[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7357-H7367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
             AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois: At the end of 
     the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the 
     short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice to provide a grant to 
     any law enforcement agency except one identified in an annual 
     summary of data on the use of excessive force published by 
     the Attorney General pursuant to 210402(c) of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     14142(c)).

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we offer today, the Davis-Meek-Rush 
amendment, merely requires that the Attorney General put into practice 
what is already existing law. It does not impose any new requirements 
or change existing law.
  The 1994 Crime Control Act requires the Attorney General to collect 
data from State and local law enforcement agencies relative to 
complaints regarding the use of excessive force. We find it necessary 
to introduce this amendment because efforts to get this data from the 
more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies, to date, by the Attorney 
General have been less than satisfactory.
  It is my understanding that there have been efforts that could have 
made this information available, but, instead of requiring that it be 
provided, it has been asked for on a volunteer basis. We find that 
totally unacceptable. It does not provide the information that is 
needed. We want to make sure that local authorities are providing the 
information relative to the level of complaints about police brutality 
and misconduct.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition and would 
reserve my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and the reason is very simple. The only way we can begin to 
solve the police brutality problem is to hold municipalities 
accountable for wrongdoings. This amendment would allow the Department 
of Justice to limit the funding of police departments if they do not 
give vital statistics on police brutality to the Department of Justice.
  Through the current law, the Attorney General collects data and 
provides a summary. If they have a problem retrieving data from a 
police department which is cited in the summary, funds should not go to 
that municipality or that police department.

                              {time}  1830

  As the cochairman of the Congressional Black Caucus on police 
brutality with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), we have heard 
hours of testimony on the need to hold law enforcement departments 
accountable for egregious acts against citizens.
  In every city, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York, and we will 
be traveling to Los Angeles, it is the same complaint. If we do not 
have cooperation from our police departments, we should not give them 
funding. We need some legislation with teeth to enforce the fact that 
we will not be blind to police brutality and misconduct.
  This amendment is a step in the right direction. We demand and must 
have integrity of our government and integrity of the police department 
so that the good police officers are not branded with the bad. By 
making sure that these municipalities report the figures so that we can 
truly solve the problem, this is the way that we can combat that and 
resolve our problems with respect to to the police force.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As a 
Member of this body, I have heard victim after victim, attorney after 
attorney, family after family, express to me the severity of the 
problem of police brutality and misconduct in our Nation' cities and 
our Nation's towns.
  In 1994, this Congress passed legislation requiring the Department of 
Justice to collect data on police use of excessive force. However, we 
failed to appropriate any funding for the data collection. Furthermore, 
this year the Department of Justice failed to even request the funding 
to collect police misconduct data.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, I support law enforcement. People in 
the First Congressional District support law enforcement. However, I do 
not and cannot support police use of excessive force. To begin to treat 
the misconduct, we must, we should, gather the statistics.
  This amendment simply requires that State and local law enforcement 
agencies report data regarding police use of excessive force to the 
U.S. Attorney General. By collecting this data, by examining this 
problem, we will be able to determine the severity of the problem, and 
we will be able to develop solutions to reduce police brutality and 
misconduct incidents.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this timely amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that police brutality and 
misconduct are serious matters in many communities throughout America. 
The Congressional Black Caucus is seriously interested in and concerned 
about this problem. We simply want to have the information available so 
that the Attorney General can investigate practices and patterns that 
may involve police brutality and misconduct.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), if I could.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman's 
willingness to engage in this colloquy.
  As the chairman knows, Section 210402 of the Crime Control Act of 
1994 requires the Attorney General to acquire data about the use of 
excessive force by law enforcement officers, and shall publish an 
annual summary report.
  I am concerned that this requirement is not getting the priority 
treatment within the Department of Justice that it needs to produce an 
effective report.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for raising 
this important issue. The committee recognizes the importance of 
collecting this data, and will work with the gentleman to raise this 
issue in conference.
  I will also be happy to join with the gentleman and the ranking 
member in a letter to the Attorney General on this issue, and I look 
forward to working with the gentleman on it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We 
appreciate the gentleman's sensitivity to the issue. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) for joining me in this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his 
colloquy, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
for his fine presentation.
  This is something that concerns me, and I am glad to hear that the 
chairman is willing to join the gentleman

[[Page H7358]]

 from Illinois (Mr. Davis) in this effort. I want to be very much a 
part of this effort and make sure that this is something that we deal 
with.
  Mr. Chairman, I have often said, my greatest concern is, throughout 
all of my years growing up in the Bronx, I always saw the older folks 
in my community very supportive of the police. Now I see a lot of those 
folks upset, terrified, nervous about the police. That in itself is a 
sign to me that we have to do something to make sure that we regain 
that confidence that we have lost.
  So we are on the side of law enforcement. That is why we are doing 
what we are doing. I am glad that we can join together.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Campbell:

