[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11054-H11071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3259, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1997

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 529 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 529

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3259) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1997 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
     the United States Government, the Community Management 
     Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and 
     Disability System, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
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. Speaker, this rule is standard for a conference report, and is a 
fair product given our time constraints as we conclude this session of 
the Congress. The rule before us waives all points of order against the 
conference report accompanying the bill H.R. 3259, to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the U.S. Government, the community management 
account, and the Central Intelligence Agency retirement and disability 
system and for other purposes. In addition the rule provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.

  Mr. Speaker, I was honored to have participated in the tremendous 
effort that led to the completion of this bill. As a member of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--generally known as 
HPSCI--I was proud to serve under the tough and fair leadership of my 
chairman, Mr. Combest, in crafting this bill. It is a product I think 
we can all be proud of, born of bipartisan and bicameral cooperation 
and negotiation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague from California, Mr. Beilenson, 
put his finger on an important point yesterday in our Rules Committee 
meeting, as he often does, when he said that no one pays much attention 
to our Nation's intelligence programs. The truth is that, given the 
very nature of the topic, intelligence matters do not have a natural 
public constituency and do not generally arise for discussion around 
America's dinner tables. But, as Mr. Beilenson also pointed out, 
perhaps that is as it should be--and I would argue that fact is a 
testament to the successes we have had with our intelligence 
operations, for the most part. Yes, there have been some high profile 
problems--and we have worked hard to be sure we deal with them 
expeditiously and effectively. But overall, the way you know that there 
is good news in the intelligence world is when you hear no news at all. 
That is how the intelligence business works--the success stories are 
those that never become stories at all, because good, accurate, and 
timely intelligence allowed us to prevent bad things from happening.

  Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the changing world around us makes 
good intelligence more necessary than ever before. There are more 
varied threats and more dispersed targets and the need for us to have 
well-tuned and properly trained eyes and ears has never been greater. 
The Intelligence Oversight Committees of this Congress recognize that 
and have conducted our oversight in a thoughtful and comprehensive 
manner. In addition to the efforts of our House committee, known as IC 
21, which made some very important recommendations for adapting our 
intelligence capabilities to be ready for the next century, there was 
also the so-called Aspin-Brown Commission Review, which I was 
privileged to serve on. These efforts have laid down the groundwork and 
we now must move ahead in developing consensus and implementing 
meaningful change. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that everyone 
understands the intense competition that exists in our finite budget 
world when it comes to the expenditure of America's tax dollars.
  We know that that intelligence is a necessary commodity that saves 
lives and allows for prudent decisionmaking by our leaders, decisions 
that are not just involved with the military, although we all know that 
is a major component, but decisions also in other vital areas, such as 
fighting terrorism and dealing with the international drug problems.
  I think this bill addresses these needs, although I think we must 
guard against expanding international law enforcement activity at the 
expense of intelligence operations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and it is a good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], for yielding the customary half hour of debate time to me.

[[Page H11055]]

  Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose House Resolution 529, the rule for the 
conference report on H.R. 3259, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1997, which the gentleman from Florida explained so well. 
We do, however, have concerns about the waivers of several standing 
House rules that the resolution provides, and wanted to mention them to 
the membership.
  The resolution protects against possible points of order, provisions 
that violate rules that prohibit conference committees from including 
provisions, one, that are outside the committee's scope; two, that are 
not germane to the legislation; three, that violate the Budget Act; and 
four, that provide appropriations in a legislative bill.
  The resolution also waives the 3-day layover rule, whose purpose is 
to ensure that Members have the opportunity to examine a conference 
agreement, and with respect to this particular measure, the classified 
annex to the report. We are not yet convinced that the House is so 
short on time just now that disregarding this important rule is 
necessary.
  Many of us believe that we should be much more cautious in general 
about providing such significant waivers in so routine a fashion. Many 
waivers are purely technical in nature, and we all know that in order 
to keep House operations moving along, it is sometimes necessary to 
exempt some legislation or provisions of legislation from certain 
standing rules of the House. But Members should at the least be told 
exactly what is being protected by waivers and the necessity and the 
reason for them before being asked to vote on a rule granting them.
  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the conference agreement itself, we 
continue to be disturbed about several provisions in the bill, and most 
especially those dealing with funding levels. Total spending authorized 
in the conference report exceeds the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1996 by 4.2 percent and is 2.3 percent above the President's 
fiscal year 1997 request.
  We only have to pick up the morning newspapers to be reminded that 
the world is still a very dangerous place and we must not remain silent 
without and within our borders. But we are operating under severe and 
very real budget constraints, and we are suggesting only that 
intelligence programs and activities should be subject to the same 
level of severe scrutiny as are other functions of the Federal 
Government.
  A considerable amount of effort, Mr. Speaker, has been spent over the 
last 2 years on proposals for intelligence reform. We are pleased to 
see that some steps have been taken in the conference report to enhance 
the ability of the Director of Central Intelligence to get a handle on 
spending within the intelligence community. But we do have reservations 
about the provisions creating, in the name of reform, four new deputy 
or assistant directors of Central Intelligence who require Senate 
confirmation.
  The legislation creates new assistant DCI's for collection, analysis, 
and for production, and for administration under a new deputy DCI for 
community management. However, the legislation only gives these new 
ADCI's a coordination function. Placing four officials requiring Senate 
confirmation into an organization of approximately 100 people seems 
excessive and an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. In addition, this is 
an area where the management staff is supposed to be professional or 
outside politics, and so I express the hope that future Congresses will 
handle these appointments with a great deal of caution to avoid their 
politicization.
  The conference report also contains a provision that is intended to 
clarify that law enforcement agencies may request that intelligence 
agencies collect information overseas on non-United States persons. 
While we appreciate the fact that many of the most serious national 
security threats to the United States now arise in the intersections 
between law enforcement, intelligence and diplomacy, we do hope there 
will be careful oversight of how these three communities are working 
together in order to ensure respect for the civil liberties of the 
people of the United States.
  We also have concerns, Mr. Speaker, about the apparent lack of 
meaningful, substantive reforms to give the Director of Central 
Intelligence more authority over the intelligence functions of the 
Department of Defense.
  Many of us agree with the blue ribbon commissions that have issued 
reports advising that the only way to ensure that our national security 
operations are coordinated, are not being duplicated by another 
intelligence office, is to put one person in charge of the entire 
community. Unfortunately, the conference agreement has only very minor 
provisions designed to strengthen, indeed, very modestly, the authority 
of the Director of Central Intelligence.

  I hope the Congress will revisit this issue next year and be 
successful in placing authority and responsibility in a single office, 
so that one person can exercise that authority as necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, if I might, ending here, I would like to add a brief 
personal note. As many of my colleagues know, I had the privilege of 
serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 7 years, 
two of those years as its chairman. Those were among the most 
challenging and rewarding years in Congress for me.
  I simply want to thank my colleagues, those with whom I served on the 
committee, many of whom remain only committee, and those who have 
followed us, for the dedication and the enormous amount of time and 
energy they give to the work of the committee, especially the gentleman 
from Texas, the chairman, Mr. Combest, and the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Dicks, the ranking member, and also our mutual friend, 
and also my colleague on the Committee on Rules, probably the only 
person around here who has much of a background in intelligence and 
really knows what he is talking about, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Goss, for the dedication and enormous amount of time and energy that 
they give to the work of the committee. And also I would like to 
personally attest to the fact that the committee staff is among the 
best in Congress, and I thank them too, as I know we all do, for 
helping make this committee outstanding.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we are not opposed to this rule providing 
waivers for the conference report on the intelligence authorization 
bill. We urge our colleagues to approve it, so we may expedite 
consideration of the conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] has yielded back the balance of his time, and I have no 
further speakers, but I would be remiss if I did not take a minute to 
thank Mr. Beilenson for his extraordinary service to this House, to his 
country, to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to the 
Committee on Rules, and to his many other endeavors in this 
institution. He is a credit to himself, clearly, but not only that, he 
leaves this House better than he found it, and I think he leaves this 
country better than it was before he started in public service. I am 
very proud to say that, and count him among my friends.
  I demurred from participating last night in the colloquy for Mr. 
Beilenson and Mr. Moorhead, where many nice things were said, primarily 
because it was done by Californians. But I want Mr. Beilenson to 
understand that Floridians feel the same way, although we have to be a 
little more circumspect how we say it.
  I also wanted to say with the point on the rule that Mr. Beilenson 
brought up, the discussion that took place yesterday on the waivers, we 
did have some conversation on the record in the committee, and much of 
what Mr. Beilenson has talked about was testified to by the gentleman 
from Texas, Chairman Combest, and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Dicks, and I believe has properly been attended to. It is a matter in 
the classified annex, but I agree with Mr. Beilenson's general 
philosophy on that.
  I can assure the gentleman that I am satisfied, having participated 
in some of that, that I think everything is in order, and I know the 
gentleman would accept the statements of Mr. Combest and Mr. Dicks.
  Mr. Speaker, having said all that, I have nothing further to add, 
except I urge support of this rule.

[[Page H11056]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 529, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3259) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of the U.S. Government, the community management 
account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 529, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 24, 1996, at page H10937.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] and 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest].
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 
3259, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
  H.R. 3259 authorizes appropriations for the intelligence activities 
of the U.S. Government. H.R. 3259 makes a modest increase of 2.3 
percent over the President's request; it is 2.2 percent higher than 
last year's appropriation, adjusted for inflation. We continue to 
believe that intelligence, more than ever, must be our first line of 
defense, of warning and of analysis. Dollars well-spent on intelligence 
are, I believe, fewer than dollars we would be forced to spend 
elsewhere if our intelligence capabilities decreased.
  I also wish to call my colleagues' attention to a number of 
provisions in this bill that will set the intelligence community on the 
road to a 21st century structure and function.
  At the outset of this Congress, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence embarked on a major study, IC21: The Intelligence 
Community in the 21st Century. Committee majority staff produced what I 
believe is already recognized as a landmark study on how the 
Intelligence Community can be transformed so as to be best able to deal 
with the national security issues we may face in the future.
  We did not get enacted all of the many recommendations we made. 
Indeed, I recognized at the outset of IC21 that we were unlikely to get 
it all done in one Congress. Like so many of the major national 
security reforms of the past--the National Security Act, Goldwater-
Nichols--this is a multiyear, multi-Congress effort.
  But I think H.R. 3259 makes a useful start, largely by beginning to 
give the Director of Central Intelligence the management tools he needs 
so that his capabilities begin to match his responsibilities as head of 
the entire Intelligence Community.
  Finally, I wish to thank all of the members of our committee on both 
sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this legislation, and 
those Members of the other body with whom we share responsibility for 
this important legislation. I also want to thank our staff, who have 
put in long hours and, more importantly, serious and creative thoughts 
and hard work in the crafting of this bill.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3259.
  At the outset I want to commend the gentleman from Texas, Chairman 
Combest, for the effort he has devoted to bringing this legislation 
back to the House. I also want to join him in complimenting our staff. 
I think the staff of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is 
extraordinarily professional and effective and does a very good job for 
this institution.
  The intelligence authorization had relatively smooth sailing in the 
House last May, but its passage through the Senate was difficult, to 
say the least. On more than one occasion it appeared likely that there 
would be no authorization bill for intelligence programs and activities 
in fiscal year 1997. In my judgment, that result would have been bad 
for the congressional oversight process and bad for the intelligence 
agencies.
  Chairman Combest's persistence and his willingness to compromise when 
it was necessary, without sacrificing the essence of the positions 
taken by the House, contributed immeasurably to our having reached this 
point in the legislative process.
  The conference report contains an overall authorization level which 
is 2.3 percent above the amount requested by President Clinton in part 
because a significant amount recently requested by the administration 
for counterterrorism activities is included. Even with this initiative, 
the conference report is 1.5 percent below the level approved by the 
House in May.
  I believe the increase above the request is justifiable given the 
costs inherent in many sophisticated intelligence collection systems, 
and the absolute necessity of ensuring that our policymakers and 
military commanders have access to the most comprehensive, reliable, 
and timely information possible on which to base their decisions and 
actions. Intelligence is expensive, but the cost of not having 
information about threats to our national security is incalculable.
  The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence devoted a great deal 
of time in this Congress to the questions of how the intelligence 
community should be structured for the next century. In that endeavor 
the committee was joined not only by its Senate counterpart but by the 
Aspin-Brown Commission, on which I served, and several other groups. 
Out of these efforts emerged many thought-provoking ideas, some of 
which deserve further consideration.
  What did not emerge, however, was a consensus on the question of 
whether or not the community needed fundamental organizational change. 
There was simply no showing and certainly no conclusion by executive 
branch officials that the current structure hinders the effective 
conduct of intelligence activities.
  The relationship between the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 
Central Intelligence on intelligence matters, particularly the 
intelligence budget, is key to the management of the intelligence 
community. Currently that relationship works. In the absence of any 
evidence that it cannot continue to do so, there is simply no impetus 
for radical change.
  The conference report does, however, make some changes in the 
community's structure. Despite my support for the conference agreement, 
I have reservations about placing additional layers of bureaucracy on 
the community's organizational charts. It is not all clear what purpose 
three Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence will serve, nor is it 
clear what shortcomings in the existing structure they are to remedy.
  When the reform process began last year, its stated purpose in the 
House and in the other body was to produce a more streamlined, flexible 
intelligence community. I am concerned that what we have done, instead, 
is to create more Senate-confirmed positions whose occupants will spend 
most of their time searching for something productive to do.
  Despite these reservations, I intend to support the conference 
agreement because I believe that, on balance, it makes progress in some 
technical collection areas in which innovation is necessary. I urge my 
colleagues to give it their support as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to make certain the record is complete and say that I join with my 
colleague from Washington in concerns about the three new deputies in 
CIA. That was the recommendation made in the other legislative body. We 
arrived at a conference report which did include that, but I do have 
those reservations and concerns as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].

