Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. There are few Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, who represent more of the financial community than I do in the communities in my New Jersey district. And so when this House originally considered securities reform, I thought it would make a real contribution. I was wrong. There was an opportunity to deal with the abuses. Instead, we have raised an enormous new threat to the economy in the innovation and technology of our country. The American economy rests on the confidence of small family investors, retirees, and small business people who feel comfortable putting their life's savings in these markets, knowing if they are defrauded that they have recourse; that the little man and the big corporate leader have equal standing. Today, we [[Page H 14049]] break that balance and we raise the prospect that America, which uniquely has brought all Americans into its investment markets, can lose. This can be done right. I rise, Mr. Speaker, in support of the motion to recommit, in the belief that this time, if we have a legitimate conference, where the decisions are made by the conferees and not before they are even named, we can have a better bill. The examples are clear. This is weaker than the original bill written by the other body. The language of ``knowingly made with a purpose and actual intent of misleading investors'' was dropped. The one protection we had for the little investor, for our retirees in our districts, for our little businessmen, now has no recourse. House language was developed to provide there be no duty on corporate insiders to update their predictions, even if they are found to be false, but that language survived. Mr. Speaker, I advise Members that this is an important enough provision to do it right. Vote for the motion to recommit, and if it fails, defeat the bill. Let us do it right.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, Napoleon once said that an army marches on its stomach. A great deal has changed in history and the security of nations, but Napoleon's observation is as true today as it was so many years ago. In the Persian Gulf war, the United States found that it had the fighting men, it had the world's finest equipment, we had the fighting will, but we lacked the ability to get our forces to the area of combat safely, quickly and efficiently. For more than 40 years, Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed the rapid but the certain deterioration in the merchant marine capabilities of the United States from the world's largest fleet. In 1945 there were 2,000 flagged vessels of our country, there are today less than 350. To some, it is a loss of pride; to others, an indication of an unfavorable [[Page H 14065]] economic trend. But in the final analysis, there is a more important measure of this deterioration in our presence in the world seas. It is our inability in times of national crisis to ensure that our national interests are protected. Today, Mr. Chairman, the committee deserves to be complimented because H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act, can at least assure the situation will not deteriorate further. Indeed, while saving money for the Federal Government, we can at the same time assure that our security interests are protected in maintaining some minimal presence of American crewed and flagged vessels on the high seas. There is not a developing nation in the world that does not recognize the importance of what we are doing here today. Every nation has recognized that, as it has had to save money and to assure its public treasury, it had an equal interest for security and economic reasons in the viability of a national fleet. Some will argue this should be done simply in the marketplace, with no Government presence whatsoever, the problem being that those are not the rules by which the world plays. Mr. Chairman, other nations have decided to involve themselves and their merchant fleets. If we do not, the outcome is simple. There will be no fleet at all. Finally, to those who would argue that we should simply allow the market to run its course, I would remind them that while other nations might, the United States is not simply another nation. We have the world's greatest security commitments and requirements. We have invested in a vast national security infrastructure, and this is its most vulnerable individual component. I rise therefore, Mr. Chairman, to congratulate the committee, the Members of the House who have spent so much effort bringing this legislation to the floor today, and I urge my colleagues, by an overwhelming vote, to give their affirmative votes, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, some Members rise with answers. I rise tonight with a question. What is wrong with us? What has become of this Chamber where for generations we have come together for common national purpose? Has our appetite for partisan differing made us lose our taste for national purpose? Is it not enough that the Government of our country has been paralyzed by bipartisan bickering that now, indeed, a desire to embarrass our President can make us lose a chance for a desperately needed peace? Several hundred miles from here, in Dayton, OH, there is just a chance that the worst human carnage in a generation can be brought to a close, while in Bosnia the soil is still fresh from the mass graves of the victims. Children still seek to heal from their wounds. And yet there is an end in sight, just a chance that peace can be restored. It is not right, it is not right that in a few moments from now we will have a vote and those negotiations will be interrupted by the passing of notes to those who came from peace and are told that the United States has lost the resolve. Our secretary of State has lost the credibility. Our President has been undermined. Mr. Speaker, I do not come here tonight holding any brief for the President of the United States. I believed long ago we should have given the Bosnians the right to arm themselves. I come here