Urging the Government of China to reinstate all licenses of Gao Zhisheng and his law firm, remove all legal and political obstacles for lawyers attempting to defend criminal cases in China, including politically sensitive cases, and revise law and practice in China so that it conforms to international standards.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 774 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 774 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. This is the fifth intelligence authorization bill that this House has considered since the tragic events of September 11, which changed this institution's outlook on intelligence. It has certainly changed our intelligence community's approach to collection and analysis.

H.R. 5020 is the first intelligence authorization that is based on a budget request fully determined by our new Director of National Intelligence, again reflecting the changes, reflecting the evolution, the progress of our approach to keeping America secure, protecting our citizens, protecting our forces abroad through an ever-changing architecture.

The DNI, created in H.R. 10, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, created this new Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a responsible authority that would oversee and orchestrate a coordinated effort by the entire intelligence community composed of 15 different intelligence agencies. This legislation today continues the sustained effort and long-term strategy to achieve optimum performance in human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence, open-source intelligence, analysis, counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterterrorism.

This bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. In addition to funding these agency activities, the legislation contains other noncontroversial intelligence community housekeeping matters that will help create a more efficient and effective intelligence community. The legislation reflects recent administrative action and formally includes the Drug Enforcement Administration in the intelligence community and authorizes its activities conducted within the National Intelligence Program. It also requires the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct a regular strategic review of intelligence capabilities against threats, similar to the Quadrennial Defense Review, and limits the DNI's authority to hire civilian personnel in excess of the specifically authorized numbers to no more than 2 percent of the authorized amount of employees.

To more formally increase oversight, the bill specifically provides that reporting requirements contained in the classified annex will be considered as required by the underlying law. Additionally, it requires a comprehensive inventory of special access programs conducted within the National Intelligence Program to be provided to the committee in classified format. This provision was included in the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2006 as well.

The underlying bill also contains language offered by the ranking member, Ms. Harman, that expresses the sense of the Congress that the DNI should promptly examine the need for establishing and overseeing the implementation of a multilevel security clearance system across the intelligence community to leverage the cultural and linguistic skills of subject matter experts and individuals proficient in foreign languages that are deemed critical to our Nation's security.

I am pleased with the efforts of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Chairman Hoekstra and his ranking member, Ms. Harman, have done yeoman's work, with the assistance of their committee, on a bipartisan basis to produce this bill. It is a perfect example of how Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. I commend them for their hard work.

I urge the Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman acknowledged in the beginning of his remarks that this is a bipartisan bill that enjoyed unanimous support coming out of committee. As we move forward on the other issues of contention, we certainly look forward to that debate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to one of this institution's experts on national security, a member of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a graduate of one of America's fine service academies.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address three of the points that the distinguished ranking member made, and I would point out that we appreciate her bipartisan efforts in crafting this bill, the underlying bill that the rule addresses, that came out of the committee on a voice vote.

First, the program that she categorized, that has been categorized, I apologize, Madam Speaker, the program that has been categorized as an ``illegal eavesdropping program'' had in a previous press release been characterized in this way: ``As the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.''

That was the statement of the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee as it relates to what has now been characterized by saying it is illegal eavesdropping.

Secondly, this question of Iran reports, the Iran crisis scares the dickens out of me. It is a very serious issue for this entire Chamber, for this entire Nation. It is a country that is not only engaged in what could be a speculative threat against its neighbors and the United States and the world as a whole, but are bringing in cameras to show that they are breaking IAEA seals, along with their red-hot rhetoric coming out of their President calling for the destruction of our ally, bragging about the uranium enrichment capabilities, talking about the difference between P-1 and P-2 centrifuges.

It is a very serious issue, one that all Members of Congress should make themselves aware of. As chairman of the policy committee, I was joined by my Energy Subcommittee in going to New York on Monday to receive such a briefing, the kind of briefing that every Member of Congress is entitled to. As members of the House Intelligence Committee, they are entitled to even higher-level briefings on the Iranian situation at their request.

So, the requirement, the responsibility, for us to engage the administration, to engage the Intelligence Community, to engage the appropriate persons who are tracking this crisis is on us. And it is not a mere every-90-day

exercise. It should be an ongoing exercise as developments come in through the media and through other open sources that call on us to further update our awareness of what is a very dangerous situation.

