Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 42, the Anti-Despotic Practices on Cyprus Act. The impetus for this legislation are the 500 Greek-Cypriots who are forced by the Turkish-Cypriots to live under oppressive conditions without basic freedoms. The Anti-Despotic Practices on Cyprus Act reaffirms that the status quo on Cyprus is unacceptable and welcomes the appointment of a Special Presidential Emissary for Cyprus. The bill insists that all parties to the dispute regarding Cyprus agree to seek a solution based upon the relevant United Nations [UN] resolutions and reaffirms that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from the Republic of Cyprus. Demilitarization will lessen tensions in the region, meet the security concerns of all parties in an effective way, and help to promote a resolution to this dispute. The Anti-Despotic Practices on Cyprus Act directs the President to make a determination as to whether United States foreign aid, either through the Economic Support Fund program, the Foreign Military Financing program, or the International Military Education and Training program, is being given to foreign governments who are participating in despotic practices against the people of Cyprus, who are not criminals and who have no association with terrorism. For more than 20 years, innocent civilians have been limited in their location of worship, their interaction with others, telephone access, free travel, the ability to send and receive mail, access to educations beyond elementary school, the ability to return home after attending college, and access to a fair justice system. Despite continued efforts by the United States Government, the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. Twenty years of oppression is long enough. The time has come for the United States to make a substantive, legislative mandate and utilize its power to facilitate a peace agreement in this region.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, for his words and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], my friend. I believe that, if the other body were to decide to invest these sums, it would be an important statement to local communities. All of our States and communities differ. A longer school day or year might make sense in some States more than in others. But it is an experiment that is worth pursuing, as indeed this Congress voted on a bipartisan basis in the authorization bill. I thank the gentleman again for his comments.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. Mr. Chairman, last year I introduced H.R. 1337, legislation which provided competitive grants for public secondary schools wishing to increase their academic year. Mr. Chairman, on this floor we debate the question of funding in education. It is, of course, not only a question of funds. Our students can do no more than we challenge them to do. America has the shortest school day and the shortest school year in the industrialized world. The language that was included in the elementary and secondary schools reauthorization bill provided for a Federal program to allow school districts to begin experimenting with a longer school year. That legislation included an explicit authorization for $90 million for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may have been necessary in the ensuing 4 years to begin experimentation with a longer school year. In title II of the bill we are currently debating, $842 million is authorized for school improvement programs. While I regret the Committee on Appropriations was unable to specifically allocate money for this program, I would like to make it clear that this is not a reflection of a lack of support for the authorization that this Congress voted upon last year but, rather, a simple reflection of the reality of difficult fiscal constraints that the committee currently faces. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that efforts are under way in the other body to include a limited appropriation which would enable this program to commence. Should this occur, it is my hope that the House conferees, on a bipartisan basis, will consider the importance of extending the school year, as evidenced by last year's authorization, and carefully consider appropriating a limited amount of funds. Mr. Chairman, in my own district in the community in which I live, in Englewood, NJ, we have begun exactly this program. We have found that during the summer months much of what students learned in the preceding year is lost. Indeed, studies have found that up to a third of the new school year is lost simply refreshing students about what they forgot from previous instruction. I believe that experimentation to extend this year and, indeed, to lengthen the day would do a great deal as, unfortunately, our German and Japanese competitors have already found, to improve instruction. I would like, Mr. Chairman, like to include in the Record the authorizing language from last year and a full statement of my own in support of a longer school year. