[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5291-H5306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 488 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5120.
{time} 2008
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5120) making appropriations for the Treasury Department,
the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Biggert (Chairman
pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, pending was the amendment printed in House Report 107-
585 by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the bill was open
from page 75, line 11, through page 103, line 10.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, debate on the following
amendments, and any amendments thereto, will be limited to the time
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent as follows:
The amendment printed in House Report 107-58 offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss) shall be debated for 12 additional minutes;
the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1
shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5
shall be debatable for 20 minutes; and
the amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 9 and
20 each will be debated for 10 minutes.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) each will control 6 minutes on the Goss amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I want to clarify, because it is not fair
for me to claim all 6 minutes in opposition, A, because I am not in
opposition.
Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)
was concerned under the unanimous consent that he might not get the
time to speak, and he is not a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, in fairness, my understanding with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and I think everybody's understanding, was that
the proponents would have 6 minutes and the opponents would have 6
minutes, so that my only intent, Madam Chairman, is to ensure that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) get his 3 minutes. I also want
to ensure that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) gets his 3
minutes. So I am not claiming the time.
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, we need a clarification. I think the
gentleman from Maryland rose to claim the time in opposition to yield 3
of the 6 minutes to the gentleman from (Mr. Menendez).
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is a proponent of Goss
and not in opposition to Goss. So we may need a unanimous consent
agreement here to agree that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) gets 3 minutes; that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) gets 3 minutes in supporting the Goss amendment; that the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) get 3 minutes each in opposition to the Goss amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair mistook the attitude of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Does any Member rise in opposition
to the amendment?
Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goss
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
will control 6 minutes.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, as the designee of the proponent of
the amendment, am I correct that I will, as the person controlling the
6 minutes, have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. In the absence of a committee Member in
opposition; that is correct.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As the designee of the proponent of the amendment,
do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) will control 6 minutes as the designee of the
proponent of the amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, I want to
make clear that a unanimous consent has been propounded, which I think
is a fair one, and what that does, it gives one Democrat a proponent of
the Goss amendment and one Democrat who is an opponent 3 minutes
apiece; and on the other side, one Republican who is a proponent gets 3
minutes and one Republican who is an opponent gets 3 minutes.
I am not going to seek any time. I am for the proposed unanimous
consent irrespective of who closes or not. The proponent of the
amendment, I presume, under the rules, would have the right to close.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am still trying to get an answer as to whether the
proponent of the amendment has the right to close. That is the first
question I would like answered. As the proponent of the amendment, do I
get the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members will suspend for a moment.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, it is my perception there is not
opposition to the unanimous consent request, but I may be wrong.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will state her current
understanding. The 6 minutes in opposition will be controlled by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the 6 minutes for the proponent
will be controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) will have the right to close.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, as I understand, there was a unanimous
consent request propounded subsequent to the first unanimous consent,
and that unanimous consent was of the
[[Page H5292]]
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) suggesting that there be in effect,
an amendment to the first unanimous consent and that that amendment
would be that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 3
minutes and controls that, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) has 3 minutes, that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
have 3 minutes in opposition, and that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) have 3 minutes in opposition.
It seems to me that we all here, I think, agree that that would be
the distribution of time.
{time} 2015
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair has allocated time
to two Members, one as proponent and one as opponent, and those
gentlemen may yield to other Members who request time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, the Chair has stated that the
opposition to the amendment has 6 minutes and the proponents of the
amendment have 6 minutes, and we have the right to close.
There is 6 minutes in opposition to the Goss amendment, and I will
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and
then I will close.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) controls 6 minutes, and is recognized.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, after 10 years in the House, and as the
ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, it is
amazing on an issue that is vital to my district and my constituency
how I have to fight for time on the floor, but I appreciate the
gentleman yielding me this time.
President Bush came to this Chamber and said of countries who support
terrorism, you are either with us or you are against us. It is amazing
to me how I have heard some of my colleagues come to the floor and
begin to equivocate. I remember the standing ovation the President
received when he said that, about whether some terrorists are okay and
others are not.
For the purposes of this amendment, let me just put Cuba under Castro
in context. On May 10, 2001, Castro visited Iran and he said, ``Iran
and Cuba in cooperation with each other can bring America to its knees.
The United States regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this
weakness from up close.''
Then we found out that Ana Montes, who was a senior analyst for our
Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States, was a Cuban spy. She
gave us all of the wrong information and analysis on Cuba, and gave the
Cubans and Castro all of the sensitive information she had as a senior
analyst on the United States, and she was specifically instructed to
discredit Cuban defectors' reports of Cuba's biological weapons
development.
Then we saw the Cuban spy ring in the south of Florida. These are all
agents of the Castro regime, who has enough money to put all of these
people here in Cuba and to have them be able to create these
operations; however, does not have enough food to put on the plates of
Cuban families back in Cuba, including that of my family. What did this
spy ring, when they came before the judge and pleaded in some cases,
say? That they sent detailed information. On what, on the United States
Postal System to Cuba. What a boring issue, the United States Postal
System. But we add Castro's visit to Iran right before September and
May, add the Defense Intelligence spy giving all of our sensitive
information and giving us all of the wrong information about Cuba, look
at the pleas that took place in the Southern District of Florida and
the statements made there, and we have more than enough to be concerned
about this benign regime that some would paint here on the floor.
Vote for the Goss amendment for a whole host of reasons.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the Goss amendment means that we
continue what has not worked for the last 41 years.
One of the certifications that the President has to make is that Cuba
is not providing technology that could be used to produce, develop, or
deliver biological weapons, and the President could not even make this
certification for the United States.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, 40 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this whole debate started several months ago when the
Under Secretary of State said, ``The United States believes that Cuba
has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and
development effort.''
Now, one of the first people I would go to if I heard that kind of
accusation about a country 90 miles from our shore would be the
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, a very respected individual. At a
press conference he said this on May 29 in the St. Petersburg Times
about that statement in the State Department. ``I haven't seen the
intelligence that apparently led Under Secretary Bolton to make those
remarks.''
If the Secretary of Defense, fighting a war against terrorism, saying
you are with us or against us, does not have that, where does it come
from? The Secretary of State said when he heard that quote, and here is
another quote, ``We did not say Cuba actually had such weapons, but it
has the capability and capacity to conduct some research.''
Mr. Chairman, let us talk about the facts here. The facts are that
Cuba and Mr. Castro, who I have no respect for and want to see out of
power, he has been in power for 42 years. What is the best way to get
rid of him? The best way is to have American travel go, and students
and business leaders and American ideas get to Cuba. Those ideas, those
beliefs, that American free enterprise system, students from colleges,
farmers to help the Cubans open up their newly announced 300 freely
priced farmers' markets, new microenterprises open around Cuba, that is
the way to open up that government and change it.
Now it may not topple Castro, but 42 years of failed policy is not
going to do it, either. Let us try something new. Let us move our ideas
forward. Let us not let Castro stay in power any longer. Church groups,
students, American beliefs, American tourists going into taxicabs and
hotels, spending our time and our ideas down there, that is the
American tradition to change this policy. Vote against the Goss
amendment and for the Flake amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has the
right to close.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goss
amendment. This debate is all about consistency, and it is interesting
that we have been debating for the past 10 minutes who gets what amount
of time to argue what position. If we think about it, the other side of
this debate has had 42 years to make this debate, to make their side of
the debate. Forty-two years. Forty-two years we have had the same
failed policy. Castro is still every bit the thug he was 42 years ago.
He is still very much in power, and the question occurs after 42 years,
it is about time that we decide maybe we need a change here. Maybe we
ought to be consistent with what we are doing in the rest of the world.
We not only allow, we encourage tourists and others to travel to
China, even though China is very much engaged in shipping arms, and who
knows, maybe biological weapons. They certainly have the capacity. If
Cuba does, they do. So does Albania, for that matter. Iran very much
has the capacity. If we believe the other side, they got it from Cuba.
Are we saying that we should not travel to Iran? No. We are saying
Americans are our best ambassadors all over the world, yet we say not
to Cuba. It is time for that policy to change.
The other side will say this is all about terrorism. Last year 240
Members of this body said we need a change. We need a change. At that
point the other side stood up and said it is about political prisoners.
That was the killer amendment to the Flake amendment last year.
Terrorism was not the chic issue it is this year; it was political
prisoners. That was brought up and said, well, Castro has to release
political prisoners. This year, is political
[[Page H5293]]
prisoners in the Goss amendment? No. It is terrorism.
Are they saying we should allow tourism just as long as there is no
terrorism, even though Castro has not released political prisoners? No.
This is simply a killer amendment; let us take it for what it is.
If we are concerned about terrorism, I would submit that the best
thing to do is defeat the Goss amendment and approve the Flake
amendment. We have to realize that the Office of Foreign Assets Control
at the Treasury Department spends between 10 and 20 percent of its
resources tracking down grandmothers from Iowa who happen to go on a
bicycling trip to Cuba.
