Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a special couple from my district who will celebrate a milestone wedding anniversary on June 19, 1995. In these turbulent times, it is so wonderful to recognize Kay and Frank Purritano, a couple who have honored their vows to each other for 40 years. Family and friends will gather on June 3 in Albany, NY to wish them well. Frank worked for over 30 years at Alleghany-Ludlum Steel before he retired. Kay has been a wonderful wife, mother and grandmother. She is extremely creative, is a gourmet cook and enjoys sewing and baby- sitting for her grandchildren. The couple raised their five children, Debra, Francis, Jr., Joseph, Marie and Michael in New York but, after Frank retired, they moved to my district in New Jersey to be closer to their children and grandchildren. They are devoted parents and are the proud grandparents of seven, Laura, David, Scott, Anthony, Anastasia, Joseph and Nicholas. It is an honor to commend this couple for their life together and to offer my best wishes for the years to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, there have been some Government programs we have seen throughout the years that have worked. We have seen some that have failed. But few, from the perspective of my State of New Jersey, have been as successful as our ocean testing and monitoring program. Since 1974, the State of New Jersey has developed a program to ensure to those who visit our beaches, those in our $18 billion tourist industry, if you swim in the waters off our shore, it is safe, it is clean, it is a place you would want to take your family. Today, 180 different locations and 143 bays and rivers are monitored continuously to assure that level of safety, and to anyone who in any summer visits those ocean locations, there is a perceptible and an overwhelming difference in the quality of the water and the enjoyment of your vacation time at a New Jersey resort. We did it, Mr. Chairman, because we had no choice. There were allegations of sickness, implications of health, and, indeed, the economic losses were mounting. Restoring confidence to families and to business became critical. In the last Congress, the Members of this institution recognized the success of this program and overwhelmingly, Democrats and Republicans, 320 strong, voted to have just such a program across the country. They were right then. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is right now. This is a program we should have on a national basis. It makes about as much sense, Mr. Chairman, for one State to have ocean monitoring and another not to have it as if the States would have individual air quality standards. It is only a few miles from the beaches of Coney Island, NY, to the beaches of Sandy Hook, NJ. If one State will have high standards and monitor and attempt to assure a quality of water and another State will not, it is no more than a swift breeze, an ocean current away from one State violating the standard of another. Indeed, it goes to the very issue of federalism. These are the kinds of standards that were contemplated in forming a union to assure uniformity, safety for all of the States and their interests. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that in each of our States we recognize the potential loss economically and in quality of life if people lose confidence in the basic American right on a weekend or a summer afternoon to take your child and your family to a beach. That is what life is all about, and if the Federal Government can mean anything to our families, for all of the excesses of other things it has done, all the programs that did not work, all the things we should eliminate, do we really want to go so far that as a Federal Government we cannot say to an individual American family, ``We will assure you you will know when your child walks into an ocean resort, that water will be safe and it will be to the highest standards, whether it is the Oregon, California, New York, New Jersey or Florida''? That is what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] asks, and almost to the person, Democrats and Republicans, have voted for exactly that in the past. Today, we ask you to do so again. I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for offering this amendment. I am very proud to have joined with him in his sponsorship, and I am very proud that my State uniquely has taken the lead in setting these high standards. Mr. Chairman, the alternative situation is this: Some States will offer their citizens no assurance at all. Twenty-two other States will have 11 different standards, conflicting, lower but without any minimum Federal guarantee. As we offer this for the air we breathe and the water we drink, the ocean that would receive our families should have no less.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] in congratulating the majority for rising to the support of the Clinton administration, though expressing my regrets that they have chosen this unfortunate moment on such an ill-conceived issue. To make clear, Mr. Chairman, that I represent no Coast Guard stations, indeed, no beach areas, I seek no stations, and indeed, do not think they should be built in my own district of New Jersey, but I rise to the defense of the capabilities of the Coast Guard, because this issue is more than whether or not there is a Coast Guard station in New Jersey or Massachusetts or Oregon. This goes to the central mission of the Federal Government and its responsibility to our people. Because there are things that our Government has done, agencies it maintains, expenditures that it makes which are inappropriate, expenditures which should be eliminated and activities which should be curtailed, there are many who would now come to this floor, and indeed, today they have the Clinton administration with them, to end those activities which are central, things which only the Federal Government can do, things upon which the people of our country depend upon the Federal Government to do. For 200 years people, from mariners to the boating public to fishermen across America, have come to rely for their safety and for rescue at moments of peril upon the Coast Guard. We are now presented with a plan to close 23 of those stations, some