[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13101-S13112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S13101]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001
(Continued)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand now under a previous
unanimous consent agreement we will proceed to a Smith of New Hampshire
amendment, then a Wyden-Brownback amendment, a Wellstone amendment, and
a McCain amendment that have all been agreed to in that order; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. I inquire if we can get time agreements so we can move
this along. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire and whoever else is
interested in the amendment if he would be interested in entering into
a time agreement.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague,
there are at least four Senators who wish to speak in favor of the
amendment. I can list them if the Senator would like. That is my only
concern with a time agreement. I am only going to need 3, 4 minutes
maximum, but I cannot speak for other Senators as to how long they
would want to speak. Maybe we will know in a few minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Forty-five minutes may be reasonable.
Mr. HARKIN. I hope we can enter into some time agreement.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. WYDEN. I and Senator Brownback will be next with an amendment on
carbon sequestration. I want the chairman to know I will be very brief
and I will yield my time to Senator Brownback.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield to Senator Brownback for a question without
losing my right to the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to enter into a time agreement on the
carbon sequestration amendment. It can be a short time period. I do not
think it is a particularly controversial amendment. We will be happy to
enter into a time agreement.
Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator have any idea about how long?
Mr. BROWNBACK. The comments I want to make will take about 10
minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. If the chairman will yield, I will take 5 minutes and
yield my time to Senator Brownback.
Mr. BROWNBACK. We can probably do it in 15 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. If we can get agreement on 15 minutes on the amendment of
the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a request?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I yield for a question or a request without losing
my right to the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Iowa probably knows, in the last 2 days
I have been in the queue for an amendment. Unfortunately, for a variety
of reasons which are not worth going through now, I am still in the
queue. I am afraid it might not be completed by 4.
I know the Senator from Iowa allowed under unanimous consent other
amendments whether they were germane or not. I am not sure if my
amendment is germane or not. I believe it is, but I still ask he
include that amendment in case it is not able to be considered until
after 4 o'clock.
Mr. HARKIN. If my friend from Arizona will give us a copy of the
amendment, I will be glad to take a look at it and see if it is in the
genre of things agreed. I will be glad to take a look.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.
Mr. DORGAN. I think it makes sense to reach a time agreement on the
Smith amendment. I intend to speak against the Smith amendment and want
to do so for a minute or so. It seems to me we have debated this over
the years as a general subject. If we can reach a time agreement and
then let the Senate vote makes sense to me.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am amenable to that. I know Senator
Allen, Senator Torricelli, Senator Dorgan--I do not know of anyone else
here right now who wishes to speak on either side of the amendment.N O
T I C E
Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page S13102]]
Mr. HARKIN. May I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, how about 40
minutes?
Mr. TORRICELLI. Is there a unanimous consent request now before the
Senate?
Mr. HARKIN. I have the floor and ask if we can get a time agreement
on this amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire has been willing to
work this out. I am trying to see if we can get a time agreement. I
asked if we can have a 40-minute time agreement. I do not know if that
is acceptable or not.
Mr. TORRICELLI. In my estimation, there are too many Senators to be
commenting in 45 minutes. There are four on our side and three or four
on the other side. We may be able to accommodate that in an hour, but
40 minutes is unlikely. I say to the Senator from Iowa, if he does
offer a unanimous consent request, I have to ask him to include a
secondary amendment that Senator Smith wants to offer, as long as that
is in order in the time period as well.
Mr. HARKIN. If we can reach a time agreement. How about 50 minutes?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is acceptable to this Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Is that acceptable to this side?
Mr. TORRICELLI. It is acceptable to me, but that Senator Smith before
the close be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield.
Mr. REID. The Senator from New Hampshire said he wants to speak for 5
minutes. That will give us a time to call some Senators. We may have
one Senator who may want to speak 20 minutes himself. Give us time to
work on that. We cannot agree to a time right now until we talk to some
Senators.
Mr. HARKIN. I do not know why we cannot agree to a time limit. We
have people in the Chamber who are interested in the amendment. We can
reach a time agreement, and everybody will have their time. The Senator
from New Hampshire said he wants to take 5 minutes. He is honest and
forthright.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The problem is, we have a number of Senators who all
want to be heard.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, I do not think the question is
whether people want to be heard. The question is how long they want to
be heard on the amendment. I will oppose it, but I am perfectly willing
to accept 45 minutes. Are there people who want to comment 20, 30
minutes in opposition? If so, we will have difficulty getting a time
agreement. My hope is, given the hour and difficulty of moving this
bill along, that we can get a time agreement on this amendment on both
sides.
Mr. HARKIN. I hope we can get a time agreement now. I do not want to
cut off anybody speaking on this, but the proponent of the amendment
himself told me he only wanted to take 5 minutes. I assume the others
in 5, 7 minutes can have their say.
Mr. TORRICELLI. My suggestion is, if there are four or five Democrats
and four or five Republicans who are for it, there are people in
opposition, at 5 minutes we have to have an hour at a minimum to
accommodate them.
Mr. HARKIN. How about 1 hour on the Smith amendment?
Mr. TORRICELLI. One hour, at which point there will be secondary
amendments.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we are not going to agree to
a time limitation. There are Senators I have to contact. People may not
like it, but that is the way it is.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I suggest we begin the debate and, during the course,
see if we can work it out.
Mr. HARKIN. There is no time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized.
Amendment No. 2596 to Amendment No. 2471
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Graham, Mr. Allen, Mr. Ensign, and Mr.
Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 2596 to amendment No.
2471.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for Presidential certification that the government
of Cuba is not involved in the support for acts of international
terrorism as a condition precedent to agricultural trade with Cuba)
At the end of section 335, insert the following:
``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall not take effect until the President certifies to
Congress that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international
terrorism.''
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that Senators Torricelli, Graham, Allen, Ensign, and Helms be added as
original cosponsors of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I don't believe I will use
the 5 minutes I have asked for.
As some have said, this issue has been debated in the past. Everyone
is familiar with it. It is not necessary to take a lot of the Senate's
time. Given the fact we are trying to finish the Senate's business, I
will be considerate of that.
I simply say in a few words what the gist of this amendment is. The
underlying farm bill contains language that strikes the current
statutory restriction against private financing of food and medicine
sales to Cuba. The administration opposes that language, I think with
good reason.
My amendment conditions--it does not substitute the language--the
financing of food and medicine sales to Cuba on the President
certifying to Congress that Cuba is not a state sponsor of
international terrorism. That is all. It conditions it; it does not
substitute it. I would have liked to have substituted it. However, I
came in with a milder version to try to gain support in what I think
would be the fairer thing to do. We would condition the financing of
food and medicine sales to Cuba on the President certifying to Congress
that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international terrorism.
I don't know if my colleagues have been following very closely what
is happening in Central America, but there is a lot of terrorist
activity in Central and South America with Cuba and other nations. Our
President has declared war on terrorism. I remind my colleagues of the
exact language that President Bush used:
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. And
from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor
or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States
as a hostile regime.
Now, surely if Cuba--and I emphasize the word ``if''--if Cuba is in
any way harboring terrorists, supporting terrorism, participating in
any way, helping the international terrorist community, why should we
be providing anything to them to help do that? If Cuba is a state
sponsor of terrorism, the question should be: Should we allow for
private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba? I don't think we
should be making a profit while we are supporting international
terrorism. I don't think that is what my colleagues would want to see
happen.
We shouldn't even be trading with Cuba, in my view, if they harbor
terrorists. That hardly goes back and supports what the President said
when he said: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,
and any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be
regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
If a country is harboring terrorists, the President said we will go
after them one way or the other. It is hardly going after them if we
trade with them and make a profit while doing so.
I think the answer is no, no we should not allow private financing of
agricultural sales to Cuba. And no, if Cuba is a state sponsor of
terrorism, we should not be trading with them. It is that simple. That
is the amendment before the Senate. I don't consider this amendment to
be a referendum on U.S. policy toward Cuba. I don't even consider this
to be an amendment on a referendum on trade policy. I simply say
[[Page S13103]]
this amendment is a referendum on nations that support and sponsor
international terrorism.
