[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12769-12777]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4461, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 538

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. When the reading for amendment reaches 
     title VIII, that title shall be considered as read. Points of 
     order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 
     74, line 19, through page 75, line 4; page 84, line 21, 
     through page 96, line 4. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. House Resolution 513 is laid on the table.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 538 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. Further, the rule waives points of order 
against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
rule XXI, except as specified in the rule.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord 
priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments 
in the Congressional Record, and further, it allows the Chairman to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 513 is laid on the 
table.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this open rule which provides 
for the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2001. The primary difference between this rule and the one 
reported by our committee last month, House Resolution 513, is the 
removal of the amendment which would have offset funds provided for 
relief to apple and potato farmers. Due to the reallocation of funds by 
the Committee on Appropriations, which now keeps this funding within 
the subcommittee's budget limits, the offset amendment is no longer 
necessary.
  A substantive legislative provision which constitutes a change in 
current law has been exposed to a point of order by this rule, title 
VIII of the bill, a provision which would, in my view, undermine U.S. 
foreign policy goals with regard to terrorist states by eliminating 
restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities to the terrorist 
states, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why the House rules preclude major changes in 
substantive legislative policy on appropriations bills is that the 
appropriations process has hearings and is set up for deliberation on 
appropriations issues, while the authorizing process, the authorizing 
committees, have hearings on major legislative policy changes, and they 
are set up to concentrate on and improve major, substantive legislative 
policy proposals.
  I think that an example of why the House has this rule is in fact 
before us today. My friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt), included an amendment in the appropriations bill, as I 
mentioned, to end restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities 
to rogue regimes. The legislation allegedly precluded exports from the 
terrorist states to the United States, and prohibited Federal financing 
of sales to those States.
  After reviewing the legislation carefully, however, the Congressional 
Research Service, for example, informed my office that that is not 
necessarily correct. It was not clear, for example, that exports to the 
United States from the terrorist states would be precluded, and 
secondly, with regard to Federal financing, at least one significant 
credit program would have become available to any of those rogue 
regimes if the administration simply deleted them from the State 
Department terrorist list; something, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that the 
administration has admitted it is considering doing with a number of 
terrorist states, despite the fact that

[[Page 12770]]

