[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5415-H5423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2115
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 538
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. When the reading for amendment reaches
title VIII, that title shall be considered as read. Points of
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page
74, line 19, through page 75, line 4; page 84, line 21,
through page 96, line 4. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 513 is laid on the table.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 538 is an open rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. Further, the rule waives points of order
against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI, except as specified in the rule.
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord
priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments
in the Congressional Record, and further, it allows the Chairman to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 513 is laid on the
table.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this open rule which provides
for the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2001. The primary difference between this rule and the one
reported by our committee last month, House Resolution 513, is the
removal of the amendment which would have offset funds provided for
relief to apple and potato farmers. Due to the reallocation of funds by
the Committee on Appropriations, which now keeps this funding within
the subcommittee's budget limits, the offset amendment is no longer
necessary.
A substantive legislative provision which constitutes a change in
current law has been exposed to a point of order by this rule, title
VIII of the bill, a provision which would, in my view, undermine U.S.
foreign policy goals with regard to terrorist states by eliminating
restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities to the terrorist
states, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why the House rules preclude major changes in
substantive legislative policy on appropriations bills is that the
appropriations process has hearings and is set up for deliberation on
appropriations issues, while the authorizing process, the authorizing
committees, have hearings on major legislative policy changes, and they
are set up to concentrate on and improve major, substantive legislative
policy proposals.
I think that an example of why the House has this rule is in fact
before us today. My friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt), included an amendment in the appropriations bill, as I
mentioned, to end restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities
to rogue regimes. The legislation allegedly precluded exports from the
terrorist states to the United States, and prohibited Federal financing
of sales to those States.
After reviewing the legislation carefully, however, the Congressional
Research Service, for example, informed my office that that is not
necessarily correct. It was not clear, for example, that exports to the
United States from the terrorist states would be precluded, and
secondly, with regard to Federal financing, at least one significant
credit program would have become available to any of those rogue
regimes if the administration simply deleted them from the State
Department terrorist list; something, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that the
administration has admitted it is considering doing with a number of
terrorist states, despite the fact that some of these States have
recently carried out the murders of United States citizens.
In fact, only last week Secretary of State Albright tinkered with the
terminology by declaring that the terrorist states are no longer rogue
states, but rather, states of concern. It is obvious that various or
all of these terrorist regimes will soon be taken off the terrorist
list by the current administration.
I informed my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt),
of these concerns. But in the appropriations process, we simply cannot
amend this legislation pursuant to and after the necessary study to
make certain that we are not doing what even the legislation's
proponents do not wish to do.
In addition, in my view, the timing of the legislation offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has been unfortunate. We are
dealing here with states that have engaged in acts of terrorism against
Americans in recent years. We are
[[Page H5416]]
dealing with states against which American victims of terrorism, their
surviving family members, have obtained judgments in the Federal courts
under the Antiterrorism Act of 1996 for the murders of their family
members by those terrorist regimes.
We are dealing with regimes which harbor murderers, terrorists, drug
dealers, and other fugitives from United States justice. We are dealing
with the terrible message that we would be sending, for example, to the
regime in Iran if we were to pass the legislation as is, the
legislation which is left exposed to a point of order by this rule.
In a letter just a few days ago by, for example, the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee, the timing of this legislative language, the
unfortunate timing of the language, was made clear.
The letter reads, ``We have serious concerns regarding the Nethercutt
language. Our concerns center on the changes in U.S. export policy
towards Iran that the legislation would require, changes which we
believe are unjustified. Such changes would be particularly untimely,
coming at the very time that the government of Iran is engaged in a
major show trial of 13 Iranian Jews. We are deeply troubled by the
direction that trial is taking. Any action taken to help Iran at this
moment would send exactly the wrong message to the Iranian regime,
particularly coming on the heels of the outrageous decision last month
by the World Bank to proceed with new loans to Iran. Now is the wrong
time to be seen as helping Iran.''
Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more serious than simply the
purported attempt to open some markets for American food products. We
must remember that the ingredients, for example, in the deadly car
bombs which killed hundreds of our brave troops in Beirut, or the
Oklahoma City car bombing, ingredients from fertilizers to other
chemicals, also in the opinion of experts may fall within the
definition of ``agricultural commodities'' which would become available
to terrorist states.
If the language were to become law as it passed out of the Committee
on Appropriations, the only option available to a United States
president to counter the development of chemical or biological weapons
by a terrorist state in effect would be military action. In other
words, Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more complicated and serious
than it seems at first glance.
The Committee on Rules did its duty pursuant to House rules in
exposing the language to a point of order in this rule. The issue will,
under the rule, certainly be open for resolution in conference. I am
pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise on the Nethercutt
language which I believe contains some improvements over current law.
However, in this particular bill today, the agriculture
appropriations bill, that original language is subject to a point of
order. I support wholeheartedly including the compromise language in
either the conference report on this bill or another legislative
vehicle to get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, but to
get to that stage, Mr. Speaker, we must first pass the open rule that
is before the House this evening.
This is a fair rule, and I ask for all of my colleagues' support for
it today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has come to the floor through such a
convoluted, twisted process I am surprised that it is here at all.