I remind my colleagues that the State Department lists the following
seven States, as of 1999, as state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq,
Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, and the Sudan. Cuba is with pretty
heavy company. Let me repeat the countries in their company out of all
the nations in the world: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and
Sudan join with Cuba as seven states listed as state sponsors of
terrorism.
My amendment does not say they cannot trade; it doesn't say you can.
It says let the President certify it, and we will be fine.
I rest my case and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the most extraordinary thing about
this debate is we are having it at all. The President of the United
States has declared war on terrorism. American soldiers are fighting
terrorist organizations, and the Senate is about to approve
legislation, but for this amendment, which would allow the financing of
American products in some instances from American institutions--insured
by the American taxpayer--to governments that we have established are
harboring terrorists. If I didn't hear it myself, I would not believe
it. And the American people are not going to believe it.
Countries on this terrorist list are not broad. They are well
defined. It is specific: Libya, Iran, Iraq, and in this instance, in
this legislation for our purposes, Cuba.
Is it a fair designation? It is from the State Department. It was
designated in the Clinton administration, and it is designated in the
Bush administration with the following language from the State
Department:
A number of Basque terrorists gained sanctuary in Cuba some
years ago. They continue to live on the island, as do several
American terrorist fugitives.
I continue:
Havana has maintained ties to other state sponsors of
terrorism and Latin American insurgents. Colombia's two
largest terrorist organizations, the FARQ and the ELN,
maintain a permanent presence on the island.
In addition to our national policy against terrorism, we have a
national policy against states that are involved in bioterrorism. Cuba
has the greatest bioterrorist capability in the Western Hemisphere.
Cuba prohibits international inspection of its biological facilities.
In 1998, Secretary of Defense Cohen, a former member of this
institution, wrote to the Armed Services Committee:
I remain concerned about Cuba's potential to develop and
produce biological agents, given its biotechnology
infrastructure.
The Defense Department, in 1998, in a report entitled ``Cuba's Threat
to American National Securities,'' said:
Cuba's current scientific facilities and expertise could
support an offensive bioweapons program. In at least the
research and development stage, Cuba's biotechnology industry
is among the most advanced in all developing countries.
There needs to be one message from this Government. We are fighting
terrorism, but now we are going to finance exports to countries that
harbor terrorists. We are attempting to undermine the capability of
nations that develop bioterrorism, but now we are going to finance
products by our institutions to those very countries. It doesn't make
sense. No one could defend this vote to their constituents. I don't
care if every person who lives in your State is a farmer. I don't
believe there is a farmer in America who wants to make a buck by having
this country finance exports to Governments such as that.
President Bush has stated it very plainly. In this war against
terrorism, you are for us or you are against us. Where is this
Government now that we want to subsidize by financing exports to them?
In May 2001 in Tehran, Fidel Castro proclaimed:
Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring
America to its knees.
Mr. Castro has decided whether he is with us or he is against us.
The Canadian security intelligence service, which investigates
terrorist threats, said in a 1996 report:
Cuba has been a supply source [to terrorist groups] for
toxin and chemical weapons.
In a 1999 book ``Biohazard,'' a former KGB colonel, Ken Alibek,
second in command of the Soviet offensive biological warfare program
until 1992, wrote that he was convinced the Castro government was
deeply involved in biological warfare research programs.
In each of these ways, if you do not want to take the testimony of
the U.S. State Department, if you do not want to follow President
Bush's command about which governments chose sides, recognize that the
conclusions I bring to the Senate are not American alone. On Castro's
involvement in terrorism, his involvement in bioterrorism, we have the
testimony not simply of Americans but of our Canadian allies, and even
our former Soviet adversaries.
I do not rest my case on the support of terrorism by Castro alone or
his biochemical warfare. There is another aspect to the amendment that
Senator Smith and I offer with Senator Nelson and Senator Graham,
Senator Allen, and others of our colleagues, and that is the question
of harboring fugitives from justice in the United States. Under our
amendment, if Fidel Castro wants to get the advantage of the financing
of American agricultural exports, he can get that financing. He has to
get himself off the terrorism list by stopping harboring terrorists. He
has to allow the inspection of his biochemical warfare facilities. If
he does those things, he can get our exports financed by institutions
supported by this Government.
But he has to do one more thing under the secondary amendment we are
going to offer: Stop harboring fugitives from American justice. Cuba
currently is giving safe haven to 77 American citizens who have been
indicted or convicted of committing felonies against the United States.
These include fugitives who have been convicted of murder, kidnapping,
and possession of explosives. They have escaped American justice
because Fidel Castro allows them to live safely and freely, in most
instances, in Cuba.
Most on this list--60 of the 77--were convicted of what is a
terrorist act now in the minds of most Americans: Hijacking an
airplane.
Is there a Member of this Senate who will explain to citizens of
their State that we are about to change a bipartisan American foreign
policy restricting the financing of exports to Cuba and will not accept
a condition that first the people who have engaged in the terrorist act
of hijacking an airplane--that those fugitives not be returned to the
United States? If ever I have heard an explanation difficult to give to
the American people, particularly since the events of September 11,
this would rank as the most difficult. This may be hard for people in
most States, but in my State it would be impossible.
In 1973, Joanne Chesimard was riding on the New Jersey turnpike, the
``thruway'' to most, along with some accomplices. She was stopped and
opened fire on the officers involved. A New Jersey State trooper,
Werner Foerster, was murdered. She was convicted. She was sent to jail
for having taken his own weapon and shooting him twice in the head,
killing him instantly.
In spite of the fact she was given life in jail, she escaped, in
1979, from the Reformatory for Women in Clinton, NJ. She fled to Cuba
where, since 1984, she has been granted asylum and has lived for 17
years.
Castro gives asylum to the murderer of a State trooper, a woman who
committed terrorist acts against the United States. This is the
Government whose exports we would now finance from institutions
supported by the American taxpayer. Fidel Castro knows how to end the
prohibition on the financing of exports.
Members of the Senate will hear we are using food and medicine as a
weapon against the poor people of Cuba. It is not so. It has not been
so for nearly 10 years. I know. Legislation that I sponsored in the
House of Representatives, the Cuban Democracy Act, lifted prohibition
on the sale of American agricultural products and medicine 10 years
ago. Fidel Castro can buy anything he wants to buy, any food, any
medicine. But he has to pay for it. That is the law. And that is the
issue because under the provisions of this bill, now we are not
allowing him just to buy, but we are going to finance the sale.
Fidel Castro knows how to end that prohibition: Get terrorists out of
your
[[Page S13104]]
country, open up for biological weapons inspection, and send these 77
fugitives from justice back to the United States.
Yet I know because I have been through this debate before, we will be
told we are using food as a weapon. No, we are using the leverage of
finance as a weapon for justice--for justice. Yet in moments you will
hear, in a false argument to the American farmer, that if only we could
end this embargo, if only we could finance these exports, the problems
of American agriculture would be ended.
Let's address that part of the argument. Let's assume we did not care
about using this leverage to stop terrorism. Let's assume we did not
want to use it for biological warfare leverage. Let's assume we didn't
care about the 77 fugitives. Let's just take the argument on its merits
with all that aside. Is it a fair argument to make to the American
farmer that somehow, 90 miles off our shores, there is a market? We
should compromise our principles because there is a market that will
ease the financial burden of the American farmer?
As this chart indicates, looking at markets around the world, there
is a reason, in these 10 years, Fidel Castro has not bought American
agricultural products in spite of the fact we changed the law to allow
him to do so. It is the oldest reason in the world: He doesn't have any
money. The purchasing power, by comparison, of a Cuban consumer is
$1,700--below Honduras and Egypt. The per capita income of a Cuban is
$500. There is no money. It provides no opportunity to the American
farmer. That is why Castro has not taken advantage of our lifting of
the prohibition of the sale of American products.