some of these States have recently carried out the murders of United 
States citizens.
  In fact, only last week Secretary of State Albright tinkered with the 
terminology by declaring that the terrorist states are no longer rogue 
states, but rather, states of concern. It is obvious that various or 
all of these terrorist regimes will soon be taken off the terrorist 
list by the current administration.
  I informed my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), 
of these concerns. But in the appropriations process, we simply cannot 
amend this legislation pursuant to and after the necessary study to 
make certain that we are not doing what even the legislation's 
proponents do not wish to do.
  In addition, in my view, the timing of the legislation offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has been unfortunate. We are 
dealing here with states that have engaged in acts of terrorism against 
Americans in recent years. We are dealing with states against which 
American victims of terrorism, their surviving family members, have 
obtained judgments in the Federal courts under the Antiterrorism Act of 
1996 for the murders of their family members by those terrorist 
regimes.
  We are dealing with regimes which harbor murderers, terrorists, drug 
dealers, and other fugitives from United States justice. We are dealing 
with the terrible message that we would be sending, for example, to the 
regime in Iran if we were to pass the legislation as is, the 
legislation which is left exposed to a point of order by this rule.
  In a letter just a few days ago by, for example, the American-Israel 
Public Affairs Committee, the timing of this legislative language, the 
unfortunate timing of the language, was made clear.
  The letter reads, ``We have serious concerns regarding the Nethercutt 
language. Our concerns center on the changes in U.S. export policy 
towards Iran that the legislation would require, changes which we 
believe are unjustified. Such changes would be particularly untimely, 
coming at the very time that the government of Iran is engaged in a 
major show trial of 13 Iranian Jews. We are deeply troubled by the 
direction that trial is taking. Any action taken to help Iran at this 
moment would send exactly the wrong message to the Iranian regime, 
particularly coming on the heels of the outrageous decision last month 
by the World Bank to proceed with new loans to Iran. Now is the wrong 
time to be seen as helping Iran.''
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more serious than simply the 
purported attempt to open some markets for American food products. We 
must remember that the ingredients, for example, in the deadly car 
bombs which killed hundreds of our brave troops in Beirut, or the 
Oklahoma City car bombing, ingredients from fertilizers to other 
chemicals, also in the opinion of experts may fall within the 
definition of ``agricultural commodities'' which would become available 
to terrorist states.
  If the language were to become law as it passed out of the Committee 
on Appropriations, the only option available to a United States 
president to counter the development of chemical or biological weapons 
by a terrorist state in effect would be military action. In other 
words, Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more complicated and serious 
than it seems at first glance.
  The Committee on Rules did its duty pursuant to House rules in 
exposing the language to a point of order in this rule. The issue will, 
under the rule, certainly be open for resolution in conference. I am 
pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise on the Nethercutt 
language which I believe contains some improvements over current law.
  However, in this particular bill today, the agriculture 
appropriations bill, that original language is subject to a point of 
order. I support wholeheartedly including the compromise language in 
either the conference report on this bill or another legislative 
vehicle to get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, but to 
get to that stage, Mr. Speaker, we must first pass the open rule that 
is before the House this evening.
  This is a fair rule, and I ask for all of my colleagues' support for 
it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has come to the floor through such a 
convoluted, twisted process I am surprised that it is here at all.
  Mr. Speaker, this all started 2 months ago when an amendment to lift 
the American embargo on food and medicine to five countries passed the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies, and later the full Committee on 
Appropriations as part of the agriculture appropriations bill. That 
amendment would have ended the horrible United States policy of denying 
people food and medicine just because we disagree with that country's 
leaders.

                              {time}  2130

  This was a great step forward, Mr. Speaker. Not only for American 
farmers, but also for the residents of Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, 
and Iran.
  But evidently, the Miami Cuban community got wind of it and started 
their powerful lobbying wheels turning; and by the time the bill came 
to the Committee on Rules, the embargo-lifting amendment that was 
approved by the majority of the committee had been exposed to points of 
order which meant it was essentially dead on arrival.
  When word got out, the American people were horrified to learn that 
the decision of the majority of the Committee on Appropriations had 
been subverted and the Congress was forced to continue its ill-advised 
debacle. So the rule sat around for weeks and weeks waiting for some 
sort of resolution.
  Late yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it became official. The Miami community 
is more powerful than the American farmers. The Miami community is more 
powerful than the majority of the Congress. At 2 a.m. this morning, the 
Committee on Rules met to do a new agricultural appropriations rule. 
This one delivered a fatal blow to the amendment lifting the embargo.
  Apparently, some supporters of the bill were bought off with the 
promise that the food and medicine amendment would come up later in a 
different form, in a milder form that makes it nearly impossible for 
American farmers to sell even one kernel of corn to the hungry Cuban 
families. But at this point, we have not even seen the new amendment, 
so we really cannot be sure.
  Mr. Speaker, when the amendment is finally unveiled, if the rumors 
are true, American farmers will be able to sell to Libya, the 15 
million people at risk of starving in Sudan, and the 25 million 
starving people in North Korea. However, that will not be tonight, 
thanks to this rule which takes the embargo out of the agriculture 
bill.
  So the House, Mr. Speaker, will not have the chance to vote up or 
down on the momentous issue of ending the embargo. Instead, the end of 
the embargo will probably be rolled into another bill, and the House 
once again will be denied a separate vote.
  Mr. Speaker, there should be a separate vote on ending the embargo. I 
think that vote should be on this bill. I have been to Cuba. I have 
seen the suffering to which our embargo has contributed. Three years 
ago, I met a little boy in a pediatric hospital. I will never forget 
that sight as he lay in his hospital bed in Cuba. The 3-year-old had a 
respiratory disorder that is widely treated here in the United States 
with a simple plastic shunt. But because the shunt was made in the 
United States, it was prohibited from entering Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, that little boy spent 86 days in intensive care, lost a 
lung, nearly died. By the time we met him, he was lying in a hospital 
bed covered with tubes and barely breathing. And all he needed, Mr. 
Speaker, was a little piece of plastic, very available, just 90 miles 
away in Miami. I carry that image of the boy to this day because 
politics kept him in that bed when he should have been outside playing 
ball.