Last year a man from the State of Washington went to Cuba for 24
hours to spread his parents' ashes at the church they built in the
1950s. That man returned to a $7,500 fine from the Office of Foreign
Assets Control. Now the Office of Foreign Assets Control's job is to
shut down the international terrorist network. How can they do that if
they are spending all of their time chasing down tourists or others who
are going to Cuba for innocent reasons? It is time to defeat the Goss
amendment.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, what is new is that some hijackers smashed into the
World Trade Center killing thousands of people and killed some heroes
also in the Pentagon. What is new is that the administration has made
public for the first time something that the intelligence community
came to the conclusion about in 1999, and that is there is a biological
weapons program in Castro's Cuba. That is what is new.
It is not a fetish, I think that is word of the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake), or fad, when we are talking about protecting
American citizens. If the Flake amendment passes without the Goss
amendment, it is not going to be a SCUD missile. Let us say that Castro
happens to be wrong and that his denial of the fact that he has
biological weapons is a lie, like he denied 40 years ago that he had
another kind of weapon. I think it was a nuclear weapon, he was denying
that. Happened to be wrong.
{time} 2030
Let us say that he happens to be wrong again and that he does have
biological weapons, as our intelligence community says so and has said
so repeatedly, not just Mr. Bolton, Mr. Ford, the head of the State
Department intelligence department, the intelligence community. By the
way, they have both said that there is a lot more that the intelligence
community does not let them say. There is a lot more that we know.
Let us say that Castro does have biological weapons. Let us just say.
It is not a fad now. Let us just say. He is not going to use Scud
missiles. He has got a lot of travelers going back and forth. This guy,
this gentleman here, who happens to be in prison, his name is Padilla,
because he was preparing a dirty bomb that he wanted to throw here in
Washington, and let us say that he is able to get out of prison and he
wants to go where there are already thousands of other terrorists given
safe harbor by the only terrorist regime in this hemisphere. Under the
Flake amendment if Goss does not pass and the President is out of the
picture, this man, or any other man, cannot be licensed, cannot be
checked, cannot be reviewed, suitcases cannot be opened; he gets to go
to the only terrorist state 90 miles from here without our Treasury
Department, where we are spending 40 percent of the money of the
Federal Government for security on this bill. Not one cent can be spent
to check him or any other terrorist that wants to go to the only
terrorist state in this hemisphere. That is what the Flake amendment
would do if Goss does not pass.
What does Goss say? That the President has to be in the mix, that the
President has the authority, has to have the authority in this war on
terrorism to check this man and to check his suitcase and to license
him.
It is not illegal to go to Cuba. A number of colleagues went to Cuba.
Here is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). Here is the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). They love to go to Cuba. They love
the mojitos on the beach where the Cubans cannot go. But this man, this
man, this man----
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken
down.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You know it is true. You know it is true.
Mr. OBEY. I want the rules enforced.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida will be seated.
The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 2041
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I understand I was not out of order. I
certainly meant no offense.
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on his demand?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is not worth it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his demand.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, in recent years there has been a growing
body of second-guessing about the adequacy of the policies of the
United States toward Cuba.
However, President Bush made it clear in a recent speech why there is
no real justification for a change of policy by his Administration.
Unfortunately, the Castro regime continues to engage in severe human
rights abuses. Cubans are deprived from the basic right of choosing
their government by free elections. Political prisoners are maltreated,
to the extent that some die in detention as a result of the physical
abuse and the lack of subsequent required medical attention. Citizens
in Cuba do not enjoy any of the rights common to free people.
The Cuban government is sensitive to its citizens contacting
foreigners, in particular human-rights activists. During President
Carter' visit, Castro put up a show for the benefit of foreign
audiences by allowing Mr. Carter to meet with a number of prominent
rights activists. However, as soon as the former President left the
Island, the Cuban regime put in motion a massive effort to neutralize
the ephemeral achievement of the activists.
Presently Castro is trying to amend the Cuban constitution, so that
the authoritarian system will become forever entrenched not only de
facto, but also in the law.
Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this is certainly not the time to
soften American policies towards Cuba. Indeed, a policy of
accommodation towards Castro will also encourage him and other
dictators. It will also discourage fragile democracies that happen to
be burdened by economic downturns, or political upheavals.
Peoples and governments around the world are watching our policies
towards Cuba as a bench mark to our commitment to the spread of
democracy. Let's not discourage those seeking freedom on the Cuban
island and in other places. Let's stay fast and send the message that a
long as there is no hope afforded to the people of Cuba by its present
regime, the United States will not change its policies.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be sued to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related
transaction.
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply to the issuance of general or specific licenses for
travel or travel-related transactions, and shall not apply to
transactions in relation to any business travel covered by
section 515.560(g) of such part 515.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H5294]]
Mr. Chairman, may I just state for the record for the folks at home,
I am Mormon and I do not drink mojitos, or whatever they are.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of
the Flake amendment. What the Flake amendment simply says is that this
is all about freedom. Our government should not tell us where we can
and cannot travel. It is a fundamental right of every American to
travel. Every one of us ought to have the right to go to Cuba to see
what a mess Fidel Castro has made of that island. We should have that
right firsthand.
That is what this amendment is all about. When you strip away
everything else, should you be allowed the right to travel to Cuba, or
anywhere else you want, or should your government tell you where you
can and cannot travel?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the greatest antidote to totalitarianism is an informed
mind. I would like to read a quick passage from an independent
journalist, a dissident in Cuba, Oscar Espinosa Chepe: ``The passage of
the House amendment last year to end the travel ban reflects a public
opinion that every day understands more clearly that the effort to
isolate Cuba has only increased the suffering of the Cuban people and
strengthened the positions of the most recalcitrant elements in the
Havana regime. Experience demonstrates that isolationism breathes life
into totalitarianism. It helps it exercise control over citizens
subjected to its power and to reinforce its monopoly over their minds.
On the other hand, contact between peoples free individuals from
falsehoods and from the lies without dignity to which they are obliged
to lead.''
Mr. Chairman, it has been the American policy from Republican
presidents and Democrat presidents that we engage; it has been in the
American policy that we engage the Soviet Union, that we engage China,
that we, just a few minutes ago, voted to engage Vietnam.
We should do the same with Cuba. The simple reason is that it has
been a bedrock principle of American policy that travel is a device
that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best
ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people from communist
countries. There is no reason to make this exception for Cuba.
We want Americans to go down and exchange ideas, to show them the
taste of freedom, to know what kind of brutal totalitarian regime they
are living under. A people cannot rise up and ask for alternatives if
they are not acquainted with those alternatives.
We are simply saying this 42-year practice of turning our backs, of
looking inward, of being hypocrites while we go to China and Russia and
Vietnam, must be ended.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I call for a yes vote on the Flake
amendment. I encourage Members to vote for the Flake amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member oppose the amendment?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our friend, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), to speak in opposition to the
Flake amendment, an amendment which runs contrary to the spirit and
letter of our U.S. anti-terrorism policy.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Arizona. He is as solid as a rock and totally believes
in his position here. In previous years, I have actually supported him
and Mr. Sanford before him on opening up travel. I supported the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) at the Committee on
Appropriations with regard to food and medicine.
But I have to tell you, the question was asked earlier what has
changed, and I rarely have changed my position on any issue over the
last 8 years, but today I am going to change my position on this issue
after careful research because the world has changed. It changed
September 11, and we have to listen to our intelligence community and
make informed decisions.
Why should we be concerned? Well, the President has said those
nations that harbor terrorists are terrorists and should be treated as
such. A gentleman just compared China, Vietnam or other countries such
as that, to Cuba. There are no allegations that I know of of those
nations harboring terrorists. We have concerns in our intelligence
community about Cuba harboring terrorists.
What about the proliferation, production, of biological weapons? We
have information in our intelligence community that Cuba is up to no
good.
Somebody said that we should try something new after 42 years. Mr.
Chairman, this is not the time to try something new. This is the most
serious time in the history of our country. We have got to be extremely
careful.
This is not a trade issue where you do want to promote travel and
open up markets. This is a national security issue and should than
treated as such. We need to treat Cuba like Syria, not like Mexico.
There is a huge difference. I am going to listen to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) and our intelligence community, not Fidel Castro and
his propaganda.
Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with the issues that bring those
proponents of this amendment to the floor today on opening markets and
how to engage. But this is different. We have information that should
gravely concern us.
Let me tell you why I have changed my position: Because I would
rather be safe than sorry. I would rather be safe than sorry. I do not
want to come back to this floor because somebody from Cuba was involved
in a terrorist action in this country and we promoted open travel
between the U.S. and Cuba. I am changing because I am better informed,
and the world has changed.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, it was said you cannot travel
to Syria. You can travel to Syria. You can travel to Iran. You can
travel to North Korea. You can travel to China. So that is not the
issue. The issue is consistency here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the point bears repeating that we are talking about
having a foreign policy that makes sense and has made sense in the past
and will in the future. We have decided that nations with whom we
disagree, who have foreign policies with whom we disagree, what should
be our policy toward them with regard to Americans traveling to those
nations?