                               H.R. 2670

       Amendment No. 5. At the end of the bill, insert after the 
     last section (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to enforce the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 
     1534(e)(3)(F)(ii).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 24 persons either in jail or otherwise facing 
deportation in the United States under a very unusual law. I am quoting 
from the Washington Post description:
  ``A little-known provision of immigration law in effect since the 
1950s allows secret evidence to be introduced in certain immigration 
proceedings. The classified information, usually from the FBI, is 
shared with judges but withheld from the accused and their lawyers.
  ``Lately, the rarely used provision has fallen most heavily on Arabs, 
and their advocates say this is no coincidence.''
  Mr. Chairman, this use of secret evidence, the evidence that the 
accused cannot see, has been held unconstitutional every time it has 
been challenged: the Ninth Circuit, the D.C. Circuit; just in the last 
year, three immigration judges. But the Department of Justice 
nevertheless continues to use secret evidence in the other circuits, 
where they can get away with it. This to me is unconstitutional.
  It strikes the editorial boards of the Washington Post, the St. 
Petersburg Times, and the Miami Herald as unconstitutional, as well. 
The Washington Post, for example, says, ``The use of secret evidence in 
pursuing adverse judicial actions against people is a blight on our 
legal system that ought to be changed.''
  The St. Petersburg, Florida, Times points out, in the case of Dr. 
Mazen Al-Najjar, ``If investigators have incriminating evidence against 
Al-Najjar, then let him, his family, and the rest of the Nation see it. 
Either Al-Najjar should be tried with evidence of his activities in 
plain view, or he should be set free. The U.S. Constitution calls for 
no less. He deserves no less.''
  The Miami Herald concludes ``The INS and Justice Department must 
cease immediately this condemnation by innuendo, denial of liberty 
based on secret testimony, and destruction of reputation on the basis 
of guilt by association.''
  Mr. Chairman, my coauthor in this effort is the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip. If he comes to 
the floor, I wish to reserve time for him. If not, I will have 
additional comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Campbell 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to the 
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill offered by Mr. Campbell. 
This amendment stops the funding for the use of secret evidence by the 
Immigration Naturalization Service.
  In 1996 an amendment was added to the Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act, authorizing the INS to use secret evidence in 
barring or deporting immigrants as well as denying benefits such as 
asylum. However, this law restricts two rights Americans hold very 
dear: (1) the right to due process and (2) the right to free speech. 
This country has always and must continue to value the right to a fair 
trial and the freedom to hold and practice personal beliefs.
  However, allowing the use of secret evidence undermines the rights 
and liberty of both citizens and legal aliens alike because it lessens 
the constraints of both Constitutional considerations and conscience on 
INS cases. The case of the Iraqi seven clearly illustrates the flawed 
use of secret evidence.
  Seven Iraq individuals were among the many Iraqi Arabs and Kurds who 
were part of a CIA-backed plot to overthrow Saddam Hussein. While 
attempting to gain political asylum in the United States after their 
work in Iraq with 1,200 other Iraqis, these seven individuals were 
singled out and detained by the United States Immigration and 
Naturalization Service on the claim that they were a risk to national 
security. These seven individuals, who had worked with the U.S. in 
opposition to Saddam Hussein, were now seen as a threat to our national 
security based on secret evidence. Evidence that no one was allowed to 
see. Not the 7 Iraqis. And not their attorneys. Evidence that could be 
used to deny them asylum and deport them back to Iraq where they would 
surely meet their death.
  After much pressure, 500 pages of this so-called secret evidence was 
released. Closer examination revealed the evidence was tarnished due to 
its faulty translations, misinformation and use of ethnic and religious 
stereotyping. There have been about 50 cases where secret evidence was 
used to detain and deport individuals. This is unAmerican. The 
cornerstone of our judicial system is that evidence cannot be used 
against someone unless he or she had the chance to confront it. The INS 
is relying more and more on the use of secret evidence. If we continue 
to fund the use of secret evidence against non-citizens, then soon 
secret evidence will be used against American citizens too. There will 
be no limit to its use.
  So, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask you to 
maintain and defend the civil rights of all citizens living in the 
United States under the U.S. Constitution. Vote ``yes'' on the Campbell 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include material relating to this matter for the 
Record.
  The material referred to is as follows:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   August 2, 1999.
       Dear Colleague, we invite you to join us in cosponsoring 
     ``The Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999,'' a bill to repeal 
     the use of ``secret evidence'' in Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service deportation hearings.
       Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
     1996, the INS is allowed to arrest, detain and deport non-
     citizens on the basis of ``secret evidence''--evidence whose 
     source and substance is not revealed to those who are 
     targeted or their counsel.
       The right to confront your accuser, hear the evidence 
     against you and secure a speedy trial are fundamental tenets 
     of the American justice system. This violates our deepest 
     faith in the right to due process, and violates our 
     democracy's most sacred document, the United States 
     Constitution.
       We are very concerned about the arrest, imprisonment and 
     even forced deportation of individuals here in the United 
     States based on evidence that the individual is not afforded 
     an opportunity to review or challenge. The use of such 
     ``secret evidence'' directly contradicts our sense of due 
     process and fairness.
       The Bonior-Campbell bill would correct this injustice by 
     ensuring that no one is removed, or otherwise be deprived of 
     liberty based on evidence kept secret from them.
       People should know the crimes with which they are being 
     charged and should be given a chance to challenge their 
     accusers in court. I am proud to join my colleague, 
     Congressman David Bonior, in proposing legislation to end 
     this practice.
       Most affected by the INS and Justice Department's use of 
     ``secret evidence'' are Muslims and perhaps the most 
     egregious case is that of Dr. Mazen Al-Najjar of Tampa, 
     Florida, arrested two years ago by INS agents.
       Virtually all of the ``secret evidence'' cases have been 
     directed at Muslims and people of Arab descent. This law is 
     clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional, and we need to 
     take a strong stand against it.

[[Page H7359]]

     Tom Campbell.
     David Bonior.

  It's Unthinkable That in America an Individual Could be Imprisoned 
                Without Showing That Person the Evidence


        our amendment would block funding only for this section:

       ``(ii) Restrictions on disclosure
       A special attorney receiving classified information under 
     clause (i)--
       (I) shall not disclose the information to the alien or to 
     any other attorney representing the alien, and
       (II) who discloses such information in violation of 
     subclause (I) shall be subject to a fine under Title 18, 
     imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 25 years, 
     or both.''

    Amendment to H.R. 2670, as Reported Offered by Mr. Campbell of 
                               California

       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to enforce the provision of 8 U.S.C. 
     1534(e)(3)(F)(ii).

                   [From the LA Times, Dec. 15, 1997]

                 Use of Secret Evidence by INS Assailed

                            (By Jeff Leeds)

       While a judge weighs a decision in his case, Ali Mohammed-
     Karim is still waiting to hear the evidence against him.
       Along with hundreds of other Iraqis who worked with the 
     Central Intelligence Agency in a failed effort to oust Saddam 
     Hussein, he fled northern Iraq last year and sought political 
     asylum in this country.
       Upon his arrival, he and 12 other refugees were thrown in 
     jail, accused by the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     of posing a ``danger to the security of the United States,'' 
     an allegation the agency has refused to explain.
       The case of the Iraqi refugees is the latest front in the 
     widening legal battle over the INS use of classified 
     evidence.
       In the proceedings against the refugees, the INS has argued 
     its case and questioned its witnesses--one of whom is 
     employed by an agency it will not identify--behind closed 
     doors. Lawyers for the refugees were not present. They had to 
     put on a defense based essentially on guesswork.
       ``It's completely frustrating,'' said Niels Frenzen, an 
     attorney with Public Counsel, who represents the eight Iraqi 
     men who are jailed in San Pedro. ``How are we doing? We don't 
     know. Have we guessed the secret evidence? We don't know.''
       Both sides have rested their cases and are awaiting 
     immigration Judge D.D. Sitgraves' decision. She has indicated 
     that she may not rule until early 1998 on whether six of the 
     men jailed in San Pedro are security risks.
       Sitgraves already has ruled that two others are not, but 
     they remain incarcerated while they seek political asylum. 
     Another group of Iraqis faces similar proceedings in Northern 
     California.
       In a telephone interviews from the INS detention facility 
     in San Pedro, Mohammed-Karim, 35, said he is a doctor who was 
     excited about starting a new life with his family in the 
     United States. He said he once treated an American CIA 
     operative in Iraq for a migraine headache, and denied that he 
     was an agent for Hussein.
       ``I was never a single agent,'' he said. ``How could I be a 
     doubt agent?'' He added that the allegations against them are 
     ``just illusions.''
       Although the use of secret evidence is prohibited in 
     criminal courts, the INS says its use of such information to 
     deny political asylum is permitted under Supreme Court 
     decisions dating from the 1950s. And under new legislation, 
     the immigration service is allowed to use secret evidence to 
     deport residents suspected of associating with terrorists.
       David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who is 
     suing the federal government over its use of secret evidence 
     in a New York immigration case, says the Iraqi men were 
     evacuated and transported to this country by the government 
     and are entitled to due process.
       ``Even the most minimal due process protection would 
     invalidate the use of secret evidence,'' Cole said.
       But the INS has refused to reveal the nature of its 
     suspicions about the Iraqis. INS officials noted that 
     national security is typically used as a basis for keeping 
     out spies or potential terrorists, and has been used to block 
     members of the Irish Republican Army from staying in the 
     country.
       Before being flown to the United States, the jailed Iraqi 
     men worked for their country's two main resistance groups: 
     the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi National Accord. 
     Those groups produced newspaper articles and radio broadcasts 
     critical of Hussein, and mobilized soldiers to battle his 
     forces.
       Many experts believe that despite the CIA's support, the 
     resistance was never strong enough to pose a serious threat 
     to the Iraqi leadership, in part because the groups were 
     riven by internal political disputes. And even the resistance 
     leaders concede that Hussein's spies may have infiltrated the 
     groups.
       In August, Iraqi military forces rolled into northern Iraq 
     and crushed the resistance effort. U.S. forces evacuated more 
     than 6,000 Iraqis and Kurds to a NATO air base in Turkey 
     before flying them to Guam.
       During their five-month stay in Guam, the refugees were 
     taught American civics--including, Frenzen notes with irony, 
     the right to face one's accuser in court. They also submitted 
     to FBI interviews.
       Frenzen contends that disgruntled resistance workers, 
     motivated in some cases by petty personal disputes with his 
     clients, intentionally misled the FBI about their 
     backgrounds.
       But because the FBI's reports of those interviews are 
     classified, federal authorities will not disclose why the 
     refugees are considered potential threats to national 
     security. The INS has granted asylum to their wives and 
     children.
       The proceedings--at least the portion that was open to the 
     public--have shed little light on the evidence. Sitgraves has 
     repeatedly stopped the Iraqis' lawyers from probing too 
     deeply into classified evidence, forcing them to essentially 
     guess what in their clients' background raised red flags for 
     the FBI.
       In a typical exchange recently, FBI Agent Mark Merfalen 
     testified that he interviewed one of the refugees about his 
     experience with chemical weapons, his service in the Iraqi 
     military before he deserted to join the resistance and his 
     earlier request for political asylum filed in Saudi Arabia.
       But Merfalen, a counterintelligence specialist assigned to 
     the FBI's Oakland office, did not indicate what information 
     led him to conclude that the man, Mohammed Al-Ammary, posed a 
     security threat.
       ``I don't have enough facts'' to form an opinion about 
     whether Al-Ammary represented a threat, Merfalen said at one 
     point.
       A key witness for the accused was Ahmad Chalabi, president 
     of the Iraqi National Congress, who testified by telephone 
     from an INS office in Arlington, Va.
       ``I do not believe that any of them is an agent for the 
     Iraqi government,'' Chalabi said. He said the congress 
     conducted background checks on its members, and that he was 
     also assured that the men were not spies for Iran, Syria or 
     Turkey.
       ``It is inconceivable to the Iraqi people why these people 
     are jailed,'' he said.