Thirdly, this idea of zero funding for the Civil Liberties Protection Board, that is an issue within the White House budget. It is not germane to the intelligence authorization bill, it is not an issue that we can fund, and it was ruled out of order for that reason. It is a matter for the appropriators who are dealing with the White House budget line, not for the Intelligence Community's overall budget.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the concern about Iran. As I said earlier, it is a huge issue and a major international crisis for all of us to be tracking on a very routine basis, especially those members of the Intelligence Committee who have access to a higher level of information than the rest of us.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue of leaks briefly. Before presenting this rule to the House, I took it upon myself to read the bill. And because of the nature of the bill, it is only available in Intelligence Committee space. And all Members have the opportunity to review the material that we are going to be voting on later today.

In the context of this discussion about leaks, I was reminded that at the beginning of every Congress, upon our election, we, all Members of this House, have to sign something saying that we recognize that House rules prevent us from disclosing classified information.

In addition, when you go to read the bill that we are here today to consider, you sign another form reaffirming that you have taken this oath, this obligation to not disclose classified information. That is what Members of Congress have to do.

When you join the CIA, you sign a standard secrecy agreement that says that you are going to keep the things that you are working on secret to protect the interests of our Nation. You

are not going to go writing books about it, you are not going to make a movie about it, you are not going to cash in on this Nation's security.

When you have access to sensitive compartmented information, you sign yet another nondisclosure agreement, again to drive home the point to the employees who are guarding the very secrets that keep us safe and free that you cannot capitalize on America's secrets.

This was very clear to the leaker. This was made very clear to Members of Congress. There is no double standard. What the individual did was against the law, was a complete breach of the secrecy agreement that that individual signed upon becoming an employee and then having progressively higher levels of access to more and more sensitive information. It is abundantly clear that what she did was wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the gentleman's perspective.

That is why this bill is so important, number one; and number two, it is why it is so vitally important that our representatives on that committee, that our House Members on both sides of the aisle on the House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence, ask the correct questions, are given the proper orientation, dig into these issues, make this committee a priority, because they are the rest of this House's eyes and ears on those very sensitive issues.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the cultural differences in this House are intriguing. Hailing from the South, we would label ``cockamamie'' a theory where the President would conspire to break the law and invite Members of the other party in on the deal. We would call that a pretty cockamamie theory.

And so when the President, in an effort to keep America safe and to monitor members of al Qaeda who are communicating with people inside our borders, probably not checking the weather, probably not seeing how the Yankees or the Mets are doing, but plotting very dangerous, tragic, consequential events to destroy our way of life, to cause mayhem, to cause loss of life, we want to know what they are up to.

And the President, under this cockamamie theory, conspired to protect us, in the gentleman's words illegally protect us; but he did so in a way that brought in a team of lawyers, reviewed the program every 45 days, and invited members of leadership from both parties, from both Houses of the legislative branch, to be in on that discussion.

That is a cockamamie theory that he was conspiring to break the law in that regard. He was fulfilling his oath to protect this Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the gentleman's use of ``cockamamie'' was directed at another aspect of this debate. But I stand by my comment that the President of the United States did not conspire to engage in any illegal, inappropriate activity by, first, calling a team of lawyers and, second, calling the leadership of the opposite party.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), another member of the House Intelligence Committee, another leader on national security issues for us.

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

The gentleman from New Jersey is a very capable member of the Intelligence Committee, and surely he is not suggesting that covert actions of the United States Government should be made available to every single Member of Congress. Surely the gentleman is not suggesting that every classified program that this United States is engaged in should be available to every single Member.

I would invite the gentleman to respond. Would the Manhattan Project have been available to every single Member who asked about its cost, the number of employees, where the activity was going on, how many people were involved? Would the gentleman have suggested that every Member of Congress would have been clued in on that, even when the Vice President wasn't?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, by his answer, has answered the question that clearly we have an Intelligence Committee specifically for the purpose of being our eyes and ears, because we do not empower every single Senator and every single House Member with every single detail of every activity going on in the intelligence community, and there are very strong reasons for that. So, clearly, that would not be the proper course of action.