Mr. Speaker, this all started 2 months ago when an amendment to lift
the American embargo on food and medicine to five countries passed the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, and later the full Committee on
Appropriations as part of the agriculture appropriations bill. That
amendment would have ended the horrible United States policy of denying
people food and medicine just because we disagree with that country's
leaders.
{time} 2130
This was a great step forward, Mr. Speaker. Not only for American
farmers, but also for the residents of Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Sudan,
and Iran.
But evidently, the Miami Cuban community got wind of it and started
their powerful lobbying wheels turning; and by the time the bill came
to the Committee on Rules, the embargo-lifting amendment that was
approved by the majority of the committee had been exposed to points of
order which meant it was essentially dead on arrival.
When word got out, the American people were horrified to learn that
the decision of the majority of the Committee on Appropriations had
been subverted and the Congress was forced to continue its ill-advised
debacle. So the rule sat around for weeks and weeks waiting for some
sort of resolution.
Late yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it became official. The Miami community
is more powerful than the American farmers. The Miami community is more
powerful than the majority of the Congress. At 2 a.m. this morning, the
Committee on Rules met to do a new agricultural appropriations rule.
This one delivered a fatal blow to the amendment lifting the embargo.
Apparently, some supporters of the bill were bought off with the
promise that the food and medicine amendment would come up later in a
different form, in a milder form that makes it nearly impossible for
American farmers to sell even one kernel of corn to the hungry Cuban
families. But at this point, we have not even seen the new amendment,
so we really cannot be sure.
Mr. Speaker, when the amendment is finally unveiled, if the rumors
are true, American farmers will be able to sell to Libya, the 15
million people at risk of starving in Sudan, and the 25 million
starving people in North Korea. However, that will not be tonight,
thanks to this rule which takes the embargo out of the agriculture
bill.
So the House, Mr. Speaker, will not have the chance to vote up or
down on the momentous issue of ending the embargo. Instead, the end of
the embargo will probably be rolled into another bill, and the House
once again will be denied a separate vote.
Mr. Speaker, there should be a separate vote on ending the embargo. I
think that vote should be on this bill. I have been to Cuba. I have
seen the suffering to which our embargo has contributed. Three years
ago, I met a little boy in a pediatric hospital. I will never forget
that sight as he lay in his hospital bed in Cuba. The 3-year-old had a
respiratory disorder that is widely treated here in the United States
with a simple plastic shunt. But because the shunt was made in the
United States, it was prohibited from entering Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, that little boy spent 86 days in intensive care, lost a
lung, nearly died. By the time we met him, he was lying in a hospital
bed covered with tubes and barely breathing. And all he needed, Mr.
Speaker, was a little piece of plastic, very available, just 90 miles
away in Miami. I carry that image of the boy to this day because
politics kept him in that bed when he should have been outside playing
ball.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that despite what people say,
Castro will always have the best steaks. Castro will always have the
best wines. Castro will always have whatever he wants, no matter what
we do here today or tomorrow. But for the rest of the Cuban people, it
is a very different story.
My Republican colleagues have erected a number of hurdles making it
close to impossible for children in Cuba to get their food and medicine
in a straightforward fashion. See, people view these situations very
differently, Mr. Speaker. When some people think of lifting the
embargo, they see Castro's face. When I think of lifting the embargo, I
see that little boy's face in that pediatric hospital.
We are not arguing for normal trade with these countries. We are not
trying to send them sneakers or CDs or VCRs or television sets. We are
arguing for simple human decency, and I should think that all of my
colleagues would want to support that with no strings attached.
Mr. Speaker, the embargo may have been right 40 years ago, 39 years
ago, 38 years ago, or whatever. But it just did not work, and all it
does is hurt people. It hurts children. I think we should end it with
this bill. So I hope that this rule is defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5417]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I vigorously, obviously, disagree with the merits of
what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has just said. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has a number of others who are here ready
to speak and consistently come forth with subterfuges to hide their
support for a brutal regime that has maintained itself for 40 years.
He has a right, and they have a right, to admire and to support that
regime. But I will not accept from the gentleman . . . There is no
community in this United States, sir, that would accept a Member of
Congress getting up and saying, like you have said, ``the Miami
community got word of it.'' No community. No community in the United
States. No ethnic community in the United States would accept that,
whether it is the Boston Irish community or any community in any city,
and I do not accept it.
And you owe, sir--you can have all the views you wish, but you owe an
apology to that community in South Florida . . .
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) be taken down. The gentleman has accused the
gentleman from Massachusetts of making an ethnic slur.
The gentleman referred to a city. The gentleman, to my knowledge,
made no ethnic slur, whatsoever; and I think it is the gentleman from
Florida who owes the gentleman from Massachusetts an apology.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman will be seated,
the Clerk will report the words and then the Chair will be prepared to
rule.
{time} 2145
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Do we have an
opportunity to be heard before the Chair makes a decision?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Perhaps at a later point.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
words with regard to the attribution of ethnic slur.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding to me.
