[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 44 (Thursday, April 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1453-H1462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, FARM SECURITY ACT of 2001
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dooley of California moves that the managers on the
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R.
2646 (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural
programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed: to agree to
the provisions contained in section 335 of the Senate
amendment, relating to agricultural trade with Cuba.
[[Page H1454]]
{time} 1500
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion that I am offering today is one which is
advancing and continuing the policy of economic engagement that this
country has embraced. It is a policy to ensure that we can provide
economic opportunities for all sectors of our economy, whether it be
the farmers in California, Missouri, or Washington, or wherever else in
this country.
It ensures that we are going to be able to provide for the sale of
goods to Cuba, and to make one minor modification to our existing law,
which is to allow private financing of the sale of those goods. This is
an important step forward if we truly are committed to trying to
provide for additional markets for our farmers in this country.
It is also an important step forward because many of us believe by
advancing a policy of economic engagement which is consistent with this
motion, it will also do more than we could otherwise in terms of
ensuring that we are going to see progress in the advancement of
democracy, the advancement of personal freedoms in Cuba itself.
We have been able, I think, to have a case study in terms of what a
policy of isolation has done in Cuba over the past 40 or 50 years, when
we have seen very little progress in seeing the advancement of personal
freedoms in Cuba. We have found in other areas of the world where we
have reached out and we have engaged in trade, we have actually seen
not only economic opportunities, but we have seen significant progress
on the social front with the advancement of democracy, the advancement
of human rights, the advancement of religious freedoms.
I am confident if this body instructs the conferees to adopt the
Senate position, we will be providing benefits for U.S. citizens, but
also we will be empowering the citizens of Cuba to be more successful
in improving the quality of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Dooley ``sell them the rope''
motion. The section in the compromise legislation of the year 2000 on
this issue relating to financing specified that ``United States
persons'' cannot finance sales to the Cuban dictatorship, and ``United
States persons'' was defined as ``the Federal Government, any State or
local government, or any private person or entity.''
The Senate provision strikes that entire section, including, thus,
the prohibition on financing by ``the Federal Government.'' So the
Senate financing provision is not as limited as its supporters here
allege. It will make available public financing to the Cuban
dictatorship.
Last year, the dictatorship was forced to close over 12,000 hotel
rooms in its all-important tourist industry. Its currency is worthless.
The dictatorship defaulted on $500 million in loans just in the year
2001. So what is the dictator betting everything on? U.S. tourism
dollars and the agricultural lobby in the U.S. Congress.
Today we see the agricultural lobby at work here for the
dictatorship, despite the current realities of the bankrupt Cuban
dictatorship, despite the fact that the Cuban dictatorship continues to
provide safe harbor to terrorists throughout the world, despite the
fact that Castro serves as the world's primary money launderer for
international terrorism, providing his so-called ``revolutionary
banks'' not just for Puerto Rican FALN terrorists, like those who took
their stolen millions from the U.S. to Cuba, but laundering money as
well for drug dealers, international terrorists, and corrupt
politicians.
A few months before 9/11, the Cuban dictator visited Syria, Iran, and
Libya. In Iran, he declared ``Together, Iran and Cuba will bring the
United States to its knees.''
In August, Irish IRA terrorists based in Cuba were arrested in
Colombia helping the FARC terrorists there improve their urban bomb-
making capabilities.
Basque ETA terrorists continue to be based and trained in Cuba to
this day.
More than 90 U.S. felony fugitives wanted by the FBI for hijacking,
murder, armed bank robbery, the sales of explosives to Libya, and
kidnapping remain in Cuba and continue to receive protection by the
dictatorship to this day.
The only one of the seven terrorist states that has had 17 spies
arrested in the last 3 years, 17 spies arrested, awaiting trial or
already convicted, agents spying for the Cuban regime in the United
States, the only one of the seven terrorist states that has had those
spies arrested and convicted is the Cuban regime.
On September 21, a senior analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency
was arrested for spying for the Cuban government. The FBI was forced to
arrest her before they would have wanted to, because according to
intelligence community sources, Castro shares intelligence with Middle
Eastern enemies of the United States.
Last month, on March 19, the State Department's Office of
Intelligence and Research declared that the Cuban dictatorship has ``an
offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has
provided dual-use biotechnology to rogue states. We are concerned that
such technology could support biological weapons programs in those
states.''
And, as we speak, the U.S. administration is encouraging governments
throughout the world to say no to pressure from totalitarian elements
in their countries, and to vote in favor of the resolution criticizing
the human rights situation in Cuba at the U.N. Human Rights Commission
in Geneva.
Mr. Speaker, my high school teacher, Judd Davis, used to tell me that
Lenin was fond of saying that ``some capitalists will sell even the
rope for us to hang them with.'' What we are seeing here today is that
on that matter, Lenin was right: There are some capitalists who would
sell even the rope with which they would be hung.
Cuba is in this hemisphere. It is the only country oppressed by
tyranny in this hemisphere. In this hemisphere, democracy is required
by international law. So while my heart goes out to the Chinese people,
the use of the China analogy is hypocritical and it is wrong.
The signal that we need to be sending to Cuba is that there will be
no normalization until all the political prisoners are freed and free
elections are scheduled. That is President Bush's position, and that is
what this Congress has stated repeatedly in the past.
This ``sell them the rope'' motion is as untimely as it is wrong.
There will be a democratic transition in Cuba soon, and the people will
do business with those who did not do business with their jailers. It
is unfortunate that so many are working so hard to put themselves on
the blacklist of those who a free and democratic Cuba will never do
business with. For those interested in sales to Cuba, democratic Cuba
will not do business tomorrow and forever with those who today worked
to provide dollars to the totalitarian dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley) and those who would direct that the conferees
accept the Senate provisions to remove the restrictions on financing
agricultural products to Cuba.
I am not known to be a hostage to the agricultural lobby, but
certainly I do believe that trade is essential if we are going to
attempt to persuade those people who have dictatorships that democracy
is the way that they have to go.
I do not really believe we can just shut ourselves off from these
people, and continue to have an embargo and deny them access to food
and medicine, and at the same time expect that the
[[Page H1455]]
people are going to look at us as an example of what a better way of
life is. I do not really think that we should be held hostage by the
People's Republic of Miami in our foreign and our trade policy.