Under longstanding committee tradition, the chair and the ranking member of both Houses were brought into a different level of awareness on certain activities that were going on. Under Democratic and Republican control, that was the case.

As a result of the terrorist surveillance program, the Senate created an entire new subcommittee to deal with the issue, and the House expanded access to that information to 11 Members, an unprecedented number of Members going beyond the historical, under the Democratic model, four Members who had been given access to those types of programs and activities.

Mr. Speaker, relaiming my time, the gentleman had suggested that the other 420 Members of the House had not had access to the information, and that is precisely how it is set up, that they would not have access to that information. That is why we have talented Members like yourself on the committee, and that is why we have expanded access to information about that program to more members of the committee than ever before.

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

Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that the amendment the gentlewoman refers to is not germane to this bill, I point out to the gentlewoman that the amendment that she refers to creates a commission that, A, already exists; and, B, the chair and vice chair have already been confirmed by the Senate, and the members have been appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts had me with Iran and lost me with Iraq. Everything that he said regarding the seriousness of the threat from Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran, is unacceptable to our interests. Everything he said is absolutely correct.

And I can save him the vote on the previous question by asking him to turn to page 22 of the public version of the intelligence authorization bill, where it says, under the subheading Reporting Regarding Iran and North Korea, ``The committee has conducted regular and ongoing oversight of these efforts and expects the DNI to ensure that the Intelligence Community continues to provide timely, detailed, and frequent reporting on the current intentions and capabilities on Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological, and missile programs, as well as the Intelligence Community's capabilities to understand and evaluate these programs. In particular, the committee is interested in receiving, on an ongoing basis current assessments of Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, and missile programs; information on new intelligence developed, including intelligence collected from both open and clandestine sources; and full discussion of any gaps in knowledge, dissents, caveats, and other information that would tend to reduce confidence in the overall assessment. The committee believes these reports will provide timely information to help better inform Congress as it is asked to make decisions regarding U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea.''

The reporting requirement is in the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. I urge the gentleman, I urge the Congress to support the rule, support the underlying bill, and support the hardworking men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, deals with one of the most important aspects of our national security: our ability to gather and analyze intelligence effectively so that our policies are based on fact, not fantasy or obsessive desire, so that our Federal law enforcement agencies can defend us from the threat of attack, and so that our allies can rely on our resources for timely, coordinated operations in defense of freedom abroad.

I want to commend Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman and members of the Intelligence Committee for authorizing 100 percent of the funding required for our counterterrorism operations. Regrettably, President Bush only included 78 percent of this funding in his budget request; so I thank the committee for correcting this dangerous shortfall.

The Intelligence Authorization Act traditionally receives strong bipartisan support and will likely receive that same support this year. But despite its many attributes, this bill could have and should have been better. This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. When Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December 2004 in response to the findings and recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission report, it created this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights of the American people in a post-9/11 world.

Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running. The President did not nominate the members of the board for 9 months. The Senate took 5 months to confirm the chair and vice chair. And, once again, the President's budget failed to include a single penny for the board's operation in fiscal year 2007.

This could have and should have been fixed in committee. Congressmen Hastings, Reyes, and Holt offered an amendment to provide $3 million in dedicated funding for the oversight board, an amendment that should have had bipartisan support. But the majority chose to reject this funding and abandon their promise to the American people to safeguard their most basic freedoms and rights. And last night in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership compounded this mistake by denying Congressman Reyes the right to offer this same amendment for debate on the House floor.

And then we have the issue of the National Security Agency's spying on U.S. citizens. In committee, Representative Eshoo offered a carefully crafted amendment to withhold 20 percent of the NSA's budget until the executive branch provided the Intelligence Committee with the total cost of its surveillance program. That is all: just inform the committee of this one number. The Eshoo amendment was not looking for more operational details. It was not passing judgment on whether the NSA's domestic spying program is legal or not, even though that is a controversial matter in this House. All it was looking for is how many of our tax dollars are being spent on this surveillance program.