I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, with some concern about this rule, but
with a commitment to vote for it. I will vote for it, not because I am
happy that the provision that I had worked so hard to get into the
appropriations bill will not be protected, but because of the very
strong commitment I have received from the House leadership to make
certain that the agreement that has been reached between the gentleman
from Florida, (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) is one that I believe is in the best interest of the
country and I believe is in the best interest of moving the agriculture
appropriations bill forward and completing our appropriations process.
I have been working on this issue of lifting sanctions on food and
medicine to the countries that our Nation unilaterally sanctions for 3
years. It is a turnaround in my thinking, because I came to Congress in
1995 thinking that unilateral embargoes on food and medicine are in the
best interest of our Nation. But I have changed my view.
I have changed my view because I do not believe that food and
medicine should be used as weapons in foreign policy against
governments or people, I should say, that we disagree with around the
world. We disagree with the leadership of Fidel Castro. We disagree
with the leadership of other countries that are terrorist in nature.
But we must have some compassion and some feeling for the people that
reside within those countries.
That is what my amendment was designed to accomplish was to yield our
sanctions policy such that we help people and still oppose dictator
governments around the world.
I wanted to say here that I have great respect for the passion with
which my friends from Florida expressed their views on this issue. I
know they care deeply about this policy. We disagree on policy. We are
friends. I have great personal respect for them and anybody else who
disagrees with me on this policy. But I feel this is the right policy
for agriculture. It is the right humanitarian policy for our Nation.
So faced again this year with the potential for having no relief on
the policy of sanctions that have been imposed unilaterally by this
country on food and medicine, I felt we had to sit down and negotiate
some agreement that may not be perfect. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, I
do not believe this is a perfect agreement; but I believe it is a
workable and valid and helpful agreement as we seek to lift sanctions
on food and medicine for people of the world and give Congress a chance
to be a part of that sanctions relief. Not just the President imposing
it, but having the Congress have some help as well in trying to
implement this policy.
It was my expectation, and is, that this measure, this agreement that
has been reached, and it is a commitment by our leadership, by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies, and the leadership of the House that it would be put
on the military construction supplemental bill today or tomorrow, that
is still my hope, so that we can have a chance to vote for this.
But in lieu of that, I have the commitment that it will go on the
Agriculture Appropriations bill in conference, and I will be a
conferee, and there will be other conferees as well who feel that this
agreement is a fair one.
It is not a perfect one. But if we do not implement this agreement,
then I fear that we have no agreement, and the policy to lift sanctions
on food and medicine will die for another year, and that is wrong. That
is wrong for the people of the world who need food and medicine.
So I would just say to my friends on the other side, and they are my
friends in this fight, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), many, many Democrats who
worked with us on this issue, it is not what we want completely, but it
is an open door, a change in policy for the first time in 38 years, and
more with respect to our policy of unilaterally sanctioning people of
the world on food and medicine.
It is not perfect, but it is evolving. I think, if we do nothing, we
implement and keep that policy as it has always been. I think that is
wrong for the world. It is wrong for American farmers. It is wrong for
American humanitarian groups.
So I just conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I know
that there is criticism of this agreement, but it is workable. It is
going to accomplish the objective that all of us who feel that
sanctions imposition is wrong. It will lift them. It is a start, and I
think it is in the best interest of the Nation.
So I am going to vote for this rule, and I am going to vote for the
bill. I am going to fight my heart out along with my colleagues who
feel strongly as I do that this is the right policy to lift these
sanctions on food and medicine to make sure that it becomes law.
The President mentioned it today in his press conference. I think we
are very, very close to getting the White House to agree to this. It is
not perfect, but we are working hard to get to this result.
So I know there are Members who want to vote no, and that is their
right. But I am going to vote yes because I have faith that the
commitment that has been made to me on this issue and this subject will
be met.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that, at the end of a
daffy day we should be discussing a daffy deal on a daffy rule that
will bring a daffy bill to the floor.
[[Page H5418]]
Let me first say that I am mystified by the way the leadership of the
House is proceeding on this. My understanding of the way one is
supposed to use the legislative body is that the committees are
supposed to make their recommendations to the full House. Then the
leadership is supposed to use the House as the vehicle that makes
decisions by determining what the majority view is.
That is the way we work out most of our differences out here. We
bring our differences to the floor. We have an honest debate about
them, and then we vote, and we see who wins and who loses.
The problem that we are running into in this session is that, time
and time again, when committees make recommendations that the
leadership worries about, they then proceed to try to twist the rules
to prevent the House from working out our differences by preventing us
from even voting on them. This is another such case tonight.
What is happening tonight is that the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) offered a proposal which I and many others supported on
both sides of the aisle which would not make American farmers who are
suffering record low prices the first victims of foreign policy
decisions. That is a controversial action taken by the gentleman and
taken by us. But now we are told that a deal has been struck.
{time} 2200
Well, let me describe what that deal is, because I think what the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is buying to take home to
his farmers is a bushel basket with no bottom. It is empty.