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Longer School Day Program. While we have spent a good deal of time over the past few years debating the quality of what we teach in the schools, we have paid little attention to the far simpler question of whether we are spending enough time teaching. I was pleased when Congress finally gave serious consideration to lengthening the school year in the United States so that our students can compete on equal footing with their counterparts in other countries. In 1991, Congress authorized the National Education Commission on Time and Learning to conduct a comprehensive review of the relationship between time and learning in the Nation's schools. The report released last year confirms that the United States will not maintain its economic superiority unless we provide our children with a competitive education by reforming the structure of or school year. The report specifically cites that the current American educational system consists of 6 hour days where students spend less than half of their school day studying core academic subjects. It also notes that in order to graduate from high school, the United States currently requires a 180-day school year. In contrast, our counterparts in Germany have a 210-day schedule and Japan imposes a 240-day school year. The International Educational Association conducted a study which compared the academic skills of the top 1 percent of all 12th graders. Those from the United States ranked dead last. Their study also found that among 15 developed and less developed countries, students from the United States scored at or near the bottom in the areas of Advanced Algebra, Functions/Calculus and Geometry. These numbers show how woefully inadequate our school system is in preparing our children to compete in the global economy. American students quite simply are not learning what they should be. The Longer School Year program would establish a grant program for public secondary schools who increase the academic day to 7 hours and the school year to 200 days. A longer school day and school year clearly makes sense in a society where in 90 percent of the two-parent families, both parents work. Keeping kids off the streets and in schools should be an especially welcome relief to parents who cannot afford after-school day care or summer camp. Schools also provide a safe haven for students who come from disintegrated families, are malnourished, or are susceptible to drug abuse and violence. At a time when international tests are showing American students scoring well below students from other countries; a time when corporate leaders are beginning to complain about a lack of skilled workers; and a time when we are clearly falling behind our economic rivals in the world marketplace, we must question whether we are doing kids a favor by granting them a long summer vacation. My program would establish competitive grants for public secondary schools wishing to increase their academic day to at least 7 hours and their school year to at least 200 days. We are unquestionably doing our children a disservice by not requiring more time in school. It is time for Congress to send out a positive message to our Nation's youth. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue throughout the months. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution. In a perfect world, the strong would defend the weak. In the world in which we live, the weak must sometimes defend themselves. It is this basic truth of our time that brings us to this judgment today. The people of Bosnia have made to the world a simple question eloquent in its simplicity, a plea that has been heard many times by many people in different lands. Mr. Chairman, they seek to survive. They simply seek for their nation to exist. For 4 years the world has answered that plea with resolutions and international forums, negotiations by the world's premier diplomats and peacekeepers from throughout the globe. They were all well- intentioned. Each was brave, and each was intent and each was unsuccessful. Every nation is grateful to all the diplomats who tried, acknowledges the time, the sacrifice of every soldier who risked their lives. It is to the eternal credit of the British and the French and the Dutch forces who tried to do so much, but we achieve nothing by ignoring the simple truth that they failed. The evidence mounts with every rape, every murder, each disappearance, the pillage of each new village. The simple truth is that the international forces were always too weak to defend Bosnia. But the embargo was always too strong to permit Bosnia to defend itself. Serbia, under the provisions of this resolution, will have 12 weeks to consider the implications of United Nations withdrawal or face the wrath of an international community, a community intent on justice on the battlefield that has eluded it at the negotiating table for so many years. It is not a perfect answer, but it is an answer when all other answers have failed. Our opponents argue that lifting the embargo will Americanize the war. I argue that keeping the embargo will Americanize the genocide. Our opponents argue that lifting the embargo will have America stand alone; I argue that if America alone will stand for the right of a poor and weak people to defend themselves, then America has never stood in better company. Our opponents argue that Europe has the right to lead; I argue that Europe has had years to lead. Now it is time for America to lead again. Mr. Chairman, in these last few months, our children have seen the specter on flickering television screens of the times of our fathers, liberating concentration camps and ending a genocide. Each Member today must ask whether they will exchange that memory for a time in which our children will remember a genocide in our generation