Floor Statements

While I support this legislation, we should be doing better, much better. And unfortunately, Madam Speaker, many in the majority are undermining our interests throughout the Andean region.

There is no excuse, in my view, for bottling up the Colombia TPA which should be on this floor. It is a much better proposal than what we are debating today. Without the Colombia TPA, we are denying American businesses and workers greater access to Colombia.

With this legislation today, American exporters will continue to pay tariffs to Colombia, 80 percent on beef, 15 percent on tractors. So unlike the Colombia TPA which slashes Colombian taxes on our exports, this bill does nothing to increase U.S. exports to Colombia or to the three other countries it includes.

It is ironic that many who routinely attack trade agreements are giving Colombia preferential treatment and getting little in return when there is so much opportunity. With the Colombia TPA, we could get on a two-way street, one that lifts American workers as well. We could also have a deal that is stronger on labor protections. But many in the majority are settling for less, and far less at that.

And then there are our strategic interests in Colombia. It is our closest partner in a very important region. Colombia is locked in a deadly struggle with well-financed forces, undemocratic, terrorist and drug trafficking forces. Its government has made great strides against the narcoterrorists and improved the economy for millions. It has significantly reduced violence against labor leaders. This is major progress for Colombia.

The Colombia TPA is the next step for our partnership. Instead, with our inaction we are kicking Colombia, jeopardizing our regional standing. This bill is a poor substitute for the Colombia TPA. I know the chairman would like to do more. Let's get to the real business of approving that important agreement.

Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the life of the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, Mr. Christodoulos, who passed away late last month.

Since becoming ordained as a deacon in 1961 and a priest in 1965, Archbishop Christodoulos showed a dedication to his faith and people that earned great admiration and respect among his followers. He was a leading voice on the origins of Christianity, and on the role Christianity had in the creation of the European world and the identity of its citizens.

It was obvious to many that Archbishop Christodoulos cared greatly for his people and worked tirelessly to represent his faithful followers. He also actively sought to bring faith to younger generations, jocularly inviting them back to the church as they were ``earrings and all.''

Madam Speaker, Archbishop Christodoulos was a remarkable man whose death will be mourned by many. His legacy, however, will impact generations of loyal Greek Orthodox and other members of the Dyophysite faith.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the birth of Dr. Harry Palmer Jeffrey, Jr.

Dr. Jeffrey obtained his bachelor's degree at Dartmouth College in 1959, his master's degree at Ohio State University in 1961 and his Ph.D. at Columbia University in 1973.

In Congress, he worked for Representatives John Heinz, Paul Schenck, William McCulloch and Senator John Bricker. He served in the White House for the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon Administrations, and met every President of the United States from Herbert Hoover to Bill Clinton.

Dr. Jeffrey ran for office twice. He won the Ohio State GOP primary for the State Legislature in 1960, but lost in the general election. And in 1976, he unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for California's 40 District, which I now serve.

He was one of my professors when I was in college at California State University, Fullerton. He taught U.S. history and we used to debate on many issues, which helped to form my political views. He was also the faculty sponsor of my College Republican Club. We stayed in touch for all these years. In fact just recently, I visited his class at Soka University.

Dr. Jeffrey passed away November 4, 2007, and is survived by his wife, Mee-Young, his son, Robert, his step-daughter, Clara, sisters, Julie & Susu, and grandchildren, Marieke & Lex.

Please join me in remembering and honoring Dr. Jeffrey for a life spent dedicated to his family and community.

Mr. Speaker, we are back on the floor today deliberating another short-term extension on electronic surveillance legislation, and I would understand a stopgap measure if we were at an impasse. But yesterday the other body passed a bipartisan permanent rewrite of this essential national security legislation. They did it with 68 votes. They did it overwhelmingly on what some here have called a contentious issue. Well, 21 Members of the majority here have written the Democratic leadership supporting the Senate's version. The President has said he will sign it.

Mr. Speaker, let's bring that bill to the floor and pass it today. If the current authority is allowed to lapse 3 days from now, most experts agree that the administration would have to go back to the original FISA statute for new warrants in cases where foreign-to-foreign communications are routed through the U.S. telecom infrastructure, causing us to miss important information on terrorists that are trying to attack Europe, trying to attack us here, trying to attack in the Middle East. That's a situation we cannot go back to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor senior Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar. He was killed 3 weeks ago on January 19. He was intentionally struck by the driver of a vehicle that he was attempting to stop.