[[Page H11057]]

  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from 
Texas, Chairman Combest, and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Dicks, for the comity and excellent relationship they 
have that enable our committee to be bipartisan, especially in an area 
that is as critically important to the country as intelligence and 
national security.
  This is a committee that works well together. Sure, we have 
disagreements and differences in style and sometimes substance, but, in 
general, both Members make sure that the bipartisanship is there.
  Second, let me say that I think this bill is important because it is 
the first major piece of legislation where the shift into human 
intelligence is dramatic, the way it should be. As we are going to face 
challenges that are no longer related to one country but are 
transnational, problems of international terrorism and drugs and 
nuclear outlaws and rogue states and economic competition, it is 
critically important we beef up our intelligence capabilities, our 
human intelligence capabilities.
  It is critically important that we understand Islamic fundamentalism. 
That is going to take more linguists. To be perfectly candid, it will 
take more spies. It is going to take more James Bonds. This is 
something that should not be viewed as being a bit far-fetched, but it 
basically means that covert operations are going to be needed once 
again to deal with these problems of nuclear nonproliferation and the 
problems of rogue states and international outlaws and terrorism and 
narcotics. These problems are transnational.
  I think President Clinton very accurately outlined the threats to our 
country in his speech to the United Nations yesterday in which very 
proudly the United States led the effort to stop nuclear testing, and 
the treaty was signed. Only three states did not support this. We are 
moving in a very important direction, especially since nuclear 
proliferation is one of the biggest challenges that the Western world 
and the United States will face in the days ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report that provides an 
authorization for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. I 
want to highlight one specific section that I had a little bit to do 
with, section 309 of the conference agreement, which deals with the use 
by U.S. intelligence agencies of American journalists as intelligence 
agents or assets.
  Section 309 is similar to an amendment to the House bill which I 
authored and which, after modification by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Congressman Murtha, was adopted by a vote of 417 to 6. 
The enactment of the conference report will place in statute for the 
first time a policy statement that correspondents or representatives of 
the U.S. media organizations may not be used to collect intelligence.
  Nothing could be more detrimental to the safety of U.S. journalists 
who work in dangerous places overseas and who by the very nature of 
their profession must be constantly asking questions and trying to 
discover information than to be suspected as a spy for the United 
States. This could have drastic consequences, and in some cases it has.
  As I noted when my amendment was debated in the House last May, there 
is a distinction between reporters as commentators on Government and 
reporters as instruments of government. The prohibition in this 
conference report on the use of American journalists as intelligence 
agents or assets will underscore and strengthen that distinction.
  The language in section 309 would not prevent those journalists who 
choose to provide information to a U.S. intelligence agency from doing 
so. It also recognizes that there may be extraordinary circumstance in 
which the prohibition needs to be waived in the interest of our 
national security. In those rare cases, however, the national security 
determination must be made in writing and the intelligence committees 
must be informed.

  Mr. Speaker, section 309 is consistent with the independence 
guaranteed to the press by our constitution, and it is consistent with 
the proper discharge of our responsibility to protect as best we can 
American journalists who travel or work in difficult circumstances 
overseas. I urge that we better ensure the safety of those journalists 
by passing this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, again I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee for his very liberal and positive use, in my judgment, of 
allowing me to undertake international missions, sometimes on behalf of 
the administration, other times on behalf of the committee. He has been 
extremely cooperative every single time, and I am most grateful.
  And to the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, the same thanks for his 
unyielding support. I want to commend both gentlemen for their 
bipartisan effort in running this committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report to provide an 
authorization for the coming fiscal year for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities.
  I want to highlight section 309 of the conference agreement which 
deals with the use by U.S. intelligence agencies of U.S. journalists as 
intelligence agents or assets. Section 309 is similar to an amendment 
to the House bill which I authored and which, after modification by 
Congressman Murtha, was adopted by a vote of 417 to 6.
  The enactment of the conference report will place in statute for the 
first time a policy statement that correspondents or representatives of 
U.S. news media organizations may not be used to collect intelligence. 
Nothing could be more detrimental to the safety of U.S. journalists who 
work in dangerous places overseas and who, by the very nature of their 
profession must be constantly asking questions and trying to discover 
information, than to be suspected of being a spy for the United States. 
As I noted when my amendment was debated in the House last May, there 
is a distinction between reporters as commentators on government and 
reporters as instruments of government. The prohibition in this 
conference report on the use of U.S. journalists as intelligence agents 
or assets will underscore and strengthen that distinction.
  The language in section 309 would not prevent those journalists who 
choose to provide information to a U.S. intelligence agency from doing 
so. It also recognizes that there may be extraordinary circumstances in 
which the prohibition needs to be waived in the interests of our 
national security. In those rare cases, however, the national security 
determination must be made in writing and the intelligence committees 
must be informed.
  Mr. Speaker, section 309 is consistent with the independence 
guaranteed to the press by our Constitution and it is consistent with 
the proper discharge of our responsibility to protect as best we can 
American journalists who travel or work in difficult circumstances 
overseas. I urge that we better ensure the safety of these journalists 
by passing this conference agreement.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson] for his extraordinary service to the committee. 
He has undertaken a series of international initiatives which have been 
completely successful and important to our country. I just want him to 
know how much I personally appreciate his work and efforts and his 
tireless energy, especially in the area of human rights and protecting 
Americans internationally.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New 
Mexico that this is the first time I have ever been commended for my 
liberal views, but I appreciate that.
  I would be remiss as well, and was planning to rise to pay 
commendation to the gentleman from New Mexico. I have served with him 
the entire time I have been on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. In fact, I think the gentleman from New Mexico is serving 
continuously longer than any other member of the committee.
  He has done yeoman work which not only the Congress but the American 
people are aware of and has traveled extensively, probably our most 
extensive traveler, but he is quite successful. The only thing I have 
ever asked of Mr. Richardson when he travels is he bring more back than 
he took with him, and he has done a great job.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

[[Page H11058]]

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an important intelligence 
matter that is not contained in this conference report and, hopefully, 
I can establish a colloquy with the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Washington, Congressman Dicks, on this matter.
  I am speaking about recent reports that hired CIA operatives sold 
drugs in the United States to fund the Nicaraguan contra operations in 
the early 1980's. The crack cocaine operation started by those that 
were involved in this particular project caused the introduction of the 
substance to south central Los Angeles and to other inner-city 
communities.
  Now, news of this scandal has spread across America like wildfire, 
and there has been a flurry of activities around these reports. Today, 
I would first like to commend Congressman Dicks, along with the 
gentleman from California, Congressman Dixon, and the gentleman from 
Texas, Congressman Combest, for their response to the request to open 
investigations around this issue.
  I would like to ask Congressman Dicks, who is here with us today, 
whether or not he feels it is possible for the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence to provide the kind of investigation that can 
satisfy the citizens of this country, one way or the other, that our 
Government, the CIA, DEA, was or was not involved in this kind of 
activity.
  The reason I ask the gentleman this is because of his seniority on 
the committee. He knows the quality of the work there. There is a lot 
of suspicion from the calls that I receive that there will not be the 
kind of investigation that will reap the kind of information that we 
need to put this issue to rest.
  I would like to ask the gentleman whether or not he thinks this 
committee is up to the chore, up to the job. What can we expect?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentlewoman for her attention to this very serious matter. As someone 
who has a McClatchy paper in my district, when I read these two 
articles, I was stunned by them. Of course, the conclusions drawn there 
are done by inference. As you know, the Central Intelligence Agency 
denies complicity in this series of events.
  Having said that, first of all, I think I wanted to give my 
assurance, and certainly I would like to have the chairman have an 
opportunity to comment here as well, my assurance that our committee 
will look into this completely and fully because we take it as a very 
serious matter.
  I called Director Deutch when I read the articles and told him that I 
thought this was going to be a very serious problem and that he had to 
personally get involved and find out as much about this as he could.
  The Director has done that, and he has asked that. He has also stated 
that he does not believe that the CIA was involved, but he has asked 
the independent inspector general to completely look at this matter. 
That is underway. We are going to have an investigation over the next 
60 days.
  Then there will be a report to the committee, which we will then look 
at, as we conduct our own investigation going back and looking at 
events surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and previous reports that 
were done on this issue, because this is not the first time that this 
issue has come up.
  Also, I am told that the Attorney General has directed the Justice 
Department's inspector general to also conduct an investigation into 
the Department's knowledge and involvement, if any, in this issue, the 
involvement of the CIA in this issue. So we have the Justice Department 
looking at this; General McCaffrey has also said, the drug czar for the 
President, that they are looking at it; and the Director of the CIA and 
this committee and our counterpart in the Senate I assume will look at 
it as well.
  I hope for the sake of the American people that we are able to 
investigate this matter. I hope and pray that the story is not 
accurate. I think it would be a devastating blow to the intelligence 
community, to the country, and to thousands of Americans who have been 
affected by crack cocaine if this, in fact, proved to be true or if 
there was even knowledge about it and no action was taken at the time.
  I will just give the gentlewoman, the only pledge I can give you is 
that the minority member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], has been very much involved. We 
will vigorously pursue this to try to find the truth and to present it 
to the American people.
  Maybe the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] would like to enter into 
this at this juncture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, just to make certain that there is a 
complete record, first of all, all of the assurances that the gentleman 
from Washington has given, I certainly stand behind and support. 
Congressman Dixon, a member of our committee, is the first Member of 
the House that brought this to our attention. I think that was 
simultaneous with the gentlewoman's understanding of the potential 
problem. The assurances were given at that time to Congressman Dixon 
that there would be a complete investigation. The staff was asked to 
embark immediately on a full, thorough, and tenacious investigation.
  There are a number of other reports and investigations this committee 
has done that are not mentioned in this conference report either. So it 
is not that we are sliding your concerns about this matter. Those are 
matters that would not be normally brought up in a conference report.
  I would also like to mention to the gentlewoman, and, Mr. Speaker, I 
will include in the Record a letter that the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] sent to me, a response that I sent to her in 
regard to the committee's actions and the fact that the Central 
Intelligence Agency had begun an IG's report, had also contacted the 
Attorney General as well; and a letter to me from the Speaker in which 
he references a contact that he had received from Ms. Waters and his 
concerns and his requests that the committee report back to the 
Speaker, who is ex officio on this committee as well, so that there is 
a complete paper trail in this discussion on the part of the 
Congressional Record about the committee's interests, the Speaker's 
interest, the gentlewoman's interest, the interest of the gentleman 
from Washington, Congressman Dixon's interest. It is a matter that I 
hope as well does not prove true, but it is not one that we have any 
preconceived discussions or decisions about. We will investigate it 
with all vigor.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letters to which I 
referred:

                                            Office of the Speaker,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Combest: Enclosed is a letter and enclosures 
     I have received from Congresswoman Maxine Waters concerning a 
     recent series of articles that appeared in the San Jose 
     Mercury News that allege CIA involvement in the introduction, 
     financing and distribution of crack cocaine in Los Angeles.
       I request that your committee investigate the allegations 
     contained in these articles in an effort to determine the 
     truth of the matter. I would appreciate your reporting to me 
     the findings and conclusions of your investigation as soon as 
     they are available.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Newt Gingrich,
                                             Speaker of the House.
       Enclosure.
         U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee 
           on Intelligence,
                               Washington, DC. September 18, 1996.
     Hon. Maxine Waters,
     Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Waters: I am writing in response to 
     your letter of September 17, 1996, concerning press 
     allegations about CIA assets being involved in crack cocaine 
     distribution in California.
       I have already instructed the staff of the Intelligence 
     Committee to investigate these allegations and have sent 
     letters to DCI Deutch and Attorney General Reno requesting 
     the cooperation of their agencies with our efforts.
       I know you have seen the press reports that DCI Deutch has 
     instructed the CIA Inspector General to investigate these 
     allegations as well. I think this is a worthwhile

[[Page H11059]]

     step. It has been Committee practice to withhold any final 
     statements on issues of this sort until the Inspector General 
     has reported. I think it is prudent that we follow this 
     course on this issue.
       I understand your concern and appreciate your interest. 
     Please feel free to contact me or the Committee staff 
     director, Mark Lowenthal, if we may be of further help on 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Larry Combest,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Combest: I call your attention to an astonishing 
     series of articles which appeared August 18-20, 1996 in the 
     San Jose Mercury News. This report traces the origins of the 
     crack cocaine trade in South-Central Los Angeles to the early 
     Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.)-directed effort to raise 
     funds for the Contra rebels seeking to overthrow the 
     Nicaraguan government in the early 1980s. The CIA-connected 
     agents who smuggled cocaine into the United States, converted 
     it into crack, and sold it on the streets of Los Angeles. 
     They subsequently expanded their business into other inner 
     city neighborhoods throughout this country.
       Because of their seriousness, I believe these charges must 
     be examined, in detail, as quickly as possible by Congress. 
     As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I believe you 
     can begin this process.
       What is being alleged is that portions of the United States 
     government--in particular, members of our intelligence 
     community--may have exposed, indeed introduced, the horror of 
     crack cocaine to many American citizens. I, and many people 
     in communities across America, are horrified by the 
     documented travails of these activities. As policymakers, we 
     have an obligation to uncover the truth in this matter.
       I believe Congress, and in particular the United States 
     House of Representatives, must take swift, serious, and 
     forceful action to show the American people we are determined 
     to examine the allegations leveled by these reports. 
     Moreover, we must show our determination to punish the drug 
     dealers who have literally destroyed thousands of American 
     families through the horrors of crack cocaine and the 
     violence associated with it.
       I understand we are approaching the end of this session of 
     Congress. However, I believe these charges are so serious 
     that they warrant Congress' immediate attention, even if that 
     necessitates extraordinary procedures.
       I look forward to working with you on this most serious 
     matter. your committee is charged with one of the most 
     important responsibilities in Congress. With your help, I 
     believe we can start a process that will give us answers to 
     the serious questions raised by the San Jose Mercury News. 
     Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Maxine Waters.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I 
would also like to insert in the Record a letter that the chairman and 
I sent to Mr. Deutch. I do not believe that was mentioned by the 
chairman.
  I would also like to put in the Record a response that was given to 
us from John Moseman, director of congressional affairs, and also 
another letter that was sent to me by Mr. Deutch after I had talked to 
him on the phone about this issue on, late in August, just to complete 
the Record.
  The letters are as follows:

