FAS | Government Secrecy | August 1999 News ||| Index | Search | Join FAS

Congressional Record: August 5, 1999 (House)
Page H7357-H7367



       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Campbell:

       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. 

  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 
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Campbell 
  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 
  Mr. Chairman, I include material relating to this matter for the 
  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 
       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 

       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. 

                   [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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       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 
       "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 
       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 

[[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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  There was no objection.


FAS | Government Secrecy | August 1999 News ||| Index | Search | Join FAS