of them that have operated for generations, saved hundreds of people at moments of peril, to save one-tenth of 1 percent of the Coast Guard budget. In an incredible calculation, the Coast Guard can even demonstrate the cities, the oceans, the rivers, the places, and the numbers of lives that will be lost. And for what? Six million dollars, $6 million that we justifiably seek to reduce in areas where the Federal Government's activities are inappropriate and should be curtailed, or should be ended. But instead, we return to a central function of the Federal Government, maintaining safety on the seas and in our waterways, and in doing so, risk enormous danger for our citizens. Most ironic is that while we reduce these Coast Guard activities in these 23 stations, we ask for greater surveillance to ensure that our fishing stocks are not depleted, we increase responsibility for drug interdiction, to ensure that narcotics are not reaching our coasts, we ask for higher environmental standards to make sure that international shipping does not dump their cargoes or their waste or their oil into our waters. We mount their responsibilities, we increase the standards, we want the American people to believe that they are safe in moments of leisure or work, but we take away their very resources. Mr. Chairman, I have not been bashful when it came to moments to vote to cut Government spending or end its missions, but there is a time in which Members of this institution must understand those items of safety and security which are central to the functions of the Federal Government, missions that if we do not do, no one else will do, missions if they are not completed will take the lives of our people. The people of our country do not generally ask a lot of this Federal Government. Usually they ask simply that it do less. This is one instance where for 200 years, as certainly as people have come to expect if their car or their truck breaks down along a highway, a patrolman will come to their rescue, so, too, through these generations people have come to expect that if they are lost at sea, if their boat is in peril, they will see a Coast Guard ship come to their rescue. That expectation need not change, not for $6 million, not for such a small saving, not when there are so many other opportunities.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, the decision to allow the elected leadership of Taiwan access to the United States was made when Taiwan decided to have free elections, a free press and pluralistic political systems. This isn't simply an issue to the people of Taiwan. As a matter of policy, the United States should never exclude the elected and legitimate leader of any nation seeking to come to our country. The views of nations with whom we have relations, and those nations that play a disproportionate role in world affairs, should always be heard by our Government. They can, however, never be controlling upon our Government. The Government in Beijing has received all due deference. In the final analysis, it is the policy of the U.S. Government to allow all freely elected governments to come to this country and be heard. The people of the United States do not need to be protected from the views of freely elected peoples. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to add that it would be an extraordinary statement that, after receiving in the last decade a range of leaders from Roberto D'Aubuission, the leader of the death squads in El Salvador, to Deng Xiao-ping, the leader of the world's largest totalitarian government, that any freely elected official is denied access to our country. I hope this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution. 53 succeeds in convincing the administration of the strength of our bipartisan views. But I would remind the administration, if they do not after considerable negotiations, that I have a common resolution to amend the Taiwan Relations Act as a matter of law to allow access and visas to the United States. If discretion is not used properly by he administration, discretion will be lost by the administration. We will proceed with our amendment and change the law.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago in one of those moments that comes to define an individual's values and sense of responsibility, several members of the executive branch came to me with extraordinary information. It was revealed to me that several years ago an American citizen in Guatemala was murdered by a contract employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. It was further revealed to me that in the years that passed there was a conscious effort to prevent that information from being known. Indeed the person responsible for the murder of an American citizen was never brought to justice. This was, Mr. Speaker, a difficult moment because I recognized the importance of maintaining confidentiality of sources of intelligence information, and indeed, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I signed an oath not to reveal classified information. It was my judgment to ascertain from the Intelligence Committee confirmation that I never participated in classified briefings and had never received classified information with regard to Guatemala. This was a measure of how seriously I took my oath to preserve confidentiality. I then proceeded to consult with the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations where I serve and with the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], to receive their advice and good counsel before proceeding in writing to the President of the United States to reveal this rather extraordinary information. Their counsel was that I should be guided by my own sense of ethics and responsibility, but proceed in informing the President and the American people. In the days that have followed this country has learned a good deal. Indeed the President and this Congress have learned a great deal about activities of the Central Intelligence Agency in Guatemala, their adherence to the law, informing the President and this institution. In more recent days the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have raised the issue that while indeed I may never have participated in classified briefings or had