And on that day, Border Patrol agents observed both a Ford pickup truck and a Hummer crossing illegally from Mexico into the United States. It was near Yuma, Arizona, and they began pursuit. The drivers of the two vehicles saw that the agents were following them, and they turned back toward the border. But as Agent Aguilar deployed spike strips, he was intentionally struck by the driver of that Hummer.

His death serves for us as another stark reminder of the dangerous environment our Border Patrol faces every day. Violence against Border Patrol agents, I sadly report, is increasing in

the United States. It has gone up 31 percent. Between 2006 and 2007, the number of incidents rose from 752 attacks to 987 against our Border Patrol agents. Agents are being assaulted with an arsenal of weaponry that includes bottles and knives, bats, ball bearings, steel pipes, cinder blocks, slingshots and vehicles.

When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I held hearings down on the border, both in Laredo, Texas, and in San Diego, and the focus was on border vulnerabilities and on international terrorism. At that time, there had been some reports of international terrorists trying to cross that border.

One thing the Border Patrol asked us for, and they said this would make an immediate impact on securing our borders and securing our Nation, they asked us for a double border fence, as was finally passed in the Secure Fence Act. Many Americans strongly supported that legislation to construct that fence to help slow illegal entry into the United States, and, quite frankly, they are baffled that Congress took such a step back from strengthening our border security, as we did with that omnibus spending bill earlier this year, because that omnibus spending bill gutted the Secure Fence Act. The Secure Fence Act required double fencing. It would put a fence where it was needed most, in areas that have the highest instances of drug smuggling, of human smuggling, and of gang activity.

The omnibus bill that we passed here, that I opposed, removed the two-tier requirement and the list of locations. It also put up numerous bureaucratic and legal hurdles to undermine the fence's completion. It's past time we strengthen operational control of our borders. We need to use every tool available to give the Border Patrol the support they need to help protect Border Patrol agents as they requested.

Again, I just want to recognize the service of Agent Luis Aguilar, killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 287 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the launch of Explorer I and the birth of an era of United States space exploration.

On January 31, 1958, the United States officially entered space as Explorer I successfully reached orbit. At a time when our Nation feared the worst from the Soviet Union, the successful launch of Sputnik supercharged anxiety. Our Nation responded, and responded quickly.

Explorer I, however, was more than just an emphatic response to Sputnik. It was achieved important scientific discoveries, as well. As mechanical engineer Carl Maggio noted, all involved ``liked the difference between our satellite and Sputnik,'' because ``ours flew science, the Van Allen experiment.'' Indeed, amongst the numerous discoveries made by Explorer I, one of the most important was the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belt, a discovery that would be considered as one of the most outstanding discoveries of the International Geophysical Year.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to visit the home of Explorer I--Jet Propulsion Laboratories. Seeing this extraordinary accomplishment in person, I couldn't help but feel a swell of pride knowing that this satellite was the humble beginning of our Nation's esteemed space program. An old proverb holds that even the greatest of journeys begins with a single step. The launch of Explorer I was that first step, and it helped pave the way for a half-century of space exploration. Today, JPL missions have rovers on Mars, evaluating soil samples on a microscopic level.

To conclude, I would like to quote the NASA Chief historian Steven J. Dick, who observed that ``Like the railroad and the airplane, spaceflight has impacted society in ways even the visionaries could not have foreseen, and that we cannot fully fathom even today.'' Indeed, through the space program, we continue to make important discoveries whose benefits amaze generations to come.

I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Payne, of the Africa Subcommittee. I want to thank him for introducing this resolution that addresses the troublesome violence that is occurring today in Kenya, and I would like to recognize the good work of the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Smith, as well.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Kenya has been described. Since the post-election violence erupted at the end of December, we know that now over 1,000 Kenyans have been killed. We know that a quarter million souls have been forced to flee from their homes. Many of these homes have been burned. Many individuals have been burned. As this resolution notes, international observers found the election to be seriously flawed, implicating the government. Today, as Kenya's politicians fight for power, its people suffer and some of those people are suffering terribly.