for no administration but for the purpose of national unity at a time when we can give meaning to these peace negotiations. Mr. Speaker, from Pearl Harbor to the Persian Gulf, Democrats and Republicans have come to this floor, to this Chamber and put aside partisanship for national purpose. Indeed, it has become a national axiom, a national division stops at the water's edge. Tonight this President has asked for no troops. He has proposed no plan of military involvement. Indeed, he has pledged to come to the this floor and ask for Members' support before we take that national step. Mr. Speaker, if this were the British parliament and this vote were to pass, this government would come down. We have a different system. Our government will endure, but it will not be the same. American power does not rest on our armed forces alone. We are not respected simply because of our wealth. We are respected, indeed, the combatants tonight are in Dayton and not in Paris and not in London and not in Rome, because of the credibility of those who sat in these chairs before us, generations of Americans who came here and put their partisan affiliations beside. Mr. Speaker, that credibility is at issue tonight. I ask that this resolution be defeated. I ask that we stand together. I ask that we give the peace of Bosnia a chance and stand with Bill Clinton just for these days.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, as we mourn the death of Yitzhak Rabin, we need as well to celebrate his life. Born of a Jewish family in a neighborhood of Palestine, he lived to see that neighborhood become a nation and those neighbors a people. As a young man, he was a common soldier. He lived to become a leader of one of the world's foremost fighting forces. His life is woven through the fabric of what became a modern democracy, but mostly he achieved in his life what no Jewish family had been able to achieve in 2,000 years, because most certainly he once heard his mother pray, ``Next year in Jerusalem.'' Jews have returned to Jerusalem, not simply during his life but because of his life. He lived to see that prayer achieved. As the generations pass, many remember that as a soldier he made that [[Page H 11839]] return possible. They need to recall as well that as a statesman, he made that return to Jerusalem permanent.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, this institution in a sense of moral outrage voted for an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] to deny assistance to Azerbaijan in reaction, in outrage to the fact that it continues an illegal and immoral blockade against the people of Armenia. Our sense of outrage is understandable. Armenia is a landlocked country. Eighty-five percent of everything it needs to feed and to clothe and to warm its people comes through Azerbaijan. Five years since the United States originally took this position, the blockade being in place, they have done nothing, nothing to lift the blockade and stop the suffering of the Armenian people. Indeed, today 95 percent of the people of Armenia are living on an income of less than $1 a day in a harsh environment. So this House, knowing these facts, cast a vote insisting that the blockade be lifted. The other body, in debating foreign assistance as well, offered no contradictory provisions. There seemed to be no objections here or there. Yet, in the rule before us today, the Committee on Rules, having waived all points of order, we find that this provision is removed, and the Members of this House, if they approve the rule, are without recourse. We are without recourse despite the fact that the rules of this House specifically state that there is an action of this House, there being nothing contradictory in the other body; therefore the conference would have no contradictory provisions, that an unrelated contradictory provision should not be in the bill. But it is. We are without the ability to raise a point of order if the rule is enacted. Sadly, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and remind the Members that, if they feel this continuing outrage in the same vote they cast in June, that this embargo is wrong. It should stop, consistent with our ability to deliver humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, because it is not covered but that no American assistance otherwise will continue unless and until the blockade is lifted. If Members continue to feel that view, there is one way to express themselves. That is to oppose the rule.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two educational institutions. On October 24, 1995, Seton Hall University of South Orange, NJ, and the University International Business and Economics of Beijing, China [UIBE], recognized the importance of their 15-year-long collaboration. Fifteen years ago, Seton Hall and UIBE organized a joint venture which facilitated the opening of China and led to followup investments by several American-based companies. This is the 15th anniversary of the delegation which started this joint venture. These two schools confirm their commitment to continue and improve this mutually beneficial relationship. Their bond is based on their common desire to foster a better understanding of the cultural and business environment of the United States and of the People's Republic of China. Through the continuation of their established faculty and student activism, Seton Hall University and the University of International Business and Economics will continue to dedicate themselves to new initiatives that are responsive to the needs of the global community in the 21st century. I congratulate both entities on their commitment to promoting a program which involves culture and education, and that has contributed to the success of American-based business overseas.