                   [From the LA Times, Aug. 15, 1997]

 Secret Evidence--A Local Professor Languishes in Jail, Even Though He 
 Has Been Charged With No Crime, Thanks to a Troubling Provision of a 
                        New Anti-Terrorism Law.

       In their zeal to protect U.S. citizens against acts of 
     domestic terrorism, such as the World Trade Center and 
     Oklahoma City bombings, President Clinton and Congress passed 
     the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 
     Unfortunately, the legislation undermines some of the 
     constitutional rights that make America the free nation it 
     is.
       Nothing illustrates this dilemma better than the case 
     involving Palestinian refugee Mazen Al-Najjar, a 40-year-old, 
     American-educated engineer who taught Arabic part time at the 
     University of South Florida in Tampa. He was not rehired 
     after his visa was not renewed.
       Al-Najjar has been in an Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service holding facility at the Manatee County Jail since 
     four agents grabbed him from his northeast Tampa home the 
     morning of May 19. He has been denied bail based on ``secret 
     evidence'' said to connect him with the Islamic Jihad, a 
     notorious terrorist organization in the Middle East.
       INS officials allege that the World and Islam Studies 
     Enterprise, the USF think tank that Al-Najjar managed, is a 
     fund-raising front for terrorists and that Al-Najjar is an 
     Islamic Jihad shill. Troubles started for Al-Najjar and 
     others connected to WISE on Oct. 26, 1995, when the head of 
     Palestine Islamic Jihad was shot to death on the 
     Mediterranean island of Malta. Days later, Ramadan Shallah, 
     who had been an instructor at USF and a member of WISE, 
     became the new leader of Islamic Jihad.
       Authorities assumed they would find a terrorist cell at 
     USF. But no convincing evidence to support that suspicion has 
     been made public. After an internal investigation. USF 
     President Betty Castor said: ``Was there illegal activity, 
     subversive activity, terrorist activity? We don't have any 
     evidence of that.''
       Was USF's investigation incomplete? Were Castor's 
     conclusions self-serving? If the government possesses 
     evidence that the USF investigation missed, it isn't 
     revealing it.
       Yet Al-Najjar remains in jail. No formal charges have been 
     brought against him. He is being held under an 
     unconstitutional provision of the Anti-terrorism Act. The 
     merit of the case notwithstanding, the anti-terrorism 
     legislation allows the government to use informant testimony 
     or other forms of secret evidence to imprison and deport 
     legal immigrants suspected of terrorism without letting the 
     suspects cross-examine their accusers.
       Remember, the U.S. supreme Court has ruled that aliens have 
     the same rights of due process that U.S. citizens enjoy. U.S. 
     citizens should expect their government to take all 
     reasonable steps to protect them from terrorism, both foreign 
     and domestic. But officials have a responsibility to balance 
     the need for security with the obligation to protect the 
     constitutional rights of everyone.
       If investigators have incriminating evidence against Al-
     Najjar, then let him, his family and the rest of the nation 
     see it. Either Al-Najjar should be tried--with evidence of 
     his activities in plain view--or he should be set free. The 
     U.S. Constitution calls for no less. He deserves no less.

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7360]]