What has happened is that the language which was adopted by a
majority in the committee was not protected by the Committee on Rules,
and so that language is now going to be stricken on a point of order on
this bill in return for a promise that maybe it will be attached to the
supplemental bill. The problem is that at this point all four major
conferees, Senator Stevens, myself, Senator Byrd, and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), have been made to understand that it is going
to be almost impossible to attach that provision to the supplemental
because of Senate rules.
As I understand it, if that proposal is attached to a supplemental,
it then becomes subject to a point of order under Senate rules. And
Senator Dodd has already promised that if that language is attached to
the supplemental, he will force the Senate to read word by word the
entire bill, and that takes us to about next Wednesday. So we can be
celebrating July 4th here in the Capitol. That is what happens if this
is transferred to the supplemental bill.
So what we have is the gentleman from Washington buying a deal that
allows him to possibly transfer this debate to a bill which will go
nowhere if this provision is attached to it. That is not going to help
a single farmer in America. So I think he bought a very bad deal.
I also think that it puts in jeopardy the passage of the
supplemental. Now, I have opposed most of the items in the
supplemental. I am deeply opposed to what that supplemental provides
for aid to Colombia, for instance. I agree with Senator Stevens that
that is likely to get us into a protracted war. I hope I am wrong. I
have been wrong many times before; I hope this is another time. But the
problem is that if we attach this provision to that bill, we will have
instant controversy; and it will mean that we put at risk the passage
of that supplemental. And if we put at risk the passage of that
supplemental, the U.S. Army begins to have some real problems because
of their drawdowns.
So I do not understand why on earth the House is proceeding this way.
If I were the House leadership, I would not even be bringing up this
rule tonight because I would not want to put myself in a box
foreclosing the possible use of this vehicle for the Nethercutt
language. By adopting this rule tonight, we lock the House into a
position where they have to either attach this to the supplemental or
not. And if we attach it to the supplemental, we create a 50-50 chance
that the supplemental is dead as the Dodo bird.
Now, I do not think that moves legislation forward; and it confuses
me, as someone who is trying to cooperate to help pass that
supplemental, because I have lost at battles, but it is still my duty
to try to help the House complete its business in conference.
So in addition to that, there are a number of other problems with
this rule, and there are a lot of problems with the underlying bill
which I do not have time to get into, including the fact that it
shortchanges antitrust, shortchanges food safety, shortchanges the
budget for pest and disease control and for agriculture conservation
practices. So at this point I am forced to declare my opposition to the
bill, to the underlying bill, and to the rule itself.
I would urge the leadership of the House not to put at risk the
passage of the supplemental, because the Pentagon needs that too badly,
and they are going to have to begin to do a lot of things which are
going to embarrass the Congress as an institution if that supplemental
cannot pass.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, before yielding to my distinguished friend from Missouri. I
think that we, in the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin, saw an
example of where we have significant disagreements, but the
disagreements have been stated in a respectful way and not in a way
that, certainly as before, I considered personally offensive. So I want
to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for that.
As the gentleman from Washington stated previously, a number of us
have had very significant and strong disagreements, but I think in a
frank and respectful way we have been able to come to an agreement that
improves on current law and that is in the national interest of the
United States, protecting this country from business transactions which
may accrue to the benefit of terrorist states. And I think that in the
agreement that we have achieved that is accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Emerson), an individual who has been a formidable negotiator, who has
been very strong in her views and has demonstrated great leadership in
bringing forth what she believes in, and who I have had disagreements
with. I wish to publicly recognize the seriousness and the
forthrightness with which she addresses issues such as this.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for those kind words.
I want to say for the record that I hate this rule. I hate the fact
that all of us have worked so hard and passed something that would mean
a great deal to the American farmer, and still will mean a great deal
to the farmer; but I have to say, too, that it is important to move to
process forward.
Let me just digress for a minute here. This evening the Faith &
Politics Institute held the first-ever Bill Emerson-Walter Capps
Civility Lecture Series, and we asked George Mitchell to come and
address the group tonight to talk about the peace process in Ireland.
He was incredible and so eloquent, and he talked about how it took a
year and a half, a year and a half, before he got any movement at all.
He sat in a room that long.
Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has done a
magnificent job talking and working hard on this issue, as have the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), as well as all of our Democratic friends.
There is so much passion about this, as there was so much passion with
the British and the Irish in those rooms with Senator Mitchell. And he
got them to move forward, as they did. Not in a perfect sense
whatsoever, because it took a year and a half.
We have spent maybe tens of hours talking, and we have gotten a
compromise that gives something to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), and
it gives an awful lot to our American farmers. It is not perfect, but
it cracks the door open. And if we can just crack the door open a
little bit, other things will follow.
So as much as I would love to vote against this rule, I am not going
to do that because I think it is more important to not only follow
through on our commitment, that when we give our
[[Page H5419]]
word, as the Speaker and the leadership have given their word to us, we
will in turn give our word to them that that is the most important
thing and that this will happen.
I would ask my colleagues who are not as happy about this to remember
that little baby steps make a big difference in the long run, and that
while we cannot get everything we want today, it does not mean that we
will not tomorrow.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
I do not think I have ever risen in opposition to a rule for an
agriculture appropriations measure coming out of our subcommittee, but
indeed I must do so this evening, mainly because we have to look at
this bill in the broader context of what is happening in rural America.