Then they will argue maybe the consumer doesn't have any money in
Cuba but we will sell to the Cuban Government. Oh, if it were so. Fidel
Castro currently owes $11 billion to international financial
institutions, among the highest per capita debt ever recorded by any
nation in history. He owes another $20 billion to the former Soviet
Union and other socialist countries. They all stand in line before any
American financial institution would ever receive the first dollar.
He owes more money for recent purchases. South Africa extended him
$13 million in credit for diesel engines in 1997. It has never been
paid. There was $20 million loaned for fish imports from Chile. It has
never been paid.
This gives you an indication of Cuba's outstanding foreign debt: $6
billion to governments; $2.7 billion to banks; and, $1.7 billion to
private companies--all in arrears.
I ask the authors of the farm bill exactly which American financial
institution would like to ask their depositors--no less the regulatory
institutions of the U.S. Government that insure--would you like a piece
of this debt? Who would like to get in this line behind all of these
other people?
The simple truth is Fidel Castro cannot borrow from international
institutions. He cannot borrow from other governments. He is certainly
not in a position to borrow from American financial institutions. Since
we insure those institutions, even putting aside the policy reasons I
have argued, we shouldn't allow it.
Finally, what will at this point be a crumbling argument, some of my
colleagues may argue: Well, maybe he doesn't have money, maybe he
doesn't have credit, but he can certainly bargain with our banks with
Cuba's cane sugar.
What sugar? Cuba is now producing less sugar than it produced in
1959. Every year's crop is less. He has already tried to barter for oil
and manufactured products. He has been unable to deliver the sugar to
meet the contracted price. There is no sugar.
I end on this note: I think the case is compelling as far as the war
on terrorism. I think the President has challenged this Congress as he
has challenged every other government: You are with us or against us.
Castro chose sides. He chose sides. It would be indefensible in the
midst of this policy and this war on terrorism while he remains on that
terrorist list to now finance these exports. But yet I know because we
are a good and a generous people that some of my colleagues will be
inclined to say maybe his government did these things. Maybe he can't
finance the exports. Maybe it is a hollow promise to American farmers.
Maybe it isn't responsible as part of the war on terrorism. But let us
just show who we are. Let us do it anyway. Let us go the extra mile.
We have gone the extra mile. Since 1992, the United States has
approved $3 billion worth of food and medicine and humanitarian aid to
Cuba. Today, we send more food and medicine to Cuba free--free--despite
our relationship with their government which is more adversarial than
any relationship between any other two countries on Earth. We are a
generous people. We are helping the Cuban people. We have kept them
alive with massive aid efforts.
I rest my case. This makes no sense, and it is wrong. Senator Smith
has offered an amendment that will remove provisions from this bill of
allowing agricultural finance unless and until Fidel Castro gets
himself removed from the terrorist list.
I have an amendment at the desk that will expand this to provide that
unless and until he returns fugitives from justice to the United
States, he also will not be allowed to get the advantage of financing
of American exports.
Amendment No. 2597 to Amendment No. 2596
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] proposes an
amendment numbered 2597 to amendment No. 2596.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for Presidential certification that all convicted
felons who are living as fugitives in Cuba have been returned to the
United States prior to the amendments relating to agricultural trade
with Cuba becoming effective)
At the end, strike ``.'' and insert ``and until the
President certifies to Congress that all convicted felons
wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are
currently living as fugitives in Cuba have been returned to
the United States for incarceration.''.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I offer the amendment as a secondary
amendment to Senator Smith's amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The amendment is pending.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I will continue to hold the amendment.
I assure Members of the Senate that unless and until I am assured that
fugitives who have killed people in my State are returned as a
condition of this bill that this bill will not proceed. I will continue
to hold the floor.
At this point, since I am not allowed to offer this amendment and it
is not agreed to, I will continue on this floor if I have to read a
phone book on this floor.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to substantiate the
seriousness of the 77 people who are fugitives from justice now living
in Cuba and the crimes they have committed.
The Senator from New Jersey told us about a crime that was committed
in his State. A highway patrol trooper was shot in the face twice by
someone who was subsequently convicted, imprisoned, and escaped from
prison, and is now a fugitive from justice being harbored by the
Government of Cuba.
If you look at the crimes that have been committed by these 77
fugitives, they include air piracy, hijacking an aircraft, crime aboard
an aircraft, crime of escape, aiding and abetting, crime of kidnapping,
and the crime of solicitation to commit murder.
I thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding for me to underscore
the gravity and the seriousness of these fugitives.
I also think it is quite symbolic that on this day so many of us in
this Nation have been riveted to our television sets to see a tape of
Osama bin Laden mocking the United States, laughing and enjoying it as
he is telling the stories of the World Trade Center being hit by
aircraft and the Pentagon in Washington hit by aircraft.
I think it is somewhat ironic that then we bring to the floor, on the
very same day that we have once again focused on terrorism and
terrorist acts and our war against terrorism, an example of the U.S.
State Department
[[Page S13105]]
having on a list published in 1999 seven states that sponsor terrorism.
One of those seven states is Cuba. We have a bill before us that would
allow the export of our bounty and the amber waves of grain and other
products that come from the beneficent bounty of this Nation's
agricultural produce internationally financed and financed by banks
without Cuba being removed from the official U.S. State Department list
as state sponsors of terrorism.
It is just another reminder to us that if we are going to be serious
about the war against terrorists--I think America is as a result of
what happened on September 11--then we had better get serious that once
we mop up in Afghanistan, we have to start mopping up these cells in
other places.
What does the U.S. State Department say is one of those states that
sponsors terrorism?
I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New
Hampshire for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. This Senate
could easily adopt, in this time of a war against terrorism, these
amendments by a voice vote, and we could proceed with what is otherwise
a very fine farm bill, a bill that is for the benefit of this Nation.
I want to lend my voice to the Senator from New Jersey and the
Senator from New Hampshire to tell them that I believe that these
amendments ought to be adopted.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is my understanding now that the
second-degree amendment that I have offered to Senator Smith's
amendment is now incorporated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree amendment is pending. It is
not incorporated.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, continue to amplify the
issue that my good friend and colleague from Florida has just
discussed; and that is to attempt to put a human face on this issue
which we are dealing with at the present time.
The question is, under Senator Smith's amendment, should there be a
requirement that Cuba reform itself so that it is no longer one of the
seven nations in the world to be listed as a sponsor of state terrorism
in order to get the benefit of U.S. financing of agricultural sales to
Cuba, and now the amendment that is pending from the Senator from New
Jersey, which would also require that there be a return to the United
States of those fugitives from justice who have found sanctuary in
Cuba?
Who are some of these fugitives from justice? Let me just talk about
three of them.
First, Victor Manuel Gerena. Mr. Gerena is on the FBI's Ten Most
Wanted list. He belongs to a Puerto Rican independence group, the FLAN.
This group is responsible for numerous acts of terrorism, terrorism in
the United States of America, including a 1975 bombing in New York City
that killed 4 and injured 63. He is also sought in connection with the
armed robbery of $7 million from a security company.
How was he able to get himself in a position to rob a security
company of $7 million? He got there because the Cuban Government aided
Gerena and his group in preparing the robbery and allegedly funneled
them $55,000 to pay for the operation.
Does that sound a little eerily reminiscent of what was happening
before September 11?
Gerena and a part of the stolen $7 million were smuggled into Cuba by
diplomats stationed at Cuba's Embassy in Mexico City. That is one of
the fugitives from justice that we believe should be returned to face
justice as a precondition of the United States providing financing for
agricultural sales to Cuba.
Let's talk about Charles Hill and Michael Finney.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call for regular order under rule XIX.
The Senator has yielded for more than a question.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I asked the Senator from New Jersey if he
would yield. He yielded. And I am speaking on his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that it is the
custom of the Senate, with reference to Senators yielding in debate, to
construe the rules liberally unless prior notice has been given that
they shall not be so construed.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if the Senator from
New Jersey----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me add to the Senator from Virginia, that
given the notice we have now received from you, the rules will be
strictly construed from this point forward.
Mr. GRAHAM. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey is familiar with
Charles Hill and Michael Finney?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I say to the Senator from Florida, I am indeed
familiar with them.