It seems to me that when we take a look at a billion people in China,
we are taking a look at a dictatorship. When we take a look at the
people in north Vietnam or North Korea, we are taking a look at
dictatorships. As a matter of fact, Members do not have to be as old as
I am to know that we have taken a look at dictatorships in the past,
and even so today, without denying our ability to export to these
countries.
So it just seems to me that after the hurricane in Cuba, Americans,
for humanitarian reasons, decided that we would offer food and medicine
to the people in Cuba. That led to some provisions being made that we
could have limited exports to the people in Cuba.
Well, what is wrong, if the House has said and the Senate has said
that American farmers should be allowed to export their products, why
can we not assist them in making certain they get paid for their
products?
So I know this is a very emotional issue, but we cannot allow
ourselves to be blinded by emotion at a time when we are saying, look
at democracy, look at our farmers, look at productivity, look at better
products, look at lesser prices, and allow us to go into that market
and compete with everyone else. Let our kids get over there, let them
be ambassadors for good will, remove the restrictions in terms of the
Cubans and Americans, and let us all work hard for a better
understanding, and to bring democracy to Cuba.
Do not threaten those people who vote one way or the other that the
new government in Cuba is going to punish those people who voted to
relax the embargo. Nobody has designated who is going to lead the new
Cuba. If we knew that, maybe we could take a different foreign policy.
If some people know who is going to succeed Castro, maybe they should
share it with us, because it could be worse than we might expect, than
what we are getting today.
But we do not know these things. That is why we should not allow our
food policy to be governed by our political policies. For 40 years,
those people who said, no, no, no, no, no, have found out that this guy
that runs Cuba has survived half-a-dozen Presidents.
Let us give freedom a chance, let us give trade a chance. I
congratulate those who have put this motion together to instruct the
conferees.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
I am sure that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) considers the
reference to my hometown as ``the People's Republic of Miami'' to be an
example of his piquant wit. I find it to be personally offensive, and I
would ask him to please refrain from such characterizations.
But it is a shameful day today. It is shameful today that as former
Cuban political prisoners stand before the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights in Geneva calling for the international condemnation of
the Castro regime's systematic violations of human dignity, civil
liberties, and fundamental freedoms, today in this Chamber, a vivid
symbol and an instrument of democracy, we are discussing a measure that
will provide the Castro dictatorship with the financial means to
continue its oppression and its enslavement of the Cuban people.
It is shameful that, as the U.S. State Department Report on Human
Rights Practices reports, the use of child labor and forced labor in
Cuba's farming sector is mandated, yet this Congress is considering a
measure which our assistant secretary of state for democracy, human
rights, and labor underscored at a recent congressional hearing would
serve to promote the use of child and slave labor by the Castro regime
in the agricultural sector.
It is shameful that, as we approach the commemoration of our Memorial
Day, when we pay homage to our courageous veterans, some would seek to
provide funds to a regime which sent Cuban agents to torture American
POWs at a camp in Vietnam called the Zoo.
It is shameful that, as a global war on terrorism intensifies, some
in the Congress would be seeking to provide funds to the Castro
dictatorship, a country which every recent administration, be it
Republican or Democrat, has officially labeled as a State sponsor of
terrorism.
It is shameful that, as Columbian President Pastrana, in visiting
Capitol Hill this very week, just yesterday outlined, among other
details, Cuba's role in supporting narco-terrorists, and its support
and training, directly or through such entities as the IRA and the
Basque terrorist group ETA, of terrorist operations in the Western
Hemisphere, that this body today would consider providing funds to that
Castro regime to further these terrorist efforts which undermine the
stability of our region.
It is shameful that, as the Castro regime expands its biological
weapons capabilities and builds even stronger cooperative agreements in
this arena with Iran and Iraq, some would seek to facilitate these
efforts, which directly threatens U.S. national security. In 1998, a
Department of Defense report raised concerns about the potential of
Cuba's biotechnology sector to be used for offensive purposes.
In October of 2001, Dr. Ken Alibek, the former head of Russia's
biological weapons program, testified before the Committee on
Government Reform on the very real threat posed by Cuba's biotech
sector.
{time} 1515
In the October 2001 edition of the journal ``Nature Biotechnology,''
Jose de la Fuente, the former director of research and development at
the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Havana,
disclosed that technology and agents for treatments of a number of
diseases were sold by Cuba to Iran's terrorist regime, technology and
lethal agents which can be used to produce anthrax bacteria or smallpox
virus.
It is shameful that we would be considering a measure that would
provide funds to a regime whose leader, Fidel Castro, joined Iran's
Ayatollah in May of last year to underscore their commitment to ``bring
America to its knees.'' Those were Fidel Castro's own words just months
ago, months before 9-11. Castro said, ``Together, we can bring America
to its knees.''
It is shameful that we are going to support a tyranny whose so-called
attorney general, Juan Escalona, and I say ``so-called'' because there
is no real justice system in Cuba. It is a dictatorship, a totalitarian
state with no respect for civil liberties and which pays none of its
debt. So we will be actually subsidizing with our tax dollars all of
these great sales that my colleagues would like to make to Fidel
Castro.
Juan Escalona, when referring to the transfer of al Qaeda prisoners
to Guantanamo Naval Base, was quoted in January of this year saying
that he hoped that 15 or 20 of these anti-American terrorists would get
out and kill Americans stationed at our base in Guantanamo.
These were the words of a high-ranking Cuban official. He wants the
al Qaeda prisoners to kill our American servicemen and -women in
Guantanamo base in Cuba and Castro says nothing. This is the attorney
general.
It is shameful that as our FBI, CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency
work to repair the significant damage already done to U.S. national
security by Cuban espionage in our country, we would be seeking to
reward that Castro regime by providing it with access to financing to
continue its terrorist and espionage activities against the United
States.
It is shameful that we would allow a regime that has killed American
citizens to continue to act with impunity by rewarding it with access
to much needed funds, funds which will never reach the Cuban people. Do
not fool yourselves. Do not try to fool the Congress. Funds which only
help maintain Fidel Castro in power.
Mr. Speaker, the provision referenced in this motion to instruct
conferees has nothing to do with helping the small farmers of America
because these small farmers are the heart and soul of our country, the
core of American values and principles, values which they would never
seek to betray
[[Page H1456]]
in this manner. No. The provisions in this Senate farm bill that this
motion refers to is to benefit agricultural giants who wish to make
profit from trading with America's enemies.