The only chances we have to help are this bill and the related
supplemental bill, which was to have had funding in it for agriculture.
Unfortunately, the members of our committee have essentially been
defanged. We have not been allowed to participate in conference
committees occurring on the supplemental bill. This particular bill is
$400 million below what was spent in the year of 2000. It is $1.6
billion below what the administration asked for to meet these historic
low prices that our farmers are struggling with, the drought problems
we are having and the disaster problems. In my part of America, farmers
cannot even get tractors into the field because of the water. So the
bill is not adequate.
We had pinned our hopes on the supplemental. We had proposed to try
to level the playing field of the $400 million that is short in this
bill compared to last year's spending and put it in the supplemental.
This evening we find out that the conferees, who did not include
anybody on the committee but essentially four people negotiating, the
leaders in both Houses, absolutely did not consult with any of the
other conferees that were supposedly appointed.
My colleagues might remember that last year the leadership decided
that they were going to appoint conferees, and then the conferees met
and they were dismissed. Well, this year they appointed conferees and
we never met. And so now we face this bill which so underfund our
programs.
In fact, we will not have enough people in the field, technical
assistance for natural resource and conservation service to give
farmers to apply for the programs to keep their noses above water. Our
rural development programs will be $200 million under. Our pest and
disease programs $40 million under for citrus canker for tree
replacement in States like Florida, all of the different plum pox
problems in Pennsylvania, and so forth. The FDA lab in Los Angeles is
canceled in the supplemental; the renovations to the building here in
Washington; the money that we need to move people into the new FDA
facility in College Park.
This bill is absolutely linked to the supplemental, and this evening
we learned that that supplemental is completely inadequate and we have
absolutely been divested of our authority as duly elected Members of
this House. So I would have to say to the Members to vote ``no'' on
this rule. It is our only way to send a message to the leadership of
this Chamber that the Members need to be involved at the table.
I would just urge the membership on both sides of the aisle to
restore the powers to the subcommittees. No subcommittee likes to be
treated in this way. No committee likes to be treated in this way. Vote
``no'' on this rule and allow us to bring a bill to the floor that
reflects the will of the majority of the members of the committee.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on
International Relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I would hope that our colleagues would support the rule tonight. The
compromise that has been discussed previously on the floor, I believe,
represents a well-balanced approach to a very difficult and thorny and
delicate issue that I know is very important to everyone here.
I think it is a well-crafted compromise. Certainly not a perfect
vehicle, like many negotiations that end up with a document that is not
perfect for either side. But I want to thank tonight the individuals
who participated in the many hours of difficult negotiations, starting
with our good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt);
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations;
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who was really the person
who helped us reach this compromise.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I have been working,
as all of my colleagues know, for many years on the issue of freedom
for Cuba. We were both born in Cuba, came here to the United States
young. We know what it is like to live under a Communist regime, and
the districts that we represent, although not homogeneous, certainly
heterogeneous districts, but the people, many of whom we represent, are
in similar situations.
{time} 2215
They lost what little they had in Cuba. And I am not talking about
material possessions. I am talking about freedom, democracy, liberty,
justice. And so, when we hear in this Chamber and we talk about
negotiations with a communist regime, the political is the personal and
the personal is the political for us. We thank the Republican
leadership for their help in getting us to this point.
A credible case perhaps could be made that in other dictatorships
throughout the world there has been a semblance of reform and a
semblance of change, and perhaps that is why this body has in other
bills voted to have trading relations with those dictatorships. I have
not been on that list, but a credible case could be made for some
market reforms in other countries.
But what reforms have taken place in Castro's Cuba in these 41 years
of tyranny and dictatorship? They are no closer to freer elections.
There have not been any free elections in Castro's Cuba for 41 years.
The violations of human rights continue to this very day. While we are
here discussing this issue, dissidents are being rounded up and thrown
in jail, opposition leaders are persecuted and prosecuted, people of
religious faith who want to practice their religion are also rounded up
and thrown in jail on bogus charges, child prostitution continues to be
the order of the day. And we wink and nod and continue to believe that
we could have faith in such a regime.
In fact, foreign firms who go to Cuba to do business, by law, are not
allowed to pay the worker directly. They must pay Fidel Castro in
dollars, and Castro then pays the worker in actually worthless pesos.
The Cuban worker is a slave. And those who deal with business with the
Castro dictatorship, they are here to talk against slavery. In the
United States, of course we would abhor that. But yet, slavery is the
norm of the day in Cuba, and we are supposed to accept that because we
have a global marketplace and everything is all right.
Everything is not all right in Castro's Cuba, and that is why my
family came to the United States. That is why so many hundreds and
thousands of Cubans die trying to come to the United States. And thank
God that there is this wonderful country where people with very
dissimilar views can come together and fashion a compromise because we
have democracy, because we have discussions, and because we have an
open system.
So I hope that, in celebration of that open system, our colleagues
would accept the compromise. I thank the Republican leadership and so
many on the other side who have helped us to get to this point. I hope
that we adopt the rule tonight, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
[[Page H5420]]
I believe the original provision authored by the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to lift sanctions on food and medicine
deserves a real debate and should not be stripped out of this bill on a
point of order.