This is a question that should concern every single Member of this body on both sides of the aisle. But with just one exception, the Republican majority found it too much to ask and rejected the Eshoo amendment.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Republican leadership went even further. The Republican Rules Committee denied Representatives Schiff, Flake, Harman, and Inglis the right to offer their bipartisan amendment for debate. This amendment would have required a classified disclosure to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, the two committees with jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities over the NSA and the FISA process, on which U.S. citizens have been the subject of NSA electronic surveillance, and what criteria was used to target them. Such a classified report would allow Congress to understand the program and whether any current laws need to be amended to grant the President the authority he needs to carry out this program more effectively or make any changes to safeguard against abuse. In short, these two committees need this information in order to do their jobs, in order to carry out their oversight responsibilities.

This bipartisan amendment should have received bipartisan support from the Rules Committee, but it did not; not from the Republican majority on this Rules Committee and certainly not from the Republican leadership of this House.

It is outrageous, Madam Speaker. Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple. And when the Attorney General says that Congress somehow granted the authority for this program after September 11, he is just wrong.

We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?

I would ask my Republican friends to re-read their Constitution. Congress was not designed to be a rubber stamp for the President. Congress was not designed to protect Members from difficult votes on controversial issues. Congress was not designed to protect the President's political rear end. But under this leadership that is exactly what Congress has become.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor. They should at least show that level of respect for this House and for this Constitution.

I am willing to bet that the majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe that what the President is doing is wrong. But either way, the very least we could do is have a debate and a vote.

Madam Speaker, 25 amendments were brought to the Rules Committee last night. They dealt with issues ranging from how the NSA carries out surveillance of American citizens to how the Intelligence Committee and other relevant committees are briefed about weapons of mass destruction or the situations in Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other hot spots. They dealt with how information is classified or reclassified, how national security whistle-blowers are protected or punished, and whether and how the amount of funds requested and appropriated for various intelligence-related activities are reported to Congress.

These are not trivial matters, Madam Speaker. Yet only five amendments, five amendments, Madam Speaker, plus the manager's amendment, were made in order under this highly restrictive rule.

Why is the Republican leadership so afraid to debate these issues? Why is it so afraid to debate, period? After nearly 4 months of a lackluster Congress, are we suddenly on some tight time clock so there is no time to debate matters affecting national security? Do we need to get out of town by Thursday afternoon? I am happy to stay in town on Friday if it means we can get a full debate on the Intelligence Authorization Act.

I am tired of restrictive rules. I am tired of stifling debate. I am tired of ignoring or running away from the big issues. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and to support an open debate on important issues facing our national security and intelligence agencies.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, whom I have a lot of respect for.

First of all, the cost of the program that we were debating was only given to members of the committee that the President chose, not all members of the committee.

Secondly, I find it scandalous, quite frankly, that this Congress is abdicating its responsibility to put in place checks and balances on the President's domestic spying program. When you talk about enforcing and abiding by the Constitution of the United States, that is one of our responsibilities. I think what the President is doing is illegal. We should have a debate on this. The White House should be more forthcoming. Quite frankly, it is an outrage.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) who is a member of the committee.

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) who was also shut out of being able to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who also was shut off being able to offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, let me, before I introduce our next speaker, let me just respond by saying what has the American people concerned is that we have a set of procedures in place, the so-called FISA procedures, which allow the President to put anybody under surveillance here in the United States providing that he gets a warrant. And he can even get a warrant after he puts somebody under surveillance. The question is why can't he follow the procedures in place? In my opinion, he is breaking the law.

And I would also say that the other question is, why in the world, given the controversy on this issue, can't this Congress have an up-or- down vote on this issue? If the majority thinks that the President should be able to put anybody under surveillance he wants

without a warrant, fine. Then write the bill and bring it to the floor, let us debate it and pass it up or down.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Boswell amendment on Iran nuclear programs. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. It is yet another example of what I believe is the abuse of power by the Republican-dominated Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit reports to Congress on Iran's weapons of mass destruction every 90 days. It requires these reports to include an assessment of Iran's nuclear programs, an evaluation of intelligence sources, a summary of new intelligence for any information that would increase confidence in overall assessment.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned over the ominous situation in Iran with regard to the potential for nuclear weapons in that country, and I think most Members of this body would agree that it is absolutely critical that we continue to monitor the situation very closely and receive frequent updates on Iran. We need to have constant and accurate updates on this very serious situation. There is too much at stake here for us to do less.