If this was truly about helping America's farmers, then the Senate
would have moved the Andean Trade Promotion Act, and it would have
given the gentleman from California's (Mr. Dooley) farmers those free
markets to sell to.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the anniversary of a failed attempt to
restore freedom and democracy to Cuba: the Bay of Pigs invasion. In a
month we will commemorate the centennial anniversary of Cuban
independence. So, Mr. Speaker, today I stand here and I ask my
colleagues whom we wish to emulate: those who betrayed the Cuban
freedom fighters in 1961 by not providing aerial support to those who
landed at the Bay of Pigs, or do we wish to emulate those Rough Riders
who, 100 years ago, stood side by side with the Cuban liberators and
charged up San Juan Hill and helped Cuba gain its independence?
Do we wish to support the Cuban people in their struggle to free
themselves from their bondage, or do we wish to help their oppressor to
continue its subjugation of its people and continue threatening the
U.S. and, indeed, the hemisphere and the free world?
If we are to stand for what is right and just, as we did with the
Afghan people, we must vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct conferees
and hold the House position on the farm bill.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me the
time.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to
instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dooley).
This motion would instruct conferees to recede to the Senate
provision in the farm bill to lift current limitations on the financing
of private sales of food and medicine to Cuba.
My reasons are very simple. It is good farm policy, it is good trade
policy, and it simply is the right thing to do. It also is the position
that reflects the will of the House.
On July 20, 2000, the House voted 301 to 116, 301 to 116, to lift all
sanctions on the sale of food and medicine specifically to Cuba. Mr.
Speaker, the House has spoken on this issue. It has spoken with a
clear, strong, bipartisan voice.
Unfortunately, the will of the House, and I might add the will of the
Senate, has been frustrated and undermined. Cumbersome restrictions
remain on private financing for food and medicine sales to Cuba. Unlike
farmers everywhere else in the world, American farmers cannot obtain
credit from a U.S. entity to finance private sales to Cuba. Instead,
our farm exporters must either arrange for credit through an overseas
bank or insist on cash in advance from Cuba.
The current restrictions on securing private financing are a
competitive barrier for our farmers. They need to be eliminated. The
Senate provision does so. The House should recede to the Senate and
open up the markets between Cuba and our agricultural exporters.
Mr. Speaker, our farmers and banks are savvy enough to weigh the
risks in doing trade with Cuba. I trust them. I ask my colleagues to
trust them.
We hear a lot of talk about democracy. Well, we need a little
democracy in the House of Representatives. Let us uphold the will of
the majority. Let us uphold the mainstream opinion in this Congress and
vote to support the Dooley motion to instruct the conferees.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip, great friend of freedom
and democracy for the Cuban people.
(Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, America has forces deployed all around the
world as we root out the international terrorist networks. We have
served notice to every Nation that there is no middle ground in the
struggle to vindicate freedom.
President Bush divided the world into two camps with a very basic
guiding principle: either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists. Every country must choose between freedom and a culture of
murder and destruction.
This misguided campaign to relax the embargo against Fidel Castro's
evil regime is a retreat from a very bright line division between
freedom and tyranny. We risk clouding our resolve against terror here
in our own hemisphere. The supporters of this initiative may believe
that by engaging Cuba their approach would bring constructive results,
but nothing in Cuba takes place without Castro's blessing, and Castro
profits by every business transaction in Cuba. Easing the embargo would
only empower a tottering dictator.
For decades, Fidel Castro's Cuba has cultivated, trained, and
harbored both individual terrorists and groups using murder to make
political statements. Castro's Cuba is a temple to violence. Their
handiwork cost American lives like the New Yorkers murdered and maimed
by the Fraunces Tavern bombing carried out by Cuban-trained terrorists.
There is no denying that Cuba is a safe haven for terrorist
fugitives. Castro shelters Basque ETA terrorists, Colombia FARC and ELN
terrorists, and terrorist officials from the Irish Republican Army.
Castro is intertwined in the axis of evil.
Just 1 year ago, Castro visited three other state sponsors of
terrorism: Iran, Syria, and Libya. In Tehran, Castro said: ``Iran and
Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees.
The U.S. regime is very weakened and we are witnessing this weakness
from up close.'' That was Castro talking.
Castro sold advanced biotechnology to the Iranian government. The
United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive
biological warfare capability. Castro is sharing dual-use biotechnology
with rogue states.
Ken Alibek, the former Soviet Union's top chemical and biological
warfare expert, told Congress that ``Cuba has a perfectly developed
system of engineering and is capable to develop genetic engineering
agents. They've got the desire to develop genetically engineered
biological weapons.'' That is what a former Communist in the Soviet
Union said.
In other words, Castro is funneling resources to develop the world's
most diabolical weapons, and he shares these evil exports with the
world's most dangerous and unstable regimes.
We can be certain that any economic activity between the United
States and Cuba will only serve to supply additional fuel to Castro's
engine of repression. The proceeds of joint ventures and trade and
terrorism do not empower the men and women of Cuba. They are bled into
the Castro regime.
We also know that Castro is continuing his attempts to penetrate U.S.
intelligence agencies and even our Armed Forces. Last month, last
month, the Defense Intelligence Agency's top Cuba specialist pled
guilty to spying for Castro over 16 years. There is little doubt that
Castro's espionage is made available to our enemies. Perhaps it even
makes its way to the al Qaeda.
There is no sign that September 11 did anything to shift Castro's
reflexive hostility toward democracy and freedom. He smeared America's
response to terrorism. Said Castro: ``Their capacity to destroy,''
their being us, ``capacity to destroy and kill is enormous, but their
traits of equanimity, serenity, reflection and caution are, on the
other hand, minimal.''
We know with dead certainty that Castro systematically brutalizes and
oppresses the Cuban people. He drags his people through hardship,
servitude, and despair; and any fair appraisal of Cuba's long support
for terrorist groups and Castro's current behavior leads to an
unavoidable conclusion. Without a clear break from terrorist
sponsorship and the adoption of fundamental human rights and democratic
reforms, the embargo must be upheld.
Even if we set aside our deep reservations about empowering Castro
through economic activity with the United States, there are other
doubts that remain. What is the likelihood that any American farmer
would actually be paid by Castro for the goods exported to Cuba?
