• Military
• WMD

• Intelligence Menu               

• Systems
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Imagery
• Links

• Homeland Security
• Space

[Page: H10818]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 5 minutes.

• Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, well, the CIA has finally admitted it and the New York Times finally covered it. The Times ran the devastating story on Saturday, with the headline: CIA Said to Ignore Charges of Contra Drug Dealing in 80s.

• In a remarkable reversal by the New York Times, the paper reported that the CIA knew about Contra drug dealing and they covered it up. The CIA let it go on for years during the height of their campaign against the Sandinista government.

• Among other revelations in the article were that `the CIA's inspector general determined that the agency `did not inform Congress of all allegations or information it received indicating that contra-related organizations or individuals were involved in drug trafficking.'

• The Times article continued pointing out `[d]uring the time the ban on [Contra] funds was in effect, the CIA informed Congress only about drug charges against two other contra-related people. [T]he agency failed to tell other executive branch agencies, including the Justice Department, about drug allegations against 11 contra-related individuals or entities.'

• The article continues stating `[the Report] makes clear that the agency did little or nothing to investigate most of the drug allegations that it heard about the contra and their supporters. In all, the inspector general's report found that the CIA has received allegations of drug involvement by 58 contras or others linked to the contra program. These included 14 pilots and two others tied to the contra program's CIA-backed air transportation operations.

• The Times reported that `the report said that in at least six instances, the CIA knew about allegations regarding individuals or organizations but that knowledge did not deter it from continuing to employ them.'

• Several informed sources have told me that an appendix to this Report was removed at the instruction of the Department of Justice at the last minute. This appendix is reported to have information about a CIA officer, not agent or asset, but officer, based in the Los Angeles Station, who was in charge of Contra related activities. According to these sources, this individual was associated with running drugs to South Central Los Angeles, around 1988. Let me repeat that amazing omission. The recently released CIA Report Volume II contained an appendix, which was pulled by the Department of Justice, that reported a CIA officer in the LA Station was hooked into drug running in South Central Los Angeles.

• I have not seen this appendix. But the sources are very reliable and well-informed. The Department of Justice must release that appendix immediately. If the Department of Justice chooses to withhold this clearly vital information, the outrage will be servere and widespread.

• We have finally seen the CIA admit to have knowingly employed drug dealers associated with the Contra movement. I look forward to a comprehensive investigation into this matter by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, now that the underlying charges have finally been admitted by the CIA.