                                  Central Intelligence Agency,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 1996.
     Hon. Norman D. Dicks,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Permanent Select Committee on 
         Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dicks: As you and I discussed in a 4 September 
     conversation, allegations have been made by the San Jose 
     Mercury News that the Central Intelligence Agency engaged in 
     drug trafficking to support the Contras in their effort to 
     overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. 
     Specifically, the Mercury News alleges or infers a 
     relationship between the Agency and drug smuggling activities 
     in which two Nicaraguan nationals, Oscar Danilo Blandon Reyes 
     and Juan Norwin Meneses Cantarero, were engaged.
       I consider these to be extremely serious charges. The 
     review I ordered of Agency files, including a study conducted 
     in 1988 and briefed to both intelligence committees, supports 
     the conclusion that the Agency neither participated in nor 
     condoned drug trafficking by Contra forces. In particular, 
     the Agency never had any relationship with either Blandon or 
     Meneses, nor did it ever seek to have information concerning 
     either of them withheld in the trial of Rick Ross.
       Although I believe there is no substance to the allegations 
     in the Mercury News, I do wish to dispel any lingering public 
     doubt on the subject. Accordingly, I have asked the Agency's 
     Inspector General to conduct an immediate and thorough 
     internal review of all the allegations concerning the Agency 
     published by the newspaper.
       I will write again to report to you when the Inspector 
     General's review is completed. I have asked that the review 
     be finished within 60 days.
       An similar letter is being sent to Chairman Combest.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Deutch,
     Director of Central Intelligence.
                                                                    ____

         U.S. House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee 
           on Intelligence,
                               Washington, DC. September 17, 1996.
     Hon. John M. Deutch,
     Director of Central Intelligence,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Deutch: We have read with concern the recent 
     series of articles that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News 
     alleging Central Intelligence Agency involvement in the 
     introduction, financing and distribution of crack cocaine 
     into communities of Los Angeles. According to the articles, 
     these activities were undertaken to provide a continuing 
     stream of support to the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance in 
     their efforts to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.
       These allegations, if true, raise serious concerns about 
     the activities of the United States intelligence community in 
     support of the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance. To 
     effectively discharge the responsibilities of this Committee, 
     we have instructed the staff to undertake an investigation of 
     the charges leveled in the Mercury News. In order to complete 
     this undertaking it will be necessary for staff to review 
     certain documents in the possession of the CIA and to 
     interview relevant Agency personnel. In this regard, we 
     request that necessary information and personnel be made 
     available to the Committee staff. The documents necessary for 
     the Committee to complete its investigation will be specified 
     as the investigation proceeds.
       Allegations of the sort contained in the Mercury News erode 
     public confidence in the Central Intelligence Agency. While 
     we commend your decision to have the Inspector General 
     investigate this matter, the Committee must conduct its own 
     inquiry as part of its oversight responsibilities. Your 
     cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Larry Combest,
       Chairman.
     Norm D. Dicks,
       Ranking Democratic Member.
                                                                    ____



                                  Central Intelligence Agency,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1996.
     Hon. Norman D. Dicks,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Permanent Select Committee on 
         Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dicks: I am writing in response to your letter of 
     6 September 1996 to Director Deutch, in which you expressed 
     concern about recent press allegations that the Central 
     Intelligence Agency engaged in drug trafficking in 
     association with the Contras in Nicaragua. We appreciate the 
     concern noted in your letter and stand ready to assist you 
     and the Committee in your review of these extremely serious 
     charges.
       The briefing that Agency officers provided to you and Mr. 
     Dixon on 11 September 1996 conveyed our assessment that the 
     Agency neither participated in nor condoned drug trafficking 
     by Contra forces. As the Director has stated, though, we 
     believe it is essential to dispel any public doubt on this 
     subject. In particular, the Director shares your view that 
     the extent and disposition of any knowledge by CIA officials 
     of Contra involvement in drug trafficking must be assessed.
       As you know, the Agency Inspector General (IG) has launched 
     an investigation of the allegations and we will keep you 
     apprised of progress and results of that work. Beyond the IG 
     effort, however, I want to reiterate Director Deutch's 
     assurances that we will cooperate fully with you and the 
     Committee in any inquiry you may conduct.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John H. Moseman,
                                Director of Congressional Affairs.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for the cooperation that they have shown thus far in 
moving toward this investigation. It has been mentioned on any number 
of occasions that we have had these kinds of investigations, but this 
one, I think, is very special and different.
  While in the past there has been some mention of drugs, there has not 
been an investigation that tried to determine whether, in fact, there 
was an introduction of large amounts of cocaine into south central Los 
Angeles and spread out among the gangs in south central Los Angeles and 
further to other gangs in other cities, and the proceeds from this drug 
activity being given to the Contras to fund the FDN.
  So it takes a little bit of a different turn here when we look at 
whether or not CIA operatives were involved in this drug trafficking 
into inner-city areas. And of course my interest is well known. Part of 
my district is south

[[Page H11060]]

central Los Angeles, where that is identified in the San Jose Mercury 
News report, and part of that district that I represent is plagued with 
crack cocaine addiction, crack-born babies, violence, gang warfare, 
turf warfare.
  So if I seem a little bit overzealous on this issue, I beg your 
understanding. It is something that is near and dear to me and an issue 
that I really do feel we need to get at in this Congress. We have had 
the so-called war on drugs, but as I read through the records and I see 
where there was a lot of drug activity around this Contra funding and 
where we have had operatives involved with drugs who ended up getting 
off with no time, little time, and all the conversations and the 
notations in some of the diaries of leading figures in this activity, I 
want you to know that it leaves me no choice but to be overzealous and 
to be very, very persistent and to work cooperatively with all of you 
to try and keep people focused on this new link, this direct link, of 
drugs into the inner cities.
  And maybe it will help us to create a real war on drugs, not just 
rhetoric, not just public relations efforts, but a real effort by the 
Congress of the United States to rid our communities of drugs and crack 
cocaine, one of the most awful drugs that any human being could have 
ever introduced.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
one other matter that I think would be pertinent to mention at this 
time: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], who in fact at one time was 
chairman of this committee and was a member of the Iran-Contra 
Committee, we understand there is a letter on its way to the committee 
from Mr. Stokes requesting that he be granted access to documents 
during the time he served as chairman to further investigate part of 
the Iran-Contra papers.
  I have discussed this with Mr. Dicks and we have, are going to take 
that up with the where the committee would have to vote to approve 
that. The committee will have absolutely no objection to that and will 
take that up this afternoon at a hearing at 2:00, assuming that we have 
that letter. So we are trying to move as expeditiously as possible to 
help Mr. Stokes in his inquiries as well.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, as chairman of 
the committee, you automatically have subpoena powers; is that correct?
  Mr. COMBEST. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. WATERS. And that you may choose to use those subpoena powers at 
any point in your investigation and your hearings?
  Mr. COMBEST. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman very much. I just wanted to put 
that on the Record, because the question has been asked of me by people 
calling in.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentlewoman for her leadership on 
this issue and tell her that we will work very closely with her.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, as the discussion just concluded indicates, 
a free and democratic country such as ours faces a peculiar predicament 
in trying to deal with secrets, with spying, with the activities of the 
intelligence community in a way that is as consistent as possible with 
our democratic values and the principles of open government. It is a 
ticklish and delicate responsibility that this committee undertakes on 
behalf of the full membership of the House.
  I just want to commend both the gentleman from Texas, our chairman, 
and our ranking member from Washington State and the fine staff that 
the committee has for this ongoing effort.
  One of the things that we are able to talk about in debate and in the 
open is the efforts that are ongoing to try to deal with the system of 
classification of national security information. This bill continues 
the effort that has been under way for a couple of years now to push 
the intelligence community, both with regard to greater discipline in 
classifying information and improved activity toward declassification 
of old material or material that no longer really has national security 
significance, so that as much as possible we can bring the records of 
this Government into the public domain, when they present no further 
risk to national security, and honor as much as we possibly can the 
important principle that this is the people's government and they ought 
to know as much as they can about what goes on.
  Related to that is, again, an important provision in this bill that 
continues the efforts that have been under way for a couple of years as 
well, to bring into public domain and access, information gathered 
through our intelligence assets that relate to very pressing global and 
domestic environmental issues.
  I think we all recognize that much of this country's foreign policy 
and national security issues will derive directly or indirectly from 
the pressures of environmental degradation, population growth, all that 
goes with that.
  It is important that we make available to the civilian community, the 
folks outside the national security establishment, as much of the 
information as we can relating to these issues that happens to have 
come into our possession through overhead imagery and other assets that 
the intelligence community has.
  This bill, along with pushing on declassification in general, also 
increases the funding levels for moving some of this material out of 
the classified realm and sharing it with appropriate agencies of 
government, civilian researchers, and others that can put to productive 
use this very significant information that we happen to acquire through 
out intelligence capabilities. I want to thank again Mr. Combest and 
Mr. Dicks for their willingness and help in bringing the bill along in 
this respect.
  I urge adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Ms. Furse], my good friend and colleague.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to refer to the conversation that took place earlier regarding 
the crack situation, the articles of crack cocaine being brought in to 
fund the Nicaraguan war.
  There are two points I would like to make: One, that did not just 
happen in east Los Angeles. It is my understanding from this article 
that a notorious drug dealer who plagued Portland, OR, the gangs moved 
into Portland, OR, and they brought the crack cocaine, is also 
implicated in this issue. So this is a nationwide problem that every 
one of us needs to be concerned about.
  The second issue I would like to bring to the chairman and the 
ranking member is an issue of immigration. We are going to deal with an 
immigration bill later today, but I wanted to quote from a judge who 
talked about a notorious person, a Mr. Meneses, who was very involved 
in this. He was arrested in 1991 in Nicaragua. The judge, Judge Martha 
Quezada, said, ``How do you explain the fact that Norwin Meneses, 
implicated since 1974 in the trafficking of drugs, has not been 
detained in the United States, a country in which he entered, lived, 
departed many times since 1974?''
  The contras who were funded with this drug money had their base camps 
in Honduras at the time. There are allegations that some of them were 
involved in cases of disappearances in Honduras. Right now, in a 
landmark case, Honduran military officers have been indicted for their 
involvement with human rights violations and their trial is pending. 
Some of those military officers had very close ties to the contras.
  During the early 1980's the United States sent millions of dollars to 
the Honduran military as a bulwark against the Sandinista government in 
Nicaragua and against the guerrillas in both El Salvador and Guatemala. 
We built and operated military bases, airfields, and sophisticated 
radar systems on Honduran territory. The United States Government also 
helped to establish, train, and equip a special military unit which was 
responsible for kidnapping, torture, disappearance, and murder of at 
least 184 Honduran citizens; students, professors, journalists, and 
human rights activists.
  Human rights investigators have been thwarted by a dearth of 
information within Honduras. Our Government has records that would be 
useful to those in the Honduran Government who are attempting to bring 
justice and prosecute those who are guilty of human rights atrocities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of declassification of 
documents, the funding for which is authorized in this conference 
report. The State Department has provided

[[Page H11061]]

some initial documents to the Honduran Government. My colleagues, Mr. 
Lantos and Mr. Porter, cochairs of the Congressional Human rights 
Caucus, are circulating a letter to the President right now that asks 
for declassification of documents that will help shed light on the 
situation of human rights abuses in Honduras during the time of our 
contra-drug connection.
  I urge my colleagues to sign Mr. Lantos' and Mr. Porter's letter, and 
to continue our quest for truth in the morass of problems caused by 
United States involvement in war against the Nicaraguans.