This resolution calls on President Mwai Kibaki and opposition candidate Raila Odinga to accept external assistance to find their way out of this. This has been occurring of late with the former U.N. Secretary General bringing about some progress. But without this, the factions seem incapable of moving ahead on their own.

The resolution also calls for holding accountable those responsible for violence. Widespread violence can almost always be traced back to ringleaders. That was the case in Rwanda, where a small band sparked a genocide. Kenyans don't want their country ripped apart, but a small number of recruiters, I suspect, are leading it in that way. We should do our best to let would-be killers, including government officials, know that the world is watching and they will face the consequences if they incite violence.

The State Department's top official charged with Africa recently called the violence ``ethnic cleansing.'' We cannot be complacent. The potential for violence spiraling upward should never be discounted. This is the reason, of course, that our Peace Corps is leaving Kenya.

Looking back a few months, the U.S. and the international community was complacent and somewhat naive about

the Kenyan elections. News reports and analysts expressed surprise over the election violence. I chaired the Africa Subcommittee for 8 years working with Chairman Payne. There is a tendency, an understandable one, to see African ``successes,'' and Kenya has been described as one. While many African countries have made progress, many African countries face fundamental and very difficult challenges that leave them very vulnerable. A better realization of that, a more realistic view, I think, would lead to a better Africa policy.

Kenya is a very important country. Its economy is key to East Africa. This violence has been economically devastating to many Kenyans. We have terrorism concerns in the region. So we have humanitarian and other reasons, other reasons besides just the question of the inhumanity here to help Kenyans move forward. It is Kenyans themselves who must look within to help get out of this crisis. But the U.S. and others should help, and this resolution calls for that help. I urge support for it, and I commend Chairman Payne for authoring it.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, House Resolution 947, which I authored and which has the support of Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Payne and Mr. Faleomavaega of the Foreign Affairs Committee, among others.

I serve as a member of the Asia Subcommittee and as the vice chairman of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange. This resolution congratulates Lee Myung-Bak on his election as president of the Republic of Korea and wishes him well during his time of transition.

In this country, Korean Americans watched the Korean presidential campaign with great interest, and their community has played a very important role in bringing greater attention to issues of mutual importance, and I would like to recognize their efforts.

The U.S. partnership with Korea dates back to 1882 with the signing of the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between the Kingdom of Chosun and the United States. This treaty contemplates everlasting amity and friendship between our two peoples, and for over 125 years, we have worked to achieve this.

One of the truest tests of our partnership with South Korea came in June of 1950 when Communist North Korea invaded the South. American and South Korean forces fought valiantly side by side and they warded off that Communist onslaught.

In the 60 years since, the U.S.-South Korean relationship has blossomed in every respect: economic, political, militarily. Nearly 30,000 U.S. troops stand along with the South Korean Army to preserve stability in northeast Asia. South Korea has grown into the seventh largest trading partner with the United States.

And on February 25 of this year, Lee Myung-Bak will assume the presidency of the Republic of Korea. He does so at a critical time during our partnership. The Republic of Korea and the U.S. once again face a great challenge in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea, a regime that denies its citizens the most basic of human rights. The Six Party Talks have stalled, and Kim Jong-Il's regime has continually failed to come clean on the extent of its nuclear programs. Yesterday, Admiral Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, testified that ``while Pyongyang denies a program for uranium enrichment, and they deny their proliferation activities, we believe North Korea continues to engage in both.''

I am hopeful that President-elect Lee Myung-Bak will offer a new, effective approach to these challenges. To date, Lee Myung-Bak has argued that the previous administrations gave too much unconditional aid to buy reconciliation with the North. In a recent press conference, President-elect Lee said he would like to discuss human rights and the whereabouts of abducted South Koreans with Pyongyang. Such ``controversial'' issues, amazingly, were taboo to previous governments which sat out a U.N. condemnation of North Korea's human rights abuses just last fall.

Importantly, President-elect Lee is a strong proponent of the U.S. trade agreement. As the South Korean Army continues to strengthen, the economic relationship between our two countries will increasingly define this overall relationship. That is why I heard so much about the trade agreement on my trip to Korea last summer in my role as the vice chairman of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange.