and the flickering pictures of Americans not as liberators but standing guard as a defenseless people were prevented from getting the arms to defend themselves by our own forces. What the world was unwilling to do for the victims of the Holocaust, what the United Nations has been unwilling to do for Bosnia, we have no right to prevent the people of Bosnia from doing for themselves. There is no human right more fundamental than the right of self-defense. The international community has no greater obligation in this crisis than to distinguish between the victims and the aggressors. This resolution does both. Mr. Chairman, in every church and synagogue throughout this land for a generation our people in a single prayer have made a simple pledge: never again. Simply because the institutions of peace have failed, there is no reason to abandon that pledge or that prayer. Keep the promise. Lift the embargo, pass the resolution. Never again.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman from California. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] joined with me in this, and the bipartisan leadership of the New Jersey legislature, to assure that we will watch the Paramus Nursing Home, the quality of its care, the numbers of nurses, the quality of the food, to ensure that these people, who served our country so well, are not jeopardized. Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for my amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, if the privatization of a Federal-State nursing home were to happen, and the concerns I enumerated, such as a decrease in the number of nurses or other tangible signs of a decrease in the quality of care provided to the veterans would occur, the Federal Government has the legal authority to withhold per diem payments to that facility. Mr. Chairman, the concurrence of the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, with this judgment and his commitment to work with me and the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, to require that the VA take this action seriously, is extremely important. I take from the gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, that indeed is the belief and commitment of the gentleman of California [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have an amendment that is currently filed at the desk that would bar the Federal Government from making any per diem payments to a State veterans administration nursing home if that nursing home has undergone privatization which results in the diminution of services or care to the veterans, the quality of their health care, or quality of life. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that in your judgment the Secretary of Veterans Affairs currently has this authority and would indeed be required under current law to bar per diem payments to any State nursing home who sees a decline in the quality of care following a privatization of services. Since in your judgment, Mr. Chairman, this authority is already vested in the department, I assume it is your judgment that it would be unnecessary for the House to reaffirm this authority. Because we share a concern with a possible privatization in the district of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], but in the county which we jointly represent, I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to yield to Mrs. Roukema.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, last fall, Jim Johnson, chairman of the Federal National Mortgage Association also known as Fannie Mae, came to New Jersey to join me in announcing an innovative co-op initiative that has helped countless Northern New Jersey families preserve the value of their co-op-apartment homes in a sagging co-op market. The initiative was modeled after a similar plan that was extremely successful in New York which my colleague Representative Charles Schumer and Queens Borough president Claire Schulman announced with Fannie Mae almost 2 years ago. The reason the initiative works so well is that it allows co-op buyers to increase the portion of their mortgage payment which goes to pay for the underlying or blanket mortgage on the co-op building itself. The challenge that co-op buyers faced in my district is that from 1989, when the housing market virtually collapsed, to 1993 the resale value of co-ops in Bergen and Hudson Counties, as in most of the State, declined by as much as 40 percent. That caused the pro-rata share--the share of the underlying co-op building mortgage--to exceed 30 percent of [[Page E 1525]] the total mortgage payment. In the view of most mortgage lenders, a co- op mortgage with a pro-rata share greater than 30 percent of the total mortgage amount was viewed as too risky. This, in turn, meant that it was difficult to get a mortgage on a co-op apartment unit. Consequently, resale values of co-ops fell even further because few people could get loans to buy them. Families, who had counted on rising property values, were beginning to discover they owed more on their co- op apartments than they were actually worth. This is where Fannie Mae stepped in and made a difference. A congressionally chartered, private company, Fannie Mae purchases loans made by lending institutions and combines them with other such loans in pools that are sold to investors--and therefore influences the underwriting standards used by lenders. By altering the standards on these loans, Fannie Mae made