We have disagreed with Syria very vigorously, yet we have said
Americans can travel there. We have disagreed and continue to disagree
very vigorously with Iran and their support of terrorist groups, but we
have said Americans can travel there. We have had problems with China
and Russia and their support through equipment and materials to
countries we think should not get those materials because of the
weapons systems they might be used for. But we say, Americans, you can
travel to China; Americans, you can travel to Russia.
The one country that we have this policy with is Cuba. So we are now
seeing this bogeyman created, that somehow September 11 is related to
the last 43 years of a failed policy.
Well, in my view, what this debate should be about tonight is what
increases the chances of the people of Cuba growing up in freedom and
growing up in democracy and knowing a market economy. I was in Cuba the
first week of January with several members of Congress. I took this
picture at a church in Cuba. It is the same town where Elian Gonzales
now lives.
To me, this is the future of Cuba. What increases their opportunity
to grow up in freedom? Is their opportunity for freedom increased by
having Americans never see them, by having Americans never come to
their church and visit with them and talk about America? Is that what
increases their chances of freedom, of knowing what freedom is about,
of hearing them talk, as we did, with people in Cuba about
[[Page H5295]]
what it means to have freedom of the press? Why is The New York Times
not available? Why do not you let people have open newspapers?
I think that what will increase their chances for freedom is what we
do tonight. Vote no on the Goss amendment and for the Flake amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
I think in so many ways this debate is about our government versus
their government, and our government is about democracy. It is about a
republic. Their government is about really one guy basically, Fidel
Castro.
What is wrong with him? Well, let us just start with the fact that he
came into power by hoodwinking people, by stealing hotels, properties,
and in many cases, breaking up families and executing many of them. He
is pro-communism, he is anti-American, and the other thing is he is
bankrupt.
In Cuba right now, their debt is $11 billion. Venezuela, one of their
strongest allies, suspended oil shipments based on the fact that Cuba
owes them $63 million. Right now, Cuba owes Russia $20 billion. Now,
when you get in a position like this and you are not exactly a Sunday
school teacher from next door, you are liable to cut some deals with
some unsatisfactory characters.
That is what this is about. This is not about your good constituents
or my good constituents going to Cuba. Indeed, last year alone 156,000
Americans went to Cuba. This is about people that you want to keep
track on that might be going over there to hide, just like an old
outlaw post.
Here is a quote from Castro that gives his sentiments. This, by the
way, is from May 10, 2001, just on the eve of 9/11. ``Iran and Cuba, in
cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S.
regime is very weak and we are witnessing this weakness from close-
up.''
Why would you say that if you are pro-American? What interest that
would be pro-American that would say you would bring America to its
knees? That is a statement of war. It is a statement of antagonism.
Let us add on these statements. Here is something from John Bolton,
the Under Secretary for Arms Control. ``Cuba has at least a limited
offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has
provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue States like Iran,
probably Iraq, probably Syria, probably a dozen others that we do not
know about. We are concerned that such technology could support
bioweapons programs in those States.''
So you have got a guy who is a one-man dictatorship, a guy who is
bankrupt, a guy who is anti-American, and a guy who is developing
biological weapons to probably be used to ``bring America to its
knees.'' Why do we want to be the first one to blink?
That is what this is about. Why are we blinking first? Castro is on
his way out. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) last year probably has done some humanitarian good,
although it is hard to say, because I know when we go over there, we
get filtered information.
{time} 2055
But why do we want to start giving him a money train called tourism?
I know about the tourism game. I represent coastal Georgia. It is our
number one industry from Savannah to Saint Simons to the Sea Islands,
all over. Tourism is a money train. Why do we want to give it to Fidel
Castro?
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose a friend, but I do urge my
colleagues to enthusiastically vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the
Flake amendment, quite simply because I firmly believe it is the right
of all Americans to be able to travel wherever they wish.
I support this amendment because I believe the current sanctions on
travel to Cuba go against the very traditions and democratic values
that make the United States so respected in the eyes of the world
community.
I trust the people of America. They are not fools. They should be
able to see firsthand, freely and whenever they choose, both the good
and bad about today's Cuba. They do not need the Federal Government to
censor what they see or how they might experience Cuba.
I believe that increased travel by Americans and others would make
Cuba less insular and more exposed to American ideas.
I believe Cuban Americans should have the right to visit their
relatives as often as they wish, without seeking the approval of the
U.S. Government.
This is not a debate about whether U.S. citizens should travel to an
undemocratic or repressive country. If that were true, then Americans
would not be able to travel to China, Vietnam, Burma, Sudan, Syria,
Iran, and North Korea. But Americans travel freely to these countries,
as is their right. Why then do we continue to prohibit the travel to
Cuba?
Vote ``yes'' on the Flake amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake), and the amendment he has brought to the floor, but I rise to
disagree with the amendment and to point out that the Bush
administration said they will veto this bill, or at least they are
likely to, and I will give the specific language in a second, but that
they are likely to veto this appropriations bill if the language comes
through that limits the embargo.
A statement from the administration said that the administration
understands that an amendment may be offered on the House floor that
would weaken current sanctions against the Cuban government. The
administration believes it is vitally important to maintain these
sanctions.
The function of the travel sanctions is to prevent unlicensed tourism
to Cuba that provides economic resources to the Castro regime, while
doing nothing to help the Cuban people, and these sanctions should not
be removed. It goes on to say, as noted in the July 11 letter from
Secretaries Powell and O'Neill, the President's senior advisor
recommended he veto a bill that contains such changes.
This bill, the Treasury-Postal bill is, for 2003, a homeland security
bill. The committee provides over $4 billion in support of the homeland
security effort. It establishes a separate appropriation for the Office
of Homeland Security. This bill is our bill for homeland security. The
President and the administration make the point that this weakens the
bill. Cuba is a known harborer of international terrorists, has strong
ties to other terrorist states.
Castro said in a meeting last year with the Iranian leader that Iran
and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can destroy America. Quote:
``The United States regime is very weak and we are witnessing this
weakness from close up,'' end the Castro quote there.
Ending the embargo would assist terrorists in using Cuba as a forward
operating base miles off our shore. According to Secretary of State
Powell and Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill in a recent letter to the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), they said that the Cuban government has refused to
cooperate with the global coalition's efforts to combat terrorism,
refusing to provide information about al Qaeda. On November 13, 2002,
the Cuban Foreign Minister delivered a speech at the United Nations in
which he accused the United States of war atrocities in Afghanistan.
And on June 8, Castro compared President Bush's terrorism policies to
Nazi Germany's efforts to assert world hegemony, suggesting that the
administration permitted the 9/11 attacks in order to ``reshape the
world as they wish.''
This is not a regime to send money to. This is not a regime to open
the sanctions up with. It is clear at this time where our
administration thinks we need to be in this regard. This is not a time
to reevaluate this policy, and I urge that we defeat the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
[[Page H5296]]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Secretary O'Neill, in
testimony before the Senate just a few months ago, stated that if it
were up to him, he would basically agree to my amendment. He would not
enforce the travel ban because it takes away money from terrorism.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake
amendment. I had the opportunity on two occasions to visit Cuba, and I
went there out of curiosity to also see what many of my constituents
have come to tell me, and that is that there are some opportunities
there, cultural exchange, educational opportunities.
When I came back from my first trip, I noticed that on the plane
coming back, there were 20 students from Mt. San Antonio College that
were playing in athletic games with students in Cuba, and I asked them,
what was your curiosity? What did you think about the Cuban government?
What did you think about the people there? Many of them said that they
were very supportive and felt that they were a part of a student group
there that they could work on different issues and learn about each
other and break down those barriers that we hear about every single day
here by some of the rhetoric that we are even hearing here tonight.
I met with students, medical students from California, from Boston,
from New York, who are there because they cannot get into medical
schools here, who are learning about how to become professionals in the
health career field. That is one of the reasons why I went.
Trade promotion also needs to be a part of this discussion.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first, so the record is clear,
Paul O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, has cosigned a letter with
Secretary Colin Powell to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) saying
that we would recommend that the President veto such legislation if it
reaches his desk with the Flake amendment or any language that weakens
current policy. So let us be very clear about that.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that travel to Cuba by
Americans is permitted, providing it is with a purpose. There are 13
broad categories for which travel may be authorized. Something on the
order of 200,000 people visited Cuba last year, so travel does take
place, but it has to have a purpose.
There is a dark side to Cuba travel as well. Some of my colleagues
think the travel is a panacea if we just have unfettered travel,
somehow human rights abuses will be ameliorated and we will see some
changes. That has not happened with the Canadians, with Europeans and
others who routinely go to Cuba. There has been no mitigation of the
human rights abuse. It has gotten worse in Cuba over this last several
years. It is Pollyannaish, I would say to my colleagues who think
otherwise.