Castro's track record is just abysmal. Two years ago, Cuba failed to
pay
[[Page H1457]]
money owed to the French. Last year Castro also defaulted on over $500
million in debt owed to Spain, South Africa and Chile. Castro is a bad
credit risk. We should be seeking to open real markets with the actual
capacity to pay for the products exported to them.
Members should reject this motion to instruct by standing with the
President against state-sponsored terrorism and tyranny. Vote ``no'' on
the motion to instruct.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 8, 1985]
F.B.I. Aide Testifies to Espionage Confession
Less than an hour after his arrest last fall on espionage
charges, Richard W. Miller confessed passing a secret
document to a Soviet intelligence agent, the head of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation office in Los Angeles
testified Friday in Federal District Court here.
It was the fifth straight day the jury heard evidence that
Mr. Miller, then an F.B.I. agent, had admitted passing
classified documents to the K.G.B., the Soviet intelligence
agency. The previous testimony focused on admissions Mr.
Miller made in five days of interrogation before his arrest
last Oct. 2.
But Richard T. Bretzing, the chief F.B.I. agent here,
testified that after Mr. Miller was taken into custody he
said he had given the secret 53-page ``Reporting Guidance:
Foreign Intelligence Information'' to his lover, Svetlana
Ogorodnikov, a Russiann emigre, Mr. Bretzing said Mr. Miller
made the admission while he was being taken from his home in
Bonsall, Calif., to the bureau's San Diego office.
Arrested on espionage charges the same day as Mr. Miller,
who is 48 years old, were Mrs. Ogorodnikov, 35, and her
husband, Nikolay, 52. Both pleaded guilty at their trial
earlier this summer and were sentenced to prison.
Earlier Testimony Supported
The Government contends that Mr. Miller was involved in a
sexual liaison with Mrs. Ogorodnikov and agreed to provide
Soviet intelligence agents with classified material through
the Ogorodnikovs in return for $65,000.
The defense, which will open its case next week, contends
that Mr. Miller cultivated a relationship with Mrs.
Ogorodnikov as part of a one-man mission to infiltrate the
K.G.B. and rescue his 20-year career as an F.B.I. agent.
Earlier this week a Portland, Ore., woman testified that
hours before his arrest Mr. Miller telephoned her and told
her he was in trouble. The woman, Marta York, testified that
Mr. Miller had said he had ``only passed one'' classified
document to Soviet agents.
Mr. Miller's attorneys, who characterized the woman's
testimony as ``very damaging,'' were surprised Friday when
the prosecution presented a witness to buttress her
testimony.
The witness, Gary Allan, an Oregon social worker, testified
that he was in Mrs. York's home last Oct. 2 when she received
a phone call from a ``close friend'' named ``Richard'' who
was in the F.B.I.
After the call Mr. Allan said Mrs. York was ``agitated''
and ``excited,'' and talked about it. ``She said she had
learned he had gotten into trouble as a result of his
relationship with a woman who she identified as a Soviet
agent,'' Mr. Allan testified. Information Termed Secret ``Did
she tell you that Richard's relationship with the Russian
woman was an intimate relationship?'' asked Russell Hayman,
an Assistant United States Attorney.
Mr. Allan responded, ``It's fair to say that, yes.'' He
then said Mrs. York had told him that her F.B.I. friend ``had
shared information with the Russian agent.''
Mr. Hayman asked, ``What type of information?'' Mr. Allan
replied, ``She described the information as secret.''
Mr. Bretzing testified Friday that, in the five days before
Mr. Miller's arrest, he urged the agent to ``unburden''
himself.
The defense contends that Mr. Miller was so overcome by Mr.
Bretzing's spiritual appeal that he began confessing. Mr.
Miller was excommunicated from the Mormon Church early last
year for adultery. Mr. Bretzing is a Bishop in the church.
But Mr. Bretzing rebuffed defense suggestions that he
exploited Mr. Miller's ties to the Mormon Church to elicit a
false confession.
``I believed that he had done things he knew to be unlawful
and a betrayal of the country,'' Mr. Bretzing said, referring
to Mr. Miller. ``I believed from his teachings in the F.B.I.
and as a youngster in the Mormon Church, he had every reason
to feel guilt.''
Stanley Greenberg, a defense attorney, asked ``And you
tried to appeal to that guilt?''
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district whose mainstay is
agriculture, and for the last 4 years and now going into our fifth year
our farmers are in very, very bad straits.
As a matter of fact, I would agree with the gentlewoman from Florida
when she says that our farmers are the heart and soul of America. They
are the heart and soul of our American values, but they are hurting;
and our farmers overwhelmingly want to sell their commodities to Cuba.
As a matter of fact, they have sold $73 million of commodities to Cuba
in the last 6 months. Those have been cash sales, and Cuba has paid up
front for those purchases.
Up until we imposed the embargo on Cuba 40-plus years ago, my farmers
sold the bulk of their rice to Cuba. They lost that market when the
embargo was imposed, and they have really never gotten those markets
back again from any other country.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, the other day, the Friday before last, I helped to load
250,000 bushels of my farmers' rice onto the barges in Carthersville,
Missouri. It was my farmers' rice, not a company's rice, my farmer's
rice. And I am absolutely shocked and saddened when I hear my colleague
from Florida say that any firm or farmers who sell their commodities to
Cuba will be blacklisted by the Democratic government that may take
over when Castro leaves office, dies or is elected. That is shameful,
as my other colleague from Florida said.
Let me talk a little bit about a couple of other things. The
administration has recently revoked the visas of several Cuban
officials who represent their trading company, Alimport. Those
officials were coming to Michigan, to North Dakota, to Missouri and
other States to purchase commodities for future sales; and,
unfortunately, our administration said it was not their policy to
encourage agricultural sales to Cuba.
If our farmers are hurting, if our American economy is hurting and we
want to have an open trade policy, it is pretty hypocritical not to
allow people who want to purchase our commodities to come and do so.
When we are talking about private financing, we are talking about a
company entering into a private financial agreement with the country of
Cuba. It is a private company. If they want to take the risk, they
should be allowed to take the risk because this is, I thought, a
democracy where we were free to make those decisions on our own.
Mr. Speaker, our policy towards Cuba should not be one that is based
on a family feud, but rather it should be a policy based on helping the
American economy and the American farmer.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the family feud is about, but I do
know that the shameful attitude is one of standing with the
dictatorship; and it is normal and I think to be expected that people,
once they are free, do not want to do business with those who
collaborated with a dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the start that I admire my
friend from California with whom I have worked so closely on so many
issues. This is one issue where we disagree, and disagree strongly.