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as Bosnian, Croat and Serbian leaders gather around the conference table, there will be one seat for the United States of America, one seat, because we should be speaking with one voice, and only the President of the United States in those discussions can represent this country. That is not indeed to say what the outcome should be. There is a time and a place when the President of the United States will come to this body with his judgment and express to us what commitments were made on behalf of our country. This resolution today is an entirely different matter. It prejudges what the President of the United States might say. It is an attempt of force our will to that table in those negotiations as if we were two countries, two people, with two different concepts of how to deal with the crisis. My friends, I understand when we disagree on Medicare, I understand we have different ideas on the budget, I understand we have different concepts about all manner of domestic policy. But this is different. This is the President of the United States attempting to deal with a crisis which could at some point engulf Europe, just cause unspeakable deaths, 200,000 casualties, a massive loss of life, a test of the Western alliance. At this moment, can we not indeed as one country allow this President, on behalf of all of our people, to at least attempt a settlement and then return to this Congress, where we have a right to insist upon passing judgment upon what commitments he might make for our country? At that time, I cannot say that I would not stand with you and ask questions about his judgment. But at this moment, as these people gather, let him do his will as one President of one people.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, in the Roman Empire the idea of Rome was more than it was simply a city. It was a symbol of its power and its majesty. The time when Britain rose to prominence, London was more than simply its largest collection of people. It was the seat of its merchant and industrial power. So with Israel. Jerusalem is more simply than a place where its citizens live. Jerusalem is a symbol of the Jewish State; the capital of its faith, not only its nation. The United States plays an important role in this great truth, this special role of Jerusalem to Israel and to the Jewish people, because America is not an equal among the families of nations. We set a standard. So, with 184 other nations, the presence of an American Ambassador, the flying of our flag, is an important recognition of the legitimacy of those governments and the place of its power. Yet, today, Mr. Speaker, though the United States was the first Nation in the world to recognize the state of Israel, our Ambassador is absent from the seat of its capital. This is more than a matter of prestige. It is also an important matter of political power. Unless and until an American Ambassador sits in Jerusalem, this matter will be misunderstood and misinterpreted by all those who still have hostile intent against the Jewish State. This resolution sets the matter right, that America will stand with Israel.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for entry in the Congressional Record, this proclamation from the Governor of the State of New Jersey on World Population Awareness Week 1995. This week, October 22-29, is a time for people all over the planet to consider the social, economic, environmental, and political impact that population has on our world. World Population Awareness Week is an 11 year tradition of the Population Institute. This year's theme is ``Gender Equality.'' State of New Jersey Executive Department--Proclamation WHEREAS, world population is currently 5.7 billion and increasing by nearly 100 million per year, with virtually all of this growth added to the poorest countries and regions-- those that can least afford to accommodate their current populations, much less such massive infusions of human numbers; and WHEREAS, the annual increment to world population is projected to exceed 86 million through the year 2015, with three billion people--the equivalent of the entire world population as recently as 1960--reaching their reproductive years within the next generation; and WHEREAS, the environmental and economic impacts of this level of growth will almost certainly prevent inhabitants of poorer countries from improving their quality of life, and, at the same time, have deleterious repercussions for the standard of living in more affluent regions; and WHEREAS, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cario, Egypt crafted a 20-year Program of [[Page E 1906]] Action for achieving a more equitable balance between the world's population, environment and resources, that was duly approved by 180 nations, including the United States; NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, Governor of the State of New Jersey, do hereby proclaim October 22-29, 1995 as WORLD POPULATION AWARENESS WEEK in New Jersey. GIVEN, under may hand and the Great Seal of the State of New Jersey, this twenty-eighth day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five and of the Independence of the United States, the two hundred nineteenth. Christine T. Whitman, Governor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 789, the Fairness in Musical Licensing Act of 1995.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement and recommend it to my colleagues: On June 8, 1990, my husband, Michael Vernon DeVine, was kidnapped and almost completely decapitated by members of the Guatemalan military. Michael was a kind, gentle, and honest man. He devoted himself to our family and our business, and was a good friend to our neighbors in Popun, Peten where we lived. He was not politically active. After Michael's assassination, many wonderful people supported my children and me in our efforts to find out who killed Michael and why, and to bring to justice those responsible for his murder. Remarkably, six soldiers were convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prision. One officer, Captain Hugo Contreras, was also convicted. The day that he was sentenced, Captain Contreras was allowed to escape from the military base at which he was held. As is typical in Guatemala, no other officer was held responsible. Anyone