This language, which is so far past the test of democratic debate, is
going to disappear. It will be replaced by language worked out in back
rooms by a handful of people. That deal will come before the House
attached to some conference report or another in a way that denies
amendment and debate.
Why? Because a small group of Members has, in my opinion, a
counterproductive obsession with Cuba. They appear to be determined to
smother all debate, choke off free speech, undermine our democratic
legislative process so that no measure that might affect U.S.-Cuba
policy, even one as modest and as reasonable as the original provision
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), will ever see the
light of day.
They are afraid of what might happen should the House be allowed to
work its will. They are afraid of the democratic process of free, fair,
and open debate.
Ironically, what we are witnessing today on the floor of this House
is something we would expect to see in Cuba and not in the United
States of America. No one knows what the outcome might be if there was
a fair vote to limit sanctions on food and medicine to Cuba and these
other countries. It might win or it might lose. But I do know we should
not be afraid to find out. I do know it deserves a debate and a vote. I
should add, that is what makes our country so wonderfully unique.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) for his leadership and the bravery that he has shown on
this issue. He has forced his leadership to take a step in the right
direction. I know he has agitated them to no end, so I respect him very
much.
But I cannot accept this deal. It is full of ugly and gratuitous
measures that continue to put a wall between Americans and the people
of Cuba. The financing of sales of food and medicine and medical
devices to Cuba is far more restrictive than the other countries.
And who does it hurt? It hurts small- and medium-size American
farmers, American pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical
devices by making sales of food and medicine to Cuba as difficult as
possible.
It also shuts down the possibility of increased travel by American
citizens to Cuba, which is something that dissidents of Cuba have urged
more of.
Mr. Speaker, we in the House will not be allowed to debate this back-
room deal. We will not be allowed to amendment it or vote on it. We
will not be able to exercise our democratic rights.
If my colleagues care about freedom and democracy not only in Cuba
but in the United States House of Representatives, I urge my colleagues
to oppose this rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement made by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who just spoke, no, there is no comparison
between what is going on here this evening and what goes on in Castro's
Cuba.
I wish that I could show the gentleman a card that I carry with me
from a political prisoner. He snuck it out of prison and sent it to me.
I wish I could show it to him. I will not because making public his
name would cost him, in all likelihood, his life.
That political prisoner is in a gulag because of an opinion, a
belief. No, there is no comparison between what is going on this
evening here and what goes on in Castro's Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, a gentleman who has been in Cuba many times.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, young Elian Gonzalez finally got back home
to Cuba with his dad. I really think that this young man has, more than
any one thing in recent history, caused the American people to focus on
Cuba.
I think the worst indictment that I can make about the deals that are
being cut in the Committee on Appropriations is that most Americans
really do not care, they do not care about Cuba, and anybody that wants
to cut a deal, cut a deal, if it does not pass in the House, it will
pass in the conference. What arrogance, our foreign policy, our trade
policy is going to be because half a dozen people got together and
decided what makes them feel good. They are going to determine who the
dictators are and how foreign nationals are being treated.
What happened to the old-fashioned way where we used to have
hearings, we used to have witnesses, we used to have votes on the
floor? I have never heard a deal being bragged about so openly. But,
fortunately, this little Elian has been able to show America that some
people are more concerned by the passionate dislike of who runs Cuba
than what is in the best interest of the United States of America, what
is in the best interest of our farmers, what is in the best interest of
our trade, and they can cut a deal.
If I had known this, why would I work so hard on permanent trade
relations with China? I would have gone to the Committee on
Appropriations and picked half a dozen people. The way to do these
things is go to the Committee on Appropriations and say, hey, can we
cut a deal? Let us send some food and technology to these Communist
Chinese, forgetting what kind of government they have, and run it out
to conference if they do not like what happens in the House.
We cannot say that we have such passion in our heart that we distort
what this institution is about. Today if we do it for Cuba, who is
going to pick the next country that we have a dislike for?
And it is insulting to say that Americans cannot travel to Cuba.
Americans should be able to travel any place that we want because we
are the best ambassadors ever for this great country. And I refuse to
believe that Castro and those little Communists can influence us. The
truth of the matter is we should be influencing them with our American
flag, with our know-how, with our productivity and being able to say we
are not afraid of their incompetent government.
But if my colleagues think the way to do it is to cut a deal and say,
do not talk to anybody, do not trade with anybody, use food, use
medicine as a tool to show how much we dislike their form of
government, how many forms of government do we dislike where deals are
cut? The Communists in North Korea? The Communists in Vietnam? The
Communists in Red China? No deals are being cut for those Communists.
But we have to have a special deal, our farmers have to suffer, our
exporters have to suffer, our tourism has to suffer, and Americans have
the indignation to know that they are not trusted because a handful of
people want to cut a deal and restrict the President of the United
States from being able to determine who visits what.
Well, I hope this deal thing is not that contagious. I hope it is
contained. I hope that maybe the other House does not allow this thing
to spread over there to say that we will vote on this rule because we
know ahead of time what the law is going to be.