                              {time}  1130

  So I want to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for 
taking this so seriously because it really does implicate so many of 
the institutions we hold in such high esteem in this country, and I 
want to say that the citizens of Portland, OR, are extremely concerned 
that these drugs came into our fair city and have so hurt the lives of 
young people.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a member of the committee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me. I am very concerned about the allegations I have heard 
discussed this morning about the CIA having had a role in drug 
trafficking back during the Iran-contra period, mainly because I do not 
personally think there is any truth to it and I have some personal 
knowledge about it.
  I recall that when I was the ranking member and when we were in the 
minority on my side of the aisle and I was the ranking member of the 
Crime Subcommittee of which I am now chairman, then-Chairman Bill 
Hughes of New Jersey and I spent 2 years investigating the question 
that is raised by the newspaper accounts that have been reported this 
morning. We sent committee staff actually live down into the Nicaraguan 
scene to investigate these allegations. A lot of time, staff time, was 
spent, and the net result of the 2-year investigation was there was no 
substantial credible evidence that this occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have out here this morning and what we have seen 
discussed in the last week or so are some newspaper accounts of a 
statement made by a known criminal in California in a case which has 
been released to the public now where he has made these allegations, 
but there is no corroboration of it. I understand that Mr. Deutch, who 
is the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has said he will 
thoroughly look into this again, but I feel very confident that based 
on what I know and having been through this process for 2 years with an 
investigative team, that there is going to be no credible evidence 
turned up to corroborate this.
  I do not doubt there may have been some drug dealing by somebody who 
was in some way connected historically with a group that was involved 
with the contras, but to say they were out there raising money at the 
behest of the U.S. Government, the CIA was helping them, and that kind 
of innuendo, I think is putting the horse before the cart and making 
some conclusions or suggested conclusions that just are not warranted 
at this time, and I would urge my colleagues to refrain from jumping to 
any conclusions about this matter.
  Let the CIA do its investigation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to caution the gentleman, 
before he takes such a tough stand in defense of the CIA, that there 
has been testimony under oath in Federal court in northern California 
by Mr. Blandon that he indeed under oath said he worked for the CIA, 
and it is also recorded and documented that he was a known drug dealer.
  So I want to caution the gentleman that there is testimony under oath 
in Federal court by one of the CIA operatives, and the gentleman from 
Florida needs to know that.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I want to reclaim my time and say, so one 
person has said this under oath; I do not doubt he has. I am suggesting 
his credibility is seriously in question, has been all along. We knew 
about Mr. Blandon at the time that we did our investigation in the 
Subcommittee on Crime several years ago, and that was one of the 
primary reasons why we did the investigation, was because of this whole 
trail.
  I am not saying it is not possible, and I am not saying that we 
should not have the CIA look into it. I am happy they are doing it. All 
I am suggesting is that this morning there has been nobody questioning 
these articles. In this discussion we have been sounding like we are 
taking it as probably true. I think it is probably not true, but we 
will wait and find out. But my judgment from what I know of it is it is 
probably not going to be corroborated.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to caution the 
gentleman not to do exactly what he is cautioning everybody else not to 
do. Everybody else has talked about allegations. It is the gentleman 
who has come to the floor and sprung instinctively to the defense of 
somebody that we have not even charged with doing anything other than 
``let's investigate,'' and for the gentleman to come to the floor and 
say I have concluded that I do not think these allegations have any 
basis is the gentleman doing exactly what he is cautioning us not to 
do.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I have not concluded anything. I am 
telling my colleagues that at the time we spent 2 years investigating 
this very subject matter in the Subcommittee on Crime there was no 
credible evidence to corroborate the allegations that were made. If 
there had been, we would have been putting it forward back several 
years ago, and what is now being put on the table in public knowledge 
in court is very comparable to what we had 2 years ago; and I just 
doubt, and I am not saying I am concluding it, but I doubt seriously 
further investigation is going to turn up more, but I am happy to have 
further investigation. I just do not want it to go past today with all 
these comments being spread on the record, with innuendoes out there, 
with the impression being left everybody who knows anything about this 
in Congress thinks it might be true. I think it in all probability is 
not, but I do not know that for a fact, just like I was not sure a 100-
percent back when we did the investigation. But we sure did not turn up 
anything, and we spent a lot of time looking for it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Combest] has 23 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Dicks] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], and I ask unianimous consent that the gentleman 
from Washington be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I approrpiate that courtesy and I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee for their 
expressed interest in the issues that have been raised this morning by 
the gentlewoman from California and Oregon.
  We are aware of a recent series of articles that appeared in the San 
Jose Mercury News which once again draws very disturbing attention to 
allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency during the early 
years, the decade of the 1980's conspired with former members of the 
Samosa government in Nicaragua to bring into this country large 
quantities of cocaine, and that cocaine traffic was used to finance the 
early years of the war that was lost by the contras against the 
Nicaraguan Government; and furthermore, that those large quantities of 
cocaine were distilled into crack cocaine, and that crack cocaine 
eipidemic then swept from California and the West Coast all the way 
across this country and constituted the worst epidemic of drug abuse 
that we have seen in the history of our Nation.

[[Page H11062]]

  This is an issue that needs detailed, thorough examination.
  The reason these stories persist is because prior investigations by 
this body and other bodies have failed to reach into the very depths of 
the problem and uncover precisely what went on here.
  I am not suggesting that there was a coverup, but what I am 
suggesting however is this: that there was an inadequate investigation 
by the Iran-Contra Committee and by other investigative bodies that 
looked into this issue in the past.
  This issue will not die, it will not go away until it is resolved 
once and for all, until we get to the very bottom of it, until we know 
precisely and exactly what occurred, and it is critical that we do so 
because the veracity and authenticity of very important agencies within 
this Government are at stake, and until we know exactly what happened 
and who was involved in it and what went on, this issue will not rest.
  It is the responsibility of this Congress to look at this matter and 
to look at it with the utmost care, concern and in the greater depth 
and detail, and I am very grateful that we have had these expressions 
of support in this regard from both the chairman and the ranking member 
this morning. This is something that we have to get to the bottom of.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] who is a valued member of our Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for giving me 
this time today and for his leadership, as well as that of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  While we do not always agree on many of the issues before the 
committee, I do want to associate myself with the comments that went 
before regarding the investigation of the potential drug Contra crack 
cocaine into the United States and especially into the African-American 
community.
  Before I go into that, though, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs], that he made on the declassification issue and on the 
environmental issues related to the resources of the intelligence 
community and to thank him for his leadership on those two scores, as 
well as others, that come before our committee. They are both very 
important, and in the interest of time I will just associate myself 
with his remarks and spend my time on the issue of the crack cocaine.
  I think it is perfectly appropriate that we have the exchange that we 
have had. Certainly we do not want to just make accusations, we want to 
see what is real about them in order for us to keep faith with the 
American people, with the intelligence community, and as my colleagues 
know, that is a big order.
  I would just like to say that when I first came to Congress, which 
was 9 years ago, shortly thereafter we had a conference in our 
community, headed up by Dr. Cecil Williams of the Glide memorial to see 
why we had this epidemic of crack cocaine among African-American women. 
There were those in the African-American community who thought, and 
others of us who shared their view, that there was an attempt to target 
these women as well as targeting the African-American family. It seemed 
like an act of the devil, and I had hoped that it was not true, and I 
still do hope that it is not true.
  So that is why when the articles came out in the newspaper and we 
heard other rumors of this, it rang true, it related to something, and 
hopefully again it is not true, but it does beg the question. If the 
Central Intelligence Agency was not involved, and let us hope they were 
not, did they know that the Contras were involved in drug trafficking 
at a time when the United States was funding the Contras? If they did 
not know, if the Central Intelligence Agency did not know that the 
Contras were engaged in drug trafficking to get money, why did they not 
know? Is it not the business of the Central Intelligence Agency?

  So while I respect the first response that we have received from 
Director Deutch, whom I hold in high regard, I do think that we have to 
look into this, and that is why I was so pleased to hear our chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], respond to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] that the subpoena powers would be available; 
that is my understanding, and that I thank the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] for her leadership and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey] for speaking out on this issue.
  But we are at a crossroads. Much has been said about the end of the 
cold war and the rest. We are at a crossroads now where we look at the 
intelligence community and say why are we committing x number of 
billions of dollars in resources to this? Why is it justified? And 
there has to be a justification in this stiff competition for the 
dollar.
  At the same time, we have to have confidence We want our President, 
whoever that President is, to have the best possible intelligence to 
help make his decisions to help make the world a safer place. We do not 
want to see us going into a place where intelligence funding is 
justified by economic espionage or other things that are not 
appropriate to it; those that are appropriate in the realm of the 
economy, sure, but not just across the board.
  And at this very time we have this very serious question about the 
integrity of the intelligence community in the past decade, of the CIA 
in the past decade, at a time where this Congress was divided in a way 
that new Members have not even seen the likes of.
  So I want to associate myself with those, especially the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters], who have expressed grave concern about 
this issue and again leave on the table the question if this did occur, 
let us find out, and if it was occurring, this transfer, the sale of 
crack cocaine for money for the Contras was taking place, and the CIA 
did not know about it, why did they not know about it?
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], a valued member of the 
committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my chairman 
for yielding me this time, and I must say that I would like to 
associate myself with many of the remarks of my colleague from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] who serves with me on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence. She could say, as I would, that very much of 
our work is done behind closed doors.

                              {time}  1145

  During the short time that I have been on the committee, I am amazed 
at the number of hours that we spend looking at these agencies that are 
so important to our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would start with that comment. The FBI and the CIA and 
agencies that relate to intelligence work are critical to the interests 
of our country here at home as well as in the world.
  In this time of very significant change in the world, the President 
needs now more than at any other time excellent sources of information 
available to him as he represents our interests here at home, but 
especially abroad. I must say that because we meet behind closed doors, 
ofttimes the stories of the successes of those agencies are not heard 
about, let alone told or believed.
  On the other hand, I can certainly understand the concern of many of 
my colleagues, like the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, CA [Ms. Waters], 
about the potential impact of any government activity that might affect 
a community that we would hope to serve here in this Congress, 
especially as it relates to drugs. Stories in a newspaper are one 
thing. Believing those stories automatically is another. For goodness 
sakes, in my own campaigns I have seen stories developed by so-called 
reputable people that I wish somebody would question before they 
conclude.

  Having said that, it is very, very important that we recognize the 
impact of drugs upon our society, and not allow a story like this to 
take our eye off the ball. The ball involves those people who make a 
living importing drugs and then delivering them to our communities. We 
should take our gangs and the repeated sellers and throw the key away 
when they are killing our young people because of their activities.
  It is very important that we recognize that the President knows well 
the successes of these agencies and knows

[[Page H11063]]

of their importance to his work. At the same time, we in the committee 
are committed to doing everything we can to make sure if there is any 
agency involved in this sort of linkage, that they be taken to the 
wall.
  There is work to be done here. Most of it must be done in our 
intelligence room. I would urge my colleagues not to deal with the 
extreme sensationalism that is here, that sometimes gets headlines that 
we all kind of love. In the meantime, it is very important for America 
that we deal with this responsibly.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis], and say that I completely agree with him that we should 
not be taking at face value anything we read in the newspaper, 
especially something of this gravity. However, we do need to look 
beyond the headlines. I do not take him to say anything other than 
that.
  I wanted to make one more point. In our Committee on Appropriations 
last week we had a big item for interdiction, hundreds of millions of 
dollars we spent for interdiction. We are spending that on the 
intelligence community to keep drugs out of the United States, and at 
the same time we do not know, we might not know about one very, very 
egregious example of drugs coming in which we should have been aware 
of, that we may have been party to. I think it is a very serious issue.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], and I ask unanimous consent that he may yield 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Millender-McDonald], a new Member who is very concerned 
about this subject and has talked to me about it on several occasions.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I have come down because I was 
just getting back to my office when I recognized my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], speaking to this whole issue 
that we have been plagued with in south central Los Angeles. I, too, 
represent the heart of Watts, Willowbrook, and Compton, those areas 
that were ravished by this insidious act.
  While I was sitting here watching the gentleman who spoke about his 
inability to think that the CIA was involved in this, I had to come 
down to say we cannot conclude whether they were involved or not 
involved, but it is a serious issue that we must call up for a thorough 
investigation.
  I join the ranks of all of the Members who have spoken this morning, 
because when we find crack babies lying in hospitals, when we find 
children who are trying to go to school and who are unable to be 
educated because of the mental incapacity that they have, when we have 
a community that has been totally destroyed, we cannot help but to come 
to this body to ask for a thorough investigation.
  I join the ranks of all of the Members who have spoken this morning, 
because when we find crack babies lying in hospitals, when we find 
children who are trying to go to school and who are unable to be 
educated because of the mental incapacity that they have, when we have 
a community that has been totally destroyed, we cannot help but to come 
to this body to ask for a thorough investigation.
  This has now become not just a south central Los Angeles problem or a 
California problem. Members heard the gentlewoman from another part of 
the northern States, I think Oregon, who spoke on this issue. This is a 
national problem. I think it is incumbent upon this body to ask for and 
demand a thorough investigation of this drug trafficking into south 
central and into other urban areas of this country.
  We can ill afford to have a community think that we will not pay 
close attention nor will we take this very seriously and look into the 
allegations that are very startling in the San Jose Mercury News.
  I join with all of the Members who have spoken this morning, I join 
with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Maxine Waters, 
in asking that this be brought to the forefront and that we get down to 
the bottom of this very insidious act that has plagued our communities 
and that has absolutely destroyed a whole community. I urge Members to 
pay close attention, and I call on my colleagues for a thorough 
investigation of this insidious act.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of 
the committee very much for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, in responding to the gentleman from California, let me 
acknowledge that we do not have to make a broad-based attack on the 
intelligence community. All of us acknowledge the importance of 
national security.
  However, we must stand aside from the intelligence community and 
demand an investigation of the bad actors that have been alleged to 
have conveyed and transported dangerous and devastating drugs 
throughout the entire Nation, that have resulted in the loss of lives 
throughout my community and the loss of lives of young children and 
babies and families and destruction. We must now demand an 
investigation and have one.
  I ask my colleagues to join us in agreeing with those who have spoken 
that we have a full investigation of these devastating charges of crack 
cocaine being brought in by CIA agents and others.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in my 8 years on the 
committee, one of the highlights has been the opportunity to get to 
know people who work in the intelligence community, not only in the 
United States but around the world. They do it knowing that and hoping 
that their successes and endeavors will not be on the front page of the 
paper. They do it because they are true patriots. They are people who 
literally put their lives on the line for this country and the national 
security of this country, and have done a remarkable job. I wish it 
were possible to talk about the successes that this country enjoys from 
the hard, dedicated, and very dangerous work these people do.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that Members support this conference report.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the gentleman from 
Texas. In my service on this committee, and as a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations over the years, the professionalism, the 
competence, the hard work, and the dedication of the people in the 
intelligence community is extraordinary. They have done a tremendous 
service for this country.
  Having said that, I still believe we have to look at these charges 
seriously. I will remind everyone here that there were some extralegal 
questionable activities during this whole Iran-Contra period run right 
out of the White House. So it is conceivable that there may be some 
explanation besides the one that the San Jose Mercury has come up with. 
That is, again, another reason why we need to get to the bottom of 
this.
  Even if it was not the CIA, I am very interested to know, how did 
crack cocaine get introduced into this country, who was behind it. And 
maybe that is not even our jurisdiction, but that is something this 
Congress should be interested in as well. I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. I urge Members to pass the conference report.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I only want to point out to the House that part of our 
responsibility in this committee is to see to it that, indeed, we 
understand and recognize our role in dealing with the issue of the 
hiring, the retention, the promotion of minorities and women and