While I would like nothing more than to see democracy and free market
trade with Cuba, and while my family in Cuba would like nothing more
than to see democracy and free markets and greater access to food,
subsidizing trade with a regime on the U.S. terrorist list that has
threatened us in the past, that is one of the world's worst human
rights abusers, that gives its citizens none of the religious or
political freedoms we Americans hold here dear, is not helping the
Cuban people, it is only helping the dictatorship.
I have taken that constant position, whether it be in China or any
other totalitarian place in the world. I wish so many of my colleagues
who take that position in those countries would take that position
here. Cuba can get food from almost anywhere else in the world. But the
fact is the Cuban regime and its failed economic models rations the
food that eventually gets to the ordinary people; and rationing food is
a control mechanism over the populous.
My family in Cuba gets a ration card, and no matter how much food
comes
[[Page H1458]]
into Cuba, they ultimately can only purchase that amount that they are
controlled by the government to have access to. When a government
rations food, they obviously control the people because they are
waiting in long lines, not thinking about a democracy or overturning a
dictatorship, but waiting in long lines to get a mere subsistence.
This is a regime that goes so far as to prohibit their own citizens
from privately producing its own agricultural food. It is failed
economics that does not give them the hard currency to purchase food.
Financing Castro, whether it is food sales or any other kinds of sales,
supports the very system that actually prevents the Cuban people from
getting freedoms, rights, and, yes, even food without government
control.
Some of us look at the motion which I understand my colleague is
doing to help farmers in his district and throughout the country, but
we look at it and say ultimately it finances oppression,
totalitarianism, and I do not think that we can count on the regime to
honor its debt. This is not about the private sector simply taking
risks on their own because maybe we can make an argument for that, that
if the private sector wants to take the risk, they should have the
opportunity. If they lose, they lose.
But under this instruction and the Senate's provisions, in fact, the
Federal Government's different programs of financing can finance the
food sales. Therefore, it is not the private sector making their market
decision, it is the taxpayers of this country ultimately who will lose
when Castro, who has a long history of not paying debt, ultimately does
not pay. That is, I think, a poor statement for American taxpayers to
be subsidizing a regime, a dictatorial regime, that ultimately controls
its people by rationing its food.
Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to do is deal with the Freedom to
Farm Act which was a catastrophe for the farmers. Let us not foot the
bill for oppression and dictatorship, and let us not allow the Cuban
people to be controlled by food rationing. Let us stand with them
against dictatorship and against the motion.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to provide some clarification, the motion and the Senate
language retains section 908(a) which has the prohibition that does not
allow for any public financing or assistance in the sale of products.
So when Members are making contentions that this is going to result in
a subsidization of trade and allow for public financing, this amendment
does nothing of the sort because it retains the language in section
908(a).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all state my admiration
for the sponsor of this motion. This motion is a promotion of
democracy. It is for free trade and it is to replace a 40-year-old
failed policy with a new idea on foreign policy.
As a new Democrat, as a member of the Cuban Working Group which is a
bipartisan group of Members of Congress, I rise in strong support of
this motion.
Mr. Speaker, unilateral sanctions on humanitarian products such as
food and medicine have been ineffective, totally ineffective, in trying
to influence and change the Cuban Castro regime for the past 40 years.
This motion is not even a motion to remove the embargo, which 85
percent of Americans would probably support, this motion simply lets
the private sector move forward without restrictions for our
agricultural community to do trade with Cuba. This is modest. This is a
small step forward for freer trade and replacing a failed policy.
Unilateral sanctions have failed, and they have hurt our farmers
across the board. It is not a way to implement American foreign policy.
This embargo is hurting Indiana farmers. If we somehow were to get this
embargo replaced, the impact on agricultural products, fisheries, and
forest products to Cuba from Indiana alone would reach an annual export
rate of $29 million, and create 791 new jobs in our State. That is a
good policy for Indiana and for farmers and for our economy.
Mr. Speaker, let me close with this. We now trade with Vietnam, whom
we fought a war with. We trade with China with 1.2 billion people; why
can we not trade with Cuba? Eleven million people, a small island to
the south of Florida, do not let it be held hostage to presidential
electoral politics.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a fighter for human rights.
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the Dooley motion to lift current human rights limitations on the
financing of private agricultural sales to Cuba. While the motion in
support of section 335 of the Senate version of the farm bill purports
to assist American commercial interests, it is absolutely clear that
the prime beneficiary would be the Castro dictatorship.
Amazingly, it seems to escape the notice and concern of certain
Members of Congress that the Cuban dictator not only tortures thousands
of people in Cuba, but he is also a terrorist. Cuba continues to share
the dubious distinction of being named a terrorist state by the U.S.
State Department, joining countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, North
Korean, Sudan and Syria, great company, and we want to trade more with
these individuals?
Last year as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) pointed out
earlier, when Castro was in Iran, and this was in the Agence France
Presse, he said after meeting with the Iranians, ``The U.S. regime is
weak, and we are witnessing this weakness close up.'' He also said that
Iran and Cuba, tightly together, in cooperation with each other, can
bring America to its knees.
Mr. Speaker, ``bring America to its knees,'' and we want to reward
this terrorist, Castro, by trading more with him? The mention was just
made that in China and Vietnam, we trade with them, why not Cuba. There
has been no amelioration of human rights abuses in those countries.
I would ask my colleague, the author of this motion, has the
gentleman read the country reports on human rights practices with
regard to Cuba? Has the gentleman read it? No.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman and every Member who wants to lift
this part of the sanction to read this. It reads like an indictment of
the Cuban dictatorship.
This report points out over and over again in this 21-page, single
space country report, out of the State Department, that harassment,
murder, killing, beatings--if one steps out of line in Cuba, bang, they
come at you and beat you with their fists. And we want to reward this
dictatorship?
The gentleman from California mentioned China. China has gotten worse
in its human rights. Read that report. It is over 60 pages put out by
the U.S. Department of State. We cannot aid and abet dictatorship. He
is a terrorist. He is a mass violator of human rights, and he would be
the prime beneficiary of the gentleman's motion and the Senate
language. I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is wrong. It makes us,
however unwittingly, accomplices in crimes against humanity.
The Government's human rights record remained poor. The
Government continued to violate systematically the
fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens.