[[Page 12771]]

  Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues that despite what people say, 
Castro will always have the best steaks. Castro will always have the 
best wines. Castro will always have whatever he wants, no matter what 
we do here today or tomorrow. But for the rest of the Cuban people, it 
is a very different story.
  My Republican colleagues have erected a number of hurdles making it 
close to impossible for children in Cuba to get their food and medicine 
in a straightforward fashion. See, people view these situations very 
differently, Mr. Speaker. When some people think of lifting the 
embargo, they see Castro's face. When I think of lifting the embargo, I 
see that little boy's face in that pediatric hospital.
  We are not arguing for normal trade with these countries. We are not 
trying to send them sneakers or CDs or VCRs or television sets. We are 
arguing for simple human decency, and I should think that all of my 
colleagues would want to support that with no strings attached.
  Mr. Speaker, the embargo may have been right 40 years ago, 39 years 
ago, 38 years ago, or whatever. But it just did not work, and all it 
does is hurt people. It hurts children. I think we should end it with 
this bill. So I hope that this rule is defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I vigorously, obviously, disagree with the merits of 
what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has just said. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has a number of others who are here ready 
to speak and consistently come forth with subterfuges to hide their 
support for a brutal regime that has maintained itself for 40 years.
  He has a right, and they have a right, to admire and to support that 
regime. But I will not accept from the gentleman . . . There is no 
community in this United States, sir, that would accept a Member of 
Congress getting up and saying, like you have said, ``the Miami 
community got word of it.'' No community. No community in the United 
States. No ethnic community in the United States would accept that, 
whether it is the Boston Irish community or any community in any city, 
and I do not accept it.
  And you owe, sir--you can have all the views you wish, but you owe an 
apology to that community in South Florida . . .
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) be taken down. The gentleman has accused the 
gentleman from Massachusetts of making an ethnic slur.
  The gentleman referred to a city. The gentleman, to my knowledge, 
made no ethnic slur, whatsoever; and I think it is the gentleman from 
Florida who owes the gentleman from Massachusetts an apology.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman will be seated, 
the Clerk will report the words and then the Chair will be prepared to 
rule.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Do we have an 
opportunity to be heard before the Chair makes a decision?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Perhaps at a later point.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
words with regard to the attribution of ethnic slur.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me.
  I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, with some concern about this rule, but 
with a commitment to vote for it. I will vote for it, not because I am 
happy that the provision that I had worked so hard to get into the 
appropriations bill will not be protected, but because of the very 
strong commitment I have received from the House leadership to make 
certain that the agreement that has been reached between the gentleman 
from Florida, (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) is one that I believe is in the best interest of the 
country and I believe is in the best interest of moving the agriculture 
appropriations bill forward and completing our appropriations process.
  I have been working on this issue of lifting sanctions on food and 
medicine to the countries that our Nation unilaterally sanctions for 3 
years. It is a turnaround in my thinking, because I came to Congress in 
1995 thinking that unilateral embargoes on food and medicine are in the 
best interest of our Nation. But I have changed my view.
  I have changed my view because I do not believe that food and 
medicine should be used as weapons in foreign policy against 
governments or people, I should say, that we disagree with around the 
world. We disagree with the leadership of Fidel Castro. We disagree 
with the leadership of other countries that are terrorist in nature. 
But we must have some compassion and some feeling for the people that 
reside within those countries.
  That is what my amendment was designed to accomplish was to yield our 
sanctions policy such that we help people and still oppose dictator 
governments around the world.
  I wanted to say here that I have great respect for the passion with 
which my friends from Florida expressed their views on this issue. I 
know they care deeply about this policy. We disagree on policy. We are 
friends. I have great personal respect for them and anybody else who 
disagrees with me on this policy. But I feel this is the right policy 
for agriculture. It is the right humanitarian policy for our Nation.
  So faced again this year with the potential for having no relief on 
the policy of sanctions that have been imposed unilaterally by this 
country on food and medicine, I felt we had to sit down and negotiate 
some agreement that may not be perfect. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, I 
do not believe this is a perfect agreement; but I believe it is a 
workable and valid and helpful agreement as we seek to lift sanctions 
on food and medicine for people of the world and give Congress a chance 
to be a part of that sanctions relief. Not just the President imposing 
it, but having the Congress have some help as well in trying to 
implement this policy.
  It was my expectation, and is, that this measure, this agreement that 
has been reached, and it is a commitment by our leadership, by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies, and the leadership of the House that it would be put 
on the military construction supplemental bill today or tomorrow, that 
is still my hope, so that we can have a chance to vote for this.
  But in lieu of that, I have the commitment that it will go on the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill in conference, and I will be a 
conferee, and there will be other conferees as well who feel that this 
agreement is a fair one.
  It is not a perfect one. But if we do not implement this agreement, 
then I fear that we have no agreement, and the policy to lift sanctions 
on food and medicine will die for another year, and that is wrong. That 
is wrong for the people of the world who need food and medicine.
  So I would just say to my friends on the other side, and they are my 
friends in this fight, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), many, many Democrats who 
worked with us on this issue, it is not what we want completely, but it 
is an open door, a change in policy for the first time in 38 years, and 
more with respect to our policy of unilaterally sanctioning people of 
the world on food and medicine.