[[Page H11064]]

the handicapped in the agencies that we oversee.
  There have been allegations made public in the past that indeed the 
NSA, the CIA, the Department of Defense, and others may not have been 
doing the kind of job we want them to do.
  Thanks to Chairman Combest's leadership and that of the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, there have been a 
series of hearings over the past several years in acquiring and 
achieving the kind of data that will show that this Congress does take 
very seriously its charge from this House that we intend to do what the 
President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said when he took office. 
That was that we wanted our Government to reflect the diversity that is 
America. I want to thank publicly Chairman Combest for permitting those 
hearings.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the conference agreement on the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. This conference report goes far beyond efforts to curb 
illegal immigration in this country by unfairly targeting legal 
immigrants and promoting discrimination among U.S. citizens as well.
  Once again the proponents of the anti-immigration sentiment in this 
country are using the banner of illegal immigration to impose injustice 
on those immigrants legally in this country--immigrants who pay taxes, 
contribute millions of dollars into our economy, abide by the same laws 
we do, and are even eligible to be drafted into the military. Yet this 
conference report, like the welfare bill before it, singles out legal 
immigrants by effectively denying them access to Federal programs.
  Specifically the conference report subjects legal immigrants to 
deportation if they use any means-tested Federal assistance--Federal 
assistance in which eligibility is based on income--for more than 1 
year in the aggregate. Practically speaking this provision bans legal 
immigrants from any Federal assistance program based on income level--
student financial aid, federally funded English classes, job training, 
health and assistance under Medicaid, or other Federal programs.
  It just escapes me why we would want to punish a legal immigrant for 
pursuing education or job training and making an effort to become an 
even more productive participant in our economy and society.
  The proponents of today's measure are the same people screaming for 
English only legislation. They state that people in this country should 
learn English, people can't succeed in this country if they don't know 
English, yet on the other hand they support this conference report 
which could cause the deportation of legal immigrants because they 
utilize a year of federally funded English classes. One can only 
surmise that the intention here is not to help legal immigrants 
assimilate into American society but to keep them out of our country 
altogether.
  The conference report limits legal immigration by putting a new 
arbitrary income barrier to family immigration into this country. It 
establishes a new income requirement of 200 percent of the poverty 
level for anyone who seeks to sponsor a parent, sibling, or adult 
child, and 140 percent for those sponsoring a spouse or minor child.
  This provision goes against the very principle of family 
reunification and would deny low-income families from reuniting with 
their own minor children and other family members. This is an egregious 
example of discrimination against the poor. It says that we only care 
about reuniting families of a certain income level, and that because 
you are poor you do not deserve to be reunited with your family. I can 
think of nothing that is more anti-American and antifamily.
  It is not only legal immigrants who are hurt under this conference 
report, but also U.S. citizens who will be subject to more 
discrimination with limited remedies for violations of their rights.
  This conference report makes it more difficult for prospective 
employees to bring discrimination cases against an employer. A job 
applicant must now prove that the refusal of a job is a result of 
intentional discrimination, a higher legal standard than is currently 
required. This provision will affect U.S. citizens who look Asian or 
Hispanic, who will no doubt be singled out for greater scrutiny and 
discrimination, with very limited remedies available to them.
  It gets even worse, because the conference report does not include 
language in the House-passed bill which would have allowed American 
workers who lose their jobs because of government computer errors 
concerning their immigration status to seek compensation. This means if 
someone is mistakenly discriminated against, loses their job because of 
a computer error, they have no way to seek just compensation.
  This is not a theoretical argument, because it is already happening 
in our education system. Even before the passage of this bill students 
of Asian and Hispanic ethnic heritage are experiencing heightened 
scrutiny and delays because of extra measures to verify their 
citizenship status. Student loan checks for student loans are being 
revoked because of mistakes in the Social Security system, even though 
these students are U.S. citizens and their only crime is being born of 
Asian/Pacific or Hispanic ethnic origin.
  It pains me to think that we have come to a place in our society that 
we must single out anyone who looks different or speaks differently and 
make them second-class citizens in this Nation. This is where this 
immigration bill takes us.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us want to tackle the problem of illegal 
immigration in this country, but not at the expense of the rights of 
legal immigrants and citizens. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this mean-spirited bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we should be meeting here today to discuss 
a bipartisan bill to better protect American jobs, public services, and 
our borders. We have missed that opportunity. We are now faced with a 
bill, H.R. 2202, introduced after closed-door Republican sessions, that 
could damage our borders, hurt American workers and their families, and 
increase the burden on our taxpayers.
  Jobs are the magnet attracting illegal immigrants, and it is a 
criminal network of employers who hire these workers at the expense of 
unemployed Americans. We must make it clear to those rogue employers, 
who are willing to cheat hard-working Americans out of employment 
opportunities, that their behavior will not be tolerated.
  Instead, this bill lessens the penalties against those who skip over 
American workers to hire foreign workers. It also reduces the number of 
inspectors we wanted to put in the field to combat this illegal 
behavior. If you are a U.S. citizen, willing to work hard and make an 
honest living, you may still lose out due to the growing number of 
employers allowed to flaunt the law and hire cheaper illegal immigrants 
without the real risk of punishment under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, existing laws limit the ability of legal immigrants to 
become public charges. However, the harsh deeming requirements in H.R. 
2202 will deny many legal immigrants assistance they should be entitled 
to. I say entitled, not only because they are legal residents who pay 
taxes and are eligible for the draft, but because they pay far more in 
taxes than they use in public services.
  The Urban Institute conducted a study which found that legal 
immigrants pay $40 billion more in taxes than they collect in public 
assistance. Similar studies have shown that legal immigrants are less 
likely to collect public assistance than U.S. citizens. And the 
conservative Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a study which 
shows that immigrant families contribute approximately $2,500 more in 
taxes than they obtain in public services.
  In addition, it appears that the anti-environment 104th Congress had 
to attack our environmental laws one more time in their mad rush to 
adjourn. The provision, deemed even by my pro-environment Republican 
colleagues to be outrageous, would inflict a loss of power for States 
and local governments anywhere along thousands of miles of our Canadian 
and Mexican borders to build fences, roads, or other infrastructure.
  As a representative of a Canadian border district, I cannot support 
legislation which casts aside opportunities for public participation 
under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] so that local 
communities and citizens in Michigan could have a say before the INS 
decides we need a giant fence to separate ourselves from our Canadian 
neighbors. Indeed, Speaker Gingrich has received word from the attorney 
general, the Secretary of the Interior, and the chair of the 
President's Council on Environmental Quality that the administration 
objects strongly to this weakening of environmental standards.
  Mr. Speaker, previous experience teaches us that: limiting services 
to legal immigrants can risk public health and safety, as well as raise 
costs; limiting employment enforcement provisions costs American's 
jobs; and limiting environmental protections under Federal statute can 
place our communities' health and well-being at needless risk as a 
result of incompetent legislation.
  I urge support for Democratic efforts to fix some of the more obvious 
errors in the bill through the motion to recommit, and barring its 
acceptance, I urge rejection of the conference report.

[[Page H11065]]

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
conference agreement on H.R. 2202, the immigration reform bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is often described as an effort to improve 
border enforcement and employment eligibility verification, but, in 
fact, it goes far beyond these widely-supported elements to attack 
legal immigrants in the United States, as well as the rights and health 
of all Americans, citizens and noncitizens alike, and our commitment to 
international human rights.
  Of course, this very unfortunate conference agreement is the result 
of the Republicans' negotiating and writing a new bill behind closed 
doors, with no input from Democrats--even those who were initially 
supporters of immigration reform--during either the negotiations or the 
actual public meeting of the conference committee!
  The employment provisions in this bill are simply wrongheaded. First, 
the bill defies logic by failing to improve enforcement of our Nation's 
wage and hour laws despite the fact that unscrupulous employers hire 
undocumented immigrants precisely so they can overwork and underpay 
them. Better wage and hour enforcement is the best deterrent both to 
this exploitation and to the jobs magnet. Next, computerized employment 
verification systems invite the creation of national databases on every 
citizen and resident of the United States, without offering safeguards 
against improper use or disclosure of information or any recourse if 
the information provided to a potential employer is simply wrong. 
Moreover, the bill strips from our immigration law existing 
antidiscrimination provisions, which were originally enacted three 
decades ago because it was a fact that minority citizens and residents 
were discriminated against in the employment process.
  As illogical as it may sound to my colleagues, while legal immigrants 
would remain eligible for certain public assistance under this bill, 
and many have worked and paid taxes to support public assistance and 
other government programs, they could be deported for actually using 
the benefits for which they are eligible. Worse, the deeming provisions 
could bar legal immigrants from receiving even emergency medical 
services under Medicaid. Legal immigrant children are at particular 
risk. They may be priced out of eligibility for means-tested programs 
such as Head Start or job training by deeming. Or they may be 
frightened away from participation in other programs such as housing, 
child care, or even health care lest they become deportable.
  And any immigrants who, despite sponsor income and the threat of 
deportation, actually receive services--even emergency services or 
services to children--must pay the government back before they will be 
allowed to become naturalized citizens. I guess in the Republicans' 
view of American citizenship, only the rich need apply.
  The conference agreement includes provisions that neither House nor 
Senate adopted and that conferees were not permitted to strike, that 
explicitly deny publicly-funded medical care for immigrants who test 
positive for HIV. There is no reason to treat HIV and AIDS differently 
from other communicable diseases such as tuberculosis or influenza 
except raw prejudice. This is also totally counterproductive to our 
efforts to control the AIDS epidemic in America.
  If enacted, these public assistance provisions, which are far more 
extreme than the already alarming provisions in welfare reform, will 
cause either a vast increase in human misery in this country or, more 
likely, a vast cost-shift to State and local governments and to 
churches and charities, including our already overburdened nonprofit 
hospitals.
  This bill would raise the income levels required to sponsor a child 
or spouse, sibling or parent, to levels that would disqualify 40 
percent of all American families, both citizen and noncitizen, from 
bringing their families together in America. I guess Republican family 
values are not for hardworking families of modest means, but only for 
the wealthy.
  This conference agreement would also undermine our commitment to 
protect people fleeing from real persecution by restricting their 
ability to make their case for admission and denying them a hearing and 
judicial review. Hundreds of bona fide refugees could be returned to 
their persecutors under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, like so many others presented by the 
Republican majority over the last 2 years, goes far beyond what 
Republicans claim to be its purposes and into the ugliest sort of 
politics. It is designed and intended to drive wedges into the 
population and to exploit some people's fears of people who look or 
sound different.
  This bill is shockingly cruel and will do real harm. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote to defeat this conference agreement. If it is 
adopted, I implore the President to stand up to the demagogues and veto 
it. That is the right thing to do.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on the Immigration and Nationality Act. I support genuine 
immigration reform, to end illegal immigration and protect American 
workers from employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and put 
Americans out of work. I regret that the conference report which is now 
before the House does not meet the standard of genuine immigration 
reform.
  The United States cannot afford to absorb all those who want to 
settle in our country. I support continued funding of our existing 
efforts to deter illegal immigration. I have voted for provisions to 
strengthen the laws, including doubling the number of border patrol 
agents and increasing the number of work site inspectors to enforce 
laws against the hiring of illegal aliens. And I support efforts to 
prevent abuses in enforcement and ensure that enforcement efforts 
conform to our civil rights and our laws of justice.
  Most Americans are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Legal 
immigrants have made and continue to make significant contributions to 
America's scientific, literary, artistic, and cultural resources. As 
the son of an immigrant, I believe America's strength is in its 
diversity. It is in our national interest to build upon that strength 
through a system which maximizes the positive opportunities legal 
immigration affords by allowing qualified immigrants to participate in 
our economy and share their talents and strengths with our communities. 
Family unification should be one of the key guideposts for evaluating 
immigration reform proposals.
  I voted for the immigration reform bill which was passed by the House 
in March. It was not a perfect bill, but it would have made needed 
changes in the law to stop illegal immigration. It would have doubled 
the number of border patrol agents; permanently barred those who 
previously entered the country illegally from ever being legally 
admitted; increased the number of work-site inspectors to enforce laws 
against the hiring of illegal aliens; and streamlined the deportation 
process.
  The conference report which is now before the House is worse than the 
bill passed by the House in March in several ways. For example, the 
bill that was passed by the House retained civil penalties for 
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But the conference 
reports which is now before the House removes the civil penalties 
against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, which will 
make it easier for unscrupulous employers to hire illegal immigrants 
and put Americans out of work.
  I support effective and reasonable income-deeming requirements on the 
sponsors of legal immigrants who apply for public benefits. At the same 
time, I believe that immigrants and refugees who live legally in the 
United States, and contribute to our country's progress just as all of 
our ancestors have done, should not be discriminated against in the 
area of public assistance.
  The conference report is worse than the bill passed by the House in 
its treatment of legal immigrants. For example, the conference report 
would allow the deportation of battered women and children, who are 
legal immigrants, if they receive public shelter and counseling for 
more than 1 year. The House-passed bill exempted shelter and counseling 
for battered women and children.
  I voted for the immigration reform bill that passed the House because 
I believe that illegal immigration is an urgent problem that must be 
addressed by this Congress, and I had hoped that the bill would be 
improved as it moved through the legislative process. Instead, we find 
that the Republican leadership has decided to turn the effort to reform 
our Nation's immigration laws into a cynical political game.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to recommit this bill to the conference 
committee. Reject this conference report, and instead bring genuine 
immigration reform legislation to the House before Congress adjourns.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the Knoxville News-Sentinel 
reported that a Tennessee Highway Patrolman stopped a van on I-75 which 
contained 25 illegal immigrants.
  The arresting officer attempted to contact the INS but could not even 
get a person to answer the phone at the Memphis INS office.
  He was quoted in the paper as saying: ``Immigration just took the 
phone off the hook.''
  He repeatedly attempted to contact INS officials but all he got was: 
``360 degrees of answering machines.''
  So what did the trooper do? All he could do, he let illegal aliens 
go. Simply, he had no legal authority to detain them.
  This is the sixth time this year that illegal aliens have been 
stopped by local authorities in my district and had to be released.
  Six different vans containing at least 130 illegal immigrants have 
been let go because of the INS' refusal to act. When local officials 
have talked to INS, they were told that there were no funds available 
to send INS officers to arrest, detain, and deport these illegal 
aliens.
  The INS has received a 72-percent increase in funding in the last 3 
years, which is approximately eight times the rate of inflation over