classified information as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that since the 103d Congress each Member of this institution has also had a separate oath not to disclose classified information. That oath is no less serious. It is, however, in my judgment, under these circumstances, where the issue is criminal activity on behalf of an intelligence agency of this Government, that involves a question of the taking of life and a felony, and potentially concealing that information from law enforcement authorities; that oath is in direct conflict with the oath every Member of this Congress also takes as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States to adhere to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. It also is in direct conflict with the statutory responsibility of every American citizen to uphold the laws of our country and not to engage in conspiracies, to maintain silence in the face of criminal activity or indeed take any action that would maintain silence regarding those activities. It also in my judgment is in conflict, Mr. Speaker, with the basic ethical responsibility of Members and their duty to reveal illegal activities and the inherent oversight responsibilities of the U.S. Congress to assure that the agencies of this Government are adhering to the laws. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, in this day while the majority is celebrating the conclusion of the 100 days of their Contract With America, invites the most ironic conflict of all. On the 1st day of this 104th Congress on a bipartisan basis this Congress came to the judgment that we would live by the laws that govern all other Americans. All other Americans have a duty, Mr. Speaker, not to conceal criminal activity, to take no action to further a criminal conspiracy. Mr. Speaker, when I faced the ethical dilemma of whether to disclose the murder of an American citizen by a contract employee of a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, I was guided by my oath as a Member of this institution as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, the statutes of this country governing the duty not to participate in concealing criminal activity, by my own ethical sense of responsibility as a citizen of this country, and finally by my duty to abide by the laws that govern all other Americans. I do not, however, make light of the speaker's observation that there is an obligation for these last 2 years to also, as a Member of this institution, not to disclose classified information, though I do so while vigorously denying, as I think is now beyond question, that I never did receive classified information as a member of the Intelligence Committee and am, therefore, not in violation of this separate and distinct oath. Recognizing that there is this conflict of judgment between my interpretation and interpretation shared by the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, and, I believe, many Members of this institution and the public, and a judgment that appears to be shared by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, I have informed Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Combest of my intention to write to the Ethics Committee on this day, inform them what I believe is a legitimate conflict of laws and obligations, that I should receive, and this institution should receive, some guidance in what I think is a clear conflict of responsibility between those oaths and the governing authorities and that the Ethics Committee should reach some judgment, if only for guidance purposes, because the conflict that I received, the conflict in which I found myself, is unlikely to be the last time a Member of this institution faces exactly the same circumstances. Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the Ethics Committee's addressing of this issue, I want finally to simply say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that reforming government, the new relationship this Congress seeks with the American people is not simply about reforming budgets or governmental programs. The most important reform that this Congress requires to restore faith to the American people is to tell the truth. If we cannot tell the truth to the American people, when one of our own citizens is murdered, in violation of our laws, by an intelligence community that is operating at variance with our national purpose, when there has been a clear conspiracy to prevent the truth from being known, and our Government has not proceeded with the prosecution of the person who was known and is responsible, Mr. Speaker, how can we ever keep faith with the American people? I know that people take issue with my own moral judgment in this instance, but I believe on reflection they will find that in the final analysis I had no choice, and that to keep faith with the American people, my colleagues who find themselves in the same dilemma in the future would do best for our country and this institution to do the same. Mr. Speaker, there are times in the life of this country, and indeed in any republic, when no matter how noble our purposes, there are compromises that must be made. The first obligation of any free people is to preserve their system of government and their freedom. There are times of great international struggle, and indeed of the cold war, when it was necessary for our Nation to compromise some of our most important principles. We did things and we made agreements with people, we compromised judgments, because we had no choice. Indeed, in some instances that will still be the case. But no one can argue that the struggle in Guatemala requires a compromise that involves shielding the murder of an American citizen. Indeed, when this controversy passes, I hope if nothing else is achieved, it is that this Congress and this President face the threshold issue that there simply in nations like Guatemala, in places that were the battleground of the cold war, no great issue is at stake that involved the expenditure of our national treasures, the compromise of principles, or the taking of lives, of Americans or others, for what are certainly internal struggles with legitimate purposes by other nations that do not involve the United States. I do not take issue with