it easier to buy co-op apartments in buildings carrying a relatively higher level of debt in relation to market value. Previously, end loans--mortgages for co-op unit owners--would be granted only when the unit's proportionate share of the underlying mortgage on the building was no more than 30 percent of the buyer's debt burden--the total of the underlying debt and the end loan itself. I am pleased to say that by working together with Fannie Mae, we have been able to bring more lenders into the marketplace and made it easier for shareholders to refinance their individual loans or further a sale. For many people, these co-ops represent a good portion of their savings. We need to help them preserve this investment, and while Fannie Mae's initiative is not a cure-all it has helped to stabilize the co-op market, increase the competition among co-op lenders and loan rates. I would like all of my colleagues to know how much I appreciate Fannie Mae's responsiveness and flexibility on this issue. Fannie Mae is a unique institution with a unique mission--to help low- and moderate-income families buy homes. From my own experience, Fannie Mae takes this mission seriously and does not hesitate to step up to bat when they are needed. Mr. Speaker I would like to submit the attached article by Rachelle Garbarine from the June, 23, New York Times. More Enter Field after Fannie Mae Relaxes Mortgage Guidelines (By Rachelle Garbarine) The sign in one window of the Chemical New Jersey bank branch in Fort Lee reads: ``We have co-op loans.'' On the face of it that may seem surprising given the fact that nearly one-third of the states's 27,000 co-op units are in Bergen County, and most of them are in Fort Lee. But the reality is that until recently there were just two lenders offering potential unit owners mortgages for co-ops in Northern New Jersey. That along with restrictive bank rules on co-op mortgages adopted largely because of the excesses in the co-op market in the 80's and local banks lack of knowledge of the market made it difficult for prospective buyers to get such financing. Mortages for unit owners are know as ``end loans.'' They are different form the co-op's underlying mortgage which is the building-wide loan that is repaid from a portion of the monthly maintenance fees shareholders pay to the corporation. While financing for these loans is tight there are considerably more lenders available. Now Chemical is one of nine lenders from banks to mortgage companies offering end loans. And recently the National Cooperative Bank with offices in New York and Washington has also entered the scene to finance underlying mortgages. A key element in the banks return to offering end loans was a program begun last October by the Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae a Congressionally chartered company purchases loans made by lending institutions and combines them with other such loans in pools that are sold to investors--and therefore strongly influences the underwriting standards used by lenders. Altering the standards on these loans, Fannie Mae made it easier to buy apartments in buildings carrying a relatively higher level of debt in relation to market value. Previously, end loans would be granted only when the unit's proportionate share of the underlying mortgage on the building was no more than 30 percent of the buyer's debt burden--the total of the underlying debt and the end loan itself. Thus, if the underlying dept was $15,000, the buyer could get a loan to purchase a $35,000 unit ($15,000 being 30 percent of the combined $50,000 debt). Under the new standard, even if the underlying debt has risen to $18,500 the buyer can still get a $35,000 sale price ($18,900 is 35 percent of a total $54,000 debt). The result is that the sales market has apartments in buildings with a higher debt burden in relation to market value should improve. That in turn should raise prices and make it still easier to get loans. Last year Representative Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of Hackensack, taking a cue from New York City elected officials, became a force in getting Fannie Mae to ease its standards on purchasing the end loans. That in turn has brought more lenders into the marketplace and made it easier for shareholders to refinance their individual loans or further a sale. The underwriting revisions were designed to meet the needs of the 12,000 co-op unit shareholders in Mr. Torricelli's district, which includes parts of Bergen and Hudson Counties, and help investigate the sluggish co-op market. Fannie Mae said it would apply the North Jersey standards to shareholders across the state on a case-by-case basis and has waived the $100 project review fee assessed to co-op corporations. Before the change ``people were prisoners in their homes,'' said Philip Goldberg, a spokesman for Representative Torricelli. ``For many people these co-ops represent a good portion of their savings,'' Mr. Torricelli said in a statement. ``We needed to help them preserve this investment.'' This was not the first time that Fannie May had eased its policies in response to co-op problems in the New York areas. In 1993 New York City officials, notably Queens Borough President Claire Schulman and Representative Charles E. Schumer, Democratic of Brooklyn, sought help in resolving some issues, chiefly the proportion of units that must be owner occupied. That October Fannie May liberalized its guidelines