There is also another dark side. The Protection Project just recently
came out with a report again about human trafficking and sexual
exploitation. I am the prime sponsor of landmark human trafficking law,
and we have seen an increase in sexual tourism in Cuba. Here is what
the Protection Project says. Canadian sex tourism is largely
responsible for the revival of child prostitution. So there is a dark
side to this seeming panacea of travel.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that Cuba continues to share
the dubious distinction of being named a terrorist state by the
Department of State. They join the infamous and the cruel, six other
rogue nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
I think in this stage of the debate, it is worth reiterating that the
Goss amendment would merely require that before we provide the means
for Castro to obtain millions of dollars in revenues for his
dictatorship, that three mutually reinforcing homeland security
criteria are met: That the Cuban government does not process and is not
developing biological weapons that threaten the U.S.; that Cuba is not
providing terrorist states or terrorist organizations technology that
could be used to produce, develop, or deliver biological weapons; and
that Cuba is not providing support or sanctuary for international
terrorists. These are exceedingly important criteria.
I would say to my colleagues, if you do not think they are relevant,
vote for the Flake amendment. If you think they are relevant, I would
ask you to vote for the Goss amendment and against the Flake amendment.
If you think that the Cuban dictatorship is clean, you should also vote
for the Goss amendment. What is there to hide? Let the scrutiny begin.
Let a full-scale, presidential review and determination be made to
ensure whether or not biological weapons in Cuba are real. If you
think, as I do, that the dictatorship poses very serious threats to the
safety and well-being of Americans, then I would urge my colleagues to
vote for the Goss amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let us not forget, Fidel Castro is a dictator, a mass
torturer, and he is a terrorist. Just look at the country's human
rights practices. It is unconscionable. The recent State Department
Report makes it very clear people are routinely beaten for their
beliefs.
Vote ``yes'' on Goss.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I read an interesting article in today's
Washington Times about a retired Air Force colonel, Ed Hubbard, a
former POW in Vietnam, who traveled down to Miami this week to have a
press conference where he was awarded with some medals for his bravery,
which he truly deserved, but it was also to point a finger, if you
will, at the person that he suspected of being the Cuban interrogator
and torturer in Vietnam.
Well, as it turns out, it was a very interesting article, and after
he was awarded these pins, the colonel stunned everybody in the room by
saying, you know, let me say something. The best way to topple
communism and I quote, in today's Cuba, he said, ``is by establishing
relations with Fidel Castro. Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe
because we showed them how we live. I have to believe the same thing
will happen with Cuba.''
That is Retired Air Force Colonel Ed Hubbard, a POW, tortured in
Vietnam by a Cuban, who very strongly believes that we should open the
door with Cuba. I think that says it all.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The starting point for this debate this evening should be that
Americans have a constitutional right to travel, and history shows us
that the Framers of the Constitution and the signers to the Declaration
of Independence thought it was an inalienable right and one that came
from natural law and that governments were given a duty to protect.
I have heard three arguments from the opponents of lifting this
travel ban. The first is that because we disagree with the policies of
Castro that we should prevent our citizens from traveling to Cuba; yet,
if we look across the globe, there are many, many regimes that we
disagree with on policy reasons: China, for one, Iran for another; but
on a daily basis, our citizens are allowed to travel there. So that is
not one that holds up.
Secondly, we have heard that history precludes it, as in the Bay of
Pigs, I had heard that referred to earlier. Well, we just debated
earlier this evening a bill that would establish trade with Vietnam,
our citizens are allowed to go there. And what about Vietnam? We lost
48,000 American boys in a war with that country, and yet we allow our
citizens to go there. So it is not history that precludes it.
Lastly, probably the thinnest argument is that argument around
terrorism. I just want to remind people that when we rounded up the
Taliban, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld rounded up the al Qaeda
suspects in Afghanistan at the Battle of Kandahar, where did they send
them? They sent them to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. If there was any chance
of Cuba being a hotbed of terrorist activity, that never would have
happened.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the Flake amendment.
[[Page H5297]]
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
As I have listened to this debate tonight, I think it has been a good
debate. What strikes me about the argument of the opponents to the
Flake amendment is that there seems to be this fear of Fidel Castro, a
tiny dictator in a country 90 miles from us who is, by all reasonable
accounts, I would argue to my colleagues, not a threat to this country.
Even in the days of the gravest threat when the Soviet Union was at its
greatest power, we still allowed our American citizens to travel there.
We allow families of Cubans who are still in Cuba to travel there, 90
miles off our shore, once a year. We allow Cuban families to give money
to their relatives in Cuba.
{time} 2112
The Pope has gone to Cuba. Many Americans under certain restrictions
have gone to Cuba. My suggestion to my colleagues is why are we afraid
to allow Americans to go there and spread democracy, to make the
arguments and be examples to the people of that country, 11 million
people that we are a good country, that we are not a country that Fidel
Castro says we are, but when we are his scape goats we somehow fall
into that trap. I urge support of the Flake amendment.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my
time.
Just to answer the points made by my good friend, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), if Castro poses no threat to the United
States, I would like the gentleman to place a call to the parents of
Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Mario de la Pena and Pablo Morales,
and four young men, three of whom were United States citizens, one of
whom was a United States resident, one was a decorated Vietnam veteran,
who were killed by Fidel Castro's air force when they were in
international air space. Apparently he poses a threat to some United
States citizens.
The gentleman is right. The Pope did go to Cuba. Jimmy Carter did go
to Cuba. And what happened? The greatest crackdown on dissidents yet
after Jimmy Carter's visit and every international human rights
organization will tell you, the greatest crackdown in Cuban history
since Castro took power after the visit of the Pope, after the visit of
Jimmy Carter and after the visit of 500,000 American visitors to the
island of Cuba.
And as repeatedly articulated by President Bush, one of the pillars
of our efforts to eradicate this cancer of global terrorism, and to
secure the security and domestic tranquility of our country is to deny,
impair, and expose the financial infrastructure which provides a
lifeline to these agents of terror, agents like Fidel Castro. To deny,
impair and expose. That is precisely what our current U.S./Cuba policy
does.
Why are we discussing an amendment that would instead provide funds
to the Castro dictatorship, a country which every recent
administration, Democrat or Republican, has repeatedly labeled as a
state sponsor of terrorism. As has been pointed out on the floor, Paul
O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, Colin Powell, Secretary of the
State recently stated that this country has an implacable hostility to
the United States.
I would point my colleagues to a news report that just came out hours
ago in a meeting between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Rodrigo Alvarez
Cambras, special envoy of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Cambras
emphasized the Castro regime's ``support for Iraq against the threats
from the United States.'' And he reiterated their firm commitment of
both these terrorist states to expand their bilateral cooperation, two
sworn enemies of the United States working together motivated by their
hatred of our country.
I ask my colleagues tonight to not help the enemy, to support
freedom, to support our U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, to vote ``no'' on
the Flake amendment, vote ``yes'' on the Goss amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleague, a POW was
mentioned by the gentlewoman from Missouri. There was a POW that cannot
say that. He spit in the face of one of the Cuban interrogators while
he was being tortured. The Cuban took out his pistol and blew his
brains out.
I go to the POW meetings every single year, and I will tell my
colleagues that is not, that is not their policy, to open up Cuba.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the debate. And let me say, both sides of
this debate want the same thing. We want a free, democratic, and
prosperous Cuba. The question is how do we get there? Should we go the
same route that we have gone for the past 42 years that has ended in
utter failure? Fidel Castro is still around. He is still a thug. He is
still very much a bad guy. We will all stipulate that. The question is
how do we best remove him? How did we make sure that he does not have
the only megaphone in Cuba?
Currently we silence Americans who would like very much to go to
Cuba, to see the situation there, to explain to their Cuban brethren
that we have a better way and to see what 40 years of socialism have
wrought on that island. We prevent them from doing so, and we allow
Fidel Castro to have the microphone, the only one they hear. We
recognize the rest of the world, in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Iran,
you name it. We not only allow travel; we encourage it. Yet, in Cuba,
we say we will go a different route. We will isolate.
Well, we have the verdict: 42 years, nothing has changed. Nothing has
changed.
Let me read you a quote:
I have called for lifting economic sanctions generally,
unilateral sanctions, because I believe they do not work.
Well, Cuba is a tough case and admittedly a difficult one
because we have had sanctions there over the years. They have
not worked either. Sanctions, frankly, have not worked very
well in Cuba.
You might think that was the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) or the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) or others who made that statement or
even me. It was not. It was Vice President Cheney.
As I mentioned before, Secretary O'Neill in testimony before the
Senate just months ago said that if it were up to him he would not
enforce the Cuba travel ban because he knows that if we are concerned
about terrorism, then the last thing we want to do is expend resources
from OFAC, or the Office of Foreign Assets Control, tracking down
tourists, tracking down innocent grandmothers from Iowa, when we could
instead be tracking down real terrorists and those who are perpetrating
the terrorism war against the United States.