Have we learned nothing from what we experienced with regard to the misleading intelligence and the false intelligence on Iraq? Have we learned nothing from the fact that this Congress did not do its job; did not take its oversight responsibility seriously; did not ask the questions; did not hold the administration accountable?

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. Chairman Hoekstra and Ranking Member Harman have worked in a bipartisan way. This should have been worked out in a bipartisan way. I cannot imagine why anybody would be opposed to this amendment.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the intelligence bill and will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to add this important amendment that seeks to fully understand the depth of the nuclear situation in Iran.

I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. This should be a bipartisan vote. There is no reason, there is no reason to vote this down unless somehow you do not want to hear the information; unless somehow you do not want to demand this administration be accountable and inform the Members of this Congress.

On the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran, it should be every Member of this Congress, quite frankly, who should have access to relevant material. We need to learn our lesson. We are in a mess right now in Iraq. We are involved in a quagmire that has cost over 2,500 lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we know the intelligence was wrong. Let us do it right this time. Let us not rush into a war unnecessarily. Let us demand from this administration some accountability and some truth.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Isn't it accurate that the language that the gentleman just referred to in the bill is discretionary, whereas what we are talking about is statutory language that would require reporting every 90 days so that we don't make the same mistake we did in Iraq?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 365) urging the Government of China to reinstate all licenses of Gao Zhisheng and his law firm, remove all legal and political obstacles for lawyers attempting to defend criminal cases in China, including politically sensitive cases, and revise law and practice in China so that it conforms to international standards.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank our good friend, Mr. Mark Kennedy, for sponsoring this important human rights legislation. It is very well crafted. It sends a clear and unambiguous message to the People's Republic of China. Having worked the China issue for 26 years as a Member of Congress, I want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on this. It is an excellent resolution.

This resolution can probably be summed up in one phrase: Rule of law. When you get past the details, it asks China simply to adhere to the rule of law. First, it demands that China adhere to its own Constitution, its own procedure law, and its own law on lawyers. This is not asking a great deal. These instruments give very few rights, it is true, but unless China protects the rights it already acknowledges, nobody in China can have any genuine fundamental human rights.

China acknowledges the right of defendants to a lawyer, the right of a citizen to seek redress of their legitimate grievances through the courts, and the duty of lawyers to represent clients. Yet China tramples on even these minimal rights.

Lawyers like Gao Zhisheng, who dare to follow the law and represent clients, are harassed, threatened, beaten, forbidden to practice, detained and imprisoned. Defense lawyers are faced with the constant threat of indictment for perjury if and when the government decides their clients have lied. These practices must stop.

Secondly, the resolution demands that China cease its assault on basic human rights, an assault that is the real reason behind the persecution of Gao Zhisheng and other Chinese lawyers.

They are being punished for their courageous defense of religious freedom, the right of women not to be violated by China's coercive population control program, the right of citizens to protest corrupt officials, the rights of citizens to petition their government to redress grievances. Such rights are not Western or American inventions. They are universal. No rule of law can exist unless such rights are acknowledged and protected.

Last week, Madam Speaker, on the eve of President Bush's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, I held a hearing to examine China's human rights abuses, and it was my 26th hearing on human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. Our witnesses included three individuals-- survivors--who have spent considerable time in Chinese concentration camps--Laogai--including Harry Wu, who spent 19 years in prison. The hearing focused on some of the worst abuses, including Chinese censorship of the Internet, the use of the Internet as a tool of repression, violations of the rights of Chinese citizens to worship freely; also the trampling of labor rights, and coercive family planning, which continue to be a serious and highly pervasive abuse by the Chinese Government.

Madam Speaker, Beijing has increasingly viewed the information available on the Internet as a potential threat to the party's ability to control the population and monopolize political power. It has turned China into one of the most repressive and restrictive Internet countries in the world. It is important to note that freedoms that we enjoy in America allowing individuals to publish information and news on the Web unfiltered is not something that Chinese individuals have. Those freedoms do not exist in China. Individuals who attempt to speak freely are imprisoned and tortured.