for co-op lending in the city. Important changes include the reduction of the required percentage of units sold to owner occupants to 51 percent from 80 percent, counting sublets as owner-occupied units and increasing the pro-rata share from 30 to as much as 40 percent. In New Jersey, which did not have the same level of sponsor defaults as in New York City or the same difficulty in owner- occupancy levels, the problem was the pro-rata share issue. From 1989, when the housing market collapsed, to 1993 the resale value of co-ops in Bergen and Hudson Counties, as in most of the state, declined by as much as 40 percent. That caused the pro-rata share to exceed the 30 percent limit. Buyers couldn't buy and sellers couldn't sell, further depressing the market and value of units, said Fred Heller, president of the co-op board at the 235-unit Century Tower on Parker Avenue. ``The bigger the bargain the more all cash buyers were needed to buy the units,'' said Randy Ketive a partner at Oppler-Ketive Realtors in Fort Lee, which specializes in co- ops. ``Most everyone else was locked out of the market because they couldn't get loans.'' That led Mrs. Ketive, Mr. Heller and Lou Verde, a Fort Lee real estate lawyer who represents the 270-unit Northbridge Park Co-op, to let Representative Torricelli know of their concerns. In October, Fannie Mae announced the New Jersey Co-op Program. To participate in the program, eligible co-ops, among other things, must have 80 percent of its units owner-occupied and no more than 10 percent of its owners more than a month behind on the monthly payment. But Fannie Mae says that exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. While all those involved in the co-op problem acknowledge that the program is not a panacea, they say it is a good start and will make it easier to buy and sell in the future. As sales increase, prices will also adjust, said Mrs. Ketive. This has clearly not yet happened. In the first six months of this year 99 co-ops were sold in Bergen County, compared to 101 for the same period last year. According to he Bergen County Multiple Listing Service. But Mr. Heller said that he pro-rata share problem at his building had disappeared. And Mrs. Ketive, who called the program ``a shot in the arm,'' said it had helped remove many of the inexpensive units from the market. She added that prices are not stabilized. Two-bedroom units in high-end co-ops, depending on size and location, cost $100,000 to $450,000 in Bergen County and $75,000 to $300,000 in Mudson County, Mrs. Ketive said. Those priced from $80,000 to $150,000 are most in demand, but there is an oversupply of studios and one-bedrooms, she added. The changes have also drawn more lenders into the market and the competition has made mortgage rates more competitive. Chemical has been offering share loans in New Jersey since late last year. ``If not for the changes we could not have been able to sell the loans on the secondary market and that would have increased the risk on our loan portfolio,'' said Robert Brown, vice president of residential mortgages at Chemical Bank New Jersey with offices in Princeton and Fort Lee. ``We see Fort Lee as a rich market,'' he said, adding that his bank had made 10 loans a month there. Even in recent years, Dale Mortgage Corporation had continued offering co-op end loans. Marc Sovelove, vice president at Dale in Fairfield said through May his company did 50 end loans in New Jersey up from 31 from the same month last year. ``There are still other deterrents, but we see opportunities in the market,'' he said. The program is also important because an active market for share loans returns liquidity to the markets and makes lenders of underlying mortgages more secure. Since the start of the year the New York office of the National Cooperative Bank has refinanced the underlying loans on two co-op buildings in Fort Lee and is working on a third in East Orange, said Paulette Bonanno, vice president at the at the bank. ``The deals out there are now easier to make,'' said Charles Oppier of Oppier-Ketive Realtors. But, he added, the market, still hampered by buyer uncertainties over the economy and job security, now has to catch up with the program.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, a week ago this Congress answered the imprisonment of an American citizen in China with Radio Free Asia. Today we celebrate the end of the cold war by recognizing the role of Radio Free Europe, knowing that more than any tank, as much as any plane, or the bravery of any soldier, the truth has always been America's most effective weapon. Now the question before this Congress is, is the Congress that for all of these years supported Radio Free Europe, the very same individuals that voted for Radio Free Asia, now to abandon the truth in the fight against dictatorship in Cuba? That, my friends, is the question. But it is not a new question. Last year the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] came to this Congress with the same question on the same bill. It was argued then that there was no news, except USIA did a study and 70 percent of the broadcasting is news. It was argued then that it would not reach the Cuban people, except USIA says that it reaches most of the Cuban people. It was argued then that it was not effective or in the national interest, except that USIA said that is technically sound, it contains essential information, it is in the interests of the United States Government, that it sustains the Cuban people's right to hear and see the news. Mr. Chairman, we did not have this debate last year, because the opponents and the proponents agreed for an independent study on the value of Television Marti. And you have it. It works, it is effective, it is the truth. I cannot imagine the despair this Congress would cause to thousands of Cubans who last year took to the streets of Havana to demonstrate for their freedom, to the hundreds who are in political prisons, to those who risk their lives every day, organizing, planning, hoping, praying for freedom, to give Fidel Castro this gift. