[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 12390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12390]]

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 23, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4690) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes:

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I support Congressman Tom Campbell's 
amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill, H.R. 4690, 
to prohibit funds being used for the use of secret evidence. Moreover, 
I strongly support the Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999 introduced by 
Representative Bonior, Representative Campbell, Representative Barr, 
and Representative Conyers. Recently, both Representative Bonior and 
Representative Campbell, offered testimony at a congressional hearing 
in the House Judiciary Committee. At that hearing, my colleagues Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Bonior offered convincing testimony to the 
unconstitutional use of secret evidence. Representative Tom Campbell 
last year introduced an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations Bill to stop the funding for the use of secret evidence 
by the Immigration Naturalization Service. I supported his effort last 
year on the House floor and I support his effort now. The use of secret 
evidence is wrong.
  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 six clearly illustrates the flawed use 
of secret evidence.
  Six 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 six 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 six individuals, who had worked with the U.S. in 
opposition to Saddam Hussein, were now seen as threat to our national 
security based on secret evidence. Evidence that no one was allowed to 
see. Not the 6 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 un-American. The 
cornerstone of our judicial system is that evidence cannot be used 
against someone unless he or she has the chance to confront it. The INS 
is relying more and more on the use of secret evidence. If we continue 
to use secret evidence against non-citizens, it will soon be used 
against American citizens too. There will be no limit to its use.
  As a member of Congress it is my duty to uphold the Constitution. As 
members of Congress, we must all continue to maintain and defend the 
civil rights of all citizens living in the United States under the U.S. 
Constitution. We can do this by voting in favor of this amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Campbell amendment.

                          ____________________