[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4428-H4429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           CALL FOR CLARIFICATION OF ETHICS COMMITTEE'S RULES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no designee of the majority 
leader, under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 1995, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] is recognized for 60 minutes 
as the designee of the minority leader.
  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, 
[[Page H4429]]  the intelligence community's sense of responsibility, 
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?

                              {time}  1145

  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.




                          ____________________