I would urge my colleagues to remember what this is all about. The
Flake amendment says that we should be free, we should be free as
Americans to travel where we want to. The Goss amendment says no. Vote
``yes'' on the Flake amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the proposed legislation to lift the ban prohibiting Americans from
traveling to Cuba. I would like to thank my colleague, the Gentleman
from Arizona, for his leadership in regard to this amendment, and for
drawing the attention of Congress to this very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, for four decades, American citizens have been unable to
travel to Cuba, be it to visit family or to conduct business. As
lawmakers for a democratic nation, I do not see how we can limit our
own people from contact with a nation that can benefit so extensively
from the influence of the strongest ambassadors of freedom in the
world--American citizens. After all, what speaks more strongly for the
power of democracy, than citizens who enjoy the liberties to earn
income and to travel?
Mr. Chairman, free American travel to Cuba, in addition to reforming
the Cuban political system, increasing rights enjoyed by Cuban
citizens, and improving Cuba's economic condition, sends a powerful
message of freedom. We must emphasize the value of personal freedom, as
it applies to American citizens, by lifting this ban against American
travel to Cuba.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Flake Amendment to end funding of the travel ban to Cuba. I heartily
agree with the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) which stated in
a recent letter to Congress that ``the right to travel is among
[[Page H5298]]
those rights that our Nation's founding documents refer to as
`inalienable'.''
Recently, we Americans have been asking ourselves: ``Why do they hate
us? Why do other nations hate Americans, when they know so little about
us?''
Many Cubans must be asking themselves the same question: ``Why do
they hate us? Why does the American government continue to support a
forty-year embargo of our country, which has contributed to the
collapse of the economy, and has done nothing to increase personal and
political freedoms?''
Cubans must think: ``if Americans only knew us--if they knew our
culture, our language, our music--they would develop policies which
would support exchange and abandon the failed policy of isolation.''
Isn't that what Americans think? If countries around the world opened
their borders to American visitors, opened their markets to American
goods, and increased people-to-people exchanges through programs such
as the Peace Corps, hostility towards our country and our people will
be reduced.
Americans and Cubans are both right. It is only through greater
openness and exchange that peoples of the world connect to each other--
through personal bonds, commerce, and for mutual political benefit--and
break down barriers in their own countries and across borders.
Ending the travel ban not only follows the spirit of the
Constitution, it will be economically beneficially to the United
States. According to the recent Brattle Group study, opening travel
with Cuba will bring $415 million annually to the ailing airline
industry; increase U.S. economic input by $1.6 billion; and create over
23,000 jobs in the American economy.
Vote for the Flake amendment. Vote to uphold Americans'
Constitutional right to travel whenever and wherever they want. Vote
for lifting the travel ban to Cuba, and tear down this wall that
separates our two countries once and for all.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider the second amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce any restriction on remittances to
nationals of Cuba covered by section 515.570(a)(1)(i),
(a)(2), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(2) of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Current U.S. policy prohibits Americans from sending more than $1,200
a year to family members in Cuba. Understand, again, that this applies
only to Cuba. No other country has this cap. And if you dare exceed
this limit, be careful, the remittance police are watching and the
penalties are severe. You can get 10 years in jail and a $55,000 fine.
But, the law is actually rarely enforced. There has never been, in
fact, a single prosecution. But that is going to change, because one
year ago this week, President Bush personally directed the Department
of Treasury to expand its capability to enforce limits on remittances
to the fullest extent of the law.
The White House, in other words, has made the enforcement of the
Cuban remittance limits a national priority. While I oppose both the
embargo and the travel ban, let me suggest that the cap on remittances
is truly the cruelest aspect of our policy towards Havana.
It restricts American freedoms. It limits family charity and denies
hopes for tens of thousands of Cubans, and at the same time it breeds
disrespect for our law because we all know that Cuban-Americans are
doing the right thing and are circumventing this policy.
This policy does not punish Fidel Castro. Instead, it punishes
American citizens and their relatives in Cuba. Let us be clear, none of
this money comes from the United States Government. None of this money
goes to the Cuban Government and Fidel Castro. It is direct aid from
ordinary people who care to ordinary people who need. And it is the
official policy of the United States that you should only do just so
much. This policy would be silly. It is a real tarnish on the golden
rule. But it is tragic. And it is un-American.
Tonight, if we support this amendment, we can end this policy, end
this cruel aspect of our policy to Cuba.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying essentially that it
is their money, these Americans, and they know what to do with it?
Mr. DELAHUNT. That is what I am saying.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 5
minutes in opposition to the Flake amendment. The gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has consumed 2\1/2\ minutes of the 5 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Let us take a look at what is really going on in the world today. Why
are we concerned about Fidel Castro? Yes, he is a petty little thug
down in Cuba. They say how weak he is. Fidel Castro is demonstrably
stronger than Saddam Hussein in terms of his ability to hurt the United
States of America. But Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro both share
something. They share a blood grudge against the United States of
America. And you might have some weak guy like bin Laden over there who
looks very weak; but both of those fellows, both Saddam Hussein and
Fidel Castro, have a blood grudge and can kill thousands, if not
millions, of Americans in this day and age in which we live. It
behooves us to do everything we can to get rid of Fidel Castro and get
rid of the Saddam Husseins of this world before they decide to kill
thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Americans.
They have a blood grudge, and no one should ignore that. You ignore
it and if something happens, we are having to take the responsibility
for not acting on this.
What is this all about? $1,200? Fidel Castro is broke. And by taking
off all of these restrictions on the remittances, by just taking off
the lid on the $1,250 in remittances, we will be bailing out Castro,
just at a time when Castro as we have seen over and over again as was
demonstrate earlier by what was presented to us, his regime is almost
in collapse.
This has nothing to do with the well-being of the Cuban people. If it
would, the Cuban-Americans in this body would be rising up and saying,
my goodness, you are doing something to hurt the Cuban people. What we
are doing here is to limit the power and strength of the Saddam
Husseins and Fidel Castros of this world to hurt the United States of
America. Our President knows that.
When those buildings went down in New York, who would have guessed
that some weakling named bin Laden would have been able to do that?
Fidel Castro has a much greater grudge than bin Laden had against the
United States of America. He has from his very first moments put Robert
Vesco in a position to organize the drug trade throughout this
hemisphere. He has over his 43 years of power had one of the worst
repressive regimes and anti-American regimes in the world. And when we
talked about POWs in Vietnam, this man hates the United States so badly
that he sent torturers over to Vietnam to torture our POWs.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, regular order. I would ask for an
additional 30 seconds for being interrupted.
[[Page H5299]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an additional 30
seconds based on the interruptions.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the
gentleman an additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) controls 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) controls 5 minutes for
consideration of this debate.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Point of inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
We have taken into consideration the interruption that took place in
the gentleman's time. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes, and if the
gentleman wishes to yield himself an additional 2 minutes, he is
certainly welcome to do that.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30
seconds.
Fidel Castro sent torturers to torture American POWs half way around
the world because he hates the United States of America. Everyone who
has ever got into serious conversations with this man over his 40 years
of rules has come away understanding this man has a visceral hatred for
the United States of America.
At this time when we are threatened by international terrorism, we
should not be doing anything to strengthen his regime, whether it is
permitting millions of people to go down there and spend money and bail
him out or whether it is increasing the amount of money that Americans
can send to Cuba.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close and would
inquire does the opposition have an additional speaker.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will be closing now, I guess I
should take my extra 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. It is my intent to close.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher)
30 seconds.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will have 2
minutes to close debate and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) will have 2 minutes to close.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me use 30 seconds to praise my
friend for being so courteous, and I thank the gentleman for that
thought.
{time} 2128
I think this is a vital discussion. Who would ever have thought that
we would be living in this world 2 years ago. We live in a world where
3,000 Americans have been slaughtered before our eyes. We live in a
world where we understand that the bin Ladens are little kooks over
there halfway around the world, living in a dictatorship like with the
Taliban, can do us horrendous harm.
We have nothing against the people of Cuba. The people of Cuba are
wonderful people. In fact, if we are doing something against the people
of Cuba's well-being, we have Cuban Americans with us who would be
jumping up in order to protect their interests.
No, the people of Cuba are our friends, just like the people of
Communist China are our friends, but what we have to do is make sure we
weaken the stranglehold these gangster regimes have on those people,
and it is especially important for us to weaken that stranglehold on
these regimes that are headed by monsters, Frankenstein monsters, who
have a blood grudge against the United States of America. Nowhere is
that more demonstrable than in Fidel Castro.
Bin Laden hates us, but I will tell my colleagues that Fidel Castro's
hatred of the United States is as equal to that of bin Laden, and there
are countless quotes to suggest that.
No, we do not want this man's regime to be maintained. We do not want
to bail him out at the end just as his economy is about to collapse. We
want to keep the pressure on. He has had 40 years of tyranny, 40 years
of tyranny. If we were to let up on the Soviet Union after 40 years of
tyranny and started letting them become part of the economy of the
world, Communism would still be in power in the Soviet Union today and
the Cold War would still be on.
No, we want to keep a stranglehold on the Castro regime while
reaching out to the people of Cuba.
