[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.

                          ____________________