[[Page H11066]]

that period. Almost no other Federal agency has received that type of 
increase in recent years.
  With this increase in funding, local officials have a right to be 
outraged by INS' inaction. I agree with them completely. One sheriff in 
my district has told his deputies to not even bother questioning 
individuals they stop to determine if they are illegal aliens because 
of the INS' inaction.
  Have things gotten so bad that law enforcement officials have no 
choice but to, in effect, condone the breaking of the law?
  The six vans that I am referring to are only those reported by the 
local media. Just think how many other illegal aliens travel through 
Tennessee without being caught.
  The Clinton administration bureaucrats seem unwilling to correct this 
situation. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged. Who do these INS bureaucrats 
work for, themselves, or the taxpayers?
  The nearest INS office to my district is located in Memphis, 450 
miles away. INS claims that they cannot apprehend illegal aliens in 
east Tennessee because it will cost too much to round them up.

  Last spring, I asked the INS to open a branch office in east 
Tennessee or at least a more centrally located office in middle 
Tennessee. Despite my repeated requests, they have been very 
unresponsive and unwilling to provide service to east Tennessee.
  I have met face to face with INS officials in Washington to inform 
them of what is going on in east Tennessee, and I have made dozens of 
calls about this disgraceful inaction.
  In fact, this is not the first time I have had to contact the INS. 
Several years ago, the Sheriff's Department in Loudon County contacted 
me about a problem they were having with the INS and illegal aliens.
  After months of work and literally dozens of phone calls from my 
office, the INS finally responded to our concerns. In Operation South 
Paw, the INS conducted a series of raids that resulted in the 
apprehension of many illegal aliens working in my district. I am glad 
that the INS finally took action, but the reluctance on their part to 
fulfill their mission of deporting illegal aliens is inexcusable.
  After my most recent meeting with the INS, I was informed that the 
INS would add two trainees to the Memphis office. This would be an 
improvement, but this is not enough. Middle and east Tennessee 
desperately need more INS officials who will enforce the law.
  However, I am glad that H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act, includes language Congressmen Chris Cox 
and Lamar Smith and I incorporated into the House version of this 
legislation.
  Our language, insofar as arrest and detention, will allow local law 
enforcement officers to act as INS officials since it is obvious that 
INS officials won't take action.
  Specifically, it will allow law enforcement agencies to enter into 
agreements with the Justice Department so that local officers will be 
able to function as an immigration officer in relation to 
investigation, apprehension, or detention of illegal aliens.
  I want to thank Congressmen Chris Cox and Lamar Smith who worked with 
me in formulating this language and for the House and Senate conferees 
for including this language in the final version of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation will help to solve the 
problem of illegal immigration and I urge its passage.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take back our 
borders and cut off the stream of illegal aliens currently flooding 
across them. This can only be done by increasing the number of border 
patrol guards and Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] agents. 
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
provides over 5,000 border guards and increases the number of INS 
agents by 300. This additional manpower will give a significant boost 
to current Republican initiatives such as Operation Gatekeeper and 
Operation Hold the line which were started under President Bush and 
have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in keeping illegal 
immigrants out of our country.
  Unfortunately, no matter how much we try to tighten down our borders, 
some illegal aliens will slip through the lines. But, even though they 
may get by our first line of defense this bill will make it more likely 
that they will be hunted down and deported by the joint efforts of 
local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies. In addition to the 
increase in manpower that this bill provides, H.R. 2202, gives law 
enforcement agencies the technological resources and jurisdiction 
powers to locate illegal immigrants and deport them expeditiously.
  Lastly, this bill makes a conscious effort to reform our legal 
immigration system. Most importantly it will hold sponsors of legal 
immigrants financially responsible for their guests in our country. As 
Congress has taken efforts to crack down on ``deadbeat dads'', H.R. 
2202, will crack down on ``deadbeat sponsors''. In doing so, we will 
save millions of welfare dollars, which are now being collected by 
legal aliens.
  This bill is not the end-all of immigration reform, but this bill, 
coupled with the Republican welfare bill which was recently signed into 
law will go a long way in slowing the tide.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of 
the conference report on H.R. 2202, the illegal immigration bill, 
because it includes many important provisions to help the United States 
get control of its borders: 5,000 new Border Patrol agents, stricter 
penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, and procedural 
reforms that would make it easier to deport people who have abused our 
hospitality. I strongly support these provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, we no longer live in an age when everyone from anywhere 
in the world who would like to live in the United States can do so. In 
an age of instant communication and easy transportation, border control 
has become not just a national prerogative but a practical necessity. 
Particularly when it comes to illegal immigrants, the American 
tradition of generosity is tempered by commitment to fairness and 
orderly procedures.
  I am pleased that the House deleted provisions in the bill that would 
have imposed drastic cuts in the numbers of legal immigrants and 
refugees. The House adopted my amendment to delete a provision that 
would have imposed a statutory cap on the number of refugees who can be 
admitted into the United States. The cap would have been 75,000 in 
fiscal year 1997 and 50,000 in each year thereafter--less than half the 
number we admitted in fiscal year 1995. This may sound like a fairly 
high number, but even at their current levels, refugees are only about 
8 percent of those who immigrate to the United States each year. 
Proportionally, refugees would have taken an even bigger hit than 
family or business immigrants. The cut would have hurt people who are 
in trouble because they share our values: ``old soldiers'' and 
religious refugees from Vietnam, Christians and Jews from extremist 
regimes in the Middle East, Chinese women who have fled forced 
abortion, and those who have escaped the tyranny of Fidel Castro. So I 
am pleased that the House adopted the Smith-Schiff-Gilman-Schumer-
Boucher-Fox-Souder amendment to preserve the American tradition of 
providing safe haven for genuine refugees.
  Unfortunately, the bill still contains provisions that subject legal 
immigrants, refugees, and U.S. citizens to unnecessarily harsh 
treatment. I think in particular of the requirement that a U.S. citizen 
must earn 140 percent of the official national poverty level in order 
to sponsor other family members. This provision leaves the unfortunate 
impression that family reunification is a luxury for the well-to-do, 
rather than a fundamental and laudable goal of millions of American 
families.
  An even more unfortunate provision, section 633, would explicitly 
authorize the State Department to discriminate, by race, gender, and 
nationality in the processing of visas for legal immigrants.
  The case of LAVAS versus Department of State, which this provision 
would attempt to overrule, is a carefully reasoned opinion by Judge 
David Sentelle, a highly respected Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It reflects the court's shock and 
dismay that the State Department was violating Federal statutes as well 
as its own regulations by practicing nationality-based discrimination 
in order to force legal immigrants from Vietnam--typically the 
immediate relatives of United States citizens--back to the country they 
had fled.
  The tragic consequence of the State Department's position is that 
many of those who have returned to Vietnam, on the assurance that their 
immigrant visas will be expeditiously processed by the United States, 
have languished for months or years because hostile and corrupt 
Vietnamese Government officials have refused to give them exit permits.
  Fortunately, the harsh effects of section 633 can be cured by 
regulation, or even by sound administration. The President should 
direct the State Department to change its policy and to process these 
legal immigrants--and never, never again to discriminate invidiously by 
race, by gender, or by national origin.
  Despite these and other deficiencies in the bill, I am voting in the 
affirmative, not only because I support the provisions that are 
directed against illegal immigrants, but also because of two provisions 
that cure important deficiencies in current law.
  Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress in April 
contained several provisions that had nothing whatever to do with 
terrorism. One of these sections provided for the summary exclusion of 
persons attempting to enter the United States without proper 
documentation.
  It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous 
immigration laws, and it is important that the process of exclusion be 
a speedy one. It is also important,

[[Page H11067]]

however, that the process be fair--and particularly that it not result 
in sending genuine refugees back to persecution.

  The counterterrorism legislation provided that no person shall be 
summarily excluded if, in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port 
of entry, he or she has a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately, 
the definitions of ``asylum officer'' and of ``credible fear of 
persecution'' were not as clear as they might be. H.R. 2202 goes at 
least part of the way toward the necessary clarity.
  In particular, the antiterrorism legislation defined an asylum 
officer as someone who has ``professional training'' in asylum law, 
country conditions, and interviewing techniques--but did not state how 
much training or what kind. The immigration bill makes it clear that 
this training is to be equivalent to that of members of the highly 
respected Asylum Corps. The best way to ensure that this standard is 
met is to provide by regulation that only experienced members of the 
Asylum Corps--people who by training and experience think of themselves 
as adjudicators rather than as enforcement officers--will exercise the 
extraordinary power to send people summarily back to dangerous places.
  I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers will need to 
be very careful in applying the ``credible fear'' standard. In a close 
case, they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. There 
are also some countries--such as Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, and 
Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that almost any credible 
applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum 
process.
  I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly 
provide for these and other safeguards in the expedited exclusion 
process. In any event, however, the current legislation is a 
substantial improvement over the regime that would go into force on 
November 1 if this legislation were not adopted.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 601(a)(1) of the conference report will 
restore an important human rights policy that was in force from 1986 
until 1994. It would simply provide that forced abortion, forced 
sterilization, and other forms of persecution for resistance to a 
coercive population control program are ``persecution on account of 
political opinion'' within the meaning of U.S. refugee law.
  Restoration of asylum eligibility for these victims of persecution is 
supported by human rights advocates from across the spectrum. 
Protection for these refugees has also enjoyed wide bipartisan support 
in Congress. Section 601(a)(1) is identical to section 1255 of H.R. 
1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which passed both the 
House and Senate but was vetoed by the President for reasons unrelated 
to this provision. Section 601(a)(1) is also identical to the DeWine 
amendment to the Senate immigration bill, which enjoyed broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate but was withdrawn after objections had 
been raised to its germaneness under postcloture rules. Finally, the 
Clinton administration, which initially opposed this provision, 
recently announced its support.
  As in every other asylum case, an applicant under this provision must 
prove his or her claim. Contrary to the cartoon being promulgated by 
opponents of this provision, we would not have to let in 1.2 billion 
people. In fact, during the Reagan and Bush administrations the number 
of people granted asylum on this ground was usually less than 100 per 
year, and never more than 200 per year.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision merely states the truth. Forced abortion, 
forced sterilization, and other severe punishments inflicted on 
resisters to the PRC program are persecution on account of political 
opinion. PRC officials have repeatedly attacked resisters to the 
Chinese program as political and ideological criminals. The infliction 
of extraordinarily harsh punishment is also generally regarded as 
evidence that those who inflict such punishment regard the offenders 
not as ordinary lawbreakers but as enemies of the state.
  Forced abortions often take place in the very late stages of 
pregnancy. Sometimes the procedure is carried out during the process of 
birth itself, either by crushing the baby's skull with forceps as it 
emerges from the womb or by injecting formaldehyde into the soft spot 
of the head.
  Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on persons whose 
resistance is motivated by religion. According to a recent Amnesty 
International report, enforcement measures in two overwhelmingly 
Catholic villages in northern China have included torture, sexual 
abuse, and the detention of resisters' relatives as hostages to compel 
compliance. The campaign is reported to have been conducted under the 
slogan ``better to have more graves than more than one child.''
  The dramatic and well-publicized arrival in 1993-94 of a few vessels 
containing Chinese boat people has tended to obscure the fact that 
these people have never amounted to more than a tiny fraction of the 
undocumented immigrants to the United States. The total number of 
Chinese boat people who arrived during the years our more generous 
asylum policy was in force, or who were apprehended while attempting to 
do so, was fewer than 2,000. This is the equivalent of a quiet evening 
on the border in San Diego.
  Nor is there evidence that denying asylum to people whose claims are 
based on forced abortion or forced sterilization will be of any use in 
preventing false claims. People who are willing to lie in order to get 
asylum will simply switch to some other story. The only people who will 
be forced to return to China will be those who are telling the truth--
who really do have a reasonable fear of being subjected to forced 
abortion or forced sterilization. The solution to credibility problems 
is careful case-by-case adjudication, not wholesale denial.
  Opponents add rhetorical punch to the asylum-as-magnet argument by 
asserting that treating forced abortion victims decently will be a 
unique incentive to smuggling and criminal gangs. Everyone is against 
smuggling. But let's prosecute the smugglers. Let's not take it out on 
the victims. The passengers on the St. Louis who were forced back to 
occupied Europe in 1939 were smuggled aliens too.
  Finally, we should be extremely careful about forcibly repatriating 
asylum seekers to China in light of evidence that a number of those 
sent back by the United States since 1993 have been subjected to ``re-
education camps,'' forced labor, beatings, and other harsh treatment.
  The passage of this legislation, despite its defects, should be good 
news for the dozens of people who are still being detained by INS, even 
though they were found to have testified credibly to a well-founded 
fear of forced abortion or forced sterilization--or even that they have 
already been subjected to these procedures. People whose claims were 
rejected under the discredited case of Matter of Chang and its progeny 
should be released from detention immediately, and their asylum cases 
should be reheard under the rule that is restored by this law.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is not people fleeing persecution, and it is 
not people who obey our immigration laws. The problem is illegal 
immigration. The solution is to cut illegal immigration from 300,000 
per year to zero, and to provide speedy deportation proceedings for 
millions of illegal immigrants who have abused our hospitality.
  As President Reagan said in his farewell address: ``The shining city 
upon a hill is still a beacon for all who must have freedom, for all 
the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the 
darkness, toward home.'' We are still the land of the free, still the 
most generous nation on Earth, but we must also insist on fairness and 
on respect for law. We must continue to work for the swift and sure 
enforcement of our immigration laws, without sacrificing American 
values.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the bill.
  We all appreciate the need for the immigration laws to be effectively 
enforced. But the conference agreement goes far beyond such legitimate 
concerns. It is an arbitrary and punitive measure which abandons our 
Nation's historic pledge to those seeking refuge from deprivation and 
persecution. It is a lamentable throwback to the anti-immigrant 
hysteria of bygone days, and I believe it will be so regarded by the 
international community and our own posterity.
  The bill's numerous defects have been ably set forth by my Democratic 
colleagues on the committee, and I will not belabor them. I will 
address only one particular provision, inserted at the 11th hour, whose 
cruelty and illogic exceed even the extraordinary standards previously 
set by this Congress.
  I refer to those sections of the bill that would eliminate all 
publicly funded HIV treatment services for both legal immigrants and 
undocumented individuals. Let me emphasize that the bill does this not 
through inadvertence but by design: the conference agreement goes out 
of its way to ensure access to medical care for all communicable 
diseases--except HIV/AIDS.
  No public health rationale has been offered in defense of this 
mischievous provision. It has not been offered because it does not 
exist. Indeed, anyone concerned with public health would want to be 
sure that we treat every infected individual, and it is both callous 
and shortsighted to do otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues who will vote for this bill today 
have on other occasions professed deep concern for the plight of 
children living with HIV. I do not question their sincerity, but their 
consistency is open to serious doubt. If this bill is enacted in its 
present form, there will be children living with HIV in this country to 
whom we are categorically denying all publicly funded medical care. I 
do not wish that on my conscience, Mr. Chairman, and for this and many 
other reasons I oppose the bill and urge its defeat.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a weak ans shameful bill, which 
does not deserve the Members support in its current form.