  Mr. Chairman, there is certainly no one more distinguished here in 
the Chamber on constitutional law than the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. In Jay versus Boyd, a U.S. Supreme 
Court decision, the court ruled that classified information could be 
used in an in camera or ex parte proceeding.
  Now, there are clearly are constitutional grounds that do not exist 
for this. However, it is a policy issue. What this amendment says is 
that if an alien is being held for deportation and is going through a 
hearing process, one, that if the Justice Department does not disclose 
to him all of the facts in the case, or evidentiary material that they 
held against him, then he should be released from custody and obviously 
not deported.
  I would point out first that these are not criminal proceedings. 
Therefore, the alien is not subject to the protection of the Sixth 
Amendment. These are administrative proceedings, and as I have 
indicated, under certain circumstances where the national security of 
our country is at risk, where disclosing the entire information to the 
alien would risk either sources and methods or individuals, as to how 
they obtained the information, I think it is appropriate for the court 
to allow ex parte hearing.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) recognizes that this is 
very rarely used. In over hundreds of thousands of cases in the past 2 
years dealing with deportation, there have been only 30.
  But most importantly, this is a very complicated issue, and there are 
merits on both sides of the issue. It should not be decided on the 
State-Commerce-Justice bill. It should be, rather, examined quite 
thoroughly in the appropriate committees of the House and we then 
should make some recommendation.
  Mr. Chairman, on those grounds I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for this 
amendment. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
  Our country was founded on the principles of individual liberty, and 
our Constitution deliberately and specifically protects the rights of 
individuals against the abuses of government. But unfortunately, we in 
this country have not always fulfilled this essential promise. It 
started out with Native Americans, affected African-Americans, it 
affected Japanese Americans, it affected German Americans during World 
War II, and now it is affecting Arab Americans and Muslim Americans in 
this country.
  The anti-terrorism law that was passed in 1996 allows the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service to arrest, to detain, and to deport legal 
immigrants on the basis of secret evidence, evidence which is not 
revealed to the detainee. These legal immigrants are not charged with a 
crime, they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. Some of 
them are not even allowed to post bail.
  In this country, if we can imagine, some of the detainees have not 
been charged with any crime, have been in jail for over 2 years, not 
knowing why, their attorneys not knowing why, languishing there, and 
their families not having any recourse to get them out or have them 
have a hearing.
  The right to confront one's accuser, to hear the evidence against 
you, and to secure a speedy trial are fundamental tenets of the 
American justice system, and secret evidence violates our deepest faith 
in the right of due process, and violates our democracy's most sacred 
document, which is the Constitution.
  The Washington Post said, ``Nothing is more inimical to the American 
system of justice than the use of secret evidence to deprive someone of 
his liberty.'' This practice is clearly discriminatory, it is 
unconstitutional, and we need to stand up here in this body and take a 
strong stand against it; if not tonight, certainly in the future.
  Virtually all the secret evidence, as I said, in these cases are 
against Arabs and Muslims in this country, some of whom have lived here 
for years with their families and with their children. I would just ask 
my friends to pay attention to this issue.
  I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from California, for 
raising this tonight. I hope that we can address this issue tonight and 
in the months to come.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. The Justice 
Department has supported this proceeding as a necessary tool to fight 
terrorism. They oppose the amendment, as does the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Smith) of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, as does 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman 
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  We all urge a no vote on the amendment.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and thank him for his 
recognition that legal residents in our country have human and 
constitutional rights.
  As his amendment shows, many changes to our Nation's immigration laws 
in 1996 have proven to be anti-American, denying those living in the 
United States the right to due process and judicial review of their 
cases. Remember, we are talking about legal immigrants, many who have 
been in the United States for most of their lives and are the primary 
bread winners for their families.
  They are denied due process, denied bail, and cannot even see the 
evidence in many cases with which they are accused. We are deporting as 
criminals thousands of legal residents who committed minor crimes 20 or 
30 years ago, served their sentences or probations and have become 
hard-working taxpayers, men and women with families. They are being 
ripped from those families, their children, their jobs, their 
businesses, and held without bail. This is not what America should be, 
Mr. Chairman.
  I support this amendment to reinstate a little bit of sunshine into 
our deportation process. This House needs to go further and reverse 
many of the unintended consequences of so-called immigration reform 
bills of 1996.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Do I have the 
right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I do have the right to close. I am allowing 
anyone who wanted to speak on this issue, not necessarily for or 
against; and I have two speakers. I am wondering if the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) will yield to one of those speakers.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a minute left. I would like a half 
a minute to close.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 additional seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlemen 
for giving me this time.
  I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) because this amendment will withhold funds when enforcing 
provisions that deny legal immigrants evidence on why they were 
arrested, detained, or deported.
  This secret evidence provision is unfair. As a former prosecutor, I 
am a firm believer of the discovery period and due process. When all 
the facts are presented, only then will the court of law be able to 
adequately decide if a person is innocent or guilty.
  The American justice system is built on the fundamental tenets of a 
fair

[[Page H7361]]

trial and innocent until proven guilty. The current provisions under 
the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 violates an 
individual's constitutional right to know why they are being charged. 
Noncitizens who are legal immigrants who are detained by the INS are 
individuals who have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Why are they 
punishing legal immigrants?
  What if the U.S. citizens visiting a foreign country were unjustly 
charged and detained without any evidence provided? As Members of 
Congress, we would be outraged and demand intervention by the State 
Department. In fact, we would probably reevaluate our relationship with 
that nation, whether that nation be friend or foe.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unthinkable that in our country people are in 
jail tonight based on evidence that they could not see. That is not my 
country. I would hazard to guess that most of us are shocked that that 
is the law. But it is the law, and it should be changed.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of 
the subcommittee, who has agreed to hold a one-panel hearing on this 
subject.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Campbell 
amendment. I think in this day and age it is unfair to hold anyone with 
secret evidence.
  I have met with families of some non-citizens who have been held.
  It is very frustrating when you have people held in such a manner.
  These are people with families and ties to the community here. Some 
have fled and sought asylum. None have been shown to be a threat to 
society.
  But, neither the individual nor the lawyer can see the evidence. So 
they wait in jail, with no country to go to.
  I urge adoption of this amendment so the INS would be forced to 
disclose evidence on these people it continues to detain.
  I thank the gentleman for his work on this issue.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the kindness of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for 
a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the 
opportunity to very briefly discuss the funding level for Radio Free 
Asia.
  I realize the tight budget constraints the subcommittee is under, but 
I am concerned that if RFA receives only $22 million, last year's 
funding level, it may have to reduce its broadcast hours to China from 
24 hours a day to 18 hours a day. A funding level of $23.1 million, by 
contrast, would fund inflationary costs, and allow Radio Free Asia to 
retain its current programming and continue to provide timely and 
accurate news to those who would not otherwise receive it.
  As the bill goes forward to conference, I ask that the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) work with me to ensure that Radio Free Asia is 
funded at a level sufficient to maintain its current programming.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
expressing that concern. The funding level of Radio Free Asia is, 
indeed, a reflection of the tight budgetary circumstances facing my 
subcommittee, and we will endeavor to fund RFA at a level sufficient to 
maintain current programming.


                     Amendment Offered By Mr. Wynn

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wynn:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for ``Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission--Salaries and Expenses'', 
     and reducing each amount appropriated for ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     STATE--Administration of Foreign Affairs'' that is not 
     required to be appropriated by a provision of law, by 
     $33,000,000 or 0.8462 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Wynn) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to restore $33 million to 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission budget as originally 
requested by the President.
  Although we do not like to talk about it in this body, we do have a 
problem with race and ethnic diversity in America. Unfortunately, in 
addition, we found that we have a problem of racial discrimination in 
our own backyard, that being the Federal workplace.
  This amendment is designed to restore funds so that EEOC can more 
effectively and more efficiently process those complaints.
  My colleagues may ask, well, how bad is it? Consider the following 
fact: at EEOC from 1991 to 1997, the backlog from hearing requests from 
complainants increased 218 percent, from 3,100 to over 10,000. The 
backlog of appeals increased during this same period 581 percent, from 
1,400 to over 9,000 appeal requests. In addition, requests for new 
hearings at EEOC increased 94 percent from 5,000 to over 11,000.
  My point is this: we have a problem in this country with 
discrimination. People who suffer discrimination attempt to have their 
complaints in the employment arena resolved through EEOC. But the 
underfunding, the chronic underfunding of EEOC has resulted in these 
horrendous backlogs.
  Now, whenever people talk about discrimination, the first thing we 
will hear is, well, we have sufficient laws already on the books to 
handle discrimination. The problem is, with this underfunding and these 
backlogs, justice delayed is justice denied.
  Who is hurt because we underfund EEOC? Well, clearly employees are 
hurt. Their careers are hurt. They are hurt by discrimination, the lack 
of promotion, the lack of advancement. Their health is sometimes 
injured as a result of the frustration, anger, and anxiety they have to 
suffer. Their finances are hurt as they give up on the EEOC process and 
go hire lawyers.
  The taxpayer loses. The employer loses the loss of good employees 
whose productivity declines, the loss of good employees who leave 
government as a result of discrimination, and finally the loss of 
productivity and lower moral as people become frustrated because they 
are discriminated against.
  We can resolve this problem. We should fully fund EEOC so we can 
address the concerns of African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, women, and 
other minorities who suffer discrimination here in America.
  For these reasons, I urge the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky seek to claim the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. ROGERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The amendment would give a 12 
percent increase to EEOC. That would be on top of a whopping 15 percent 
increase for the current year. An increase of this magnitude would be 
totally out of place in this bill where the budgets of every single 
other related agency is frozen at best. Some are cut even beyond. 
Federal Communications Commission, frozen. Securities and Exchange 
Commission, frozen. Federal Trade Commission, frozen.
  The President's budget request for EEOC for 1999 promised that, if we 
provided $279 million, the backlog of private sector discrimination 
charges would be reduced to around 28,000 by the end of fiscal 2000.
  Well, we gave them $279 million, every penny. Guess what? The 2000 
budget request said they really need $33 million more and 150 more 
staff to meet those very same targets they had earlier missed.
  This indicates that it is time to take a step back and see how the 
commission is able to absorb and put to good use the big increase we 
provided for this current year. I wish them well. We