clandestine, covert operations or contract relationships in foreign intelligence or military services when it involves the security of the United States. But I do take issue with doing so when our national security is not involved, and when the laws of this country are violated. We were not protecting the security of the United States by maintaining secrecy in Guatemala. We were protecting the Central Intelligence Agency from the laws of the United States and embarrassment by our own people. Mr. Speaker, we did not come to this institution as Members, Democrats or Republicans alike, to defend an agency of this Government. We came here to protect the interests of the American people. Whether the Central Intelligence Agency long endures, whether it exists decade to decade, is of no great moment. What matters is whether the people of this country keep faith with this Government. Lying to our people, covering the crimes of any agency of this Government, will not keep faith with our people. I know that different Members in the same circumstances may have reached a different judgment. I did what I thought was right, I did what I think is consistent with the laws of our country, my oath of office under the Constitution of the United States, in keeping with what I think are the great traditions of our country and the desires of my constituents. In that I make no apology. But I do ask now that the Speaker, the chairman of the committee, join with me and the minority Members of this institution in seeking guidance from the Committee on Ethics to assure that we have a common understanding of how to deal with this conflict of oath and this ethical question in the future. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Greek Independence Day, which will take place tomorrow, March 25, 1995. Greek Independence Day is a national day of celebration of Greek and American democracy. This day marks the 17th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. The Greeks were finally liberated after years of oppressive treatment and civil rights violations. Their communities were slowly deteriorating; schools and churches were being closed down, and Christian and Jewish boys were kidnapped and raised as Moslems to serve the Sultan. Greece is one of only three nations in the world allied with the United States in every major international conflict this century. During the early 1900's, one in every four Greek males between the ages of 15 and 45 departed for the United States. Through their extraordinary compatibility with the people of America, Greek-Americans became very successful in the United States. The American Revolution became one of the ideals of the Greeks as they fought for their independence in the 1820's. Greek intellectuals translated our Declaration of Independence and used it as their own declaration. The second generation of Greek-Americans currently rank at the top among American ethnic nationalities regarding their median educational attainment. In 1953, after Greece's post-World War II struggle against the Communist rebels, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appropriately said: . . . Greece asked no favor except the opportunity to stand for those rights which it believed, and it gave to the world an example of battle, a battle that thrilled the hearts of all free men and free women everywhere. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of issues of concern in the Greek- American community, I am proud to recognize this population and their interests. Greek civilization touches our lives as Americans, and enhances the cultural existence of this great Nation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following for the Record: A Plea to American Friends of Taiwan for a Fairer Television Media System in My Country (By Trong R. Chai, Ph.D.) Distinguished Members of Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen: Every time I revisited Capitol, I felt so good, as if I came back to my old sweet home. During my long residency in America, I frequently visited this place, as an advocate for human rights for the Taiwanese and for security and independence for Taiwan, my country. Since I left the U.S. for Taiwan at the turn of the last decade, I have continued to champion the same cause and values. I am here today to call your attention to the problem of equal opportunity for the opposition to access the television media in Taiwan. At the present, all the three nationwide television stations have been firmly controlled by the ruling Koumintang (KMT) party. By manipulation of content and twist of reporting language, in the gubernatorial and mayoral elections of last December, for example, all television stations depicted the KMT as the defender of order, stability, and prosperity, while demeaning the Democrat progressive party (the DPP), the largest opposition party, as an underminer toward social unrest and a solicitor of China's military attack. In addition, by disparity of coverage, the KMT candidates were given close to 90 percent of news coverage, whereas the DPP candidates, receiving more than 40% of popular votes, were given less than 10% of exposure, thereby creating unfair elections. The government of Taiwan has decided to license one more nationwide television station next month to three groups submitted applications for the license last June, and one of them was submitted a KMT leader. The followup question is, ``Will the fourth television station be granted to a non-KMT group?'' This question is so important to the process of democratization in Taiwan that I believe each of you here in this room will be concerned with. Distinguished Members, and dear friends of Taiwan: Your past influence on Taiwan's democratic development has been enormous and deeply appreciated by the people of Taiwan. Especially, at crucial milestones in the last decade, your voices helped Taiwan successfully end the old one-party dictatorship and create a two-party system, lift the 38 year- old martial law, and close the darkest record of human rights violations; thereby bringing real hopes for democratic reforms and freedom from fear. Now, at this critical juncture in selecting the winner of the fourth nationwide television station, would you give us a timely and most crucial support to ensure that this winner will be a non-KMT applicant so that democracy will not be an empty slogan but a real way of life in Taiwan. Thank you for your attention and support.