At a time when many are worried about the future of our economy, it is essential that we expand into foreign markets. The Korea-U.S. FTA will do just that, opening up Korean markets to U.S. products. If KORUS isn't passed, it won't just be our economy that will suffer, but our relationship with the Republic of Korea.

In closing, I would like to congratulate President-elect Lee on his victory. In the past 60 years, the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance has helped move both countries forward. I know many of us in Congress greatly look forward to the opportunity to work together to further our already-strong partnership.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Smith, for as much time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I was the author of both the California law that first criminalized the act of stalking, first made it a felony, and then the Federal law some years later in 1996, which proceeded to do the same thing.

I thought I would share with the Members here some of the experiences of some of the victims that have gone through this particularly hellish nightmare of stalking. The case that I think carried the day in California in the State legislature was that of Kathleen Gallagher Baty, who was our witness, and she came back here and testified as well on behalf of this legislation.

Kathleen had been on the track team, I think it was UCLA at the time. She did not even know her stalker, but he became obsessed with this young woman. Throughout college, throughout her career, he managed to stalk and attempt to apprehend her. Time after time, there was nothing law enforcement could do except to really say, well, until he catches you, our hands are tied.

We had one period of time in 6 weeks when four different young women, all known to law enforcement, all believed to be in danger in Orange County, California, were all killed. In law enforcement, one of the officers told me, The worst thing for me personally that I have ever had to do with this job was to convey to her that our hands were tied until she was attacked.

He said, As a matter of fact, I was waiting to try to apprehend her stalker in the act of the attack, but, unfortunately, he killed her first, and then he killed himself when I tried to apprehend him.

Well, with Kathleen Gallagher's case, this finally ended. I had gotten a note from her father about what she had been through in her life. This finally ended on a porch in which he held her at knifepoint until she finally managed to get away. But because he hadn't drug her more than 800 feet, it was not an act of him trying to kidnap her under the law.

So looking at what had to be done, clearly, we had to take the action of stalking, define it as a crime in and of itself so that law enforcement could then intervene in these cases and tell a young man, Listen, these acts of threatening to kill your victim, telling her, if you can't have her, nobody can, threatening her in this way is now a felony.

That's what we did in California. Many other States picked this up. In 1996, I introduced the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act here in Congress. We were able to get it through the House and the Senate, and it was signed by the President.

But what I wanted to share with the Members is that we have talked a little bit today about the 1.4 million victims every year. But this act is now law in countries, in Europe; it's now law in Japan. My office has been contacted over the years by many, many governments overseas, many legislators, parliamentarians who have said, We have this same phenomenon in our own country. If we gave law enforcement this ability to intercede in advance, we could protect the lives of many, many victims.

So I just wanted to share with the Members here a little bit of the history of the act. I would like to take this opportunity also to recognize Colleen Campbell, along with some of the other

Orange County victims' rights groups that worked over the years to get victims the rights they deserve. They worked on this particular act and also on proposition 115 out in California, the Crime Victims/Speedy Trial Initiative, which I cochaired and which was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in our State.

One of my hopes is that we can follow this up with Federal law at some point in time that does more than just put it in statute but that puts into the Constitution some of these basic rights.

But, in the meantime, the fact that we are establishing January as National Stalking Awareness Month gives us the opportunity to get the word out to young people, to those who are victims of obsessed stalkers, that there is a place they can turn to for help, and to remind law enforcement, and I wish we did more to train law enforcement in this particular area because I think there is a lot they can do to intercede, but to remind them of the ability to step in and remind those young, obsessed people who are threatening the life of someone, threatening someone with bodily harm, this is now a felony in the United States of America and you can serve 5 years in a Federal penitentiary.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize the 1-year anniversary of the brutal murder of Hrant Dink, the newspaper editor and leading figure in the Armenian genocide debate in Turkey.

On January 19, 2007, freedom of speech suffered a setback as Dink was shot outside his office in Istanbul. As a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent, Dink had gained notoriety in Turkish society for the court cases brought against him in which he faced jail time for simply talking of the Armenian genocide.

While many will give speeches to remember Hrant Dink, the most meaningful tribute would be a rescinding of article 301 of the Turkish penal code that outlaws ``insults to Turkishness.''