Mr. GRAHAM. Maybe you might be further illuminated, and our
colleagues informed, about these two people who are also part of that
large pool of those who are fleeing American justice in Cuba.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Finney are accused of murder and airplane hijacking.
In 1971, the two were driving a car filled with guns and explosives
from California to Louisiana in an operation for the militant Republic
of New Afrika, a small organization that seeks a black separatist
nation within the United States.
As Hill and Finney crossed into New Mexico, they were stopped by a
28-year-old State trooper, Robert Rosenbloom. There was a standoff. Mr.
Rosenbloom was tragically shot dead.
Nineteen days later, the fugitives scrambled aboard a TWA plane in
Albuquerque and hijacked a flight which was bound for Chicago.
Interviewed in Havana last year by a U.S. journalist, Hill said when
he arrived in Cuba he ``was accepted by Fidel Castro's government as a
soldier of the people's revolution.''
Senator Torricelli, were you aware this is the kind of person but for
the amendment you are proposing would continue to be harbored in Cuba
and would be sheltered from U.S. justice, and for which the family of
Robert Rosenbloom, shot dead, would receive no sense of finality in
terms of the loss of their loved one?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I say to the Senator from Florida, it would leave
American law enforcement with no leverage to get the return of these
fugitives to the United States. You can imagine the pain of an American
family whose loved one was murdered by one of these fugitives now
knowing that our country's institutions are lending money to this
government, and those very institutions being, in some cases, insured
by the U.S. Government. I think it would be extremely painful and
difficult to explain.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
We have been talking about individual terrorists who are being
sheltered in Cuba. But beyond individual terrorists, there are
organizations of terrorists. There are cartels of terrorists which are
being sheltered in Cuba.
I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey is aware of the fact that
after a long history of Cuba providing direct support, including direct
military support for terrorists and other revolutionaries in the
Western Hemisphere, now Cuba is becoming the center of the hemispheric
organizations for terrorists.
Was the Senator from New Jersey aware of that latest contribution of
Fidel Castro to the terrorization of the world?
Mr. TORRICELLI. Indeed, I was not, I say to Senator Graham, but I am
appreciative of the fact that the Senator is bringing it to the
attention of our colleagues, if they are, indeed, serious about their
intentions of now financing exports to this government.
Mr. GRAHAM. I say to the Senator, I am sorry to have to report that
not at some distant point in the past, and not under the administration
of a member of our party, but under the current administration, as
recently as April of this year, 2001, the State Department, in its
report ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'' has this to say about Cuba and
[[Page S13106]]
terrorism: That Cuba maintains ties with other state sponsors of
terrorism. As an example, the two most notorious Colombian insurgent
groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, typically referred
to as the FARC, and the National Liberation Army, the ELN, maintain a
permanent presence in Cuba.
However, Havana is not limited to just providing a shelter for
Colombian groups. We found, within the last 18 months, that the Irish
Republican Army has its western hemispheric branch located in Havana.
We found that from branch relationships that were being developed,
particularly with the FARC in Colombia, through which it was alleged
that the IRA would receive funding for its terrorist activities through
the large drug resources of the FARC, and the FARC would get the IRA's
expertise in urban guerrilla terrorism tactics so that they could move
from the hinterlands of Colombia into the major cities of Colombia with
their acts of terrorism and civil disorder.
Was the Senator from New Jersey aware that this is one of the current
phases of Fidel Castro's support for terrorism?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I am. Indeed, it is because of not only allowing them
to operate but a permanent presence for these terrorist organizations
in Havana that the State Department, under both the Clinton
administration and now the Bush administration, has cited Fidel
Castro's government as being complicit with terrorism on what remains a
very small list of rogue nations. This is not conduct where terrorists
simply pass through the country. It requires a continuous, outrageous
national policy of actually harboring these organizations that the
Senator cited.
Mr. GRAHAM. To go even further, that Cuba, under this same report of
the State Department in April of 2001, regularly conducts political,
social, and economic interactions with other countries listed on the
State Department list of terrorists, such as Libya, Iran, Iraq, and
through these relationships, Cuba has access to those countries'
illegal supplies of weapons and biotech products, what is the reaction
of the Senator from New Jersey to this current grip of terrorism that
Fidel Castro has placed on his country and is exporting around the
world?
Mr. TORRICELLI. As I have noted previously, it is important for our
colleagues to know that the fact that Fidel Castro is involved in
bioterrorism and has these facilities that he refuses to allow
international inspectors to visit is cited not only by the U.S.
Government but cited by the Canadian Government as a source of concern.
We have information from former Soviet officials that, indeed, they
were aware of it and concerned of it themselves.
Mr. GRAHAM. And well they should be. The U.S. Office of Technical
Assessment has included Cuba among the 17 countries in the world which
are believed to possess biological weapons.
As I believe the Senator said a few moments ago in his statement, the
former deputy director of the Soviet Union's biological weapons
program, Mr. Ken Alibek, revealed that the Soviet Union had been
providing assistance to Castro and that Cuba now has one of the most
sophisticated genetic engineering labs in the entire world. Was the
Senator from New Jersey aware of that history of preparation for
violence through terrorism?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I am. I hope our colleagues understand this. When we
talk about Fidel Castro's dictatorship today, this isn't some old,
unsettled grudge. This is a continuing security problem. Ninety miles
off our shore we have now established there are fugitives from American
justice, including people who have hijacked airplanes and committed
murder. There are now established bases for terrorist organizations on
an ongoing basis, and an international concern for bioterrorism--not 40
years ago, not 30 years ago, right now, while the United States is
engaged in a war against terrorism.
Mr. GRAHAM. Sad to say, we have out of the mouth of Fidel Castro and
his minions the most current statement of his attitude toward terrorism
and his attitude toward the United States, the Nation which now is
being asked to provide U.S. financing for agricultural sales to Cuba.
Would the Senator be surprised that when the tragedy of September 11
was made known to Fidel Castro, while he initially offered some words
of support to the United States, he also urged United States
policymakers to be calm and stated that the attacks against the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon and the failed attack that ended up in
the fields of western Pennsylvania were a consequence of the United
States having applied ``terrorist methods'' for years? He is
essentially saying that the United States and Osama bin Laden are
mirror images of one another. Those were the statements on the day of
the attack.
Subsequent statements relative to the attack of September 11 have
become even more hostile. A recent press report quoted Cuba's mission
to the United Nations as describing the United States' response to the
attacks as ``fascist and terrorist,'' so we not only are Osama bin
Laden, we have now become Adolf Hitler, and that the United States was
using the attack as an excuse to establish ``unrestricted tyranny over
all people on Earth.'' Castro himself has said that the U.S. Government
is run by extremists and hawks whose response to the attack could
result in ``the killing of innocent people.'' Would the Senator believe
that?
Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me respond to Senator Graham, if I could. I hope
every Senator thinks about the incongruity of this situation. Fidel
Castro is blaming the attacks of September 11 on the policies of the
United States.
He is now stating his opposition to our military campaign abroad, and
we are about to engage in finance of our products to his country and
his government. Imagine explaining that to the parents of an American
soldier now in Afghanistan or coming to New York, New Jersey, or
Virginia or explaining that to the widow of a victim of the September
11 attacks. Talk about choosing whether you are for us or against us,
and then trying to explain away what happened to our country.
I am happy to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it wasn't clear to me who had the floor. I
believe the Senator from New Jersey has the floor, and the Senator from
Florida is sort of asking questions. In terms of time here, I am
wondering if we could get some notion. Is the Senator from Florida
intending to seek recognition on his own when he finishes these series
of questions so we might have some sense of whether others might be
recognized in this debate?
Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from New Jersey has certainly clarified some
questions of uncertainty in my mind. I still have some policy comments
I think bear on the question of whether, in the face of the actions of
Fidel Castro relative to those who have used his country as a safe
haven for murderers, airplane hijackers, and others, and as a
continuing caldron for the support of terrorism in the western
hemisphere throughout the world, it is in the United States' national
interest to be providing financing for the food that he will control
and distribute as he wishes to his people.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Jersey will yield
further, I respect that, and I understand the rules of the floor. The
Senator is making a long statement and then asking, ``are you aware of
that.'' He has the right to do that in the form of a question. The
Senator from Virginia would like to speak. I would like to speak. Could
we get some sense of time here, how long this inquiry will go on? Does
the Senator intend to seek recognition on his own behalf, or the
Senator from Virginia expect to seek recognition next so we could have
some sense of whether or when we could actually have a debate about
this policy?
Mr. GRAHAM. First, the Senator from New Jersey has been so lucid and
candid and expansive in his knowledge of these issues that he has
responded to most of the questions that I have, I am certain, to the
great benefit, certainly, of this Senator and all of our colleagues. My
further questioning will be very brief. Yes, I do have some policy
statements that would be inappropriate to attempt to deliver in the
context of asking questions of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Perhaps if I can answer what I suspect the question
is going to be, it was my intention that
[[Page S13107]]
when Senator Graham finished, we would yield the floor. We had settled
the matter of the secondary amendment. I assumed Senator Allen would be
recognized next and, at that point, I will have yielded the floor.
Senator Graham will be recognized again to make a statement.
Mr. DORGAN. It is actually interesting that the Senator from New
Jersey seems to be well aware of that about which you are inquiring.
The Senator indicated he is well informed and, observing that, I would
concur. All I am interested in doing is to see if we can have a debate
spring out and when that might occur.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I can't tell you how helpful it is to be reminded of
these things by the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. It also appears you are intimately familiar with all of
that which is being delivered to you by my colleague from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. This is a testimonial to the wisdom and range of
knowledge of our colleague from New Jersey. He has certainly earned all
of those accolades, and the Senator from North Dakota has reinforced
that. I appreciate the Senator yielding and for his response to the
questions.
As I indicated, it is my intention, at an appropriate time, to seek
recognition to make a statement of policy relative to the ill wisdom of
the United States under these circumstances providing financing for the
sale of agricultural products to Fidel Castro that he can then use for
whatever sources of intimidation and control he would put them to, as
he has to so many other aspects of the life of the Cuban people over
the last 40-plus years. So I thank the Senator from New Jersey for
yielding and for the thoughtfulness of his responses and the solid
policy of his amendment.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Florida for being an ally
through the years on this issue and for so much leadership as all of us
have tried to regain the freedom of the Cuban people. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendments of my
colleagues, Senators Torricelli and Smith of New Hampshire. These
amendments, of which I am a cosponsor, are very good amendments. I have
not had the opportunity in years past to hear the argument and debates
on these issues. I consider these amendments to be very well founded.
What they do is they have conditions for lifting restrictions on the
financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, and two findings have to be
made. The first condition is that the President must certify to
Congress that convicted felons wanted by the FBI who are currently
living as fugitives in Cuba have been returned to the United States for
incarceration. I will not repeat all of the evidence in this regard
that was previously cited by Senator Torricelli, Senator Nelson of
Florida, and Senator Graham of Florida, concerning the return of
criminals to the United States.
The second condition is that the President must certify to Congress
that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international terrorism. That is
the amendment of Senator Bob Smith.
Mr. President, I support fair and free trade and increased
opportunities for U.S. workers and businesses, including our
agricultural sector, to trade with other countries. However, prudence
would lead us to seek to finance trade with countries that are not
terrorist states. The Secretary of State maintains a list of countries
that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism. Currently, there are seven countries on that State
Department terrorism list. They are, in alphabetical order: Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. It is appropriate that Cuba
is on that list.
Fidel Castro's regime has a long history of providing arms and
training to terrorist organizations, many of which were articulated
previously by Senator Graham. Our State Department notes that Havana
remains a safe haven to several international terrorists and U.S.
fugitives as well.
As we have seen since September 11, terrorists operate in an
environment largely dominated by legally and geographically defined
nation states. Terrorists sometimes rely on state-provided funding,
bases, equipment, technical advice, logistical and support services.
In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and Pentagon, President Bush, in addressing our Nation, stressed
that the United States, in responding to these attacks, will make no
distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those
who harbor them. As we heard, the President characterized these
terrorist acts as ``acts of war.''
An ongoing issue for our Congress and administration is how do we
respond to state-sponsored or state-sanctioned terrorists and
terrorism? There is no question that we need to respond. In my view,
this country has dawdled along too many years not being worried about
international terrorism, thinking that it would never affect us here at
home. We have come to recognize that we must wage warfare against
terrorists and those who aid, support, and comfort them.
An important part of that warfare is to oppose the terrorist states
with every reasonable weapon at hand. That may be financial intercepts,
surveillance, enhanced scrutiny of entrants into our country,
infiltrating some of these terrorist organizations, greater
intelligence here as well as abroad, military action when necessary,
law enforcement abroad as well as here at home. All are components of
our multifaceted war on terrorism.
Now, trade is also an important component of our current struggle
against countries that are on the terrorism list.
Let's get into another aspect of Cuba. In February of this year, the
State Department reported several salient facts about Cuba and life in
Cuba for the people of Cuba, who we are purportedly trying to help. I
do want to help the people of Cuba, but here is how we help them:
First, let's recognize what they are facing.
Cuba's human rights record remains poor. It continues to violate
systematically the fundamental civil and political rights of its
citizens. The State Department pointed out that the citizens of Cuba--
as if we didn't know it already--do not have the right to change their
government peacefully.
The Government of Cuba does not allow criticism of the revolution
four decades ago or its repressive, tyrannical leaders.
Cuba's laws against antigovernment statements and expressions of
disrespect of Government officials carry penalties of between 3 months
and 1 year in prison.
If Fidel Castro or members of the National Assembly or the Council of
States are the objects of this criticism, the sentence for such
expressions can be extended to 3 years in prison.
Recently, Fidel Castro was asked by Robert McNeill:
Do you have political prisoners still in jail in Cuba?
Castro responded:
Yes, we have them. We have a few hundred political
prisoners. Is that a violation of human rights?
Well, I will answer Castro's rhetorical question. Yes, it is; darn
right it is a violation of human rights. Castro's human rights
practices are arbitrary and repressive. Hundreds of peaceful opponents
of the Government remain imprisoned. Many thousands more are subject to
short-term detentions, house arrest, surveillance, arbitrary searches,
evictions, travel restrictions, politically motivated dismissals from
employment, threats to them or their families, and other forms of
harassment by the Cuban Government authorities.
Mr. President, let me repeat what our State Department said. Citizens
of Cuba do not have the right to change their Government peacefully.
Let us recall the words written 225 years ago by Thomas Jefferson in
our Declaration of Independence:
When a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a
design to reduce (people) under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Just as it was important for our ancestors to have the right to throw
off the chains of the tyrannical monarchy 225 years ago, it must be the
right of the Cuban people to free themselves of the chains of the
tyrannical Castro regime.
Let us support the opportunities of the Cuban people to enjoy their
[[Page S13108]]
unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of
happiness. Let us not retreat in our opposition to terrorism nor flinch
from the advocacy of liberty.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support these
amendments by Senator Smith and Senator Torricelli. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to make my remarks seated at my desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for me to make a
unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent
request?
Mr. HELMS. Certainly.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is very courteous. I have been waiting some
while to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak
following the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think I may be the only Senator now a
Member of this body, or maybe one or two or three, who remembers when
Edward R. Murrow and Herbert Matthews portrayed a young man out in the
boondocks of Cuba as being a humanitarian who was ready to come into
Cuba and save the Cuban people. That young man's name was Fidel Castro.
Night after night, CBS repeated that fiction. Morning after morning,
the New York Times repeated that fiction. And finally, Fidel Castro
came in after Batista left.
The first thing he did was to take up all the guns of the people who
were politically opposed to him.
The second thing he did was jail most of them.
The third thing he did was to back the rest of them up against a wall
and end their lives before a firing squad.
I say all this because so much fiction has been circulated about
Fidel Castro, and so much cruelty is being heaped upon the farmers of
North Carolina, giving them hope that they can get financial gain from
making their crops available to the people of Cuba.