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the French Government was complaining about the activities of American Government officials. This came as an enormous surprise. The Japanese, the Germans, and Americans did not know there was any technology in France that anybody needed. Yesterday the French President hosts Fidel Castro. Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to doubt whether if there were an island in the Mediterranean with a 30-year dictatorship, with no human rights for any of its people that the French Government would be so understanding. In the coming years France will have its difficulties in North Africa. Europe has not seen its last internal political problems. I trust that all of the people of the Americas will be similarly understanding and give the same difference to the French Government when it faces its own next crisis.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The Members of the majority may not think that this will impede regulations for food safety. But one would think the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be somewhat controlling. In a letter to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], they have written that the current program will be suspended. There will not be a need for public comment. They will not proceed with the February 3 regulations, because while the threat to human safety is real, it is not imminent. It is substantial, but it may not be immediate. And years of work, years of work to try to protect the American people are going to be lost. My colleagues, 2 years ago a young woman in my district named Katie O'Connell walked into a fast-food restaurant in New Jersey, and 48 hours later she was dead. That case has been repeated 4,000 times a year, year in and year out across this country. We have an epidemic of food safety, because we have not improved the methods of inspecting food for 75 years in this country. The average American food inspector has less than a half a second to use his eyes and his nose in the age of the computer and electronic sensor to determine whether or not food is safe for your table, and they are missing thousands of times determining contaminated food. The cost of the February 3 regulations on the industry will be two- tenths of 1 cent per pound. Too much of a cost to bear for American industry to save thousands of lives. I know the majority wants to vote with their leadership. I know they want to lessen the burden. But the costs for your constituents are too great. My colleagues, support the amendment. It is simply the right and decent thing to do.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], I understand how seriously he feels about this issue. I respect him for bringing it to the floor. But I think a fair point has been made. As he cares passionately about the rights of his constituents to hunt, the economic interests of his State, some of us have felt passionately after years of work about the ability to protect children from the problem of E. coli bacteria, with 4,000 deaths a year; with the problem that our water supplies are being contaminated by bacteria. The gentleman deserves to have his amendment voted upon. Indeed, he may deserve to have it passed. But a fair point has been made. It cannot escape the attention of the American people that the interests of children, the interests of our citizens and the safety of their homes and restaurants came to this floor. After years of fighting to get Federal regulations to protect them, those regulations are in jeopardy. The comparison was a fair one. I thank the gentleman for raising it.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indian. I urge a yes vote. I thank Members of the majority party, the new members in the committee who voted for this amendment in committee.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this is evidence that if one lives long enough, they can see anything. The majority has come to this Congress to establish a mandatory foreign aid program at a time of enormous domestic problems and mounting deficits in this country. They have done so claiming that our current program to help these same foreign nations is not working, even though it is only 90 days old. We have asked the President for 90 days to begin working militarily for NATO expansion with these countries. Now in our impatience we tell him on a mandatory basis, he must do so, that we do not know what it would cost. We overlook the fact that two of the four countries have former Communists running their governments. One is becoming an authoritative government. But we want to expand foreign aid to help them. Even though the same countries, every one of them, has a declining defense budget. But in our enthusiasm to help them, even when we do not have enough money for our own armed forces, we are going to throw our money upon them. Mr. Chairman, the simple truth is, this has not been well thought through. We have a program that is working. We tell the President of the United States, you may have a program to help these countries if they are democratic, they are pluralistic, it would help the security interests of the United States, our NATO allies agree. remain with it. Our differences indeed are narrow, whether we apply those criteria to those four countries, do so on a basis of the President's discretion or, in my judgment, have the largest mandatory expansion of the American foreign assistance program that I have ever witnessed. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this institution to vote for my amendment. It is consistent with bipartisan foreign policy, the actions of the 103d Congress, and indeed, as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has pointed out, the Contract With America, which itself talks about a permissive expansion of our foreign assistance program, not a mandatory expansion.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston], a member of the committee.