Citizens do not have the right to change their government
peacefully. Prisoners died in jail due to lack of medical
care. Members of the security forces and prison officials
continued to beat and otherwise abuse detainees and
prisoners, including human rights activists. The Government
failed to prosecute or sanction adequately members of the
security forces and prison guards who committed abuses.
Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. The
authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten,
arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights
advocates and members of independent professional
associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and
lawyers, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving
the country. The Government used internal and external exile
against such persons, and it offered political prisoners the
choice of exile or continued imprisonment. The Government
denied political dissidents and human rights advocates due
process and subjected them to unfair trials. The Government
infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government denied
citizens the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and
association. It limited the distribution of foreign
[[Page H1459]]
publications and news, reserving them for selected faithful
party members, and maintained strict censorship of news and
information to the public. The Government restricted some
religious activities but permitted others. The Government
limited the entry of religious workers to the country. The
Government maintained tight restrictions on freedom of
movement, including foreign travel and did not allow some
citizens to leave the country. The Government was sharply and
publicly antagonistic to all criticism of its human rights
practices and discouraged foreign contacts with human rights
activists. Violence against women, especially domestic
violence, and child prostitution were problems. Racial
discrimination was a problem. The Government severely
restricted worker rights, including the right to form
independent unions. The Government prohibits forced and
bonded labor by children; however, it required children to do
farm work without compensation.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is not about condoning any of the human
rights abuses or any of the infringements upon personal freedoms in
Cuba.
Those of us who are advancing this policy and this motion believe
very strongly that a policy of engagement is one that is going to do
more to improve the situation in Cuba, just as many of us believed when
we were advancing a policy of economic engagement with China, it was a
policy that was going to result in improvement in religious freedoms
and human rights that are so important to the citizens there.
Mr. Speaker, many of us would take exception to the characterization
that in our offering of this motion, we are actually working to the
detriment of the interest of people in Cuba and elsewhere.
{time} 1545
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in favor of the motion to instruct
conferees. I rise because I represent a lot of farmers in California,
farmers who traveled with me to Cuba a month ago, people who want to
sell what they grow to the Cuban Government, to the Cuban people. The
irony is that it is not the Cuban Government that will not let them
sell it to them, it is our government.
That is why they are asking us to instruct these conferees to lift
what they consider just un-American restrictions on their ability as
businesspeople in this country who grow food for people, regardless of
their political affiliation, and see that that food can be sold to
Cuba. In fact, the rice farmers from California and the wine grape
growers from California that were with us indicated that they had sold,
the rice growers had sold rice to Cuba, were very pleased with the
sale, had gotten paid in a timely fashion and President Castro asked
them right across the table, ``I'll buy a billion dollars more of
American product if you will get your licenses to sell.''
So that is what this is about. It is about getting the ability for
American farmers to sell their crops. What does it mean to a place like
California? We looked at what we could trade in Cuba. It comes out to
about $98 million in lost trade of the products that we produce in
California that we could be selling to Cuba. About $280 million would
be to agricultural-related industries. Cuba is a market for rice, feed,
grains, oilseeds, beans, wheat flour, animal products fertilizers,
forest products, herbicides, pesticides and farm machinery. Many of
these products are big business in California.
Currently with restrictions, the U.S. has had $35 million in sales to
Cuba in the last 3 months. So the interchange is happening, but it is a
very difficult one. I would just ask, and there is a lot of emotion in
here, but I cannot understand why people would care if President Castro
gets credit for feeding hungry children. My God, our country can rise
above that and start helping 11 million people eat.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton), who knows that Castro has never been elected to
anything, much less that he deserves to be called Mr. President like
the prior speaker called him in an embarrassing, shameful way.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleagues,
Fidel Castro can buy products from the United States today, and he has
been. But he has to pay cash. And what we want to do with this, what
you want to do with this motion is you want to allow him to get credit.
Let me just tell you what credit he has honored in the past. He owes
$120 million to Spain. No payments. They are trying to restructure the
loan. He owes $170 million to France. He defaulted on $10.5 million.
They are trying to restructure that loan. He owes $20 million to Chile.
No payments on that. $400 million to Mexico; past due, but they are
trying to restructure the loan. If he wants to pay cash, he can buy it.
But the reason he wants to get credit is because he knows long term
that he is going to be able to get out of the debt. And ultimately, I
think my colleagues who have made this point in the past are accurate;
it will be borne by the taxpayers of America. The money will be
borrowed and eventually when it gets up to such a level, the financial
institutions that lend it are going to be complaining to high heaven
and the government will bail them out. And so henceforth the taxpayers
of the United States will be paying for the food that Castro gets.
Let us look at what Castro is. He is still a terrorist. He is working
with the FARC guerillas in Colombia. They are selling heroin and
cocaine by the carload to American youth. And they are terrorists. They
are kidnapping and killing Americans down there, and they are holding
them hostage and he works with them. They even wear Che Guevera hats,
berets, because they support Castro. They go back and forth to Cuba on
a regular basis. He is not for democracy. He is not for human rights.
He supports terrorism, and now he wants credit from the United States.
The fact of the matter is, my colleagues, we should not be giving it
to him. I have businesspeople in my district that have come to me and
say, ``We want to do business with Fidel Castro.'' My answer to them
is, when Fidel Castro starts allowing democracy in Cuba, when he starts
allowing human rights, when he starts taking steps in the directions
that we believe ought to be taken, then we will consider those things.
But so far Fidel Castro has done none of these things. He goes around
the world condemning the United States, saying he is going to bring us
to our knees and we want to kiss him on both cheeks. I think that is a
mistake. Until we see a manifest change in Castro's behavior, we should
not be giving him credit. If he wants to buy American products, let him
pay cash. Let him pay cash. And when he starts showing some changes in
human rights and moving toward democracy, we will start looking at
credit.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume just to make a couple of observations. I find it remarkable
that some of my Republican colleagues have so little confidence in our
private financial institutions that they do not think and trust that
they will do the due diligence in terms of making a determination on
the ability of an entity within Cuba to make good on the loans that
they might offer in order to finance a sale of U.S. products into Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my good
friend's, the gentleman from California, motion to instruct our
conferees to agree to the Senate provisions repealing the existing
restrictions against the use of American private sector financing of
our agricultural exports to Cuba.