[[Page H7362]]

have confidence in the new chairwoman. But this is not the time for 
another huge funding increase.
  The offsets the gentleman proposes are totally unacceptable to this 
Member. The amendment would cut $4.6 million from one of the top 
priorities of this country, and that is providing security for our 
personnel in the embassies overseas. This would require cutbacks in 
security measures undertaken in the wake of the East Africa bombings, I 
will not tolerate that, Mr. Chairman.
  We pressed the administration to come forward with a request in their 
budget to address the security in the embassies. They have done so. We 
have made sacrifices in other parts of the bill to provide that money, 
the full amount requested to ensure that our personnel overseas are 
protected to the best we can from terrorist attacks.
  This is a critical requirement with life and death consequences as we 
saw so tragically last fall. In addition, the amendment takes an 
additional $21 million from the base operating costs of the State 
Department that are already funded at a level that is minimally 
adequate to allow the Department to continue to function near current 
levels. This cut would effectively freeze the Department at current 
levels and raise the possibility of post closings and reduction in 
personnel at the State Department.
  The amendment would take an additional $1.5 million from the 
educational and cultural exchange programs at a cap that is already 
reduced 14 percent from current levels.
  For these reasons, I urge a rejection of the gentleman's amendment. I 
wish we had more funding to provide increases in a number of agencies 
in the bill. But I believe it would be a serious mistake to cut State 
Department security funds and operating funds to provide a huge 
increase for the EEOC.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comments that were just 
made on several fronts.
  First, with respect to the funding that was provided last year, I 
would thank the gentleman. But my colleagues will note in his comments, 
the chairman said this funding will allow us to have a backlog of only 
28,000 cases, only 28,000 cases.
  My point is this: those are the cases of American citizens who 
believe they have been denied fundamental opportunities and are trying 
to pursue their appropriate redress through the vehicle, the EEOC, 
which we provided to solve these problems. The fact that this backlog 
continues even with the funding which was provided last year suggests, 
as I indicated, that justice is being denied.
  We believe that additional funding will help alleviate this problem, 
not just in the private sector, but in the public sector where we have 
even more complaints of discrimination among our own Federal workers.
  So I think this is a question of priorities. Should we not take the 
time and should we not expend the funds to provide the true rights of 
all American citizens to those who are being discriminated against? I 
think we should.
  But I am not unmindful of the gentleman's comments, and I certainly 
respect his efforts in this regard. The State Department cut would be 
serious with respect to embassy security. I think that is certainly a 
consideration that we cannot overlook.
  In light of that fact and in consideration of conversations I have 
had with our own ranking member, it would be my desire and intention to 
withdraw the amendment at this time with the hope that, during the 
conference committee process, we can work to provide additional funds 
for EEOC.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer or enforce the Uniform System of 
     Accounts for Telecommunications Companies of the Federal 
     Communications Commission (47 C.F.R. part 32) with respect to 
     any common carrier that--
       (1) was determined to be subject to price cap regulation by 
     the Commission's order in CC Docket No. 87-313, In the Matter 
     of Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers 
     (9-19-90), at paragraph 262; or
       (2) has elected to be subject to price cap regulation 
     pursuant to section 61.41(a)(3) of the Commission's 
     regulations (47 C.F.R. 61.41(a)(3)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of my 
time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Incredibly, all of the businesses in this great country who file 
accounting papers, documents with the SEC, the IRS, all our Federal 
agencies file under one set of accounting, the generally accepted 
principles adopted by the Federal Accounting Standards Board.

                              {time}  1900

  One set of companies only, one set of telephone companies only, your 
local telephone companies, have to file two sets of books. They have to 
do it because in 1935 our FCC adopted its own system of accounting and 
has required the local telephone companies to file under that system 
ever since.
  Now, they have tried, to some degree, to adopt the general accounting 
standards, but they have not yet gotten there. The Senate just recently 
adopted a similar amendment saying to the FCC one set of books, one set 
of accounting for all the companies who file.
  Incredibly, the local telephone companies' competitors file under the 
general accounting standards. All of the other companies in America do, 
but the local phone companies have to file two books. Arthur Andersen 
says it costs the government, the phone companies and American 
consumers $270 million, wasted dollars, to have this double book 
accounting.
  Now, maybe we could make an argument for it when we used to regulate 
telephone companies on cost-base rates. Today, since 1991, we regulate 
telephone companies entirely differently, on price caps. With the new 
changes and modernization, it is time to deregulate this terribly 
regulatory burdensome double-book accounting system of the Federal 
Communications Commission. I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a telecommunications crisis out here on the 
floor. We are legislating on an appropriations bill. An emergency. A 
telecommunications emergency. And who is declaring the emergency? The 
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. It is an emergency.
  We do not have time to introduce a bill, we do not have time to have 
any hearings, we do not have time to give any consumer groups an 
audience so they can complain about this bill. By the way, the Consumer 
Federation of America opposes the bill, as does the Consumer Union, as 
does the National Retail Federation. Every business in America opposes 
it, as do the States, by the way, my colleagues. This is quite a 
coalition.
  But we do not have time because we are in a telecommunications 
emergency. And I can tell my colleagues why. Because Senator Enzi from 
Wyoming attached this amendment over on the floor of the Senate. He is 
not a member of the Committee on Appropriations over there, he is not a 
member of the telecommunications committee over there. He attached this 
to a Senate appropriations bill, so we have to debate it with no time 
and no hearings. Thank God Senator Enzi has not gotten his own tax 
proposal. He would wrap this chamber in knots for weeks. We would have 
to consider what

[[Page H7363]]