I wish it were so, but it is not so. The Cuban Government, as has
already been discussed this afternoon, is not prepared to pay for
anything. It is bankrupt.
As has been said here this afternoon by two or three of the
distinguished speakers, Cuba has been identified on the State
Department's so-called State Sponsors of Terrorism List for very good
reason. Not only has the State Department documented evidence that
Fidel Castro provides aid and comfort to the terrorists, but there is
also clear evidence that Castro has close ties to insurgent groups and
other government sponsors of terrorism all around the world.
Fidel Castro maintains connections with guerrillas in Colombia,
Spain's Basque separatists, the Irish Republican Army, and so on.
Today nearly 100 terrorists and fugitives from United States justice
enjoy safe haven in Cuba. Most of these fugitives are airline pirates
and airline hijackers. Among the terrorists being shielded by Castro
are members of Puerto Rican terrorists, which includes terrorists on
the FBI's most wanted list. One of the fugitives was the lead bombmaker
responsible for several terrorist attacks, including a New York bombing
that killed 1 and maimed 60 others.
I am sure Senators recall that in 1996 it was Fidel Castro who
ordered that two unarmed civilian U.S. aircraft be shot down, and they
were. They were shot down over international waters. I know Senators
have not forgotten that it was this savage act of terrorism that united
the Congress of the United States and the White House in opposition to
the terrorist state of Havana.
The Cuban regime trades in information it collects on United States
activities through a deeply entrenched spy network in the United
States. Just after the September 11 attacks, for example, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation arrested a high ranking U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency official who was passing sensitive national
security information to Castro's government. There should be no doubt
that this traitor would have continued to funnel information to Cuba
and, therefore, our enemies in the war against terrorism around the
world. The FBI acted quickly to shut down this dangerous leak, even as
U.S. troops headed into battle as a result of the episodes on September
11.
Despite all of this evidence, there are still some Senators who are
attempting to help the terrorist state of Havana to fill its coffers
with U.S. dollars. If financing restrictions are lifted, it is an
absolute certainty that a great many additional American dollars will
give Castro's regime the means to enhance cooperation with our
terrorist enemies and fuel its cruel repression of the Cuban people.
If we had the time, I would outline facts that are known and are part
of the Foreign Relations Committee books. Women, doctors, and lawyers
are having most of their income taken from them by Castro's government,
and a lot of these women have no choice that they can see in order to
feed their families but to subject themselves to prostitution. This is
the kind of man Fidel Castro is.
Senators who seek United States financing for United States
businesses which hope to do business with Havana do not seem to want to
discuss the fact that Cuba could not be more hostile to private
business interests or more unreliable in paying its bills.
The Cuban Government has without compensation expropriated more
United States property from United States citizens than any other
government in the world. No other government is even close to Cuba.
The Cuban economy is one of the most repressed economies in the world
and features an appalling lack of workers' rights, no protection for
private property rights, no provision for international arbitration of
disputes, and no enforcement of contracts.
This point needs to be underscored. The Cuban Government does not pay
its bills. The Cuban Government has more than $12 billion in hard
currency debt. Earlier this summer, France froze $175 million in short-
term trade cover for Cuba after the Castro government defaulted on a
similar agreement in the year 2000. When the record is reviewed
regarding this year alone, it will be clear that governments and
companies from South Africa to Panama to Chile and Spain are
complaining that the Cuban Government is not paying its bills. Now, how
would any Senator be eager for their home State businesses, including
especially their farmers, to assume the risk of doing business with the
Castro regime?
I don't need to remind this Senate that our country is at war with
terrorism. This is not the time for the Senate to make unilateral
discussions and concessions to a faltering dictatorship and a known
identifiable terrorist state. That is the most foolish kind of
appeasement.
President Bush's administration has stated its strong opposition to
repealing the financing restrictions on sales to Cuba: ``Because of
Cuba's continued denial of basic civil rights to its citizens as well
as its egregious rejection of the global coalition's efforts against
terrorism . . .''
I urge my colleagues to stand with President Bush in the fight
against terrorism. Support the Torricelli amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona for an
inquiry, without losing the right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator yields for an
inquiry.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent I be recognized following the
Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. ALLARD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been a generous amount of debate
about this subject, and an interesting debate it is. However, let me
put in a word on behalf of family farmers in our country who would say
to you ``don't
[[Page S13109]]
use food to punish people; don't use food as a weapon.''
That is what this issue is about. Let me stipulate to all what has
been said about Cuba or Castro or terrorism. Let me stipulate to all of
it, and then ask you the question: When you use food and medicine as a
weapon against a country, any country, what on Earth have you
accomplished when the day is done? What have you accomplished?
We have had a vote in the Senate on this subject before. Over 70
Members of the Senate said we ought not use food and medicine as a
weapon. We ought not, in the conduct of foreign policy, trying to
punish some other country, use food and medicine. It is unseemly. It is
wrong. It is not the moral thing to do. Over 70 Members of the Senate
have already voted on that.
Did we get it done? No, because it got hijacked in a conference with
the House of Representatives on two occasions. So we opened up a small
crevice, that some food can go to Cuba under certain conditions
provided there is no public financing and no US private financing. So
you have no public financing, no capability of getting private
financing, and some food can go to Cuba if someone goes to Europe and
gets financing, gets a license and has to wait on a ship for 2 weeks,
and in the event of a hurricane, we send some corn to Cuba, as we
finally did yesterday.
Because 70 Members of the Senate have already expressed themselves on
this issue, someone listening to this debate earlier would believe
because four or five people have spoken about it in passionate terms,
this issue is about stopping terrorism in its tracks, about punishing
the Castro government, punishing the government of Cuba. I have no
truck for Fidel Castro and his government. What I do care about is the
ability of our family farmers to be able to move food around the world
to hungry people. That is what this is about.
How often do we continue to use food as a weapon? It is one thing to
shoot yourself in the foot. It is quite another thing to take aim
before you shoot. That is exactly what has happened here, time and time
and time again. Maybe we ought to have a little clear thinking about
what we are doing.
Restrictions on food sales to Cuba are not going to punish Fidel
Castro. What they do is punish poor people, sick people, hungry people,
and kids. Everyone knows it. That is why 70 percent of the Senate has
already voted to say this is a policy that doesn't work.
I was in Cuba. Many Members have been to Cuba. I was in a hospital in
Cuba, in an intensive care ward where a little boy was in a coma. He
had been in a bicycle accident. He was severely injured and was in a
coma, lying in the intensive care unit, without one piece of equipment,
without one machine attached to him. Why? Because they didn't have any.
In that particular hospital, they told me they were out of 240
different kinds of medicine.
Yet the policy advocated by those that push this amendment is we
should continue to use medicine as an instrument of punishment against
Fidel Castro or the Cuban Government. This is not about Fidel Castro or
the Cuban Government. It is about kids in hospitals. It is about kids
who are hungry. It is about family farmers in North Dakota who are told
time and time again: ``By the way, we intend to use your wheat fields
as an instrument of foreign policy, and we are not going to pay for
it.''
It is easy to put on a blue suit in the morning and come to the
Senate and decide you want to use a field of wheat in Nebraska as an
instrument of your foreign policy and say you can't sell that wheat to
this country or that country. We are familiar with embargoes. We have
had too many. We ought never have an embargo on food. Hubert Humphrey,
many years ago, said: ``Sell them anything they can't shoot back.''
So they are going to shoot corn back at us, are they? All these
restrictions do is hurt kids and hungry people. Does anybody in this
Chamber want to stand up and tell me because we had a 40-year embargo
and we have decided we will cut Cuba off from being able to purchase or
achieve a food shipment from the United States, that Fidel Castro has
ever missed a meal? Does anybody believe he has missed a meal? If so,
which one? Breakfast? What day? Dinner? Lunch? I don't think so. We
know better than that. Those who govern in Cuba have never missed a
meal because we decided to use food as a weapon. It is the hungry, the
sick, and poor people that get hurt with embargoes. And America's
family farmers get hurt with embargoes.
