[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.

                          ____________________