By the way, all of these restrictions can be eliminated just by the
stroke of a pen. All Castro has to do is to permit free elections,
permit opposition parties, permit the democratization of society. Then
we will have all of these be eliminated.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate this debate. I appreciate the good words of my colleague
from California. I cannot say that I disagree with any of them. Fidel
Castro is a thug. We have said it again and again and again. What this
debate is about is the best way to topple him, to make sure that he
does not remain there longer than the 42 years that he has been in
power. Let us get back to what this amendment really does.
Currently, Cuban American families who live here in the United States
are told by their government that they can be charitable but only so
charitable. They are told that they can only send up to $100 a month to
their family members in Cuba. I do not think that our government ought
to be in the business of telling families how charitable they can be.
This money is going directly to Cuban families.
I asked someone who does not agree with my position on allowing
tourists and others to go to Cuba, I asked him why he supported
remittances, and the answer was, remittances are different. Remittances
are subversive. I agree with that statement, not that they are
different. Tourism, I believe, is subversive as well, but if
remittances are subversive, then let us do a lot more subversing, I
say, if that is a word. Let us be a lot more subversive. Let us allow
families to send whatever they would like to their families in Cuba.
That is not what this country is about, limiting family charity.
That is all this amendment says. At the current time, families are
allowed $1,200 a year. Currently, the State Department estimates that a
lot more goes to Cuba. It goes in violation or it goes illegally. We
should not make criminals out of families for wanting to help their
families in Cuba.
Let us support this amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to give
the gentleman an extra 30 seconds.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if I can take it.
The CHAIRMAN. We have a unanimous consent agreement under which we
are operating here.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any sanction imposed by the United
States on private commercial sales of agricultural
commodities (as defined in section 402 of the Agriculture
Trade Developments and Assistance Act of 1954) or medicine or
medical supplies (within the meaning of section 1705(c) of
the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba (other than a
sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other
countries).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For the Members of this House who were Members in July of 2000, this
amendment will sound awfully familiar. Two years ago this month, I
offered a similar amendment, in fact,
[[Page H5300]]
nearly identical amendment, to the one I offer this evening to the
Treasury Postal appropriations bill.
This amendment would ban the implementation, the enforcement of the
sanctions against the export of food, agriculture, commodities and
medicine to the country of Cuba. The history of this amendment is such
that this amendment passed 301 to 116 two years ago this month. A
majority of Republican Members of Congress, a majority of Democrat
Members of Congress supported this amendment.
Ultimately, through efforts of the leadership of this House, along
with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the Trades Sanction Reform Act of 2000
was signed into law as part of the agricultural appropriations bill and
trade on agricultural products, food and medicine was authorized in a
limited fashion.
Beginning last Thanksgiving, Cuba has purchased more than $100
million worth of U.S. commodities. Thirty States have sourced 650,000
metric tons of food to Cuba. Given the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, had
the Committee on Rules allowed me to have a waiver of a point of order,
I would have offered an amendment to clear up a number of problems that
have arisen, not in creating problems for the country of Cuba but
creating problems for our farmers, our ranchers and our companies that
seek to export agriculture commodities, food and medicine.
We have a myriad of restrictions related to the license, shipping,
financing that, in my opinion, create only handicaps for us, not
creating any kind of pressure on the country of Cuba, and so this
amendment tonight is an attempt to again reaffirm our support as a
Congress, as a House of Representatives for trade with the country of
Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who rises in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As we debate this amendment, it is imperative we focus and base our
arguments on the facts and the reality of trading with the terrorist
regime just 90 miles off the U.S. shores. Not only is the Castro regime
a tyrannical one and one of the worst violators of the world, not only
does the dictatorship use slave labor, not only does it force children
to work in the farming sector as stated in the State Department human
rights report, it has also proven to be an unworthy economic partner.
Here are the facts which clearly show that Cuba is not, nor will it
ever be, a panacea for American farmers and investors so long as the
current regime is in place.
In fact, number one, the Euromoney Country Risk Rating lists Cuba as
one of the top five riskiest countries to invest in out of the 185 that
they surveyed. Fact: Cuba is rated by Dunn and Bradstreet as one of the
riskiest economies in the world. Fact: The Wall Street Journal's Index
of Economic Freedom ranks Cuba as the most risky investment and as
having the least free economy of the 156 countries surveyed. Fact: Cuba
is already in default on $8.2 billion of its $11 billion debt.
In April of this year, Mr. Chairman, three Chilean fish exporters
stopped shipments to Cuba after Cuba failed to make an installment
payment of $3.7 million on the $20 million deal.
Also in April of this year, a South African company stopped shipments
of its diesel engines to Cuba after the dictatorship failed to make the
required payments on a 1997 contract.
Even Venezuela has stopped oil shipments to Cuba because Cuba has
accrued with them a $63 million debt, missing payment after payment on
below-market sales of petroleum.
It is imperative, Mr. Chairman, to maintain the precautions and the
safeguards currently in place as part of U.S.-Cuba policy. The
protection, Mr. Chairman, afforded by existing U.S. restrictions on
trade with the Castro regime is a reality reaffirmed by the U.S.
International Trade Commission. The ITC stated in its report that,
existing U.S. laws, because they prohibit U.S. financial institutions'
dealings with Cuba, ensured that there was no U.S. exposure to Cuba's
foreign debt moratorium.
The ITC report added that extending credits and financing to a
bankrupt Castro regime would expose taxpayers to footing the bill once
Cuba defaulted on its payments. We certainly do not want that.
We as Members of Congress, Mr. Chairman, elected to represent and
defend the interests of our constituents, cannot and must not support
an amendment which would essentially force the American taxpayer to
absorb such losses.
And there is already cause for U.S. concern. Under the compromise
language in the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, ag sales to Cuba have
occurred. Yet despite repeated congressional inquiries, there has not
been an independent or Government confirmation that payments have been
received from Cuba.
Before we support the unrestricted and unsupervised sales called for
in the Moran amendment, would my colleagues not agree that it would be
prudent to examine whether current regulations are being fully complied
with? We should also pause, look to the experiences of others and learn
from them in order to protect the American people.
For example, the European Union recently wrote a 15-page letter of
complaint to Cuba's so-called finance minister, Carlos Lage, citing the
discriminatory and uncertain trading environment of the Castro regime.
Do we want to subject American investors to loss of contracts,
confiscation of machinery, equipment and financial investments or even
jail time? This is not an exaggeration. These are well-documented
tactics employed by the Castro regime to retaliate against investors
who voice dissatisfaction with the dictatorship's policies.
Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.'' Thus to prevent the victimization of our farmers and
investors at the hands of Castro's erratic and failed economic
policies, we must uphold existing U.S. law.
I ask my colleagues to champion the cause of hard-working Americans
throughout this great Nation and prevent their from being used as
experimental subjects to test Cuba's debt-filled waters. I ask for a no
on the Moran amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 42 years of trade
embargoes with Cuba have not changed Cuban Government policies, have
not changed North Korea, Sudan, Libya, or Syria.
Forty years ago U.S. controlled most of the ag commodities in the
world. The embargo might have had some impact at that time. Today we
have a global economy. Countries simply buy elsewhere if we have an
embargo. It costs us market share.
A 2002 Texas A&M study showed that Cuba trade restrictions costs U.S.
agriculture $1.24 billion annually and $5 billion for ag and ag-related
business.
Reaching back into my somewhat vague and sordid past, it seems to me
that if someone ran the same play for 43 years and it did not work,
maybe they would try something different. So I would suggest that we
might try that. Not asking to trade weapons, computer chips, petroleum
or plutonium. We are simply saying that food and medicine does not
jeopardize national security. It helps our country and our ag.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our
time. How much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 30
seconds remaining and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our
time.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran). He has been a
[[Page H5301]]
very strong leader in this House in supporting agriculture and not
restricting the transfer of food and medicine to countries like Cuba,
the sale of food and medicine by American farmers. He is part of the
Cuba Working Group, a bipartisan group of 23 Republicans, 23 Democrats
who have worked very hard to change this policy and bring a sensible
policy to this country.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and teammate on the
Cuba Working Group. We have heard mention many times today committees
and communism and changing foreign policy. Months ago 23 Democrats and
23 Republicans came together, formulating ideas, bringing them forward
through amendments and bills, having meetings and working in a
bipartisan way to try to accomplish some things. Tonight is the
cumulation of that. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I want to reiterate to my colleagues that in a letter dated July 11,
2002, Secretary of State, Colin Powell; and Paul O'Neill, Secretary of
the Treasury, have made it very clear that, and I quote them. ``We are
writing to reiterate the administration's strong opposition to any
legislative efforts that weaken the United States' current Cuba policy
by permitting U.S. citizens to finance the Cuban purchase of American
agriculture commodities or by changing the restrictions on travel.''
{time} 2145
They would recommend a veto if the legislation reaches his desk with
those changes.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Moran amendment. I certainly respect my
good friend and colleague, but I urge a ``no'' vote, nevertheless.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas has 1\1/4\ minutes to close.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time, and I again reiterate that this is a vote this body has taken.
Because of the efforts of the gentleman from Washington and the
gentlewoman from Missouri, we have changed policy in regard to
agricultural trade with Cuba. But this House needs to reaffirm its
position one more time.