Senator Enzi did on the Senate floor as an emergency.
  I can tell my colleagues what the emergency is. Under the existing 
accounting standards the FCC found that the telephone companies, the 
monopolies in America, were hiding $5 billion worth of assets that they 
could not find, that they had on their books and were telling 
regulators were there for purposes of billing consumers across the 
country. That is their emergency. And this accounting standard that we 
are going to take off the books found that $5 billion.
  We are concerned about tax breaks out here? Multiply that out by 10 
years, my colleagues. We are talking chump change compared to most of 
the things we are talking about here. So that is the emergency, my 
colleagues. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we did hold hearings. Every time the FCC has come up 
for authorization, we have discussed with them this topic. In 1985, the 
FCC agreed to go to the general accounting standards so that everybody 
had the same reporting requirements. The FCC agreed to do this in 1985 
and still has not done it today. Instead, one set of telephone 
companies have to spend $270 million extra a year.
  And what does that mean for the competitors? It means they can charge 
higher rates. The competitors do not want this to happen, because if it 
does, they suddenly have to charge lower rates for their services in 
competition with those local companies.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has demonstrated 
extraordinary outrage, but it does not have anything to do with the 
facts before us. Today, the local government requires local telephone 
service companies to keep two sets of books. The requirement no longer 
serves to protect consumers because the companies have been subject to 
price caps since 1991.
  This amendment will leave the telephone companies responsible for 
general accounting principles and they will be required to function 
under that way. The law as it now is is simply obsolete, burdensome, 
and discriminatory, and costs consumers $270 million a year. None of 
the competitors to local phone companies, including industry giants 
such as AT&T, TCI and MCI WorldCom is required to keep two sets of 
books, nor should they have to.
  What we are talking about here is a fair and even situation, one in 
which universal service and the benefits thereof could be made 
available more easily to American consumers by the $270 million that 
this will make available to them.
  By this amendment, we will do away with so-called Uniform System of 
Accounts for companies that are not subject to traditional rate of 
return regulation. This system of accounting no longer serve to protect 
consumers. It is antiquated, obsolete, yet it costs over $300 million 
per year to maintain. Unfortunately, these unnecessary costs are borne 
by the public and they must be eliminated.
  The Uniform System of Accounts date back to 1935. They certainly made 
sense when Ma Bell was subject to a different regulatory scheme--that 
is, traditional rate of return regulation. But rate of return 
regulation was done away with in 1991 for the Nation's largest 
telephone companies who serve over 90% of the public. This amendment 
simply repeals these highly burdensome accounting rules for companies 
that are no longer subject to this regulatory regime.
  The amendment makes consummate sense. It will save Government, 
industry, and, most importantly, the American public, a tremendous 
amount of money. It will enable companies to use just one set of 
books--those which follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or 
GAAP. After all, GAAP accounting systems are what Certified Public 
Accountants are trained to audit, and are required of all companies by 
the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchanges 
Commission. If it's good enough for the IRS, the SEC, Wall Street and 
the public at large, it certainly should be good enough for the FCC.
  In fact, it is good enough for the FCC The FCC moved toward adopting 
GAAP in 1988. At that time, the FCC conformed about 90% of the Uniform 
System of Accounts to GAAP standards. The reason the FCC didn't go all 
the way in 1988 is because local telephone companies were still subject 
to rate of return regulation. But that is no longer the case. In 1991, 
the FCC permitted these companies to migrate from traditional rate of 
return to price cap regulation. Unfortunately, the FCC never finished 
the job of completely adopting GAAP accounting, even though they've had 
8 years to do it.
  There is no mystery about this amendment and its effect on consumers. 
Since these companies are now subject to price cap regulation, 
consumers are protected by a ceiling on what telephone companies can 
charge. Costs are no longer relevant, and so the minute cost detail 
that is maintained in a second set of books is no longer necessary. 
It's that simple. This amendment simply finishes the job the FCC set 
out to do in the first place.
  Who opposes this amendment? Companies that for competitive reasons 
want to keep incumbent local telephone companies tied up in red tape. 
The companies who oppose are not required to keep two sets of books. 
But they certainly want the competition to suffer that burden. They 
resort to rhetoric about the need to keep these obsolete rules in 
place, such as ``local telephone rates will go up,'' or ``universal 
service will be jeopardized.
  None of this is true. Local rates are set by the States and will not 
be affected by this amendment at all. The FCC can continue to collect 
all the data it needs for universal service calculations. However, the 
truth is the FCC doesn't even use actual costs, GAAP or otherwise, for 
calculating universal service requirements. It uses a theoretical 
costing model that has been the subject of much dispute for four years 
now, and should be the subject of another debate on another day.
  Who benefits from the amendment? The Government, industry, and 
consumers alike. All will share in costs savings that result. The goal 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to create more competition 
and consumer choice. We must unburden the players in the market and 
create a level playing field if that is to occur. I cannot think of a 
more irrelevant, burdensome, and discriminatory regulation than the 
Uniform System of Accounts.
  When we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the vast majority 
of us, on both sides of the aisle, praised it as being 
``deregulatory.'' As many of you know, I don't believe it has worked 
out quite that way, largely due to misplaced priorities at the FCC. But 
this amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the act, and it is a 
small, but important, step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting yes on the Tauzin-Dingell amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 30 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 
1\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and hope they are consumed at the same rate of duration as the 
gentleman from Michigan's minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that there has been no process here. There 
has been no opportunity to be heard. If I could, I would like to 
request from the subcommittee chairman that he engage in a colloquy 
with me, and I would request that the gentleman from Louisiana, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, over the next 6 weeks, call a 
subcommittee hearing on this issue so that witnesses of all sides could 
be heard on this subject.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana for a response to 
that request.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that this 
issue has already been engaged in. We have had discussions at 
authorization hearings with the FCC.
  Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose 
the question again. We have never had a hearing where consumer groups 
and the States have been able to testify on this issue. So I ask for a 
hearing not where the telephone monopolies are allowed to testify with 
their unhappiness with this accounting system that caught them bilking 
the public but rather with the consumer groups and the others who are 
also allowed to testify.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
can answer with a statement. This amendment does not change the 
auditing by

[[Page H7364]]

