[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.
____________________