At the very least, U.S. corporations should not be aiding in that process. Yet at a February hearing I chaired on the Internet in China, we learned in greater and disturbing detail how some of the biggest corporations of America have partnered with the much-hated Chinese secret police to find, apprehend, convict and jail religious believers, labor activists, and prodemocracy advocates.

Yahoo told us at the hearing how they profoundly regretted sending Shi Tao to prison for 10 years, but then they couldn't tell us and didn't seem to want to know how many others were condemned to jail and torture because of Yahoo's complicity with the secret police. When I asked under what conditions, a court order, police demand, a fishing trip, Yahoo surrenders e-mails and address files, Yahoo told us that they couldn't reveal this information because it would break Chinese law. Give me a break.

Google, for its part, created an exclusively Chinese search engine that only a Joseph Goebbels could love. Type in any number of vile words like ``human rights'' or ``Tiananmen Square massacre'' or ``Falun Gong,'' and you get rerouted to government propaganda, much of it heavily anti-American, much of it heavy anti-President Bush, and filled with hate, especially for the Falun Gong.

How did Google respond to our deep concern about their enabling of a dictatorship to expand its hate message? They hired big-time Washington lobbying firms like Podesta-Mattoon and the DCI Group to put a good face on it all, and presumably kill my pending legislation, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006.

Amazingly, Cisco showed no seller's remorse whatsoever that its technology, especially Policenet, a tool for good in the hands of honest cops and legitimate law enforcement, but a tool of repression in the hands of Chinese

police, has now effectively linked and exponentially expanded the capabilities of the Chinese secret police.

Microsoft also censors and shuts down blogs that Big Brother objects to. You can be sure that no serious discussion of human rights was on the agenda at President Hu's visit with Bill Gates at Microsoft.

China's continued repression of religion is among the most despotic in the world. In February, a BBC report said that China had warned Hong Kong's newly appointed Cardinal, Joseph Zen, a well-known critic of China's suppression of religious freedoms, to remain quiet on political issues. Citizens practicing a faith other than officially sanctioned religions are often subjected to torture, imprisonment and death, at which time prisoner organs are frequently harvested to meet demand. Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, and Muslim Uighurs are all being persecuted for their faith. Today numerous underground Roman Catholic priests and bishops and Protestant pastors languish in the infamous concentration camps known as the Laogai for simply proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the early 1990s, Madam Speaker, I met a bishop, Bishop Su Zhimin of Baoding Province, a gentle and kind man who celebrated mass for our small delegation. I was deeply inspired by his faith. He had recently been let out of jail, and his compassion was overwhelming even for those who jailed and mistreated him. He had no animosity for his jailers, only compassion and forgiveness. Soon after my visit--he was sent back to prison. What kind of regime incarcerates a truly noble man like this? Bishop Su has now spent 30 years of his life in prison for loving God and for loving his neighbor and even loving the despotic dictatorship that so hates him. What kind of barbaric regime hurts a man like this?

And then there is the special hate that Beijing pours out on the Falun Gong. Nearly 7 years ago the Chinese Government began its brutal campaign to completely eradicate the Falun Gong through whatever means necessary. Many party members as early as 7 years ago or so and army officials began to practice Falun Gong. Like all dictators and totalitarian terror systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control, so it decided to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong. We see before us now a Stalinist nightmare revived for the 21st century, hundreds, perhaps thousands, dead as a result of torture; tens of thousands of jailed individuals without trial held in labor camps, prisons and mental hospitals where they are forced to endure torture-brainwashing sessions.

I would note parenthetically that when a woman protested on the White House lawn when President Hu was making his speech, it may have been impolite for her to do that, but had she done that in China, Madam Speaker, she would be dead now, having been subjected to torture and then an execution. That is the reality on the ground in the People's Republic of China.

Just over a year ago, Madam Speaker, Beijing finally released the renowned Uighur human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer, who also testified at our hearing from prison, where she had be held on trumped-up charges and lived there in prison for over 6 years. We had hoped this signaled some sort of genuine improvement. Maybe things were beginning to turn. However, we have now learned that nothing could be further from the truth, and the Muslims, like the Tibetan Buddhists and like so many others, are being continually harassed and put into prison.