Shame.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that once, just once, the colleagues who get up
and with such passion, and the word ``passion'' has been used so often
this evening, talk about their objection to financing and credits and
trade with that brutal dictatorship that has oppressed a noble people,
our closest neighbors, for 41 years. Just once I wish, Mr. Speaker,
that they would come and demand and ask for free elections, the rule of
law, the liberation of the political prisoners, including the political
prisoner who had the courage to sneak out a card to send me.
What is wrong about demanding, just once the liberation of those
people in a gulag rotting away because of their belief and support for
the rule of law and for democracy?
Why not ask for the legalization of political parties and labor
unions and
[[Page H5421]]
the press, the press that has the freedom in this country and in so
many other countries in the world to cover what we say without
censorship?
Never, Mr. Speaker, never do we hear any of these colleagues who come
and defend with such passion that dictatorship 41 years in power. Not
even when I was away, not even once have we heard them come and demand
the rule of law in elections.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been in Congress, I
have worked to lift sanctions against Cuba. One hundred, sixty-seven
Members from both sides have cosponsored H.R. 1644, my legislation, to
lift the embargo on the sale of food and medicine without restrictions.
I and many others of my colleagues applauded the efforts of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to include other countries
in the removal of sanctions on food and medicine.
Unfortunately, this agreement is the result of negotiations that took
place without the participation of many of the people deeply involved
in this issue over a long period of time. However, the good news is
that a door has been opened that will never, ever close again.
{time} 2230
Elian Gonzalez, who left today, helped us to put aside some of the
hate in Miami and to move forward. We will keep pushing that door and
that door until it falls and it opens forever. When Juan Miguel
Gonzalez stood at the airport today and looked at the American people
and in both English and Spanish said thank you for giving my child back
to me, thank you for having your system work on my behalf, and try to
work with each other so that we can have better relations in the
future, Juan Miguel had no understanding, I am sure, the legacy that he
and his little boy have left behind.
This door is open, and it will never, ever close again. We will trade
with Cuba as much as we can now, and we will lift the embargo soon.
People can stand here and accuse people of being bad Americans and
supporters of the Castro regime. I am a supporter of Juan Miguel
Gonzalez. I am a supporter of Elian Gonzalez. I am a supporter of
children in Cuba who have never harmed my child; and their father, this
Congressman, should not harm them at all.
The bad news is that this was a back room deal that is going to be
hard in some cases to enforce. The good news is that we have 170 people
over here that are going to stay on the State Department, Treasury
Department, the administration, joining Members from the other side, to
make sure that every possible opening in that door works to our
advantage and to the advantage of the Cuban people.
It is over. It is over. Mark it on the calendar. The day Elian left,
he took with him the sickness of the embargo and he threw it away at
sea. Elian's tragedy is going to be our sanity, because starting today
we will do what is right and some day when that little boy grows up
some reporter will go to him and say, do you know that you played a
role in these two people coming together? And he will know what
happened, and his father, that 31-year-old articulate, direct, but
compassionate man, who had the courage and the strength to say I will
wait the system out, if they had taken my child, I would not have been
the diplomat that he was.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, recently this House passed significant
legislation to open up trade with China, a Communist nation, in direct
contradiction to the policy we established with that bill and to the
policy established in H.R. 4461, the agricultural appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2001. This rule will limit our efforts to allow limited
trade with Cuba and several other nations.
Let me hasten to add that the sanctions that would be lifted by the
agricultural appropriations would be related to food and medicine, a
very limited trade but yet significant. Our American farmers would
welcome this trade opportunity.
Putting aside it is bad policy to use food and medicine as political
leverage, this House, by a substantial margin, engaged with China
trade, which is in the right direction, rather than isolation. We
should do that for Cuba. Why not trade with Cuba? Cuba is only a few
miles away; and China indeed is many, many thousands of miles away.
This rule is a bad rule.
Mr. Speaker, recently, this House passed significant legislation,
designed to open up trade with China--a communist Nation.
In direct contravention to the policy we established with that Bill
and to the policy embodied in H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations
Bill for Fiscal Year 2001, this rule limited our effort to allow
limited trade with Cuba and several other nations.
Under this Rule, the provisions in the Agriculture Appropriations
Bill that would lift current economic sanctions against Cuba, Libya,
North Korea, Iraq and Sudan, would be subject to a point of order.
That means that one Member of this House--for any reason or for no
reason--will have the ability, the power to overturn the policy trend
of trading with other nations, notwithstanding their governmental
structures.
Let me hasten to add that the sanctions that would be lifted by the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill would relate only to food and medicine,
a very limited trade policy. Our American farmers would welcome this
trade opportunity.
Putting aside the fact that it is bad policy to use food and medicine
as political leverage, this House, by a substantial margin, voted to
engage China in trade, rather than pursue isolation.
We are willing to trade with China.
Why not Cuba?
China is thousands of miles away.
Cuba is a stones throw away.
Under this Rule, points of order against legislating on an
appropriations bill are waived generally.
However, several provisions are specifically left without waivers.