Under this law, journalists like Dink and Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk continue to be persecuted by draconian laws that seek to stifle debate or discussion on matters that could be seen as insulting to Turkish identity. It is my sincere hope that the Turkish government will use this occasion to reflect upon this restrictive article and rescind it before it does more harm.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Korean American Day, which was held this past Sunday to honor the achievements, to honor the contributions of Korean Americans to our country. Back on January 13 of 1903, the first Korean immigrants came here to the United States; and since that time, Korean Americans have taken root and thrived in this country through their strong ties, their hard work, their commitment to their rich heritage and values, education, and entrepreneurship.

But, Madam Speaker, we have an ally and friend in South Korea, and they have been a friend for the decades. Over this time, South Korea has emerged as a major economic power, our seventh largest trading partner. It is vital that Congress take up and pass the Korean-U.S. trade agreement.

Let me tell you why: this particular agreement, the U.S. International Trade Commission, just released its report. They say this agreement can benefit the economy of the United States of America to the tune of over $10 billion, between $10 billion and $11.9 billion.

We stand to gain if this passes. It's vital that we continue to open up new markets for our goods and services. This agreement accomplishes that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition as ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee. And I can share this: there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and that is due in part to the improved surveillance in real-time that we are able to conduct against foreign terrorists. There is no disputing that.

I cannot help but feel that many of my colleagues have become so blinded by their hatred of this administration that they have put the threat from radical jihadists in the back of their mind. But given the threat, it is unfathomable that we would weaken our most effective preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Before we unilaterally disarm, before we hobble our ability to listen in real-time to the very real terrorists who are plotting against our country around this globe, shouldn't we have something of an accounting of the supposed civil liberties price we are paying?

I asked the Congressional Research Service for such an accounting. They reported there is no available evidence of the type of privacy violations critics

are pointing at. The case can't be proven.

But under this bill, for the first time this bill would stop intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries unless they can read the mind of their terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call into the United States, that they would not call one of their people here.

This is more protection than Americans get under court-ordered warrants in Mob and other criminal cases here in the United States that we are now granting these terrorists under this act.

We are, frankly, confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are physically dispersed, but they are united through the Internet; and they use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use electronic communications for just such a purpose. They are very sophisticated in that.

So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use electronic surveillance in real-time. They used it last year to stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights, and they prevented that attack in August of last year by wiretapping. The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody; and, thereby, they prevented a bomb attack.

Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we would weakened our most effective preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of National Intelligence told this Congress we are losing up to two-thirds of our intelligence on terrorist targets.

I thank the gentleman.

I do rise in opposition to this bill and to explain a line of reasoning that the Wall Street Journal and other critics have pointed out on their editorial pages. This proposal, in fact, is a trial lawyer's dream. What this bill does is it, with very murky language, forbids banks for signing up borrowers for what is termed ``overly expensive loans.'' It requires banks to make sure that the consumer has a ``reasonable ability to repay the loan'' and insist that loans must be ``solely in the best interest of the consumer.'' This kind of murky language would invite litigation from every borrower who misses a payment. The Wall Street Journal says that if this bill becomes law, we can expect to read billboards reading, ``Behind on your mortgage? For relief, call 1-800 Sue-Your-Banker.''

For the first time, under this act, banks that securitize mortgages would be made explicitly liable for violations of lending laws. This is a version of secondary liability that holds the bundlers and resellers of mortgages responsible for any mistakes of the original lenders. Now, the reselling of mortgages has been both a boon to the housing liquidity and risk diversification and, therefore, to lower interest rates for all of us that have taken out a loan. So to the extent that the bill adds a new risk element to securitizing subprime loans, and it surely will, the main loser will be the subprime borrower who will pay higher rates if he or she can get a loan at all.

Now, this debate is occurring during a challenging period for our mortgage market. What has transpired over the last few months has spread throughout our capital markets. It has the potential to slow the economy even further if we do this wrong. This bill is the wrong approach.