Every impediment that can be placed in the way of our farmers and
ranchers and the businesses that deal in agriculture commodities in the
trade with Cuba, every impediment has been placed in their way. It is
not disadvantageous to Cuba, it is disadvantageous to Americans.
As the gentleman from Nebraska said, for 42 years we have tried to
change the policy. They might as well be spending their cash on behalf
of American agriculture, on behalf of the farmers and ranchers of this
country. And as we have seen, they have the ability to do so: $100
million in cash payments coming to the United States to pay for
agricultural products. The market is estimated to be $1 billion.
And for those who had concerns about the farm bill, help us export
our agriculture commodities. Help us create markets for the farmers and
ranchers of this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rangel:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the economic
embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-114), except those provisions that relate to
the denial of foreign tax credits or to the implementation of
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed to the
amendment each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
My colleagues, when the terrorists struck New York City, many of us
recognized that the problems that we had as Republicans and Democrats,
as blacks and whites, as Jew and gentile, was not nearly as important
as working together as a city in order to show our defense against the
people who struck against us. And so it was no surprise when we came to
Congress to see that our President had thought that that would be the
best thing for our Nation to do.
So we joined hands with Afghanistan and Pakistan and many other
countries that we had serious differences with, but, at the same time,
when they declared that they were going to be our partners in the war
against terrorism, we took their hands and we thought it would be
better to fight the big war than to highlight our differences.
How in God's name, at a time like this, can we really say that Castro
and the Cubans, 90 miles from our shore, represent a threat to our
national security when we know that they, too, have joined in this
great war against terrorism? And how could it possibly be that we are
prepared to say that they have different kinds of Communists in Cuba
than the Communists that they have in North Korea or the Communists
that they have in North Vietnam or the Communists that they have in
Communist China?
My colleagues, this has nothing to do with trade policy. It has
nothing to do with foreign policy. There is no former high ranking
State Department official that will tell us that this embargo is
against everything that our great country believes in. So what is it
about?
It is about the State of Florida. It is about the sovereign State of
Florida. It is about the politics of Florida. The President understands
that. The Governor of Florida understands that. And I do not have a
problem with anyone that comes from the State of Florida. They do what
they have to do. But do not do it to my country. Do not allow local
politics to influence what is in our national interests.
If trade is good enough to break the barriers between people who do
not understand the value of capitalism, if trade is what we want for
people to be able to buy our wares and that we can buy theirs, if it is
good enough for China, for the former Soviet Union, for communism
around the world, tell me why not share it with the people of Cuba?
If my colleagues want to bring down the Castro regime, let the people
in Cuba smell democracy. Let us go there and speak to the people in
Cuba. Let any American that wants to travel in Cuba be able to travel
without any fear.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida seek to control the
time in opposition to the Rangel amendment?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
We have a policy goal, and it is a policy that has been set not only
by the President but by the Congress and codified into law and clearly
espoused by President Bush in repeated statements: A free Cuba,
achieved through a democratic transition, with the release of all
political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, the
press and labor unions, and the scheduling of free internationally
supervised elections.
Now that free Cuba will not oppress its people and it will not
threaten its neighbors. The intelligence community, as I stated before,
has said that ever since 1999 it has come to the conclusion that there
is an offensive biological weapons program being developed by the Cuban
regime. That has been made public now by the intelligence community,
but the conclusion was reached as of 1999.
Now, the director of the Soviet biological weapons program, Dr.
Alibek, has written in his book that by 1990, the Soviets were
absolutely convinced
[[Page H5302]]
that Castro had an offensive biological weapons program. But we are led
to believe by the people who are arguing to open up all the trades and
open up all the credits and the tourism for the Castro dictatorship
that not only our intelligence community is lying, not only is our
intelligence community now not telling the truth, but the director of
the Soviet program, who defected and who our experts say has provided
more information on Soviet biological and chemical weapons programs
than any other defector, that he is lying as well. So all of those
people are lying and we should make that leap of faith and proceed to
provide billions of dollars in trade and credit to the dictatorship.
Now, the denial of the U.S. market to the Cuban regime and the
conditioning of democratic reforms for the end of the embargo
constitutes the most important leverage that exists for the democratic
transition to take place. In a totally personalized dictatorship, like
the Cuban one, when the dictator is gone from the scene, when he dies,
or however he is gone from the scene, that situation invariably will
change. It is like when Franco disappeared from the scene in Spain, or
Oliveira, after 50 years of dictatorship in Portugal. Inevitably, those
regimes were faced with a different dynamic.
But in each of those cases where there was a democratic transition,
there was some form of external pressure, some form of solidarity with
those people demanding, requesting, encouraging, incentivizing a
democratic transition. If we give the dictatorship the trade and
tourism dollars it seeks now, Mr. Chairman, unilaterally, in exchange
for no democratic reform, like the people proposing this amendment are
saying, that we should unilaterally, without getting any sort of
democratic reform for the Cuban people in exchange, if we do that, Mr.
Chairman, we risk making that regime permanent. We risk the possibility
of that regime outliving the dictator.
Now, in addition, it is important to realize that the U.S. embargo
has had collateral successes. The denial of resources for the
dictatorship has made it much more difficult for the dictatorship to
cooperate with terrorist organizations or to develop biological
weapons. The denial of resources, the limitation of resources to the
dictatorship has helped. But, in addition to that, and the most
important aspect, is the leverage that must be retained for a
democratic transition.
Just like Europe insisted on democracy in Spain or Portugal, before
Spain and Portugal could become part of what was then the European
Economic Community, today we are saying liberate the political
prisoners, legalize political parties, labor unions and the press, and
hold an election.
Now, why is the issue not the Cuban people's right to be free like
everyone else in the hemisphere? Why is the issue not the Cuban people
deserving to be free, just like in country after country after country
colleagues have come to this floor asking for solidarity with those
people? But, no, in the case of Cuba, it is different. In the case of
Cuba, it is 43 years of dictatorship and of oppression, and the efforts
are to get more trade and more dollars and more oxygen to that regime,
instead of talking about the torture and the political prisoners. That
is the reality.
But the reality of the matter is that only in this hemisphere, Mr.
Chairman, is there an international law requiring representative
democracy. We always talk about examples from other hemispheres. There
are multiple differences from the decentralization that has existed in
other dictatorships in other hemispheres to the fact that in this
hemisphere, and only in this hemisphere, does international law require
representative democracy.
I want to point out one other thing, and that is as follows, and I
never thought I would come to this floor quoting the editorial board of
The Washington Post, but I guess Ronald Reagan used to say never say
never. Well, The Washington Post has, in a very dignified manner, has
focused in on the efforts of the Cuban dissidents over the last year to
call for reforms internally. Now, they have been very mild reforms that
the dissidents have called for, and despite that the regime has
answered with, if you will, a Maoist-style cultural revolution.
The Washington Post has said that if Castro, as he has been, is
unwilling to permit more political and economic freedom, then loosening
the embargo risks strengthening and enriching Mr. Castro and the
apparatchiks who surround him, while accomplishing little else.
And with regard to that dissident petition, in which Castro answered
with his Maoist-style cultural revolution, The Washington Post said,
until it is granted, and obviously it has not been granted, no further
easing of the embargo should be considered.
Now this is a good-faith editorial board. And I would wish that some
people would realize that times have changed and that the Cuban people
deserve, like The Washington Post editorial board has said, solidarity.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
We have heard a lot of accusations tonight about Cuba and Castro. In
fact, if I may just make a comment, the only things Cuba and Castro
have not been blamed for are the Chicago fire, the San Francisco
earthquake, the stock market crash of 1929, or the one that is coming
soon, if we are not careful.
The point here is my colleagues could spend all the time they want
telling us how bad Cuba is, but we took a vote tonight on Vietnam which
was so lopsided to make the point that we cannot continue just to
single out Cuba.
Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct, and I do
not want to be repetitious of his comments, but this is about the State
of Florida. I do not feel bad about that. I wish I had that kind of
power for one county in one State to control foreign policy on one
issue. I wish the Bronx had that kind of power, but we do not.
The fact of life is that this Rangel/Serrano amendment sends the
message that it is time to change this policy. We no longer have any
moral justification for keeping an embargo on Cuba while we deal with
China, Vietnam, Korea, and every other country in the world. Well, my
God, our allies in the war on terrorism are people who, in so many
ways, have behaved towards this country 10 times worse than anything
Cuba or Castro have ever said about us, and we still deal with them.
{time} 2200
Now some of the facts will come out in the next few weeks because we
do not have the time here tonight. Castro offered to help us with on
the war on terrorism, and we refused it. AP reported that. The
Washington Post reported that. The New York Times reported that. We
refused the help.
Cuba has sent to us three individuals in the last year who were
wanted in this country. They have asked in return, not as a quid pro
quo, for us to return a couple of hijackers that we have had here for
over 20 years from Cuba, and we have not done it. No one mentions that
tonight. No one mentions it is a one-sided issue all of the time.