[[Page 12772]]

  It is not perfect, but it is evolving. I think, if we do nothing, we 
implement and keep that policy as it has always been. I think that is 
wrong for the world. It is wrong for American farmers. It is wrong for 
American humanitarian groups.
  So I just conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I know 
that there is criticism of this agreement, but it is workable. It is 
going to accomplish the objective that all of us who feel that 
sanctions imposition is wrong. It will lift them. It is a start, and I 
think it is in the best interest of the Nation.
  So I am going to vote for this rule, and I am going to vote for the 
bill. I am going to fight my heart out along with my colleagues who 
feel strongly as I do that this is the right policy to lift these 
sanctions on food and medicine to make sure that it becomes law.
  The President mentioned it today in his press conference. I think we 
are very, very close to getting the White House to agree to this. It is 
not perfect, but we are working hard to get to this result.
  So I know there are Members who want to vote no, and that is their 
right. But I am going to vote yes because I have faith that the 
commitment that has been made to me on this issue and this subject will 
be met.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that, at the end of a 
daffy day we should be discussing a daffy deal on a daffy rule that 
will bring a daffy bill to the floor.
  Let me first say that I am mystified by the way the leadership of the 
House is proceeding on this. My understanding of the way one is 
supposed to use the legislative body is that the committees are 
supposed to make their recommendations to the full House. Then the 
leadership is supposed to use the House as the vehicle that makes 
decisions by determining what the majority view is.
  That is the way we work out most of our differences out here. We 
bring our differences to the floor. We have an honest debate about 
them, and then we vote, and we see who wins and who loses.
  The problem that we are running into in this session is that, time 
and time again, when committees make recommendations that the 
leadership worries about, they then proceed to try to twist the rules 
to prevent the House from working out our differences by preventing us 
from even voting on them. This is another such case tonight.
  What is happening tonight is that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) offered a proposal which I and many others supported on 
both sides of the aisle which would not make American farmers who are 
suffering record low prices the first victims of foreign policy 
decisions. That is a controversial action taken by the gentleman and 
taken by us. But now we are told that a deal has been struck.