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would then answer, is there a reason, a theory in mind, why when each of these four countries is declining in their defense spending, spending less of their dollars, we would take the American taxpayers' dollars in foreign aid to substitute for their military spending? Is there a rationale there I am missing?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, so in fact, we would be mandating a foreign assistance program without knowing a number?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myelf the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations in a colloquy, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Mr. Chairman, I wondered if the gentleman could succinctly tell us, does he have some estimation of exactly how much we would be spending in new foreign assistance to help these poor countries? Is there a dollar amount he has in mind?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman who coauthored this amendment with me, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. I want to remind the body, however, that this amendment does not impact NATO expansion, only the question of whether there should be a mandatory foreign aid program.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, never in my memory has a more simple amendment been brought before this institution. It hangs largely on one word, ``may'' the United States establish the new military aid program and expansion of foreign aid in eastern Europe, or ``shall'' it do so? Is it mandatory? In my memory of this institution, I have never known this Congress in its enthusiasm for foreign aid to mandate an expansion of that program to other countries. But indeed, unless my amendment is accepted, that is exactly what we will do today: Add 4 countries in eastern Europe on a mandatory basis, requiring military aid. Now, I know this is a large institution and we represent very different districts with different electoral experiences. But I cannot believe that anyone in this institution feels that it is a mandate from their constituents in the second month of this new Congress as a matter of the highest priority to come here to this floor to expand foreign aid. I do not think anybody knew it was in the contract. I do not think anyone would have been for it if they did. But you have got one opportunity to take it out today; change the word ``shall'' expand foreign aid to ``may,'' based on the judgment of the administration. Now, I know that the intentions of the authors of the legislation are sound, to bring into the western alliance for security purposes the nations of eastern Europe. million has already been authorized to work with eastern Europe nations so that one day they might coordinate their defense policies and perhaps eventually enter NATO. But this is beyond coordinating defense programs. This is providing direct assistance. Now, the authors may claim that the $100 million of the Partnership for Peace can be used to fund this new foreign aid program. But indeed there is no reason to believe that this money would be sufficient. It is already being used with other nations. It may already be entirely consumed. The simple truth is that if we vote to expand this foreign aid program, that money either has to come from withdrawing other eastern European nations from the Partnership for Peace, coming back to expand overall foreign aid money, or taking it from current recipients, most notably the biggest recipients, the Russian program, the Israeli program, or the Egyptian program. Indeed, those countries could not possibly be unaffected if we are to mandate this foreign aid program because there are no other sources. I find myself, Mr. Chairman, in a peculiar position. Having served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs all these years, I have come to this floor previously to argue for foreign aid, for poor nations, for nations with security problems, for nations working with the United States on a bilateral basis for our own defense, but considering our other budgetary problems and the other needs before this Congress, our domestic priorities, I cannot argue that we should add any nation on a mandatory basis for American foreign aid. My amendment would simply allow the administration to look at each of these countries, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, gauge the strengths of their democracies, the liberalization of their economies, what they are doing for their own security needs, and then make a determination whether or not we want to expand our military assistance. It is a discretion that makes sense. Indeed, in the underlying legislation, on page 68 and page 69, this is exactly the formula that the authors use for expanding this to other countries beyond the four I just mentioned. They would gauge the progress of democracy in those countries, Ukraine, Baltics. That is what we should do for these. Indeed, frankly I think of no better evidence than of the four countries mandated for an expansion of military aid, two of them are now led by former communists. One has an authoritative government. All have declining defense budgets. So the majority would have us have a mandated foreign aid program for countries led by two former communists? Where they themselves are decreasing their defense spending? With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, who is doing the thinking here? This cannot make any sense. Let us work together with the administration to determine whether or not they are making progress, and they should be brought into the program. There are times, Mr. Chairman, when this Congress feels so strongly and the merits are so overwhelming for foreign assistance programs in our security needs that this Congress should mandate, and we do, for Israel, for Egypt. But if I might paraphrase the words of former Senator Bentsen, Slovakia is no Israel. There is no need at this point to write into the law this which in my judgment is the largest expansion in terms of naming the countries involved with American foreign aid in my memory. I cannot believe that any Member of this institution wants to go home this evening, meet their constituents on the streets and say to them, ``You can be proud. I recognized our needs. I just voted to on a mandatory basis add four countries to the American foreign aid program.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.