the FCC. They can still catch any company, AT&T, MCI, any Bell company, 
doing anything wrong. This amendment does not change that.
  Mr. MARKEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman if he would 
grant a hearing before the conference is completed.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman prefaced his request with statements I 
disagree with. I would like to correct the record, if I could, if the 
gentleman will allow me.
  Mr. MARKEY. I will reclaim my time requesting one more time if the 
gentleman would grant us a hearing.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The answer is that the hearings, as the gentleman knows, 
are set by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. I cannot commit 
to any dates nor time for that hearing. The gentleman knows that at 
this time.
  More importantly, this issue is now enjoined. This will be in the 
conference committee and this is our chance to strike a single blow at 
deregulation at a commission with a 1930s attitude.
  Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will make this point. 
The United States Telephone Association has never contacted me, the 
ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection on this issue. There has never been a hearing where 
consumers or the States or the National Retail Association have been 
allowed to testify, and I think all Members should know that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to support this amendment.
  In New York, our State's public service commissioner is on the verge 
of granting the local telephone company, Bell Atlantic, permission to 
enter the long distance market. If this happens, Bell Atlantic will 
probably be the first regional Bell operating company to enter into the 
long-distance market under the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The reason they will be able to provide long-distance service is 
because competition is very much alive in New York, to the benefit of 
all consumers. This amendment continues that progress, protects the 
interests of all consumers and ensures the intent of the 
Telecommunications Act, which is to provide true competition.
  With none of the competitors to the local phone companies required to 
conform to these accounting rules, if we do not adopt this amendment, 
consumers will suffer greatly.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer 
Protection, Mr. Tauzin, and the Subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. 
Dingell. This amendment would eliminate yet another needless, costly 
and burdensome regulatory requirement that has outlived whatever merits 
it may have once had. Local telephone companies, both large and small, 
must submit highly detailed financial accounting records on a 
continuing basis to both the IRS and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. These records use an accounting method approved by the 
Financial Accounting Services Board. One could reasonably ask the 
question, ``If it's good enough for the IRS and the SEC, shouldn't it 
be good enough for the FCC?''
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a complex issue. It is a simple case of 
unnecessary, archaic federal regulation that requires companies to 
spend millions of dollars to prepare two separate sets of regulatory 
accounting records for use by one agency of the government. This defies 
logic and common sense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment introduced by Mr. 
Tauzin to start the process of getting rid of the FCC's so-called 
``Uniform System of Accounts.''
  It's become clear to me that what we have on our hands here is a 64-
year-old dinosaur, a creature of the FCC, designed for an arcane 
accounting purpose, which has been rendered totally useless by time and 
progress but the price tag on American consumers continues. This has to 
end.
  It has been estimated that allowing this accounting dinosaur to 
exist, and allowing the FCC to require telephone companies to follow 
it, is now costing American consumers and our economy as much as $300 
million every year, that's more than a million dollars every working 
day. The good news, Mr. Chairman, is this is a situation we can banish 
to the business trivia history books today by supporting Mr. Tauzin's 
amendment.
  The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the FCC does not need to use this second, 
artificial system of accounting and it already uses the business 
world's so-called ``GAAP'' method of accounting, Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles, throughout its operations.
  And Mr. Tauzin's amendment will in no way endanger the availability 
of low-cost ``universal'' telephone service. It also will not change 
the FCC's oversight role, it will only make FCC operations more cost 
effective.
  Mr. Chairman, the only purpose the Uniform System of Accounts serves 
today is to uniformly penalize the American consumer and the rest of us 
all. Let's put this dinosaur out of it's misery, right now.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in 
support of the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Louisiana. It is a big step toward cutting red 
tape for good, solid, reputable telephone companies. It is long 
overdue.
  This is not 1934, it is 1999, and it is long overdue that we take 
action now.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), the chairman of our caucus.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  I think the point has been adequately made that local telephone 
companies, like every other U.S. business, keep their books according 
to generally accepted accounting principles, yet they must also keep a 
second set of books developed by the FCC in 1935. It is time to change 
this process, this procedure.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), whose father was my good friend.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I will keep it brief, I do not want to 
consume the whole argument here with facts, but let us see what has 
happened in the recent past.
  The FCC has basically changed its own rules, which it can, to 
presently conform to 90 to 95 percent of what is now the generally 
accepted accounting principles. They are almost there, but they are not 
quite there, and as a result it does result in the keeping of two sets 
of books.
  The second set of facts is that this amendment leaves in place the 
FCC's ability to require information on costs from the local telephone 
companies. This is not an end run, this is simply regulatory reform, 
and we need it now. Please support the amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining in the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 15 
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 15 
seconds remaining.
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I rise today in support of the Tauzin-Dingell amendment. Today local 
telephone companies have to follow GAAP procedures for the IRS and the 
SEC, and the Uniform System of Accounts for the FCC. This unnecessary 
duplication costs the industry and its consumers $270 million each 
year, and serves no purpose.
  The Tauzin-Dingell amendment eliminates unnecessary regulation and 
levels the playing

[[Page H7365]]

field for all telecommunications companies. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the Tauzin amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Tauzin/Dingell amendment 
to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. The Gentleman from 
Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin and the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell have 
crafted an amendment that would prohibit the Federal Communications 
Commission from requiring persons to use accounting methods that do not 
conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
  Today, the Federal Communications Commission requires local telephone 
companies to keep two sets of books.
  No other industry is required to do this and it is unfair for the 
government to treat one segment of the telecommunications industry 
differently than we do others. This current requirement serves no 
purpose and should be eliminated.
  Local telephone companies keep their financial records according to 
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), the standard required 
by the IRS, SEC, and the investment community. In addition, they must 
also keep another set of records that follows the Uniform Systems of 
Accounts, developed by the FCC in 1935 to facilitate the Commission's 
oversight of the ``old'' AT&T. This costs customers $270 million.
  The Tauzin/Dingell amendment would simply prohibit the FCC from 
requiring companies to provide financial records in a format other than 
what is generally accepted. The amendment also leaves in place the 
FCC's ability to require information on costs and to set depreciation 
schedules necessary for universal service calculations.
  The use of GAAP will not jeopardize universal service. In today's 
market, rapid advances in technology drive the introduction of new 
products at an incredible pace. Costly and unnecessary regulations slow 
the pace and place certain companies on an unlevel playing field. The 
Tauzin/Dingell amendment helps promote competition and levels the 
playing field among telecommunications companies. Support the Tauzin/
Dingell amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and urge 
my colleagues to do likewise. By adopting this provision, we will be 
able to achieve several objectives.
  First, we can save the American consumer and telephone industry a 
significant amount of money. Second, we can take a step towards further 
reducing government regulation. And third, we will be achieving 
competitive balance in the industry. We should support this amendment.
  It has been estimated that this double-accounting regime costs the 
industry and consumers $270 million. That is money that could be 
reinvested in telephone infrastructure, and used to introduce new 
products and services so essential in today's rapidly changing 
telecommunications market.
  The phone companies already keep one set of books for the IRS and 
SEC. Yet, the FCC makes them keep a whole other set of books for its 
accounting purposes. If the GAAP system is good enough for the IRS, it 
is good enough for the SEC, in fact is good enough for most of the 
American business world, it ought to be good enough for the FCC.
  No other segment of the telecommunications industry is required to 
keep these books, and it is unfair for one sector to be singled out for 
different treatment. These costly and unnecessary regulations skew the 
balance among the companies, and slow the ability of the companies 
subject to the regulation to introduce new products and services.
  Commissioner Harold Furchgott-Roth of the FCC has indicated that, and 
I quote, ``In today's increasing competitive telecommunications 
marketplace, the Commission should be focusing its efforts on 
transitioning to a more competitive environment. The amount of detailed 
information and regulatory scrutiny required under our accounting and 
ARMIS rules is inordinate and should be reduced.'' Mr. Speaker, that 
comes from one of the sitting Commissioners.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Tauzin's amendment, and 
eliminate unnecessary regulation, save resources, and level the playing 
field for all telephone companies. I thank the gentleman and yield back 
the balance of my time.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members to refrain from 
characterizing actions of or in the Senate.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my fellow 
Commerce Committee colleagues on the amendment they are offering today. 
This should be an easy vote which will achieve real regulatory reform 
by requiring the FCC to take an action it should have taken years ago.
  I doubt that many of our constituents would be shocked to know that 
the federal government has made certain industries duplicative, 
unnecessary, work since 1935. For the last 64 years, the federal 
government has required local telephone companies to keep two different 
sets of accounting books.
  The Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange 
Commission both require a standard for all businesses to follow when 
keeping their books, which is according to the ``Generally Accepted 
Accounting Principles'' (GAAP). However, the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) makes local telephone companies keep a separate set of 
books in order to comply with the ``Uniform System of Accounts,'' which 
was put in place in 1935 in order to facilitate the Commission's 
oversight of AT&T.
  Like many other aspects of the federal government that have remained 
in place for decades, the Uniform System of Accounts is unnecessary and 
needs to be changed. This needless system costs the industry and its 
consumers an estimated $300 million dollars every year. In addition, 
the FCC requires longer depreciation lives for high tech equipment that 
telephone companies need to provide advanced services to consumers. 
Slower depreciation may mean slower recovery of costs, which would 
reduce the incentives these companies have to deploy new technology.
  I urge all Members to support this amendment. By following GAAP, the 
FCC will not be jeopardizing universal service, local competition or 
any other congressional policy. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 273, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

     TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for joint training programs between the Royal Ulster 
     Constabulary and any Federal law enforcement agency.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would limit the funding from being 
expended for any joint training programs between the Royal Ulster 
Constabulary and any Federal law enforcement agencies here in the 
United States.
  This year the FBI began joint training between the FBI and the Royal 
Ulster Constabulary, the RUC, the police force of Northern Ireland.
  The purpose of this program is to address ``the new challenges that 
societal changes are having on law enforcement in the region.''