at all familiar with Guatemala knows that it would be impossible for a group of low-ranking Guatemalan soldiers to travel by army vehicle 100 kms, as Michael's killers did, to murder a U.S. citizen without orders and promises of protection from their superiors. Several officers, including Colonels Guillermo Portillo Gomez, Julio Roberto Alpirez, and Mario Roberto Garcia Catalan, were clearly implicated in ordering the murder or the attempted cover-up, but they were never brought to justice. In March of this year, I was stunned to learn that Congressman Robert Torricelli had received information that Colonel Alpirez, whom we had always suspected of involvement, had indeed been a paid asset of the CIA, and had helped at least to facilitate and cover-up my husband's murder. Congressman Torricelli's revelations raised serious questions about the role of various U.S. government agencies in handling Michael's death. Consequently, the White House ordered a government-wide inquiry to answer these questions, as well as questions raised about other Guatemalan human rights cases. I am indebted to Congressman Torricelli for making public information about Alpirez and allegations of U.S. Government wrongdoing, and for insisting on serious investigations. As shocked as we were by the disclosure of possible U.S. Government misconduct related to Michael's assassination, my children and I became hopeful that we would finally learn the complete truth about Michael's death. I have since filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests, cooperated with U.S. government investigators who are assigned to examine the circumstances of my husband's murder, and met with members of Congress. Now, however, I am becoming increasingly discouraged that we will never learn the full truth of what happened to Michael, why he was murdered, or what part the U.S. government may have played. My children and I were especially discouraged after reading the four-page summary of the 700- page CIA report, part of which focused on my husband's case. I believe that the summary report sidesteps all the basic questions about Michael's murder, and contains misleading statements. For example, we still do not know the details of what the CIA knew and when, and why the CIA continued its relationship with Colonel Alpirez after having information that he was connected to Michael's assassination. We also do not know why the CIA eventually decided to terminate its relationship with Alpirez. In addition, the summary report makes no mention of facts which have already been publicly established, such as Alpirez's role in facilitating the murder by providing the assassins with a place to stay, and attempting to cover up military responsibility. This omission is quite misleading, and appears, inexplicably, to be an attempt to cast Alpirez in a positive light. I also believe that it is misleading for the CIA to say that it is aware of no information indicating that its ``employees'' were involved, while failing to mention paid assets such as Alpirez. Equally troubling is the CIA's failure to release its full report. It is obviously impossible to respond to some of the conclusions in the summary report without knowing the basis for those conclusions. How can I or anybody else be confident that there was no involvement on Colonel Alpirez's part in ordering Michael's murder, or that there is no other information about CIA wrongdoing, without at least knowing what the full report says? The failure to disclose anything more than a four-page summary makes me wonder what the CIA is trying to hide. [[Page E 1876]] I gather that a number of people who have seen the full CIA report believe it to be unsatisfactory in many respects. Based on the contents of the CIA's summary report, I can well imagine that the full report is seriously flawed. I hope that all of you here today will encourage the CIA to conduct further investigations and to release publicly the full 700- page report so that answers can be provided to the many unresolved questions in the case. The inadequacy of the CIA's investigation and its failure to disclose the basis for its findings makes me seriously doubt how much I, or the United States and Guatemalan people, will ever really learn about what happened, and the role of the United States or its intelligence assets. One of the unfortunate effects in Guatemala of the CIA summary report is that Colonel Alpirez is now being publicly vindicated of all involvement. In addition, last month a Guatemalan appeals court upheld a military court ruling that cleared Colonel Garcia Catalan of any connection to Michael's murder. Despite strong evidence that Garcia Catalan authorized Michael's kidnapping and assassination or at least participated in the cover-up, the appeals court held that since an earlier trial had already resulted in convictions, there was no basis to proceed with charged against Garcia Catalan. The results of my FOIA requests have been as discouraging to me as the CIA summary report. I have received complete denials, on a variety of grounds, from the DEA, Interpol, and the Attorney General. The DEA has acknowledged that it has documents on Colonel Alpirez, but that it still will not release them because, for example, disclosure ``may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,'' reveal the identity of a source, or relate to internal practices or policies of the DEA. I have received nothing, other than receipts for my requests, from the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the National Security Council. To date, the only documents I have received from any agency are a transcript from the CIA of William Studeman's statement at the open hearings held on April 5th by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and copies of two cables from Interpol which explain nothing. I love Guatemala, but many terrible things happen there to innocent people. I believe that terrible things will continue to happen, and that there will never be real peace until the guilty parties are held accountable for their acts. For the sake of the people of Guatemala and the United States, as well as for my family, I ask all of you here today to press the Clinton administration for meaningful investigations, the fullest disclosure possible, and the declassification of all documents related to Michael's assassination. Although my once unshakeable faith in the U.S. Government has been deeply challenged, I still want to believe that the government will do the right thing. I can see no good reason why my children and I should be prevented from knowing at least what our government knows about the facts of my husband's murder, and all those who played a part in ordering his execution, carrying it out, or covering up the true circumstances. Thank you for your interest and support.