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more in the great traditions of this country than to believe that our most effective tool is a discussion of ideas, the promotion of our form of government, the announcement of the truth. Television Marti is in that tradition. It is not that it cannot be better. This same study by the Clinton administration which endorsed the programming and its effectiveness also found ways to save money, and we are doing that; spending less, spending more effectively, but all the time letting the people of Cuba know that the truth, America's greatest weapon, is still their ally. I urge support of the Smith substitute.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. My colleagues, it is first important to establish what this amendment is not about. The amendment would eliminate $180,000 in spending for the board of Marti. But, in truth, it has nothing to do with money. You see, the Federal Government has hundreds of boards for all kinds of different radio stations and operations. None of their money would be affected. Just this one. it affects Cuban Americans and broadcast into Cuba. It is not about money, it is about ideology, anything to undermine the fact that this radio station for these people is getting into Cuba to tell the truth. You have been told that there is an I.G. report that is critical of the board. Let me tell you what you were not told, that Mr. Duffy, head of USIA, has called its release unauthorized, inappropriate. He has called for an ethics probe, said it does not reflect a genuine analysis of the situation. Indeed the President has had his own ethics board involved. It is potentially a criminal release of a one-sided analysis done for purely partisan and ideological purposes. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has debated this issue year in and year out, and last year we called a truce. We asked that the USIA do a nonpartisan, objective analysis, and they did. They found this radio station effective, important for the United States Government interests, representing the views of this country, helpful in the process of getting the truth to the Cuba people. They could not win on the merits. The study did not have what they wanted as a conclusion. So now, one way or another, there is an attempt to undermine Radio Marti. This station is important for the foreign policy of this country. Reject this amendment. Keep the board and the radio station in place. (Mr. SKAGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the committee for 2 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings the art form in the Congress of looking to appear to do something, but in fact doing nothing, to a new height. This amendment, as offered, would save a bridge which has already been determined to be unsafe and yet undermine previous efforts of the Congress to provide a new access to the island. We are telling the American people that, in fact, we are going to avoid this problem of a $7 ferry ride. New access. Well, in the 103d Congress we just did that. We said we were going to build a new bridge and give new access. And now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] comes to the floor offering to save a bridge which for safety reasons no one could walk across, and yet there is no appropriation to fix it or repair it. There is perhaps no reason to oppose the amendment. It will not do any harm. But there is also no reason to vote for it. We have managed simply to convince people that it looked like we were doing something, while we did nothing. Now, it may be the impression of some as well, because the gentleman [[Page H 7117]] from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] has brought this amendment to the floor that, in fact, he represents this district. In fact, he does not. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has jurisdiction over parts of the island and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] on the remainder.