                              {time}  2200

  Well, let me describe what that deal is, because I think what the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is buying to take home to 
his farmers is a bushel basket with no bottom. It is empty.
  What has happened is that the language which was adopted by a 
majority in the committee was not protected by the Committee on Rules, 
and so that language is now going to be stricken on a point of order on 
this bill in return for a promise that maybe it will be attached to the 
supplemental bill. The problem is that at this point all four major 
conferees, Senator Stevens, myself, Senator Byrd, and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), have been made to understand that it is going 
to be almost impossible to attach that provision to the supplemental 
because of Senate rules.
  As I understand it, if that proposal is attached to a supplemental, 
it then becomes subject to a point of order under Senate rules. And 
Senator Dodd has already promised that if that language is attached to 
the supplemental, he will force the Senate to read word by word the 
entire bill, and that takes us to about next Wednesday. So we can be 
celebrating July 4th here in the Capitol. That is what happens if this 
is transferred to the supplemental bill.
  So what we have is the gentleman from Washington buying a deal that 
allows him to possibly transfer this debate to a bill which will go 
nowhere if this provision is attached to it. That is not going to help 
a single farmer in America. So I think he bought a very bad deal.
  I also think that it puts in jeopardy the passage of the 
supplemental. Now, I have opposed most of the items in the 
supplemental. I am deeply opposed to what that supplemental provides 
for aid to Colombia, for instance. I agree with Senator Stevens that 
that is likely to get us into a protracted war. I hope I am wrong. I 
have been wrong many times before; I hope this is another time. But the 
problem is that if we attach this provision to that bill, we will have 
instant controversy; and it will mean that we put at risk the passage 
of that supplemental. And if we put at risk the passage of that 
supplemental, the U.S. Army begins to have some real problems because 
of their drawdowns.
  So I do not understand why on earth the House is proceeding this way. 
If I were the House leadership, I would not even be bringing up this 
rule tonight because I would not want to put myself in a box 
foreclosing the possible use of this vehicle for the Nethercutt 
language. By adopting this rule tonight, we lock the House into a 
position where they have to either attach this to the supplemental or 
not. And if we attach it to the supplemental, we create a 50-50 chance 
that the supplemental is dead as the Dodo bird.
  Now, I do not think that moves legislation forward; and it confuses 
me, as someone who is trying to cooperate to help pass that 
supplemental, because I have lost at battles, but it is still my duty 
to try to help the House complete its business in conference.
  So in addition to that, there are a number of other problems with 
this rule, and there are a lot of problems with the underlying bill 
which I do not have time to get into, including the fact that it 
shortchanges antitrust, shortchanges food safety, shortchanges the 
budget for pest and disease control and for agriculture conservation 
practices. So at this point I am forced to declare my opposition to the 
bill, to the underlying bill, and to the rule itself.
  I would urge the leadership of the House not to put at risk the 
passage of the supplemental, because the Pentagon needs that too badly, 
and they are going to have to begin to do a lot of things which are 
going to embarrass the Congress as an institution if that supplemental 
cannot pass.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before yielding to my distinguished friend from Missouri. I 
think that we, in the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin, saw an 
example of where we have significant disagreements, but the 
disagreements have been stated in a respectful way and not in a way 
that, certainly as before, I considered personally offensive. So I want 
to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for that.
  As the gentleman from Washington stated previously, a number of us 
have had very significant and strong disagreements, but I think in a 
frank and respectful way we have been able to come to an agreement that 
improves on current law and that is in the national interest of the 
United States, protecting this country from business transactions which 
may accrue to the benefit of terrorist states. And I think that in the 
agreement that we have achieved that is accomplished.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. 
Emerson), an individual who has been a formidable negotiator, who has 
been very strong in her views and has demonstrated great leadership in 
bringing forth what she believes in, and who I have had disagreements 
with. I wish to publicly recognize the seriousness and the 
forthrightness with which she addresses issues such as this.