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, for 3 years the United States and Fidel Castro have been eyeball to eyeball. An unshakeable American determination for free elections in Cuba and a new respect for human rights. Fidel Castro's commitment to hold back the forces of history and preserve the last Communist bastion. One side or the other is going to win. I know Americans are not a patient people, but 3 years is not a long time, and we are succeeding. Castro has made some beginnings of economic changes. The island is in economic collapse. Last year 40,000 students gathered on the streets of Havana. The pressure internally is enormous, and now there are those in this country, after only 36 months, who would step back. Eyeball to eyeball. There are some who would counsel to blink. The amendment before this body offered by some Members of this institution who I respect more than any others is not a narrow change in the legislation of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. It is not an incremental difference. Let us recognize it for what it is: It is an end of the American embargo against Fidel Castro, it is a repeal of current bipartisan policy supported by 300 Members of this institution, and it is an acceptance of the status quo in Cuba. Period. Fidel Castro is not attempting to import American automobiles or computers. These are the items, the commodities, that he wants. This is it. This is the end of the embargo, just when we built a bipartisan, strong, and effective policy. Mr. Speaker, in substance the amendment before this body is the judgment on American policy. I know good and decent Members of this institution do not want to be a part of poor and suffering people of Cuba suffering any more than is necessary. That is why in the Cuban Democracy Act we exempted out food and medicine. For 33 years before that, food and medicine could not be donated to Cuba. We changed that, and today, per capita, more food and medicine goes from the United States to Cuba per capita than to any other nation in the world to ensure that the poorest of the poor have access to food and medicine. That is not what this amendment is about. We already did that. This amendment is to allow Cuba to rejoin the family of nations in a trading relationship with the United States for full access. What does it do? It allows Fidel Castro to escape the reality that communism failed in Cuba, cooperative farming, the broad state enterprises. A country that was once self-sufficient in food and exported food, now needs to import everything. We would allow him to escape the reality that communism is in collapse. The choice needs to remain clear. We will donate what is necessary through private charities to ensure that the poorest of the poor are protected. But Fidel Castro cannot be allowed to rejoin the family of trading relationships with the United States without having free elections and respecting human rights, eyeball to eyeball. Every Member of this institution must decide whether they are going to be part of bringing that change or allowing Fidel Castro to maintain his Communist system. You have all made that decision before, 300 of you. Your consistent vote is to stand both with the administration, which has supported the embargo, Democratic and Republican Presidents, and this institution. This is not about an amendment to this bill. This is about a repeal of the embargo. Please, stand with us on a bipartisan basis and reject this amendment and then return to support the legislation offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] I want only to say as a Member of this House who has given several years of my career to working against Fidel Castro and for freedom for Cuba, it is only out of profound respect for the gentleman of Virginia [Mr. Moran] that I did not rise in opposition or, indeed, objection in having our motives questioned or being compared with the Bastista regime in our using this vehicle to fight for freedom in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, we are told tonight that Cuba represents no threat to the United States. She possesses few arms and perhaps no missiles. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman. Cuba represents a threat to things as old as this Nation itself, a threat to human freedom, the right to speak, to worship, to seek the consent of the governed. We are told, Mr. Chairman, that the cold war is over, so indeed we have no conflict with Castro's Cuba. