[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 8857]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   TRADE WITH CHINA BUT NOT WITH CUBA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will not consider the 
agriculture appropriations bill because the leadership on the 
Republican side of the aisle so vehemently opposes one tiny provision 
of that bill. That is the provision that would allow the sale of food, 
food, to Cuba.
  Cuba is such a threat to the United States of America that the sale 
of food could jeopardize our national security. Sell them eggs? They 
might throw them back at us.
  Let us compare and contrast their attitude about Cuba to their 
attitude about China. Tomorrow those same Republican leaders are 
pushing as hard as they can to have a truncated 3-hour debate on the 
issue of so-called permanent normal trade relations for China.
  They want to sell them anything and everything: aerospace technology. 
They have already stolen the warhead technology. Missile technology. We 
are helping them improve their missiles, That little flurry we had 
about preventing that last year? Well, that died in the conference 
committee. We are selling them missile technology. They have targeted 
us with 19 missiles, but they are not very accurate. We want to help 
them with their accuracy, anything they might want to buy.
  They are not a threat, somehow. We are going to engage them. But 
Cuba, Cuba is such a threat that food, we cannot sell food to Cuba. Do 
not worry, they might throw those eggs back at us.
  A leader on the other side said, it is very easy to see the 
distinction between the two cases. If we cannot see it, I do not know, 
maybe we are just blind to it.
  Let us just look at the distinctions in the State Department report. 
I have blanked out the countries. See if Members can guess which is an 
authoritarian state.
  The blank is an authoritarian state in the blank Communist party is 
the paramount source of power. Citizens lack both the freedom to 
peacefully express opposition to the party-led political system and the 
right to change their national leaders or form of government. Prison 
conditions at most facilities remain harsh.
  That is one of these countries. Here is the other. The blank is a 
totalitarian state controlled by blank who is chief of state, head of 
government, first Secretary of the Communist party, and Commander in 
Chief of its armed forces. Citizens do not have the right to change 
their government peacefully. Prison conditions remain harsh.
  One of those countries the United States will trade anything and 
everything with, and the other one we will not even sell them food, but 
they kind of sound identical, do they not? They oppress their people, 
they have harsh prison conditions, political prisoners, religious 
prisoners, prisoners of conscience.
  One of them presents a threat to the United States of America so 
grave they cannot buy food. The other, a country of 1 billion people 
that is selling sensitive nuclear technology to terrorist nations, that 
has violated every trade agreement it has entered into with the United 
States of America, that horribly oppresses its people, that crushes 
students with tanks, well, they are okay. We want to engage them, and 
we will sell them anything and everything they want.
  We will be allowed 3 puny hours to debate this issue tomorrow because 
the Republicans have a big dinner. The biggest trade issue before the 
United States Congress this year, and 3 hours of debate. It sounds like 
the deal is cut on that side of the aisle, and it is cut for one thing, 
campaign contributions from the big business that is pushing this stuff 
through this body.

                          ____________________