PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Oct 15, 2019
Placing Restrictions on Teargas Exports and Crowd Control Technology to Hong Kong Act or the PROTECT Hong Kong Act
This bill directs the President to prohibit the issuance of licenses to export certain defense items and services to the Hong Kong Police Force or the Hong Kong Auxiliary Police Force.
Items subject to the prohibition include defense articles and services on the U.S. Munitions List and certain crime-control and detection technology and software.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The prohibition shall not apply to a particular license if the President certifies to Congress that the covered exports are important to U.S. national interests and foreign policy goals. The prohibitions shall terminate when the President certifies to Congress that (1) the covered Hong Kong forces have not engaged in gross human rights violations for the one-year period leading up to the certification, (2) there has been an independent examination of human rights concerns related to the covered forces' crowd-control tactics, and (3) and the Hong Kong government has adequately addressed such concerns.
The Department of State and the Department of Commerce shall report to Congress as to items subject to the prohibition that have been exported to the Hong Kong forces covered in the bill in the last five years.
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8124-8125)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8124-8125)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4270.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8124-8127)
Mr. Sherman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 28, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4270 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4270 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4270 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4270 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.