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, America's fight for human decency, for the rights of the individual began 200 years before the cold war and will outlive the last memory of the Soviet Union. Mr. Chairman, all we do in this Nation is not defined by the cold war. We did not fight apartheid in South Africa because of a cold war. We do not stand up to Libyan terrorism because of the cold war. We stand up for racial justice, for peace, for the consent of the governed because of who we are. We are told that America may stand alone in standing up to Castro's Cuba. Mr. Chairman, America has never stood in better company. The French may seek their profits, the Canadians may want their investments. After the last hotel has been built, the last child of Cuba has been sent onto the streets of Havana to prostitute herself, the United States will be talking about freedom and elections and human rights if we are the last people on earth who will do it. Three years ago in a proud moment in this institution, in the proudest moment of my career in this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the Cuban Democracy Act. Built on the experience of the embargo against South Africa and Haiti, Rhodesia, North Korea, we decided to take a stand that we would not have American corporations profit off the misery of the Cuban people, that we would take a moral stand to demand elections for the Cuban people. It was the use of a legitimate and historic tool of international diplomacy, the most effective alternative to military confrontation, the economic embargo. Two hundred years old, and effective in every generation. This has been no exception. Fidel Castro responded to the Cuban Democracy Act by taking confiscated property, stolen from American citizens and corporations and the Cuban people themselves, and selling it on the world market to buy time for his dictatorship. That is the problem before this House tonight, not the embargo. That judgment was made 3 years ago. The very fact that Fidel Castro has had to respond by confiscating and selling property is the real proof of how effective the embargo was 36 months ago. But the practical problem before the Members of this institution is that Fidel Castro has taken the property of your constituents, our citizens, stolen it, and is selling it on the world market. Now, I ask the Members, as representatives of the American people, what is it we intend to do about it? What is it we are going to do? Is this the right of a foreign Nation, to take our property and then sell it wholesale? We have never allowed that to happen before. Is that some special privilege we will give to the Cuban government? The bill of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is an answer to the question. We will give the right to sue in an American court to a citizen who has lost their property, not because they should not have the right legitimately, appropriately, to take that suit to a Cuban court. That is the real answer, that is the right answer, but Castro will not let them in the court. If he would, we would not be here tonight. So if Members oppose the answer of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the real question is, they have no answer. Then there is the ultimate practical question of them all. No matter what side of this debate they are on tonight, Members know this: We all agree Fidel Castro's days are numbered. The end of the dictatorship is coming. What are we to do when it happens? Are Members all prepared to vote the taxpayers' money to compensate American citizens who have had their property stolen? Is that what is to happen? This is to become the burden of the American taxpayer? The better answer is that of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. Stop the confiscation and the sales now. Do not let the sales take place at all. He achieves this by a very practical answer. Mexican, Canadian, British companies, they have a choice. They can profit by the theft of American corporate and personal property. They may make a few dollars, but they will not visit or do business in the United States. They must make their choice. Is that fair? How would Members feel as an American citizen if they saw an advertisement for the products of a company that was theirs, that was stolen, and the product is being sold? How would they like to walk down the streets of New York and see a visiting Mexican businessman, visiting our country as our guest, and he is living in their house, operating their business? This is not against the Cuban people themselves. We have exempted out personal residences. No Cuban family will lose their home or their farmland or their means of support. It is against international corporations that would profit by the loss of our constituents. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an answer, I believe in my heart, maybe the last answer. We are in the final stages of a confrontation that has lasted more than a generation. Fidel Castro cannot escape. He cannot survive unless we allow him to. The answers to the real questions that were here tonight are not in our hands. The embargo can end. It can end tomorrow. One man can end it: Fidel Castro. Under our law, under the Cuban Democracy Act, it ends the day he declares a free and fair election. The power is in his hands, but only if we make him use it. If he thinks there is division in this hall, disagreement in this Government, he will never face that ultimate choice. Make him face that day, to call that election. My colleagues, tomorrow Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, north and south, can send an unmistakable message to every student in Cuba who wants to take to the street to demand freedom but is afraid, to every political prisoner who lives in the shadows of a Cuban jail and wants hope, to every patriot in Cuba who longs to take a stand, that they are not alone, that we are with them. The moment is coming and this Nation, which has stood for so many free people in so many struggles in so many lands, stands with them now. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] tomorrow, not by a narrow margin, by an overwhelming margin, not with doubt but with enormous resolve, that we will in our time end this dictatorship and for the first time in the 400-year history of the founding of this continent see free governments in every land, in every Nation, in all the Americas. That, my friends, is the judgment. I congratulate the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on his legislation. It is my great pride to be part of crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively tomorrow.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], one of the architects of this legislation, and one of the most important voices in this Congress on Cuban-American affairs. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)