It is high time that we bring our trade policy with Cuba, a market
with solid potential for a number of job-creating export industries, in
line with the fundamental principles and objectives which govern our
trade policy with the rest of the world. I for one as a matter of
principle have never been a supporter of unilateral sanctions as an
effective instrument of United States foreign policy. Such actions also
often cost us shares in foreign markets. Other colleagues have also
raised morally principled concerns on the inclusion of food in any
sanctions policy. I am proud that this body has already moved in a
bipartisan manner to exclude agricultural products from our embargo
against Cuba. It was a step in the right direction to bring an outdated
20th century policy into the 21st
[[Page H1460]]
century, a policy which has obviously not achieved the desired results
and is ridiculed by our friends and allies across the world.
However, that small step was followed by a step backwards, when we
excluded our own financial community from being able to provide
financing to our own private sector. Our embargo has already cost our
businesses and consumers billions of dollars. Do we really want to send
American businesses who want to export American-made goods to banks in
other nations?
Mr. Speaker, at a time when our economy is struggling to recover,
when our farmers are facing difficult conditions, and when we seemingly
find ways to take one step backward every time we take a step forward
in reclaiming our global leadership and international trade, it is
indeed high time we stop preventing our financial sector from financing
legal exports to a $100 million market only 90 miles away from our
shores.
I thank the gentleman from California for this motion, and I urge our
conferees to follow the bipartisan leadership demonstrated by the other
body; and let us end these sanctions on U.S. banking and financial
institutions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California being the maker of the motion
has the right to close.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I would ask the gentleman how many speakers he has.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. We have at least three.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dooley motion to
instruct conferees to the farm bill. It repeals existing restrictions
against private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. It is an
opportunity to help innocent people suffering under repressive regimes
and truly help our farmers who are facing record low prices.
Our foreign policy must be to help, not punish, people who suffer
under repressive regimes. Unilateral agricultural sanctions end up
hurting the most vulnerable in a target nation, eroding their
confidence in the United States as a supplier of food and as a supplier
of hope. Human Rights Watch reports that the U.S. embargo has not only
failed to bring about human rights improvements in Cuba, it has
actually, and I quote, ``become counterproductive to achieving this
goal.''
We are not defending the Cuban Government or its poor human rights
record. We must always speak strongly against the abuse of human rights
in this world. But current U.S. policy towards Cuba hurts 11 million
innocent Cuban men, women, and children; and it denies our farmers a
vital export market. This policy has cost America important export
markets. The USDA estimates that trade sanctions reduce U.S.
agricultural exports by over $500 million per year. U.S. wheat farmers
have been shut out of 10 percent of the world wheat market. Soybean
farmers could capture as much as 60 percent of the demand for soybeans.
We need to help American farmers, but we need to help the innocent
people of Cuba. We are talking about food.
I urge my colleagues to please support the Dooley motion. It makes
sense. It is humanitarian and maybe in a change in policy we can help
to bring about a change in a regime that, yes, in fact has abused human
rights. Let us help to see if we can get this back on track.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dooley) for showing the leadership on this important issue. I rise in
support of the motion to instruct to adopt the Senate language to lift
the embargo that has existed against Cuba all of these years. A
sensible and fair trade policy is an essential feature of economic
growth in this country, but the 40-year trade embargo against Cuba has
not only been unfair, it has been a failure. Castro is still there. Yet
it is our American farmers that are hurt the most by the inability to
export to a country just 70 miles off from our coast.
It is time to try engagement. At a time as we live in today when we
are importing oil from such regimes as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, even
Venezuela and even Iraq, to claim that we should not be trading with
Cuba is the height of hypocrisy. Yet what is funny about this whole
debate is the American people have been way out ahead of policymakers
in this country, especially Presidential candidates as they go down to
Florida and to the opposition to this very motion. In fact, in a recent
poll conducted on this very issue, over 85 percent of the American
people think that the United States should end all restrictions on the
sale of food and medicine to the island of Cuba. And a majority of
Members now are on record on repeated occasions of supporting lifting
the embargo. The most recent vote in the House came down to a 301 to
116 opinion to lift the embargo. The most recent vote in the Senate
passed 70 to 28. These votes indicate that there are veto-proof
majorities in both the House and the Senate to deal with this issue.
Yet it for too long has been tied up in Presidential electoral politics
in the State of Florida. A majority of both the House and the Senate
agriculture committee members favor lifting these restrictions. And
even a majority of the conferees existing on the farm bill today favor
lifting the restrictions. It is time to end this unfair trade policy.
It is time to try engagement and let the sunshine in and also help the
American farmers in the process. I thank my friend for his leadership.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dooley motion.
Let me just say that I rise in support of what is best for America. As
Americans, we have been negligent. We have allowed for this policy to
be hijacked. It is now up to us to really look in terms of what is
happening and begin to do the right thing. Nothing brought this to
light any better than the situation with Elian, the young man who, when
we saw that situation, it brought to light the fact that we need to
begin to do the right thing. The right thing is to begin to trade.
When we look at American support as indicated earlier, there is
support there for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. An October
2000 public opinion poll found that over 85 percent of Americans
support that. And so it is about time that we begin to do the right
thing. The majority of the Members of this Congress have repeatedly
voted in favor of that measure. But it continues to be hijacked. A
majority of both the House and the Senate agriculture committees
support unrestricted food and medicine sales to Cuba. The embargo
prevents U.S. businesses from doing good business, and it does not make
any sense. When we look at it and say we expect them to have an
electoral process and vote, I believe that strongly. But if you hold
that to every single country that has a dictator or has other forms of
government that do not elect their officials, we would not be having
too much trade throughout this world, and it does not make any sense.
{time} 1600
The other most important thing we need to remember is that when it
comes to our national security, I have always said we should act
unilaterally and act as quickly as possible. But when it is not in our
interests in terms of national security, and I sit on the Committee on
Armed Services, and I have never been given information in terms of the
threats that are out there. Our major threats come from other
countries.
So when we look at that, we ought to act in a multilateral
perspective and reach out to Latin America. All of Latin America has
always questioned why do we have this policy that is irrational and
blinded.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Otter). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
[[Page H1461]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, with regard to a couple of points made
by the colleague who just spoke, he said that he has heard, and he is
on the Committee on Armed Services, of no threats by the Cuban regime.