Madam Speaker, coercive family planning in China has slaughtered more innocent children than any war in human history. It is a weapon of mass destruction. Coercive family planning has wounded Chinese women by the millions. And one psychological consequence is that some 500 women commit suicide each and every day in the People's Republic of China. China's one child per couple policy decreed back in 1979 has killed hundreds of millions of babies by imposing Draconian fines up to 10 times annual salaries for both husband and wife on their parents who are told they must abort their child. Brothers and sisters in China, Madam Speaker, are illegal.

Sex selection abortions, a direct consequence of the one child per couple policy, has led to gendercide. Approximately 100 million girls are missing in China, killed by sex selection abortion. One Chinese demographer has admitted that by the year 2020, 40 million Chinese men will not be able to find wives because Beijing's weapon of mass destruction, population control, destroyed the girls.

Then there is the whole issue of labor rights. We heard from the policy director of the AFL-CIO who raised significant and profound issues of labor rights violations by the Government of China, Ms. Thea Lee, who spoke at our hearing. We all know that solidarity in Poland made the difference in ushering in respect for human rights in Central and Eastern Europe and then Russia, and that in China there are no labor rights, and there is no recourse for hundreds of millions of Chinese laborers trapped in these poor working conditions. Ms. Lee pointed out that those who protest unjust wage and labor practices are often put into prison. They, like religious and prodemocracy advocates, are tortured and cruelly mistreated by the Government of China.

So let me just say, Madam Speaker, this resolution puts us on record as a Congress in a bipartisan way; Mr. Lantos, who has been just outstanding and a champion on behalf of the human rights in China, Mark Kennedy and Frank Wolf and so many others who daily speak out against these abuses. This resolution gives us all an opportunity to speak truth to a despotic power that is literally getting away with murder that they must stop these egregious violations of human rights, and they must stop now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the author of this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Kennedy for his eloquent statement as well as Tom Lantos for his always eloquent statements on behalf of human rights.

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

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

Madam Speaker, that last discussion actually interested me. The question would be, what penalty would a Member of Congress face if, having left a classified briefing, that Member disclosed information that turned out to be false?

You know, in libel, truth is a defense. Perhaps when it comes to disclosing classified information that comes from this administration, falsity would be a defense on the grounds that if it was not true, who is going to be hurt?

The gentleman from Florida talked about oaths. I want to talk about one that I took, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, because the Rules Committee is interfering with my ability to do that. We have one of the most serious constitutional issues facing this country now that we have faced in a very long time: the assertion by the President of the United States that because of terrorism, he basically is freed from restraints.

He has announced by the way, remember, it is not directly relevant to this bill, but he has announced that as President he may order the imprisonment for an indefinite period of time of an American citizen, and that citizen has no recourse to any tribunal to disprove any charges against him, and there may not be any charges lodged.

That is one of the things he said. In that same breathtaking assertion of untrammeled power, he says he can order the wiretapping of any American citizen; and it has gone beyond, as was brought out in the questions by the Judiciary Committee of the Attorney General, even within America. I think that is a dangerous abuse of power.

I believe we are able to protect ourselves against terrorists, and we should protect ourselves against these murderous fanatics, but I believe we are able to do that while still observing the Constitution. And I want to be very clear. I want to give law enforcement power. I believe law enforcement, they are the good guys, but they are not the perfect guys.

You give the good guys power, but you give it to them in a series of balances and restraints. You do not give them untrammeled power. The President has announced that he has carried out a program of wiretapping invasion of the most private moments of any American, with nobody else given any involvement, no warrants.

Now the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) presented to the Rules Committee a very thoughtful amendment that would reaffirm that we want to go by the law of 1978, that would repudiate one of the most outrageous and, I am going to use the technical term here, ``cockamamie'' arguments I have ever heard; namely, that when all of us voted to justify, to authorize the force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, we were somehow authorizing warrantless wiretapping.

You know, I want to say to the people who say that, follow one of my rules. In a political debate, no matter how convenient it seems to you, please do not say anything that no one believes. It will not be helpful. No one believes that. But we now this have situation where the bill that includes some of the money that carries out the warrantless wiretapping is before us.

People may think warrantless wiretapping is fine. I think it is a violation of the Constitution. But they should not be controversial. Should not this House of Representative be able to vote on that subject?