Those unprotected provisions include Title Eight of the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill, and that Title consists of the ``Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.''
If Title Eight remains in the Bill, the President could not impose
sanctions against Cuba and the other countries, unless Congress
consents.
It seems to me that such a process provides adequate oversight, in
the event our Government finds it prudent to sanction one of these so-
called ``rogue'' nations.
Mr. Speaker, we can well expect that the food and medicine trade
provisions of this Bill will be struck.
Similar provisions were struck from the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill.
I understand that some Members feel strongly about the practices of
those governments in Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iraq and the Sudan.
I too feel strongly about some of their practices.
But, this House took a bold step recently, an historic step.
Why then today, should one Member, for good reason or bad, be able to
reverse that step, change that policy position?
There is no good answer, Mr. Speaker.
I urge my colleagues to stand for consistency in our foreign policy--
Reject this Rule!
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
It does not protect a decision that was made by members of the
Committee on Appropriations to take vital steps towards sanction
reform, to lift the ban on food and medicine to innocent citizens of
the Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Iran and, yes, Cuba. I worked hard,
along with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey),
along with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Emerson), to work to make sure that we could lift these sanctions
to be able to help American farmers, to be able to sell their products
abroad, because they are suffering from low prices today.
This rule ignores what we did, two votes in the subcommittee and in
the full committee. Let me say, while we worked hard with our
colleagues, we were not, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and
I, included in the deal, in the negotiations. This is
[[Page H5422]]
not a compromise. It is a capitulation. That is what this is about.
The Republican leadership has made a promise that sanction reform is
going to be attached to some other future legislative vehicle, but that
vehicle remains a mystery. We are going to leave sanction reform by the
wayside. There is too much at stake for our farmers, and our foreign
policy should not punish people who suffer under repressive regimes.
These unilateral agricultural sanctions hurt the most vulnerable in
target nations. Imagine, my God, food and medicine we want to deny to
people. Who are we, for God's sakes?
Just 2 weeks ago in this body, or several weeks ago, we talked about
permanent trade relations with China; and we said that China that
abuses human rights, that pirates our intellectual properties, that
proliferates nuclear warfare, is all right but Cuba is not. It is
mindless. It is absolutely mindless and disingenuous. Vote against this
rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) has 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rule about the agricultural appropriations
bill. The underlying bill is about America. It is about its land and
its people. It is about the farmers that grow our food. It is about how
we treat that food, how we deliver it, how we give it to poor people,
how we give it to the school lunch program, school breakfast program,
how we give it to women and infants, how we deal with poverty in
America. That is what this bill is about.
The people who produce that food came to this committee and they
said, why can we not sell that food and sell our medicines to other
countries? Why do we have sanctions against the products that we do
such a good job in raising? Why do we not lift those embargoes that we
have created in our country, embargoes against Sudan, against Libya,
against North Korea, against Iran and, yes, against Cuba?
Yes, these countries have been problem countries; but we have never,
as the richest, most powerful Nation in the world, used the food as a
weapon to hurt women and children.
So this bill is about people. It is about food, and it is about
medicine. This debate on this rule is a sham, because what the
Committee on Rules did is they undermined the whole intent of
bipartisan debate in the subcommittee, of bipartisan debate of the vote
in the full committee; and the Committee on Rules comes along and
waives all points of order except for one, and that is the point of
order that deals with this issue.
They waive another point, but they take care of it in another part of
the bill.
It is interesting what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) just
said. Elian went home and he is free, and here the United States
Congress is held hostage. It is a bad rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for its deliberation. I agree
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on one thing he said
today. Today is an important date. It is a date that is infamous. It is
the only time that the United States has sent back over the Berlin Wall
a child whose mother died to bring him to freedom, and in that sense I
agree that today is a date that will be remembered by history.
Mark my words, yes, soon we will have trade with Cuba. Soon there
will be a Cuba whose concentration camp doors will be open and you, yes
you, will have to see what you have been purposefully ignoring. There
will be, there will be a----
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be seated. The Clerk will
report the words.
{time} 2245
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the word ``purposely.''
Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). For what purpose does the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seek recognition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my request that the
gentleman's words be taken down, with the expectation that there will
be no words used on this floor which can in any way be interpreted as
attacking another Member.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand of the gentleman from Wisconsin
is withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not attack other Members, I attack injustice. I
attack oppression. I believe in those words, ``In God We Trust,'' not
``In Gold We Trust.'' I believe that the people who have come here and
defended the embargoes against South Africa, and I defended the embargo
against South Africa, should not have the double standard that they
show.
I believe that Cuba will be free, and I believe that the American
people will be proud of this Congress having stood with the freedom and
the aspirations of the Cuban people. This is an important rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 179, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
YEAS--232
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H5423]]
NAYS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Boucher
Clay
Clement
Cook
Danner
Dicks
Fattah
Goodling
Gordon
Hall (OH)
Hefley
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Miller, George
Murtha
Oxley
Pelosi
Pickett
Shuster
Stark
Stearns
Vento
Waxman
{time} 2303
Messrs. DEUTSCH, WEXLER, ROTHMAN, and McIntyre changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________