Obviously he has not heard the debate that has gone on for one hour,
because my understanding was that 17 spies were convicted or arrested
in the last couple of years. No other terrorist state has had anywhere
near that many spies arrested, in some instances, for spying on U.S.
military installations, which is something that goes counter to
national security. The highest ranking spy in the Defense Intelligence
Agency, my understanding, is that spy was arrested for spying for the
Cuban terrorist state, and that would be contrary to national security.
My colleague said he never heard of anything along those lines, so I am
glad we had this opportunity to inform him.
Our law is clear. Normalization requires freedom for political
prisoners, legalization of unions, the press and political parties, and
the scheduling of free elections. Now, if you ask the American people a
question, do you support those three conditions for normalization, do
you support in this hemisphere that all people should have the right to
free elections and to no political prisoners and to freedom for
political parties and labor unions and the press, I know what the
answer to that question would be. It would be overwhelmingly supported.
So it all depends on how you ask the question.
This Congress has always stood in favor of free elections and freedom
for the political prisoners and freedom of political activity and free
speech in effect for the Cuban people. Cuba, as has been said before,
is in this hemisphere. The international law and inter-American law
requires democracy in this hemisphere. It states that representative
democracy is the only form of government in this hemisphere.
Cuba remains in this hemisphere, despite what some would like on the
other side of this debate. It remains in this hemisphere, and the Cuban
people deserve our continued solidarity, and not financing for the
terrorist regime, which is what in effect this amendment would make
possible. So vote down the Dooley amendment.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the sincerity and passion of the gentleman's
opposition to this amendment, but I think at times the rhetoric has
probably gone beyond the issues that are at hand here.
This amendment, what we are talking about really relates solely to
the sale of food and medicine from the United States to Cuba. Currently
we allow for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, but we require that
it be paid for in cash, or the U.S. interest that is selling the food
and medicine to Cuba would have to secure financing from a third party
country. All this amendment does is says that a sale of U.S. food and
medicine to Cuba can now be financed by a private institution in the
United States.
That is what this debate is all about. It is about how we can
facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products that are important to
provide the sustenance to a lot of families in Cuba. It is about how
can we facilitate the sale of U.S. drugs to a lot of the families in
Cuba by providing an element of private financing.
I just want to clarify an issue that was brought up at times saying
this will allow for the public financing of goods to Cuba. This bill
does not do that. In fact, it retains the language that I wanted to
read into the record, which is section 908(a). It says, ``In general,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States government
assistance, including United States foreign assistance, United States
export assistance, and any United States credit or guarantees shall be
available for exports to Cuba or for commercial exports to Iran, Libya,
North Korea, or Sudan.''
My colleagues need to fully understand that, again, what we are
talking about here is simply a measure that will provide for the
ability to provide for private financing of food and medicine.
There was also some contention made, well, why do we need to be
providing for the U.S. be able to provide food and medicines to Cuba?
They can get those from other countries. But what is clear is if the
United States wants to have the most influence into Cuba, is that we
need to enhance and expand upon our interaction and our engagement.
That is what this measure will do.
I ask my colleagues to support this measure. It is a step forward in
terms of providing greater economic opportunities in many sectors of
our economy, and also is a step forward in ensuring that we will have a
positive form of economic engagement which can make a difference in the
quality of life of the residents and citizens of Cuba.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my good
friend from California and his motion to instruct the conferees on the
Farm Security Act, which would repeal the existing restrictions against
private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, at issue here is whether we want to help American
farmers, or leave in place restrictions that are costing them millions
of dollars each year. Given that the national farm economy is
depressed, it is important that we do what we can to help American
farmers and their families. With one simple adjustment in our policy,
we can help them recover billions of dollars in lost trade. According
to a recent study, U.S. farmers are losing close to $1.26 billion in
agricultural exports and about $3.6 billion in exports related to
agriculture because of these restrictions.
The U.S. Senate has taken the first step in easing agricultural trade
restrictions, and the House of Representatives should follow. The
Senate position has garnered wide support from a broad array of
agricultural interests. The National Farm Bureau, the USA Rice
Federation, the dairy industry, wine sellers, all support lifting the
restrictions. The California Farm Bureau supports lifting restrictions
because it knows that California agriculture stands to reap great
benefits from trade with Cuba. Up to $98 million in agricultural
products, and $287 million in related sales could be generated, simply
by lifting the restriction on private financing.
The Cubans are ready, willing, and able to purchase our goods. They
have stated publicly that they would buy over a billion dollars' worth
of agricultural goods if we would only lift restrictions, and help
expedite licenses to allow them access to the same lending terms to
which other countries have access. Let's help the American farmers.
Let's trust them manage their own business and their own risks. Lifting
the restrictions would give them this freedom.
This is a simple vote, will we agree to instruct the House conferees
to agree with the Senate--which has already realized the necessity of
this change in policy--or do we continue with a failed policy, which
helps no one and hurts American farmers? I urge my colleagues to
support this move, and vote ``yes'' on the Dooley motion to instruction
the conferees.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the H.R.
2646, the motion to instruct conferees on the Farm Security Act to
repeal restrictions against private financing of agricultural sales to
Cuba.
Doing business with Cuba means doing business with Castro, it is that
simple. So long as Cuba's dictator maintains his stranglehold on every
aspect of Cuban life, lifting any aspect of the embargo would mean
subsidizing Castro. The truth is that Cuba can get food from almost
anywhere in the world. However the Cuban Government chooses to ration
the food that it does receive and even goes as far as to prohibit its
citizens from producing their own. Under Castro, every aspect of the
economy is controlled by the Cuban Government. In Cuba there is no such
thing as free enterprise. By sending our products into Cuba, we are
only giving Castro the symbolic victory and propaganda he craves. By
sending our agriculture products into Cuba, we are only providing
assistance to a dictator and a terrorist.
The Cuban Government is characterized by its systematic trampling of
civil rights and political freedom, the killing of civilians, the
subhuman conditions of its prisons and by a legal system that
perpetuates the violation of human rights. According to Amnesty
International, no other country of Cuba's size has held so many
political prisoners for so long under such inhuman circumstances of
atrocity and terror. These atrocities are not some far off history of a
generation ago. They are happening today, in jails closer to Miami than
we are to my home in New Jersey.
By lifting these sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban
Government--no free elections, no commitments on human rights, no civil
liberties--we are betraying the very people that this embargo was
designed to help. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2646
and to remain steadfast in their support for the Cuban people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
[[Page H1462]]
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________