[[Page 12773]]


  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for those kind words.
  I want to say for the record that I hate this rule. I hate the fact 
that all of us have worked so hard and passed something that would mean 
a great deal to the American farmer, and still will mean a great deal 
to the farmer; but I have to say, too, that it is important to move to 
process forward.
  Let me just digress for a minute here. This evening the Faith & 
Politics Institute held the first-ever Bill Emerson-Walter Capps 
Civility Lecture Series, and we asked George Mitchell to come and 
address the group tonight to talk about the peace process in Ireland. 
He was incredible and so eloquent, and he talked about how it took a 
year and a half, a year and a half, before he got any movement at all. 
He sat in a room that long.
  Now, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has done a 
magnificent job talking and working hard on this issue, as have the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), as well as all of our Democratic friends. 
There is so much passion about this, as there was so much passion with 
the British and the Irish in those rooms with Senator Mitchell. And he 
got them to move forward, as they did. Not in a perfect sense 
whatsoever, because it took a year and a half.
  We have spent maybe tens of hours talking, and we have gotten a 
compromise that gives something to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) and to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), and 
it gives an awful lot to our American farmers. It is not perfect, but 
it cracks the door open. And if we can just crack the door open a 
little bit, other things will follow.
  So as much as I would love to vote against this rule, I am not going 
to do that because I think it is more important to not only follow 
through on our commitment, that when we give our word, as the Speaker 
and the leadership have given their word to us, we will in turn give 
our word to them that that is the most important thing and that this 
will happen.
  I would ask my colleagues who are not as happy about this to remember 
that little baby steps make a big difference in the long run, and that 
while we cannot get everything we want today, it does not mean that we 
will not tomorrow.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  I do not think I have ever risen in opposition to a rule for an 
agriculture appropriations measure coming out of our subcommittee, but 
indeed I must do so this evening, mainly because we have to look at 
this bill in the broader context of what is happening in rural America. 
The only chances we have to help are this bill and the related 
supplemental bill, which was to have had funding in it for agriculture.
  Unfortunately, the members of our committee have essentially been 
defanged. We have not been allowed to participate in conference 
committees occurring on the supplemental bill. This particular bill is 
$400 million below what was spent in the year of 2000. It is $1.6 
billion below what the administration asked for to meet these historic 
low prices that our farmers are struggling with, the drought problems 
we are having and the disaster problems. In my part of America, farmers 
cannot even get tractors into the field because of the water. So the 
bill is not adequate.
  We had pinned our hopes on the supplemental. We had proposed to try 
to level the playing field of the $400 million that is short in this 
bill compared to last year's spending and put it in the supplemental. 
This evening we find out that the conferees, who did not include 
anybody on the committee but essentially four people negotiating, the 
leaders in both Houses, absolutely did not consult with any of the 
other conferees that were supposedly appointed.
  My colleagues might remember that last year the leadership decided 
that they were going to appoint conferees, and then the conferees met 
and they were dismissed. Well, this year they appointed conferees and 
we never met. And so now we face this bill which so underfund our 
programs.
  In fact, we will not have enough people in the field, technical 
assistance for natural resource and conservation service to give 
farmers to apply for the programs to keep their noses above water. Our 
rural development programs will be $200 million under. Our pest and 
disease programs $40 million under for citrus canker for tree 
replacement in States like Florida, all of the different plum pox 
problems in Pennsylvania, and so forth. The FDA lab in Los Angeles is 
canceled in the supplemental; the renovations to the building here in 
Washington; the money that we need to move people into the new FDA 
facility in College Park.
  This bill is absolutely linked to the supplemental, and this evening 
we learned that that supplemental is completely inadequate and we have 
absolutely been divested of our authority as duly elected Members of 
this House. So I would have to say to the Members to vote ``no'' on 
this rule. It is our only way to send a message to the leadership of 
this Chamber that the Members need to be involved at the table.
  I would just urge the membership on both sides of the aisle to 
restore the powers to the subcommittees. No subcommittee likes to be 
treated in this way. No committee likes to be treated in this way. Vote 
``no'' on this rule and allow us to bring a bill to the floor that 
reflects the will of the majority of the members of the committee.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would hope that our colleagues would support the rule tonight. The 
compromise that has been discussed previously on the floor, I believe, 
represents a well-balanced approach to a very difficult and thorny and 
delicate issue that I know is very important to everyone here.
  I think it is a well-crafted compromise. Certainly not a perfect 
vehicle, like many negotiations that end up with a document that is not 
perfect for either side. But I want to thank tonight the individuals 
who participated in the many hours of difficult negotiations, starting 
with our good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt); 
the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who was really the person 
who helped us reach this compromise.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I have been working, 
as all of my colleagues know, for many years on the issue of freedom 
for Cuba. We were both born in Cuba, came here to the United States 
young. We know what it is like to live under a Communist regime, and 
the districts that we represent, although not homogeneous, certainly 
heterogeneous districts, but the people, many of whom we represent, are 
in similar situations.