[[Page H11068]]

  The final product produced by the conference was given to us at the 
very last minute, on a take it or leave it basis. There was no 
Democratic input whatsoever, and we were completely shut out of the 
amendment process.


                 1. failing to protect american workers

  This bill says that we will make it easier for unscrupulous employers 
to hire illegal aliens once they are here. It also says that, by 
weakening antidiscrimination laws, it will make it harder for legal 
workers to get jobs.
  This bill says a resounding no to more Department of Labor inspectors 
to check illegal sweatshop and other havens of illegal, undocumented 
workers. No even though at least 100,000 foreign workers overstay their 
visas each year.
  This bill says a resounding no to Labor Department subpoena authority 
to review employment records, a critical tool needed to combat illegal 
immigration.
  This bill says no to more civil penalties for abusive employers who 
hire the illegals. That's the magnet that brings illegal immigrants 
here. That's what really counts. But the special interests have had 
their way with this bill.
  The Republicans have refused to includes those provisions that can 
most effectively attack illegal immigration. Therefore this bill is a 
toothless tiger, an election year special, designed to fool voters in 
California and elsewhere that we are getting tough. In reality, the 
Republican leadership is just caving to special interests and bringing 
us a weak bill.


                2. this bill says yes to discrimination

  It's not enough to simply be weak on illegal immigration. This bill 
also says yes to more discrimination.
  Even though not in the original bill, this bill now includes new 
provisions that tell employers that may engage in patterns and 
practices of discrimination so long as the discrimination is not so 
egregious as to lead itself to a showing of intent in a court of law.
  The conference report also says yes to discrimination by race, 
gender, and nationality in visa processing. This would allow the 
Department to select one particular type of nationality and subject 
them to burdensome and dangerous new visa processing requirements--a 
practice that has already been found to violate the antidiscrimination 
laws by the D.C. Circuit. That would have the immediate effect of 
forcing several dozen Vietnamese nationals who are family members of 
United States citizens to return to Vietnam to have their visas 
processed. Because of the hostility and corruption of the Vietnamese 
Government, those forced back are likely to have their visas languish 
for many more years.


                3. this bill says no to the environment

  The National Environmental Protection Act, known as NEPA, is the 
Nations founding charter for environmental protection.
  But this bill repeals that law, yes repeals that law, when it comes 
to the broader related construction.
  That means that when we are constructing roads, bridges, fences, we 
can ignore the environment.
  That means that broader construction can pollute our public 
waterways, dirty our air, create hazardous point sources that can 
create dangerous run offs, and generally ignore any adverse 
environmental impact of that construction.
  This is just one more, yes one more Republican attack on our 
environment.
  I plan on offering to recommit the conference report which corrects 
these glaring flaws. There is still time to come together and achieve a 
genuine bipartisan agreement on immigration.
  If you want to reform the Nation's immigration laws and crack down on 
illegal immigration without taking extreme and counterproductive 
measures which harm American workers, I urge you to vote for the motion 
to recommit. If that motion fails, I urge you to vote against the 
conference report.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  The United States has long been committed to the protection of 
refugees seeking safehaven from oppression. But this bill--under a 
provision called expedited exclusion--gives immigration officials the 
final say in deciding who has a credible fear of persecution--on the 
spot, with no right to an interpreter or an attorney. It strips the 
Federal courts of any review of these decisions.
  Many of my constituents escaped from brutal dictatorships in Haiti 
and Cuba and the oppression of the former Soviet Union. They faced 
political oppression and religious persecution. In many cases, their 
lives were in danger. Most of these people did not speak English; some 
were uneducated and most were unsophisticated in their understanding of 
U.S. law and documents. Yet all faced danger in the countries from 
which they fled. I shudder to think of how many of my constituents 
would have been deported back into harm's way if this provision had 
been in effect in the past.
  This bill would prevent the Federal courts from reviewing many 
actions of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, thereby 
eliminating a great safeguard against abuse. Federal court orders have 
often been the last resort in correcting INS decisions that violate the 
law or the Constitution. For example, an INS policy denied Haitian 
refugees the right to apply for political asylum. That INS decision was 
overturned--for good reason--by the Federal courts.
  This bill weakens protections against job discrimination for legal 
U.S. residents. The bill makes it harder for employees to prove that 
employers illegally discriminated against them by not hiring them. The 
bill also restricts the documentation that legal U.S. residents can use 
to establish their ability to work and their identity. Unscrupulous 
employers would be given greater latitude to discriminate against or 
exploit legal U.S. residents.
  This bill is as bad for what it does not do as for what it does. For 
the past 20 years, the taxpayers of my State and my county have been 
paying billions of dollars to cover the health care, education, 
housing, and other costs necessitated by the failures of U.S. 
immigration policy. Simple fairness should dictate that the Federal 
Government would pick up the costs of the failures of its own policies. 
Instead, the Federal Government abdicated its responsibilities and left 
our local taxpayers to pick up the bill. The bill is silent on this 
problem and does nothing to help us with these costs.
  The immigration reform conference report is the result of last minute 
partisan political maneuvering, rather than thoughtful, dispassionate 
consideration of policy.
  In the words of the American Bar Association, this bill ``abandons 
the U.S. commitment to the protection of refugees seeking asylum, 
threatens basic safeguards of due process, eliminates the historic role 
for the judiciary in reviewing the implementation of the immigration 
laws * * * and requires the deportation of legal immigrants who receive 
assistance for which they qualify.''
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on the immigration legislation and thank Chairman Hyde and 
Representative Smith for their able stewardship of this comprehensive 
and far-reaching reform bill. I also thank them for working so closely 
with the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities on the 
areas of the bill that concern education, human service, and workplace 
issues within the jurisdiction of our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents a comprehensive 
approach to addressing the problem of illegal immigration that will 
ensure that this Nation can continue to welcome the hope and creativity 
that new voices can offer us while feeling secure that the wonderful 
opportunities that life here presents will continue to be available for 
generations. The legislation recognizes that one of the primary--if not 
the preeminent--inducements to illegal immigration is the availability 
of U.S. jobs. The fact of the matter is that this Nation will never be 
able to fully control its borders with law enforcement strategies 
alone. The immigration reform proposal also recognizes, however, the 
practical constraints on employers in policing the attempts of 
immigrants to illegally secure employment. Thus, the bill contains 
needed reforms in the worksite verification process and authorizes a 
workable pilot telephone verification system to allow employers to 
readily document which applicants for employment are legally authorized 
to work.
  The conference report recognizes as well the role that the 
availability of public benefits can play in inducing individuals to 
unlawfully enter or remain in the United States. I am pleased that the 
bill takes a strong stand to stem the tide of illegal immigration. 
Those who break the law to come here will not be allowed to receive 
taxpayer-supported Federal benefits. They are barred and that is as it 
should be.
  I am also pleased that an agreement was reached to separately 
consider the Gallegly amendment on the education of illegal aliens. For 
some border States, like California, the education of illegal aliens 
costs $2 billion a year. For other States, it's not a problem. It is 
reasonable for States to have the right to decide this issue, and we'll 
have the chance to consider a separate bill, H.R. 4134, on this matter.
  With respect to legal immigrants, I am pleased that the conferees saw 
the wisdom of continuing to make higher education student aid, school 
lunch and breakfast benefits, and elementary and secondary education 
benefits available, as under current law, without counting their 
sponsors' income.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, the conference report is an excellent piece of 
legislation that represents months of work by the relevant committees 
to define a set of policies that will confront the serious 
repercussions of illegal immigration. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to give it your strong support so we can send 
immigration legislation to the President's desk, where I believe it 
should and will receive his signature.

[[Page H11069]]