This is not about Fidel Castro and communism, this is about a stupid
outdated policy that says in the Caribbean we are going to single out
this island, and in the rest of the world, we will not. And it is
across the board. I asked my favorite President a couple of years ago,
Bill Clinton, why China and not Cuba. He said China is big. I
understand that. Cuba is small. But children in Cuba are no less
important than children in Vietnam or China. Let us treat them all
equally. We have no justification for this.
We can lift the embargo and who knows, that governor in Florida may
still get reelected, so there is no need to play Florida politics
tonight. Let us do what is right.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for offering this very commonsense amendment, and I urge
Members to support this amendment which really would cut funds to
continue to aid the United States embargo on Cuba.
It is long overdue that the United States lift its 40-year embargo
against this small island nation. We have seen that this embargo has
done more harm
[[Page H5303]]
than good. It is a grave injustice to the people of the United States
and to the people in Cuba.
I have participated in many fact-finding delegations to Cuba and have
seen firsthand the devastation and the suffering that the embargo has
created on that island nation only 90 miles from our shore. One vivid
image which haunts me is of a child in need of dialysis treatment,
struggling to stay alive, his future was uncertain because of his
inability to acquire a replacement part for the sole dialysis machine
in his town. The embargo prevented a United States-made part from
reaching this innocent child.
The American people and the United States Congress have voiced their
support for lifting this archaic and antiquated embargo. Even the
majority of the dissidents in Cuba believe that the embargo should end.
They understand that the way to democracy in Cuba can be accomplished
through a policy of engagement with the people of Cuba rather than the
current policy which isolates the small island nation which just
happens to be an Afro-Hispanic country.
By maintaining the embargo against Cuba, the United States is
limiting important trade opportunities, which we have heard tonight,
including food and medicine sales.
In addition, we have severely limited the ability of Americans to
travel to Cuba, and this is just basically downright wrong.
Economists have verified that if the embargo toward Cuba were lifted,
the U.S. economy would gain $1.24 billion in agricultural exports and
$3.6 billion in related economic output. In addition, we would create
thousands of jobs in our country from the tourism sector.
I am convinced that we must build a bridge in our own struggle for
human rights and equality which happens to be a country 90 miles away.
Let us lift this embargo.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate with great
interest tonight, and have heard my amendment seriously
mischaracterized. I would like to point out that the amendment merely
is a safeguard for America and American national security. If
everything is all right and the President certifies everything is all
right, then there is no problem. But if everything is not all right,
then there is a problem. I think Members would agree that national
security for the United States of America and Americans is our first
priority.
I want to point out that the nation of Cuba has been about the most
aggressive spying on the United States of America. We have now
convicted 17 spies in the past year or two. I do not know the exact
number, but that is close. Certainly the highest-ranking analyst at the
Department of Defense in the DIA has recently been apprehended and has
been a long-time spy for Fidel Castro's Cuba. These are not friendly
motives. These are harmful to the national security. Those are the
kinds of things that we are worried about.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the most important
part of this discussion tonight is trying to get the United States of
America consistent in its foreign policy, and to recognize that the
amendment offered by the two gentlemen from New York makes a lot of
sense to provide the kind of security that we are seeking as we debate
homeland security this week.
Ninety miles away from the United States lies the island of Cuba.
People there have viewed the United States more as an adversary rather
than a friend. But when we speak directly to the Cuban people, they
want to engage with the United States. As I stand here tonight, I have
constituents in Cuba who are involved in cultural exchange and who are
being trained to be medical physicians, the same as Cuba has done to
send these physicians all over the world to help those in need.
As I stand here today, it is important to note that there is a strong
religious community in Cuba, but yet the United States, its foreign
policy, will ensure friendship with China and Vietnam, but it opposes
the friendship with Cuba.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members tonight to not be part
of what Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick calls the ``blame America first''
crowd, and that is what we have in front of us in the Rangel amendment.
The sole mastermind behind Castro's degrading treatment of its own
citizens is himself. Fidel Castro. Yet this amendment says if we lift
the embargo, all will be swell in Cuba. That means U.S. policy is to
blame for all of the misery in Cuba that we have discussed tonight. But
our policy does not create the lack of due process.
Our policy does not say that independent journalists and independent
libraries are banned in Cuba. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy
does not maintain a system of remote and unmonitored gulags for
prisoners of conscience. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy does
not forbid independent labor unions. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our
policy is not the cause of systematic mistreatment of religious
believers. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy is not to punish
nonviolent opposition movement leaders. That is Fidel Castro's policy.
We do not say that community activists and dissidents are going to be
harassed, prosecuted and persecuted. That is Fidel Castro's policy.
The embargo is not what drives a police officer to beat unconscious a
political prisoner who is on a hunger strike. That is Fidel Castro's
policy. That is not U.S. policy. Our policy does not mandate the
summary execution of independent journalists and conscientious
objectors. That is Fidel Castro's policy.
Do not confuse the issue. Do not be part of Jeanne Kirkpatrick's
``blame America first'' crowd. It is Fidel Castro that is at fault, not
the U.S. embargo.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, by hearing the other side on this issue, we would seem
to believe that they were talking with Costa Rica or Panama or some
other country where there is a functioning democracy where there is no
state sponsorship of terrorism. The reality is that Fidel Castro is the
only world leader who has ever called for a nuclear first strike
against the United States.
He is the only world leader who has ever called for a first strike
against the United States, but they may say he is a kindly old
grandfather now. He is a good guy, so let us reward him. That is what
the Rangel amendment is seeking to do.
But wait a minute, 2 days ago in Greece, the head terrorist that was
arrested there, Alexandros Yiotopoulos, for bombing numerous people in
Greece and throughout that part of the world, where was he trained? He
was trained by Fidel Castro's Cuba. And the Jewish community center
bombed in Argentina in 1994 by the Iranians, where did they assemble?
They assembled in Cuba, flew to Paraguay, crossed the border with fake
passports, and fled back to Cuba after the attack. The bombers hid in
Cuba for several months after the attack, and still have impugnity.
And the kindly old grandfather goes further. In 2001, the IRA
terrorists arrested in Colombia for training the FARC terrorists there
in sophisticated urban bomb warfare, where were they based? In Cuba.
Reward Castro for torturing the Cuban people and oppressing the Cuban
people and being the only state sponsor of terrorism in this
hemisphere, vote no on the Rangel amendment. Vote yes on Goss, no on
the other amendments.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for the purpose of closing.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, it is time to lift the embargo and stop the
blockade. The Castro-haters took this floor tonight to talk about
limiting travel. But Members of Congress go to Cuba whenever they want
to go. People are going to Cuba from all over America. Jimmy Carter was
there, the Pope was there. Let the other American people go who want to
go.
People talked about limiting the remittances, but Members of Congress
go
[[Page H5304]]
to Cuba and they take the money to their families, all of the money
that they want to give to them. Let us be fair to all of the families
in Cuba. Let us stop strangling the trade. Cuba wants to trade. Trade
is the cornerstone of capitalism. Members say that is what they want.
That is what Fidel Castro wants.
It is time to allow our agricultural products and our medical
products to be sold. China is there. Canada is there. Germany is there.
American business people need the opportunity to be there. What is all
of this fear? We do not really fear Fidel Castro. Lift the embargo.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Rangel of New York, which bans
all funding to the Treasury Department for enforcement of the embargo
against Cuba.
Forty years ago, the world order was strikingly different than today.
We were in the midst of the Cold War, fighting communism from spreading
its tentacles around the world. With Cuba so close to our shores, it
was good public policy THEN to impose an embargo. However, I am
reminded of the song ``The Times They are A-Changin''--and they have.
The embargo has not achieved its goals. The same regime rules Cuba
now as ruled four decades ago; the Cubans do not have human or civil
rights; American citizens are denied their right to travel; and the
economic consequences to American farmers and the travel industry are
significant.
Let's lift the embargo and move toward normal commercial and
diplomatic relations with Cuba. Let the Cuban people see what
democracy's all about.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: The amendment printed in House Report
107-585 by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss); amendment No. 1 by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake); amendment No. 20 by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake); and amendment No. 5 by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment printed in House Report 107-585 offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 247, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 330]
AYES--182
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Berkley
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Etheridge
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shows
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--247
Abercrombie
Akin
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Ehlers
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Bonior
DeFazio
DeGette
Stearns
Traficant
{time} 1037
Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LUCAS of Kentucky, ENGLISH, GARY B. MILLER of California,
SWEENEY, FORBES and RYUN of Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
[[Page H5305]]
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262,
noes 167, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 331]
AYES--262
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Callahan
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--167
Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Berkley
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Engel
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Brown (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Bonior
DeFazio
Stearns
Traficant
{time} 1046
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251,
noes 177, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--251
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--177
Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
[[Page H5306]]
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Berkley
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Engel
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stump
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Bonior
DeFazio
Goodlatte
Hansen
Stearns
Traficant
{time} 2254
Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, I was unavoidably
detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rangel
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 226, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 333]
AYES--204
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--226
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Bonior
DeFazio
Stearns
Traficant
{time} 2301
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5120) making
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________