[[Page H7366]]

  In a press release, the FBI said topics discussed between the FBI and 
the RUC included interaction between the police and the public in a new 
environment, human rights, recognition of the diversity and anti-
terrorism strategies.
  The FBI National Academy has long been a vital element in continuing 
the improvement of law enforcement standards around the world through 
knowledge, training, and cooperation.
  Unfortunately, the RUC, in my opinion and in the opinion of many 
others, is not worthy of training with our best and brightest in the 
Federal enforcement field.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure of serving on the Committee on 
International Relations and on this committee. Through the efforts of 
our fine chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), we recently held a hearing on new and acceptable policing in 
Northern Ireland.
  One of those witnesses who testified before us was one Diane Hamill. 
Diane is the sister of Robert Hamill, a Nationalist who was killed by a 
Loyalist mob in downtown Portadown in Northern Ireland in 1997 while 
the RUC stood by and watched.
  Last year before the Subcommittee on Human Rights of my colleague the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Northern Ireland defense 
attorney Rosemary Nelson testified that what she feared most from her 
work defending the Nationalist community in the north of Ireland was 
the RUC. She feared for her life because of the RUC's collusion with 
Loyalist militias and the history of lack of protection of the 
Nationalist minority in the six counties of Northern Ireland.
  Sadly, Rosemary Nelson is not here with us today. She was killed by a 
Loyalist militia car bomb. Her death silenced the voice for human 
rights and justice for all people in the north of Ireland.
  Mr. Chairman, these are just two examples of human rights violations 
and the RUC's history of collusion with Loyalist forces and lack of 
protection for the Nationalist community.
  Mr. Chairman, let us also talk about diversity. The north of Ireland 
is roughly 55 percent Protestant, mostly Unionist, and 45 percent 
Catholic and mostly Nationalists. The makeup of the men and women in 
the RUC is 93 percent Protestant, presumably Unionist, not what I would 
call reflective of the population of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that the peace process has come to a 
virtual standstill in the north of Ireland. I and many of my colleagues 
and constituents are not happy about that.
  One of the processes put into place by the peace process was the 
reformation of the RUC. This commission, called the Northern Ireland 
Independent Commission on Policing, is chaired by the Honorable 
Christopher Patten, the former British commissioner of Hong Kong. The 
commission is due to publish their report this fall.
  Mr. Chairman, here are just a few of the suggestions to the 
commission that have already been reported to the press: the RUC must 
recruit more Catholics. The RUC must become a more representative 
police force of its community. And the RUC must protect all residents 
of Northern Ireland, both Nationalist and Unionists.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that we do not have problems with our 
own police forces here in the U.S. In fact, I encourage every police 
department, including those in my own city, New York, to take advantage 
of the FBI's resources and skills this fine law enforcement agency has 
to offer.
  Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does say is that training programs 
with the FBI should be for legitimate police forces. The RUC is 
certainly, in my opinion, not a legitimate police force for Northern 
Ireland.
  Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the publishing of the report 
from the Patten commission and ways to bring about a new police force 
in Northern Ireland, a force that represents the whole population and 
reflects the makeup of a diverse society.
  Until that time, I do not believe that the RUC should be allowed to 
train with America's best and brightest in blue.
  Let us move the peace process forward. Let us support fair 
representation of policing in the north of Ireland. Support an 
amendment endorsed by the Irish National Caucus and Irish-Americans 
from all around.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I support the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and thank my good friend for 
offering this amendment. It is modeled after section 408 of my bill, 
which passed the House two weeks ago, the American Embassy Security Act 
and State Department bill, H.R. 2415.
  Section 408 of my bill, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) 
and I proposed as an amendment during the markup, seeks ``to end the 
intimidation of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland and to secure 
impartial investigations of the murders of two heroic defense 
attorneys, Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finnucane.''
  To accomplish this, we proposed cutting off U.S.-sponsored exchange 
and training programs between the FBI and the RUC until the President 
certifies that the Northern Irish police force, known as the Royal 
Ulster Constabulary (RUC), has cleaned up its act.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) deserves credit for his 
efforts to raise this issue today in a way that hopefully will push the 
ball forward.
  Let me just point out to my colleagues, Rosemary Nelson appeared 
before the Committee on International Operations and Human Resources on 
September 29, 1998 and gave riveting and chilling testimony as to how 
the RUC had intimidated her, had roughed her up, and then made death 
threats against her. She said that in open hearing. All those at the 
hearing listened to her with rapt attention--both the Members that were 
there and those interested citizens in attendance. She pointed out that 
while she feared for her life at the hands of the RUC, she was, 
nevertheless, totally committed to pursuing her human rights work in 
the north of Ireland. She was inspiring, courageous and smart.
  Then, in an act of cowardly terrorism, she was assassinated by a car 
bomb. Astonishingly, the British Government had the audacity and 
insensitivity, to put the very people, the RUC, in charge of the 
investigation. And then they proceeded to use a minimal FBI presence as 
cover.
  So we checked into it. It turned out the FBI had a very superficial 
role--a role used by the RUC for public relations purposes and, 
thankfully, none of us on either side of the aisle were deceived by it.
  Secretary Mo Moland met with members of our Committee and immediately 
launched into how the FBI was on the job. I, for one was underwhelmed 
and unimpressed. So our amendment seeks to suspend a collaboration used 
to cover up possible complicity and collusion. And to get serious about 
honest policies. So until we get a transparent, honest investigation 
into both Pat Finnucane and Rosemary Nelson and real tangible 
protections for defense attorneys, it would be unseemingly and 
unethical for us to continue that collaboration between the RUC and the 
FBI.
  I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the 
proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Our committee conducted extensive hearings on the RUC problems. We 
have submitted that report to the British Government. We are hoping 
that they are going to reform the RUC. But until such time as they do, 
I would join with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) in asking 
that we stop assisting the RUC and training them by the FBI.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman 
in this issue, obviously.

[[Page H7367]]

  It is my understanding that the matter is being addressed in the 
State Department authorization bill, which recently passed the House. I 
hope that we can continue to allow the authorizers to address this 
issue and would hope that the gentleman, in that light, could withdraw 
his amendment at this time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman. 
And I recognize the considerable gains made in the State Department 
authorization bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) is withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________