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding American citizen as she approaches her 75th birthday. Now living in Ridgefield, NJ, Ms. Ladislava Potaski Krawiec has dedicated her life to serving her family and community. She served as a school and community nurse for 45 years until her retirement in 1987. At a time when women were not encouraged to attend college, Ms. Krawiec continued to develop her health care skills through schooling at various colleges throughout New Jersey. She eventually attained the title of head nurse at Belleville Hospital in charge of diabetes, arthritis, and general medicine. She did not allow her dedication to her career to interfere with her commitment to her family. After the birth of her first child in 1945, Ms. Krawiec became active in her local PTA and worked to strengthen the health care services in the Ridgefield community. After becoming a part-time nurse at her daughter's school, she decided to return to school at night and 4 years later graduated cum laude from Jersey City College with a BA in health education and school nursing. Even though Ms. Krawiec's children have grown into adulthood, and she has retired from her nursing career, her volunteer work still continues. She is currently serving in her 11th year as president of the American Legion Auxiliary and she chairs the SHARE program which provides low-cost meals for senior citizens. Ms. Krawiec's commitment to her family, job, and community serve as a model to all of us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing a happy and prosperous 75th birthday to Ms. Ladislava Potaski Krawiec.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the initiatives of the Government of Benin in its efforts to facilitate peace in West Africa and the world. The President of the Republic of Benin, Nicephore Soglo, as two-time head--1992 and [[Page E 1407]] 1993--of the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS], has led the search for peace throughout Liberia's difficult reconciliation process. President Soglo's administration has hosted several reconciliation conferences and efforts for peace in the region. As noted, he was elected twice to head ECOWAS, because the heads of state were looking for one of their peers who would be totally neutral vis-a- vis all the factions involved in the Liberian crisis. Although a small nation of approximately 5 million people, Benin made a courageous offer to welcome Haitian refugees during the crisis of 1994. Moreover, Benin's government sent a police force of 30 to 50 persons to participate under the umbrella of the group for the restoration of democracy in Haiti. Benin was the only African country that agreed to do so. Other examples of peace initiatives in West Africa include Benin's dialogue with its neighbors Niger and Togo. With Niger, Benin has established a joint border demarcation commission to resolve the dispute over the island of Lete on the Niger river. Relations with Togo were strengthened by a recent visit from Togolese Prime Minister Edem Kodjo. Regional stability will stimulate substantially more trade with and among the states of West Africa. Mr. Speaker, the United States Government has strengthened ties with the Republic of Benin since it has become a model for democratization in Africa. Let us not forget that Benin was the first one-party Marxist State in Africa to achieve a successful transition to democracy, marked by the free and fair Presidential election of 1991. Benin is now using its international credibility and stature to facilitate peace in West Africa and the world.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to say how, as a member of the committee, I appreciate the gentleman's concern with the process of legislating in an appropriation bill. It is indeed a long-standing problem and a regular complaint of those of us on the committee. It is, of course, the world's most violated rule. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean it should always happen. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the chairman that both the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], as members of the committee, are for this amendment, in spite of that fact, and our appreciation for your concern about jurisdiction. We do so in part, as the gentleman from New Jersey suggested, because there is a problem of timing. The Cuban and Russian Governments have announced this construction only 2 weeks ago. We would like the administration to act before construction actually begins and the Russians become committed. Mr. Chairman, it is our feeling that this vote on this day can send that message. Therefore, I think it may be a worthwhile exception to what is a good rule and the gentleman's own commitment to uphold it. Amendment Offered by Mr. WILSON as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The Chairman, in the last several months the American people have learned a great deal about Guatemala. Ten Americans lost, disappeared, brutalized or raped. Their families have come forward to tell the story of their horrors in Guatemala. The Drug Enforcement Agency has told us a story that nearly one-third of all the cocaine reaching the United States is now warehoused in Guatemala before being shipped to our own cities and towns. Yet 11 Guatemalan military officers indicted in the United States are protected by that country's laws where extradition is refused. Against this, the backdrop of 150,000 people in Guatemala who have lost their lives in the last 30 years through a genocidal campaign against their own people, led by civil defense patrols who roam the countryside harassing, exploiting and murdering poor civilians who are defenseless. Mr. Chairman, in the weeks since we have learned many of these things in the tragic history of Guatemala, President Clinton has suspended United States military assistance to that country's armed forces, demanding cooperation in the investigation of the deaths of Americans, insisting on cooperation in the extradition of military officers involved in cocaine trafficking. I have included in the en bloc amendment an insistence that until there is cooperation on narcotics, on ending human rights abuses and on investigating the deaths and abuse of American citizens, that there be no further assistance. This is indeed legislatively the equivalent of what President Clinton has already done unilaterally. I urge its adoption in the bill. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee, for its inclusion in the en bloc amendments, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for his support, as well. It is simply a proper statement in this bill.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I asked unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from Indiana have 2 more minutes on his time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 2 additional minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why this system has survived for so long when so many other constitutional systems around the world have faltered, but there may be one which is more important, the idea of refusing to centralize power in the American constitutional system. Admittedly, this has been a conservative idea, central to conservative doctrine in the American political system, that no one individual and no one institution would monopolize power. Ironically, a great Member of this House, a leader in the conservative movement, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], today would repeal this idea, and leading us back to a different time when one man, one institution in this Government could so control constitutional power. I rise today in defense of that conservative idea, because cutting off appropriations is not an answer, and in an age with the technology today that exists, when the gentleman from Illinois is correct that war may no longer be formally declared, to give that power to one man is more dangerous than when Lyndon Johnson had it, more dangerous than when Franklin Delano Roosevelt had it. This constitutional system serves best by insisting that the Congress share in that right, and that the lessons of Vietnam and the opportunities of the Persian Gulf remain with us. When there is a better way to distribute power, better than the Persian Gulf war lessons, better than the resolution we would repeal today, let us do it. It is not before this House today. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, every American schoolchild learns to respect and revere the Constitution of our country and those who wrote it. It is a near perfect document, an expression of extraordinary wisdom. But it was not without flaw. Among those flaws has been a 200-year conflict in authority between the commander-in-chief and the powers incumbent upon him and the war- making [[Page H5668]] powers of this Congress. The problem was masked for many years. But time, changes in technology and diplomacy made a collision inevitable, the speed of war, the powers of weapons, the change of diplomacy. That collision came most dramatically in Vietnam. The result was not simply the loss of life of thousands of Americans after a constituency for that war in this Congress and among our people had evaporated. There was another price, the near loss of legitimacy of this Government in its actions. It has been suggested by the gentleman from Illinois that this Congress was not without recourse, at any moment we could have abandoned the providing of appropriations, withdrawn funding, and by doing so expressed the wishes of our constituencies and ourselves. And indeed in the final analysis, after more than 10 years of combat that is exactly what happened. But the War Powers Act was enacted because Members of Congress themselves found that that choice was inadequate. Members were not going to choose to take away appropriations from our own sons and daughters who were fighting and dying while they were in combat. They would not do it, and neither would we. It was not a sufficient power. We needed the right to express ourselves before the Nation engaged in combat. The War Powers Act itself may not have been a perfect expression either. Indeed, from Grenada to Lebanon, for different reasons and different circumstances, we have seen the flaws in the act itself. But it has nevertheless in our own time been a valuable method of expression for this Congress, creating at a minimum a period of consultation, a consultation, a sharing of power between the Congress and the Presidency that did not exist when FDR invaded Nicaragua, or when Lyndon Johnson sent forces to the Dominican Republic. In our own time that power has been shared and has been different. Would the marines have stayed in Haiti for 30 years if the Congress had had power when Woodrow Wilson acted. Would we have remained for a generation in Nicaragua when Roosevelt acted? It has been different and it has been better because of the War Powers Act. Maybe George Bush never accepted its constitutionality. Maybe he did not agree and maybe today he would like to see us repeal it. But when he was faced with a judgment in the Persian Gulf, he was quick to bring Members of this Congress to the White House, and quick despite his objections to seek a congressional vote, because he understood not a problem, but an opportunity in the War Powers Act. He wanted Saddam Hussein to know that this was no Vietnam, you will not divide the American people in combat, that the Congress and the Presidency will act together, and so he did not seek to avoid a vote, he wanted it, because he knew of what it telegraphed to Iraq. That vote more than anything else brought the United States allies and showed solidarity.