Now, we have had some signs of self-correction in the mortgage market. Lenders are underwriting mortgages

much more carefully as a result of market discipline. Products which have proven to be unfit for certain borrowers such low-doc loans, short-term hybrid ARMS, interest-only products, those are becoming increasingly hard to find. Those have been pushed out of the market. But the legislation before us today ignores such advances. Not only does this bill fail to account for the progress made in the market, it has the potential to seriously restrict access to credit for millions of Americans looking to purchase a home or refinance their mortgage.

In its present form, a borrower will have the ability to recover all of the principal and interest paid over the entire history of the loan as long as he can convince a court that he didn't have a reasonable ability to pay, as I said. At the time the loan was originated, again, it is not hard to imagine how language such as this is going to be abused and run up the costs of home mortgages for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to take a moment and thank Chairman John Tanner, as well as of course Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Lantos for their support in bringing this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.

I would also like to thank Congresswoman Diane Watson. She is the coauthor of this resolution, and in August Congresswoman Watson and myself traveled to South Korea as Chair and vice-Chair of the U.S.- Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange. We also had an opportunity to go to North Korea at that time. In Seoul, South Korea, we held a day-long discussion with our counterparts in the National Assembly there in South Korea and took part in a forum of parliamentarians from across the globe. We had parliamentarians there from seven different countries to discuss the plight of North Korean refugees, and this resolution is a product of those discussions and what we learned from the defectors that we talked to, and we listened to the defectors during these hearings.

Mr. Speaker, we're all too familiar with the miserable human rights conditions in North Korea, and I would just remind the Members of this body of reports by the State Department and NGOs that paint a very grim picture.

There is a total denial of political, civil, and religious liberties. There is no dissent or criticism allowed of Kim Jong-Il. The media is tightly controlled there by the regime.

Severe, severe physical abuse is inflicted on any citizen who violates these laws and restrictions. NGOs describe a system of concentration camps. They say this is akin to the Soviet gulags, and they house somewhere up to 200,000 inmates.

Food shortages are a regular problem because the regime distributes food based on perceived loyalty and, of course, favors the ruling elite and the military.

This dismal state has led a large number of North Koreans, perhaps as many as 300,000, to cross into China. There they seek food, and they're looking for work, and hopefully from their standpoint, they're looking for resettlement in South Korea. It is thought that nearly 75 percent of these refugees are women, and according to the NGOs that study this problem, 90 percent of those women end up trafficked.

In northeast China, North Korean refugees live in constant fear of being rounded up by Chinese authorities, and this despite the international obligations that China is supposed to keep.

China forcibly repatriates these refugees; and for many of them, it's effectively a death sentence. Some are shot on the spot. Some go to these concentration camps or work camps. Many of them live out their lives in these concentration camps.

The Government of North Korea deems leaving their country a crime, in some cases a capital offense. If not that, the expense is the gulag.

China's mistreatment of these refugees is not new but has really intensified, according to the State Department, in the last couple of years. During 2006, several thousand North Koreans were forcibly detained and forcibly returned to North Korea, the State Department reports.

As part of its stepped-up campaign of repatriation, Chinese authorities reportedly also have established new detention centers along the border with North Korea to accommodate greater numbers of North Korean prisoners prior to the repatriation. The Congressional- Executive Commission on China, on which I serve, recently released its annual report finding that during the past 1 or 2 years the Chinese Government has intensified its efforts to forcibly repatriate North Korean refugees, in part as security preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games.

These refugees deserve better. Certainly, Kim Chun-hee did. Ms. Kim is a North Korean woman in her 30s who sought refuge at a school in Beijing in December of 2005, only to be repatriated, this despite attempts by the United States and others to raise her case to the Chinese Government to convince the Chinese Government not to do this. To this day it is not known whether she was executed or whether she is still alive.

There are thousands of similar stories. Those associated with humanitarian groups who assist North Korean refugees in northeast China are also targeted by Chinese officials, and this includes U.S. citizens. Last month, American businessman Steve Kim was released from a Chinese prison after serving 4 years. His supposed crime was helping North Korean refugees who had escaped their homeland and were hiding in China hoping to make their way to South Korea.

Mr. Kim, who recently spoke on Capitol Hill about his experiences, recounted, ``When I was in prison, I saw North Korean defectors who I shared the prison cell with beaten to a pulp by prison guards.'' Now, this is in China. This is before they are sent back to North Korea. We have documented the kind of treatment they get when they are sent back.