We get all the agents of change that come to the Senate on virtually
every issue except this: 40 years of a policy that doesn't work. We
know it doesn't work. The biggest excuse Castro has for the total
collapse of the Cuban economy is that he says the American Government
has its fist around the Cuban economy's neck. That is what causes these
problems. That, of course, is pure nonsense. But that is what he uses.
The quickest way to get Castro out of power is to open that country
up, eliminate this embargo, see the investments go into Cuba. They are
going in now from Europe. If we stop this embargo, Castro would have an
awful tough time holding on to power.
Aside from that, there is a narrower question. Should part of the
embargo be food shipments and medicine shipments to Cuba? The answer
is, no.
Let me ask a question: Are we able to ship food to Communist China? I
say Communist China because China is a wonderful, big country, a big
trading partner of ours. I say ``wonderful'' because we have spent a
lot of time negotiating with them. We have treaties with them. But it
is a Communist country, isn't it? Has anybody come to the floor of the
Senate talking about cutting off food to China, a Communist country?
Let me ask the question, when China was selling missile technology to
Iran, did anybody rush down to the floor of the Senate talking about
cutting off food to China? No. No, you won't hear about that. Nobody
will do that.
How about North Korea? Is there anybody rushing to the floor to talk
about cutting off food to North Korea, a Communist country? Is anybody
rushing around with their Vietnam amendment to cut off food to
Communist Vietnam, a country that is a wonderful country, coming out
from behind the curtain with a market system, but still a Communist
government? Is anybody rushing to see if we can cut off food to a
country that is run by a Communist government?
No, the only country in the world in which we prohibit by law private
financing--not public, private financing--to ship food, the only
country in which we prohibit private financing to ship food is Cuba. We
can do private financing and ship food to China. We can do it to North
Korea and Vietnam. I can go down a long list of countries that are
depicted as terrorist countries, but nobody is on the floor saying we
have to stop this. We have to start using food and medicine as a weapon
to stop this. No one is saying anything about that.
Why? This is about Cuba only. Let me stipulate again to all that
which has been said before me. I don't know how much of it is true. I
suspect a fair amount of it is true. It is a repressive government. It
is not a government chosen by the people of Cuba. It jails dissidents.
But it is interesting, if you go to Cuba and talk to the dissidents in
Cuba, they will tell you the embargo is counterproductive. A good many
dissidents believe a good way to get rid of Fidel Castro is to get rid
of the embargo.
Those who believe we ought not be able to ship food to Cuba, even
financed privately, ought to explain to us why we ought to be able to
ship food to China, North Korea, Libya, and the rest of the world,
through private financing. Why? Is it all right to ship food through
private financing to the country of Iran? Yes, with a license. But not
Cuba. Why?
It is interesting to me. It seems to me we are so blinded we cannot
think our way out of this fog. I have spoken on the floor a number of
times about the restrictions on travel to Cuba. We are not debating
that today, but those restrictions are absurd also, just absurd. You
can travel anywhere else in the world, but you can't travel to Cuba.
Let me tell you about a little old lady in the State of Illinois,
retired, responding to an advertisement in a Canadian travel magazine,
a biking magazine. She decided she wanted to bike. The Canadian bicycle
club was sponsoring a bicycle tour of Cuba for 8 days. She signed up.
She is retired, living in Illinois, loves to bike, and wanted see Cuba.
She went to Cuba, had a wonderful bicycle trip, and came back.
[[Page S13110]]
Eighteen months later, from the U.S. Treasury Department, she got a
$9,600 fine for traveling in Cuba. So we have the Office of Financial
Assets Control in Treasury tracking little old ladies in Illinois
riding bicycles in Cuba while we have terrorists plotting to fly
airplanes into the World Trade Center. Obsessive? I think so.
Maybe we can find our way out of this public policy mess if we just
think through it clearly. It seems to me we ought to decide, every one
of us, that we should not use food or medicine as a weapon.
I understand the Senator from Arizona wishes consent to be
recognized. I ask unanimous consent he be recognized following my
presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me make one final point. We have been stuck in
reverse with respect to policy for decades. The Senate has spoken on
this issue; 70 Senators said using food and medicine as a weapon is
absurd. Let's change the policy. So we are going to have a vote today.
I hope the vote today will reflect what the Senate has previously
reflected on this issue. This is not about Fidel Castro. It is not
about the Cuban Government. It is about being able to ship food as we
do to every other country in the world with private financing: Iran,
Libya, North Korea, China, and on and on and on. Except this absurd
proposition that with private financing we cannot ship food to the
country of Cuba. It makes no sense. Everyone in this room understands
it and knows it and it is time to change it.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of
both Senator Bob Smith's and Senator Torricelli's amendments regarding
the Cuban Government. These amendments are simple and straight-forward
Senator Smith's amendment provides for Presidential certification that
Cuba is not involved in acts of international terrorism as a condition
precedent to agricultural trade with Cuba. Senator Torricelli's
amendment would provide similar certification that all convicted felons
living as fugitives in Cuba be returned to the United States prior to
the amendments relating to agricultural trade with Cuba.
The pattern of refuge and support that Cuba provides for fugitives
wanted in other countries is quite troubling--many of these fugitives
are members of outlawed terrorist groups. History is quite clear
regarding Castro's links to international terrorist groups--these
include Colombian and Salvadoran guerilla groups, the Chilean MIR and
even the PLO. Our own State Department has presented irrefutable
evidence that Castro has been involved in drug trafficking to provide
arms and cash to support guerilla movements.
Due to the closed and repressive nature of Castro's Cuba, the transit
of international criminals and terrorists is difficult to track. I
strongly believe that this Nation needs to have some certification
regarding terrorists in Cuba and the harboring of fugitives in Cuba.
As we advance our Nation's war on terrorism, it is interesting to
note Fidel Castro's speech in Tehran, Iran, recently. Castro told
Iranian students that the United States was an imperialist king that
would fall just as the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran fell in the 1979
revolution. He said:
you destroyed the strongest gendarme of the region . . . and
the people of the region should thank you for that . . .
However this Imperialist King will finally fall, just as your
King was overthrown.
I urge all my colleagues to support these amendments and look forward
to a day when democratic values reign in a free and democratic Cuba.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 2598
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the underlying bill
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Gramm, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 2598.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the market name for catfish)
At the end of the underlying bill, insert the following:
SEC. . MARKET NAME FOR CATFISH.
The term ``catfish'' shall be considered to be a common or
usual name (or part thereof) for any fish in keeping with
Food and Drug Administration procedures that follow
scientific standards and market practices for establishing
such names for the purposes of section 403 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including with respect to the
importation of such fish pursuant to section 801 of such Act.
SEC. . LABELING OF FISH AS CATFISH.
Section 755 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2002, as repealed.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will have additional time, I am sure,
after the cloture vote and perhaps I may even make a tabling motion,
depending upon the parliamentary situation on this issue. But it is
very simple. The amendment was an amendment slipped into the 2002
Agriculture appropriations bill as part of a managers' amendment.
I still remember very clearly, it was in the evening. We were about
to vote final passage. I said: Wait a minute; has anybody seen the
managers' amendment? There was dead silence. There were maybe 50 or 60
Members here. So I said: We really should look at the managers'
package. Everybody grumbled, so I relented.
It turned out there were 35 amendments, 15 of them specific to
members of the Appropriations Committee. One bans catfish, basically
bans catfish from being imported into the United States of America,
without debate, without discussion, without knowledge until the next
day after the bill was passed.
Again, the remarkable degeneration of the parliamentary system that
is taking place as we address appropriations bills is remarkable. Think
of it: 35 amendments, no one knowing what they are. We all voted aye.
One of them fundamentally affected a trade agreement that had just been
completed between the United States of America and Vietnam.
This is happening all the time. We find amendments slipped in which
affect national policy, which affect, in the case of the North American
Free Trade Agreement, commerce as far as Mexican trucks are concerned.
There was legitimate debate on both sides but--what? It was put into an
appropriations bill. Time after time after time. This is another
dramatic example of it.