The gentleman from California presented a bipartisan amendment dealing with wireless wiretapping, reaffirming what some of us think; that there should be restraint, repudiating the outrageous argument that the Afghan resolution okayed it. And you have, Madam Speaker, and your party, refused to allow the House to vote on it. That is the disgrace. That is the abuse of the Constitution.

We are not even going to be allowed to vote on an amendment that would deal with this central constitutional question. And I would just say in closing, we are now in the process of instructing the people of Iraq about how to ruin parliamentary democracy.

As they see you deny us the right to vote on this central constitutional question, I say again what I have said before: if anybody from the Iraqi Parliament is watching our procedures, please do not try this at home.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

First, I guess I didn't know we would get in great detail about what was cockamamier than what; but when I used that phrase, I was referring specifically only to one argument: the argument that the Afghanistan force resolution authorizes. That is all I said.

I repeat, anybody who makes that argument is, let's use a Southern expression, had too much moonshine. Beyond that, I understand the gentleman thinks it is okay for warrantless wiretapping. The question is not wiretapping, but warrantless.

But my question is this: Why can't the House of Representatives vote on it? By what right does the Rules Committee arrogate to itself the right to

extinguish debate? I expect that there will be differences.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, we have had the good fortune in this country for the last 4\1/2\ years to have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and it is not because they haven't tried. The reason for that success boils down to two things: the courage of our soldiers and the quality of our intelligence. Exceptional intelligence is the first line of defense for America in the long war on terrorism.

I intend to support this rule today, and I intend to support this bill. I think it is a good bill. It is one that moves us forward to restore our Nation's intelligence capabilities across the board, HUMINT intelligence, technical and tactical intelligence, and strengthens our global understanding and awareness and analysis of what is going on in the world. I intend to support it. I also think this rule is a pretty good rule, and I have to disagree on a couple of points with my colleague from Massachusetts.

My colleague from Massachusetts has said we should debate here an amendment that was debated in our committee offered by Ms. Eshoo, one that I was a Republican Member who supported. It asked for the cost of the program that the President has acknowledged exists, the terrorist surveillance program.

I believe that whenever a member of an oversight committee asks for the cost of a program, we should get that answer. That answer has now been provided to the committee in a classified letter that is available in the Intelligence Committee spaces.

The reason that we didn't need to debate Ms. Eshoo's amendment on the floor today is because we have already gotten the answer to her question, and it doesn't make sense to me to continue to have that debate here on the floor, even though I supported that amendment in committee. So I think we have gone beyond that, and I don't think we have to have that debate and discussion here today on the floor.

The second thing that he talks about is having a debate here on the floor on the Flake proposal with some of his colleagues from the Democratic side of the aisle on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The question here for this body is how do we move forward with effective oversight of the National Security Agency program that the President has acknowledged exists.

Now, I believe that the President and the Congress share the same goal: we want to keep America safe and free. We have different responsibilities under our Constitution. The President has the responsibility for conducting our foreign affairs. He is the Commander in Chief. He makes sure that agencies follow the law and execute the programs which we have authorized.

The Congress appropriates funds. We establish agencies. We authorize programs, and we oversee implementation of those programs. We spy on our enemies. But we also oversee these programs to ensure that those very powerful tools are used within the constraints of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is why I stood up and demanded that this Congress and our committees on intelligence conduct oversight of this program. That oversight is now under way.

I think as a responsible body we have to start out by getting the facts. That means hard work that is done largely in secret in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That oversight is under way, and, for the most part, the National Security Agency has been very forthcoming.

We have to understand this program in its details before we make recommendations to this body about any changes in statute or continuing mechanisms for oversight. It would be premature to legislate today on changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The reality is that technology is changing. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put in place in 1978, the same year that I graduated from high school. I was one of the last classes at the Air Force Academy to get issued a slide rule. In 1978, the words ``cell phone'' and ``Internet'' were not even in the dictionary.

We may need to make some changes to the laws to continue to keep this country both safe and free, but we are not ready today to make those changes effectively. That debate on the floor today would be uninformed and premature.

I would ask this House to support this rule today and to also support the work, the continuing work, of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as we do our duty under the Constitution to oversee these vital programs.