This resolution sends a strong message to Beijing. This practice must stop. Specifically, the resolution calls on China to honor its obligations under the 1951 U.N. convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol, and to honor that by halting the forced repatriation of these refugees, terminating the practice of automatically classifying all North Korean border crossers as illegal economic migrants and granting the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees unfettered access to get into these areas to see these refugees.

China is signed up to respect refugees. It is past time for them to live up to the protocols they have signed to do this. The human rights situation in North Korea is a nightmare. These human rights abuses are worthy of this House's attention, because North Koreans are suffering. Two million were killed at the hands of this regime over this last decade. They also tell us something about the regime we are expecting to carry out commitments under the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It tells you something about this regime.

I will quote Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident who once said, ``A country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respect the rights of its neighbors.'' Teeing off that quote, Jay Lefkowitz, the State Department's Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last year, ``North Korea is a prime example of a regime that doesn't respect either. It wouldn't have surprised Sakharov that a government that inflicts on its citizens repression reminiscent of the most cruel totalitarian rulers of the 20th century is today counterfeiting U.S. currency, trafficking in narcotics, building a nuclear arsenal, and threatening other nations.''

In testimony last week before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill reported that he is moving the ball forward with North Korea in respect to disabling their nuclear program. I hope he is right. Part of the February agreement to do so involves a U.S. commitment to move toward full diplomatic relations with North Korea.

The administration insists that it still has a clear eye on the North Korea human rights situation. However, the Congressional Research Service reports that Ambassador Hill increasingly has linked normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations solely to a satisfactory settlement of the nuclear issue. This body must let it be known that relations with North Korea will be far from normal as long as North Korea continues to treat its people as we have heard about today.

I urge the passage of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I'm rising to oppose the rule.

For the first time, this bill would stop intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries unless they can read the mind of their terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call the United States or one of their people in the United States. This is more protection than Americans get under court-ordered warrants in mob and other criminal cases.

So the issue we're debating today is very important. It is a matter of life and death essentially.

I serve as ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee. That there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11 is due to the improved surveillance in real-time that we're able to conduct against foreign terrorists.

That good record, though, in no way should lead us to discount the jihadists, because the image of Osama bin Laden's allies operating in some remote terrain somewhere may give the impression that our foes are isolated. They are not isolated.

We are confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are physically dispersed, but they're united through the Internet, and they use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use electronic communications for just such a purpose, and they're very sophisticated in that use.

So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use electronic surveillance in real-time, and they used it last year to stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights. They prevented that attack in August of last year by wiretapping.

The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody and prevented a bomb attack.

Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we'd weaken our most effective preventative tool, and that's exactly what this bill does.

Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of National Intelligence told Congress that we are losing up to two-thirds of our intelligence on terrorist targets. Admiral McConnell went on to testify, ``We're actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.''

Though Admiral McConnell has served both Democrat and Republican administrations with distinction, now his credibility has been attacked. I'd ask those so distrustful: Go ahead, discount his estimate, cut them in half, say we'd lose one-third of our intelligence by passing this bill. Isn't that too much to give up? I don't want to lose a single percent of our intelligence on terrorist communications. With nuclear and biological material floating around this globe, we don't have that margin of error.

We've heard the ACLU concerns, but before we unilaterally disarm, before we hobble our ability to listen in real-time to the very real terrorists who are attacking our troops in Iraq every day, shouldn't we have something of an accounting of the supposed civil liberties price we're paying? Frankly, I don't see the troubling cases.

What I do see is the very misguided concern for the civil liberties of foreigners having conversations with terrorists.

This bill grants privacy protection to foreigners, those believed to be terrorists, by requiring the intelligence community to seek court orders to collect foreign intelligence on foreign targets.

This process in the past has clogged the FISA Court, it has wasted untold intelligence hours, it has pulled Arabic and Urdu and Farsi speakers off of listening to terrorist cases and put them on filing hundreds of pages of paperwork. FISA restrictions hindered the search for kidnapped Americans in Iraq.

My colleagues, it has come down to this: Are we interested in best protecting American lives, or giving away privacy rights to foreigners involved in conversations with terrorists?