice of nomination confirmation.

The National Security Law in Annex III of the Basic Law may be added to this year’s confirmation letter. Being disqualified will have nothing to do with the signing or not of the confirmation letter, but rather, whether the Returning Officer is willing to risk being disqualified (sanctioned) by the US, and whether the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are concerned about the increased sanctions imposed by the US.

As the US election gets closer, its China policy gets tougher, and the polling of both parties benefits. The day before yesterday, Pompeo met with Nathan Law, a former standing committee member of Demosistō in exile, to discuss the Hong Kong situation under the National Security Law. Before the meeting, Pompeo said that he expected the exchange with Nathan Law to be “eye-opening”.

Pompeo also discussed the Hong Kong issue with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Previously, the UK canceled the extradition agreement with Hong Kong and announced that it would stop using Huawei equipment in the construction of the 5G network.

When Nathan Law met with the Shadow Foreign Minister of the Labour Party and the Minister of Asian Affairs of the ruling Conservative Party before July 1, he urged the British to use the Magnitsky Act to sanction Hong Kong’s “officials who betrayed Hong Kong, and the dirty cops”. 17 Canadian parliamentarians jointly petitioned for Prime Minister Trudeau to impose urgent sanctions on relevant Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Carrie Lam said, “I have no assets in the US and I don’t want to go to the US.” So “I’m not afraid”, but that would not be the case for the UK and Canada.

The night before last, a fire broke out in the Chinese Consulate General in Houston, which might have been caused by the burning of classified documents. The US required China to close the Consulate within 72 hours. Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin called that a “crazy action” again on his Weibo account. This is yet another time, since the possible ban of Chinese Communists from entering the US, for him to use the word “crazy” on US measures against China.

“Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.” All measures to safeguard human freedom are “crazy” if you ask the “birds born in a cage”. All “crazy” measures that have been imposed, and all the more to come, are all because of that National Security Law that flabbergasted the civilized world.

The President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization

Issued on: July 14, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-393), the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-76), the Hong Kong Autonomy Act of 2020, signed into law July 14, 2020, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, determine, pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) under the particular United States laws and provisions thereof set out in this order. In late May 2020, the National People’s Congress of China announced its intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. This announcement was merely China’s latest salvo in a series of actions that have increasingly denied autonomy and freedoms that China promised to the people of Hong Kong under the 1984 Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). As a result, on May 27, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that the PRC had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended, respectively, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. On May 29, 2020, I directed the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions under United States law that give Hong Kong differential treatment in relation to China.
China has since followed through on its threat to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. Under this law, the people of Hong Kong may face life in prison for what China considers to be acts of secession or subversion of state power –- which may include acts like last year’s widespread anti-government protests. The right to trial by jury may be suspended. Proceedings may be conducted in secret. China has given itself broad power to initiate and control the prosecutions of the people of Hong Kong through the new Office for Safeguarding National Security. At the same time, the law allows foreigners to be expelled if China merely suspects them of violating the law, potentially making it harder for journalists, human rights organizations, and other outside groups to hold the PRC accountable for its treatment of the people of Hong Kong.
I therefore determine that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.
In light of the foregoing, I hereby determine and order:

Section 1. It shall be the policy of the United States to suspend or eliminate different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong to the extent permitted by law and in the national security, foreign policy, and economic interest of the United States.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5722), I hereby suspend the application of section 201(a) of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended (22 U.S.C. 5721(a)), to the following statutes:
(a) section 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1152 note);
(b) sections 203(c), 212(l), and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1153(c), 1182(l), and 1201(c), respectively);
(c) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
(d) section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565(m));
(e) the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.); and
(f) section 1304 of title 19, United States Code.

Sec. 3. Within 15 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies shall commence all appropriate actions to further the purposes of this order, consistent with applicable law, including, to:
(a) amend any regulations implementing those provisions specified in section 2 of this order, and, consistent with applicable law and executive orders, under IEEPA, which provide different treatment for Hong Kong as compared to China;
(b) amend the regulation at 8 CFR 212.4(i) to eliminate the preference for Hong Kong passport holders as compared to PRC passport holders;
(c) revoke license exceptions for exports to Hong Kong, reexports to Hong Kong, and transfers (in-country) within Hong Kong of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, that provide differential treatment compared to those license exceptions applicable to exports to China, reexports to China, and transfers (in-country) within China;
(d) consistent with section 902(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246), terminate the export licensing suspensions under section 902(a)(3) of such Act insofar as such suspensions apply to exports of defense articles to Hong Kong persons who are physically located outside of Hong Kong and the PRC and who were authorized to receive defense articles prior to the date of this order;
(e) give notice of intent to suspend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (TIAS 98-121);
(f) give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (TIAS 99-418);
(g) take steps to end the provision of training to members of the Hong Kong Police Force or other Hong Kong security services at the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement Academies;
(h) suspend continued cooperation undertaken consistent with the now-expired Protocol Between the U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America and Institute of Space and Earth Information Science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earth Sciences (TIAS 09-1109);
(i) take steps to terminate the Fulbright exchange program with regard to China and Hong Kong with respect to future exchanges for participants traveling both from and to China or Hong Kong;
(j) give notice of intent to terminate the agreement for the reciprocal exemption with respect to taxes on income from the international operation of ships effected by the Exchange of Notes Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong (TIAS 11892);
(k) reallocate admissions within the refugee ceiling set by the annual Presidential Determination to residents of Hong Kong based on humanitarian concerns, to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law; and
(l) propose for my consideration any further actions deemed necessary and prudent to end special conditions and preferential treatment for Hong Kong.

Sec. 4. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(a) Any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to be or have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning of individuals under the authority of, or to be or have been responsible for or involved in developing, adopting, or implementing, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Administrative Region;
(ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Hong Kong;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong;
(C) censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media; or
(D) the extrajudicial rendition, arbitrary detention, or torture of any person in Hong Kong or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or serious human rights abuse in Hong Kong;
(iii) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii)(A), (a)(ii)
(B), or (a)(ii)(C) of this section; or
(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section;
(v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
(vi) to be a member of the board of directors or a senior executive officer of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 5. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 4 of this order.

Sec. 6. The prohibitions in section 4(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 7. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 4(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, such aliens, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility of implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.

Sec. 8. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 9. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 10. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) The term “immediate family member” means spouses and children of any age.

Sec. 11. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 4 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 4 of this order.

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

Sec. 13. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 15. If, based on consideration of the terms, obligations, and expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration, I determine that changes in China’s actions ensure that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the PRC under United States law, I will reconsider the determinations made and actions taken and directed under this order.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 14, 2020.