It is entertaining. We will get to talk about it a lot. But this is a
provision, as I say, which was added without debate, discussion, or
knowledge of the Members that basically calls catfish from this country
catfish and catfish from any other part of the world not catfish.
Remarkable.
According to the Food and Drug Administration and the American
Fisheries Society, the Pangasius species of catfish is imported from
Vietnam and other countries as ``freshwater catfishes of Africa and
southern Asia.'' Existing regulations required imported catfish to be
labeled differently from catfish grown domestically so consumers can
make informed choice about what they are eating. Yet the Agriculture
appropriations language overturns these regulations by allowing only
North American catfish growers to call their catfish ``catfish'' and
prohibits catfish from any other country being labeled as such.
Remarkable.
This was commented on by several newspapers and magazines. Also, by
the way, there was an advertising campaign mounted against catfish.
According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, in its feature article on
this issue:
For a bunch of profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. Catfish
lobby had deep enough pockets to wage a highly xenophobic
advertising campaign against their Vietnamese competitors.
This protectionist campaign against catfish imports has global
repercussions. Peru has brought a case against the European Union and
World Trade Organization because the Europeans have claimed exclusive
rights to the use of the word ``sardine" for trade purposes.
As a direct consequence of the passage of this restrictive catfish
labeling language in the Agriculture appropriations bill, USTR has
withdrawn its
[[Page S13111]]
brief supporting the Peruvian position in the sardine case against the
European Union because the catfish provision written into United States
law makes the United States guilty of the same type of protectionist
labeling scheme for which we have brought suit against the Europeans in
the WTO.
Sooner or later, we are going to have to stop legislating on
appropriations bills. Sooner or later, we are going to have to stop
giving away to special interests, and we are going to have to have
campaign finance reform.
I would be very interested in hearing the campaign contributions made
by this catfish lobby in past and present political campaigns.
We have to stop the kind of protectionism which will destroy free
trade on which America's economy is built and maintained. We are seeing
example after example and case after case of protectionism creeping in
but not through open and honest debate. If the supporters of this
amendment thought it was a good amendment, why couldn't we have brought
it up and had open and honest debate and amendments? No. It was snuck
in a managers' package, the most disgraceful practice--the most
disgraceful is putting it in the conference report. That is the worst.
The second worst is putting it in the so-called managers' package.
Usually, it is late at night.
I stray from the subject a bit, but if you think we have had fun,
wait until you see the DOD appropriations bill. Wait until next Friday
when everybody is going to want to get out of town because Christmas is
coming and the last train is leaving. It is going to have more
Christmas trees on it than the North Pole. It will be a remarkable
document. But I intend to be here and make sure that at least the
American people know what is in it.
Putting an amendment that affects trade relations, trade agreements,
and fundamental issues of free trade into a managers' package is the
kind of conduct that causes the American people to lose confidence in
their elected representatives.
I don't mind open and honest debate. I wouldn't mind losing an open
and honest debate. I do mind on the part of my constituents and the
American people that this kind of amendment gets the attention it has
received.
I know it is almost time, according to the unanimous consent
agreement, for the cloture vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me explain very briefly to our
colleagues what we hope to do.
The Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Oregon have an amendment
that has been agreed to. They would like 2 minutes on a side to present
it. Immediately following that, I will make a unanimous consent request
that would allow us the opportunity to consider and debate the defense
authorization conference report between now and 5:30. At that time, we
will have the cloture vote, then the Department of Defense
authorization conference report vote, and then a vote on a judge, all
stacked, from 5:30 to whatever time following that.
Following those votes, if Senators wish to offer additional
amendments on the farm bill, they are certainly entitled to do so.
Mr. LOTT. Is the majority leader propounding that unanimous consent
request at this time or are you going to wait until after this?
Mr. DASCHLE. Actually, I now have the text.
Mr. LOTT. If you would be willing to do it now, we would get on to
this issue quicker.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate,
immediately following the disposition of the amendment to be offered,
turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S.
1438, the Department of Defense authorization bill; that when the
report is considered, it be considered under the following limitations;
that there be 75 minutes for debate, with time controlled as follows:
45 minutes for the chair and ranking member or their designees; and 30
minutes under the control of Senator Byrd; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, without further intervening action, the Senate
proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report following a vote
on the motion to invoke cloture on the Harkin substitute amendment to
S. 1731; that upon adoption of the conference report, the Senate then
turn to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2883, the intelligence
authorization; that the conference report be considered agreed to, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening
action or debate; provided further that H. Con. Res. 288, a concurrent
resolution providing for a technical correction in the enrollment of S.
1438, be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me just say that I will not object. I
think this is a reasonable arrangement. I want to explain, though, why
we are doing this. We were scheduled to have a vote at 4 o'clock on the
cloture motion. We had at least a couple Senators who were unavoidably
delayed, and we would want to accommodate that under these conditions.
This allows us to move forward on the Defense authorization bill, which
we need to do, and that we would have the vote on the cloture motion
that was scheduled for 4 o'clock at 5:30, as I understand it, followed
by the vote on the defense authorization conference report, followed by
a vote on a judge--stacked votes.
For those of you who are worried about agriculture, as I understand
it, don't worry, because everything will be at this point when we, if
and when, come back to it. But this is to accommodate as many Senators
as possible while getting a vote on the very important defense
authorization bill and a vote on the cloture motion on the agriculture
bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. It is a good thing this is the Defense authorization
conference report or I would object. I do not intend to permit anything
else to interrupt this farm bill until we finish it. It is defense. It
is important for our country, so I will not object. I just want to put
everyone on notice, that is it. Once we get back on the farm bill, we
will be on it. I will object to going off this farm bill for anything
else other than the defense of this country. I just want to make it
clear.
Secondly, I want to ask my leader about tonight. We are going to have
these three votes. We have had some amendments. We have some amendments
ready to go tonight. I want to know if it is the intention to have the
Senate stay in session tonight and to have votes, to debate amendments
and have votes tonight to move this farm bill forward. I would just
like to know if that is what we are going to do.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Iowa.
This does not preclude additional consideration of amendments or
votes tonight.
Mr. HARKIN. So there will be votes tonight, if, again, Senators offer
amendments and we debate them? We can have votes tonight on further
amendments to the farm bill?
Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
[[Page S13112]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Just to clarify what was said, Senator Harkin said that
there will be more votes tonight. That is not what Senator Daschle
said. He said this does not preclude that. We have our normal rights
for full debate, and we have to work out agreements to when we would
vote, ordinarily. So I am not saying there will not be votes, but I
just do not want to leave the wrong impression.
Mr. HARKIN. So I guess what I read into that, if the Senator will
yield, is that it is the Senator's intention not to have any votes
tonight?
Mr. LOTT. I don't want to make any more profound statement on this
subject than Senator Daschle did. I would want to consult with him. No
final decision or announcement has been made on that.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the right to object. Because of intentional and
unintentional parliamentary procedures, I have not been allowed to
propose my amendment before the vote on cloture. If cloture is invoked,
then I may not be able to have this amendment be germane.
So I ask unanimous consent that that unanimous consent agreement be
amended that my amendment be made in order to the Daschle substitute,
as several other amendments have been made in order, in the event of
the invocation of cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. McCAIN. Then I object to the unanimous consent request. I think I
should be allowed to propose and have debate on an amendment to the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle for
Harkin substitute amendment No. 2471 for Calendar No. 237, S.
1731, the farm bill:
Tim Johnson, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Tom Carper, Zell
Miller, Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Ben Nelson, Daniel Inouye,
Tom Harkin, Kent Conrad, Mark Dayton, Debbie Stabenow,
Richard Durbin, Jim Jeffords, Tom Daschle, and Blanche
Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
substitute amendment No. 2471 to S. 1731, a bill to strengthen the
safety net for agricultural producers, to enhance resource conservation
and rural development, to provide for farm credit, agricultural
research, nutrition, and related programs, to ensure consumers abundant
food and fiber, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 368 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--45
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Domenici
Murray
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Mr. President, I withdraw my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
____________________