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a legal immigrant father 
who fled Nazi Germany, I understand the strength that legal immigration 
has brought to America. I regret that provisions unfairly targeting 
legal immigrants have been added to this bill.
  But I firmly believe that we must act now to stop illegal 
immigration, and so I rise in support of H.R. 2202, the Immigration in 
the National Interest Act, which tackles many of the tough issues 
around illegal immigration, and speaks to one of our fundamental 
values: that all of us have to live and work by the same set of rules. 
As a member of the bipartisan task force that contributed many of the 
best features of this bill, I commend the leadership of our California 
colleague, Elton Gallegly.
  This bill doubles the number of Border Patrol agents to 10,000 over 
the next 5 years. And it authorizes the purchase of much-needed 
equipment and technology to aid these new agents in the fight against 
increasingly sophisticated alien smuggling rings.
  It also takes some important first steps toward eliminating the jobs 
for undocumented workers which are the primary lure for illegal 
immigration. It authorizes new eligibility-verification programs to 
keep undocumented workers from obtaining employment, and to protect the 
vast majority of American businesses who would never willingly hire an 
undocumented worker. In addition, it strengthens much-needed 
anticounterfeiting laws.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. I am firmly committed to 
changing its unfair provisions targeting legal immigrants. And I am 
disappointed to see that provisions increasing civil penalties on 
employers who hire undocumented workers at the expense of American 
labor have been removed.
  But on balance, this bill is important and necessary. It represents 
progress. And as the Torrance Daily Breeze has editorialized, 
``California needs this [bill].''
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2202, 
the Illegal Immigration reform bill. This legislation is the product of 
countless hours of negotiation between House Republicans and Democrats. 
While this bill currently does not have the tough provisions like the 
Gallegly amendment, that are so important to Californians, it is a step 
in the right direction.
  Although the United States is a Nation of immigrants, its borders 
should be protected from immigrants who unlawfully enter the country 
and become a burden on citizen taxpayers. I believe that individuals 
should come to this country through legal channels in order to become 
productive Americans.
  It has been estimated that it costs California more to educate 
illegal immigrants children than the entire educational budget of Rhode 
Island and Delaware. While the Clinton administration has turned a 
blind eye to the strains illegal immigrants places on local economies 
and communities, the Republican Congress is cracking down on illegal 
immigration in order to save all Americans money.
  According to INS, there are currently 4.5 million illegal aliens in 
the United States. While the illegal alien population increases by more 
than 300,000 every year, only about 45,000 illegal aliens are deported 
from the United States each year. We have clearly lost control of our 
borders.
  Why play by the rules when it is so easy to jump to the head of the 
line and enter illegally? H.R. 2202 does the following to ensure we are 
ready to combat this ever-increasing problem: It beefs up border 
security; it expedites deportations; it toughens penalties for illegal 
aliens; it gives law enforcement new tools to combat illegal 
immigration; and it eliminates the job magnet.
  Mr. Speaker, most legal immigrants who come to this country work hard 
and pursue the American Dream. Unfortunately, increasing numbers come 
to this country in search of government handouts. Consequently, 
taxpayers will spend $26 billion this year to provide welfare to 
noncitizens. This could rise to $70 billion by 2004. California spends 
about $3 billion annually for public education and health care for 
illegal aliens and incarceration of some 20,000 felons who illegally 
entered the country. This legislation encourages personal 
responsibility by requiring illegal aliens to pay their own way. It 
reinforces prohibition against illegal aliens receiving public 
benefits. In addition this legislation starts holding deadbeat sponsors 
legally financially responsible by one, counting the sponsor's income 
as part of the immigrant's in determining eligibility for welfare, and 
two, ensuring that sponsors have sufficient means to fulfill their 
financial obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to act on immigration reform. My district 
needs it; my home State needs it; America needs it. My colleagues 
should vote favorably on this legislation.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the conference 
report on the immigration reform bill.
  I voted for the immigration bill when it was considered by the House, 
even though I disagreed with some of its mean-spirited provisions that 
would kick children out of school and onto the street. I felt that it 
was a good, tough measure that would lead to a reduction in the level 
of illegal immigration. However, I rise today to oppose this conference 
report because special interest groups have managed to kill important 
provisions.
  Everyone knows the real reason that immigrants enter this country 
illegally: jobs. Common sense tells us that if we clamp down on this 
demand, we will see a corresponding drop in the supply.
  It is also a matter of common knowledge that employers in this 
country are exacerbating this problem by knowingly hiring illegal 
immigrants. Quite simply, they are acting as a magnet for illegal 
immigrants. These employers brutalize their workers by forcing them to 
work in sweatshop conditions at below minimum wage rates. And, 
significantly, they reduce job opportunities for American citizens.
  Sensible immigration reform must entail a crackdown on these 
unscrupulous employers. Sadly, this bill fails in that respect. The 
House-passed version, which I supported, provided 500 new Immigration 
and Naturalization Service [INS] officers to investigate employers who 
hire illegal immigrants.
  The Republican leadership, after consulting with their special 
interest lobbyists, decided to water down this provision. Now, the INS 
will get 200 fewer agents. And the agents the INS does get will be 
prohibited from focusing exclusively on employer violations.
  This bad conference report, in fact, weakens sanctions against 
employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. If we are serious 
about curbing illegal immigration, it is simply illogical to pass 
legislation that is soft on these law-breaking employers.
  At the same time, this measure radically attacks our Nation's 
antidiscrimination laws, making it harder for American citizens to 
prove that they have been discriminated against when seeking 
employment. It would require those claiming discrimination to prove 
that their employer intended to discriminate against them, which is an 
almost impossible legal hurdle to clear.
  I find it very unfortunate that this bill, originally intended to 
protect the American worker by stopping illegal immigration, will 
actually curtail the legal rights of American workers.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise to criticize provisions which will 
seriously undermine American families. Historically, our Nation's 
immigration laws permitted Americans to reunify their families by 
acting as sponsors for their foreign relatives. The immigration measure 
on the floor today raises the income level that prospective sponsors 
must meet to 200 percent of the poverty level. In plain terms, middle-
income Americans--the police officer or the schoolteacher--will be 
denied the ability to bring their aging parents to this country.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are to stem the tide of illegal immigration, we 
must undertake tough and effective measures. But we must insist that 
such measures apply to all the actors in the immigration problem--
illegal immigrants as well as the employers who hire them. 
Unfortunately, this bad bill, by exempting the latter, insures that the 
problem of illegal immigration will continue, as unscrupulous employers 
continue to lure employees with jobs.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2202, the 
Immigration and National Interest Act. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is 
not in the Nation's best interest, as the title erroneously suggests. 
While I agree that measures must be undertaken to reduce the influx of 
illegal immigrants crossing our Nation's borders, this measure goes too 
far by punishing legal immigrants.
  Like the welfare reform measure enacted into law earlier this year, 
H.R. 2202 would establish a ban on means-tested Federal assistance for 
legal immigrants. These are not illegal immigrants, but rather those 
who have followed the procedures and policies of the Federal Government 
to enter and live lawfully in this country. Even though I supported the 
overall welfare measure on final passage, I specifically do not agree 
with the provisions that would deny legal immigrants public benefits. 
President Clinton has agreed that these provisions are misguided, and 
he has stated his commitment to see them modified. I support such 
changes. H.R. 2202, however, includes almost those same provisions, 
altering deeming requirements for legal immigrants that would 
effectively make them ineligible for most means-tested public 
assistance. This measure has a provision that states that legal 
immigrants can be deported for accepting a Federal student aid loan and 
even for attending federally funded English classes. How can a legal 
immigrant learn the English language and pass the citizenship test with 
such a policy in place?
  While future legal immigrants will have legally binding affidavits to 
guarantee their support during difficult financial times, those who are 
already in the U.S. holding non-binding affidavits, or no such 
documents at all, will be left out in the cold. These immigrants will 
have nowhere else to turn for up to 5 years if their sponsor cannot or 
will not support them.

[[Page H11070]]

  Cutting off such life-sustaining assistance to those immigrants who, 
under Federal policies, legally entered this country without a 
guaranteed source of financial support is unacceptable. Furthermore, 
enacting such provisions will not reduce the needs of these legal 
immigrants. It will simply allow the Federal Government to abandon its 
responsibility for these individuals, shifting that responsibility and 
expense to State and local governments that will be forced to fill that 
gap.
  Ironically, while punitive provisions are put in place for legal 
immigrants already in the U.S., new categories of refugees and asylees 
are created by this measure. H.R. 2202 provides that the family 
planning policies of the individual's country of origin would become a 
basis for such status.
  Another provision in H.R. 2202 that would harm legal immigrants 
relates to their ability to reunite with family members they left 
behind in their homelands. H.R. 2202 increases the income needed to 
become a sponsor to 200 percent of the poverty level in most 
cases, which is over $30,000 for a family of four. Only where the 
sponsored immigrant is a spouse or a minor child does the bill lower 
that income level to 140 percent of the poverty level, which is in 
excess of $20,000 for a family of four. For many immigrants who work at 
minimum wage jobs, even the lower figure effectively prevents them from 
reuniting with family members.

  Furthermore, legal immigrants lose protection from discrimination in 
hiring, and the standards are stacked against them in the legal 
language of this bill. At the same time, illegal immigrants are hired 
by employers under the provisions of this measure with relaxed employer 
sanctions. This is two steps backwards from the policy enacted in 1986.
  When this measure was considered by the House, I successfully amended 
the bill with language that would have corrected a situation that is 
currently hindering some Hmong residents of my district from 
naturalizing. Unfortunately, the majority stripped the language from 
the bill during the conference committee.
  The Hmong the would have been affected are those who served alongside 
U.S. Forces in the Vietnam war, protecting and defending this nation 
and losing their homeland in the process. Because they served in 
Special Guerrilla Forces operated by the CIA, and not regular military 
units, they are eligible for expedited naturalization as other non-
national veterans of U.S. Forces are. Additionally, extraordinary 
language barriers and other hardships have prevented many Hmong from 
meeting some naturalization requirements. The Vento Amendment would 
have provided for expedited naturalization for these non-citizens who 
have served the United States honorably during the course of the 
Vietnam War. I am dismayed that the authors of this bill have chosen to 
ignore the service of the Hmong in the Vietnam War by choosing to deny 
them full citizenship in the nation whose freedom and democracy they 
fought so hard to protect.
  This bill does have some good provisions that are needed in the 
efforts to deal with the problem of increasing illegal entries into the 
United States, such as increased penalties for such activity and 
increasing the number of border control agents and Immigration and 
Naturalization Service personnel. However, it targets more than simply 
those immigrants that make the unlawful trek across our borders. 
Punishing legal immigrants along with those without legal status who 
have broken the law is the wrong policy path for our nation to travel. 
Let's solve the problems that require solutions without creating new 
ones. I ask my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I believe that States should be able to 
decide whether taxpayer dollars should be spent on public schooling of 
illegal aliens. That is why I supported the Gallegly amendment when the 
House passed the immigration reform bill earlier this year.
  That amendment was adopted by more than a 60 percent margin in the 
House. If the same support level existed in the other body, we could 
send a final immigration reform bill to the White House, with the 
Gallegly amendment intact.
  Regrettably, that seems not to be the case. A filibuster was 
threatened against any immigration bill including the Gallegly 
provision, and reportedly there aren't enough votes to shut it off.
  That means that getting immigration reform in this Congress requires 
us to relinquish the Gallegly restriction in the House-Senate 
conference report. Thus, I shall vote for the conference report.
  However, to keep faith with my belief and the wishes of the good 
citizens I represent, I also intend to vote, in the succeeding action, 
for H.R. 4134, a bill that is a stand-alone Gallegly measure.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to be mindful of a 
workable alternative to the problem of illegal aliens who are receiving 
public benefits. It's called report and deport.
  The immigration reform bill calls for additional INS enforcement 
personnel and for strengthened deportation. And, the welfare reform law 
this Congress enacted says that there can be no silencing of those in 
state and local government who communicate with the INS.
  The bottom line is that those who remain in this country illegally 
should know they are breaking the law and are subject to being reported 
and deported.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to this 
immigration conference report.
  Let's not be fooled here. We have been focusing on how wrong it is to 
punish children as we pull the precious words from the Statue of 
Liberty with this bill. But taking Gallegly out of this bill makes a 
mean, bad bill, just a little less mean and bad.
  This is a bad bill because it creates two classes of people--those 
who can afford to be reunited with their families and those who cannot.
  This is a bad bill because it stresses law enforcement on the border 
with more INS agents but it killed the proposal to increase Labor 
Department agents. If we really are concerned about illegal aliens 
taking the jobs of our constituents, why have we sacrificed workplace 
enforcement?
  This is a bad bill because it persists with the mean spirit of the 
welfare law--cutting safety net benefits to children.
  This is a bad bill because it denies medical care for people with HIV 
and AIDS.
  This is a bad bill because it makes it harder for prospective 
employees to sue for discrimination.
  I could go on and on.
  Most of us are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Our parents 
and grandparents who arrived at Ellis Island and other immigration 
points helped to make this country great. And here we are tearing apart 
the texture and heart of America--all for another Contract on America 
soundbite.
  My colleagues, vote against this conference report.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
recommit and against the conference report to immigration reform as it 
is currently written. It is with great regret that I do so, but I must 
in order to prevent a great injustice, a misuse of the House rules, and 
the enactment of a dangerous policy that threatens the health and 
safety of all people living in this country, not just immigrants.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a long and strong proponent of illegal 
immigration reform ever since I have had the privilege to serve in 
Congress. During the 104th Congress, I have voted for this legislation 
in both the Judiciary Committee and on the House floor. I have done so 
because I believe we must do something to halt the flood of illegals 
that enter our country, inflate our welfare rolls, depress the wages of 
working Americans, and cause a great deal of crime and hardship in our 
Nation.
  However, the conference report to H.R. 2022, the Immigration in the 
National Interest Act, contains provisions that I find both 
shortsighted and narrow minded. These provisions would deny basic 
medical treatment to any ineligible and undocumented immigrant who is 
HIV-positive, this includes a legal immigrant who has had publicly 
financed medical treatment for more than 12 months. While the bill 
would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to do whatever 
is necessary to prevent the spread of all other communicable diseases, 
it expressly prohibits HHS from providing basic medical care and 
treatment to HIV-positive immigrants. Those legal immigrants who exceed 
the 12-month limit will be automatically deported.
  These provisions were not included in either the House or the Senate 
versions of H.R. 2022. In fact, both Houses voted overwhelmingly to 
separate legal immigration reform from the bill earlier in the Congress 
and, instead, focus only on controlling illegal immigration.
  Mr. Speaker, current law already prohibits individuals who test 
positive for HIV and AIDS from immigrating to the United States. 
Therefore, this shortsighted and, I must say, discriminatory provision 
would only bar treatment for HIV-positive individuals who contracted 
the virus while in the United States. There is no logical public health 
or pubic health or public policy argument for distinguishing HIV and 
AIDS from all other communicable diseases. It would make absolutely no 
sense to allow testing and treatment for tuberculosis, measles, and 
influenza but refuse it for HIV and AIDS. Mr. Speaker, these provisions 
would not only be cruel and inhumane for those who suffer with the AIDS 
virus, but it would also be dangerous for those of us who don't.
  There is no doubt that this conference report contains many positive 
provisions that would help to stifle illegal immigration. Among the 
bill's initiatives are provisions to increase by 5,000 the Border 
Patrol, to improve border-crossing barriers along areas of high illegal 
immigration, and to prohibit illegal aliens from

[[Page H11071]]

receiving Federal means-test benefits except emergency medical 
services. Yet, this bill also contains provisions that are so 
shortsighted and so narrow-minded that it literally boggles the mind.
  Mr. Speaker, the HIV provisions should be stricken from this 
legislation. They should be stricken because they are, first and 
foremost, blatantly discriminatory. They would also produce a dangerous 
Federal policy of allowing HIV-positive individuals from roaming the 
streets and neighborhoods of our cities and towns without detection and 
without treatment. This provision is also wrong because it violates our 
own Rules of the House that confines conferees to the differences 
contained in the bill and not allow them to attach any items they wish. 
Finally, this provision should be defeated because it is inconsistent 
with an earlier vote, when the House and the other body overwhelmingly 
decided to separate legal immigration reform from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, with all this said, I respectfully urge my colleagues to 
vote for the motion to recommit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________