                              {time}  2215

  They lost what little they had in Cuba. And I am not talking about 
material possessions. I am talking about freedom, democracy, liberty, 
justice. And so, when we hear in this Chamber and we talk about 
negotiations with a communist regime, the political is the personal and 
the personal is the political for us. We thank the Republican 
leadership for their help in getting us to this point.
  A credible case perhaps could be made that in other dictatorships 
throughout the world there has been a semblance of reform and a 
semblance

[[Page 12774]]

of change, and perhaps that is why this body has in other bills voted 
to have trading relations with those dictatorships. I have not been on 
that list, but a credible case could be made for some market reforms in 
other countries.
  But what reforms have taken place in Castro's Cuba in these 41 years 
of tyranny and dictatorship? They are no closer to freer elections. 
There have not been any free elections in Castro's Cuba for 41 years. 
The violations of human rights continue to this very day. While we are 
here discussing this issue, dissidents are being rounded up and thrown 
in jail, opposition leaders are persecuted and prosecuted, people of 
religious faith who want to practice their religion are also rounded up 
and thrown in jail on bogus charges, child prostitution continues to be 
the order of the day. And we wink and nod and continue to believe that 
we could have faith in such a regime.
  In fact, foreign firms who go to Cuba to do business, by law, are not 
allowed to pay the worker directly. They must pay Fidel Castro in 
dollars, and Castro then pays the worker in actually worthless pesos. 
The Cuban worker is a slave. And those who deal with business with the 
Castro dictatorship, they are here to talk against slavery. In the 
United States, of course we would abhor that. But yet, slavery is the 
norm of the day in Cuba, and we are supposed to accept that because we 
have a global marketplace and everything is all right.
  Everything is not all right in Castro's Cuba, and that is why my 
family came to the United States. That is why so many hundreds and 
thousands of Cubans die trying to come to the United States. And thank 
God that there is this wonderful country where people with very 
dissimilar views can come together and fashion a compromise because we 
have democracy, because we have discussions, and because we have an 
open system.
  So I hope that, in celebration of that open system, our colleagues 
would accept the compromise. I thank the Republican leadership and so 
many on the other side who have helped us to get to this point. I hope 
that we adopt the rule tonight, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  I believe the original provision authored by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to lift sanctions on food and medicine 
deserves a real debate and should not be stripped out of this bill on a 
point of order.
  This language, which is so far past the test of democratic debate, is 
going to disappear. It will be replaced by language worked out in back 
rooms by a handful of people. That deal will come before the House 
attached to some conference report or another in a way that denies 
amendment and debate.
  Why? Because a small group of Members has, in my opinion, a 
counterproductive obsession with Cuba. They appear to be determined to 
smother all debate, choke off free speech, undermine our democratic 
legislative process so that no measure that might affect U.S.-Cuba 
policy, even one as modest and as reasonable as the original provision 
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), will ever see the 
light of day.
  They are afraid of what might happen should the House be allowed to 
work its will. They are afraid of the democratic process of free, fair, 
and open debate.
  Ironically, what we are witnessing today on the floor of this House 
is something we would expect to see in Cuba and not in the United 
States of America. No one knows what the outcome might be if there was 
a fair vote to limit sanctions on food and medicine to Cuba and these 
other countries. It might win or it might lose. But I do know we should 
not be afraid to find out. I do know it deserves a debate and a vote. I 
should add, that is what makes our country so wonderfully unique.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) for his leadership and the bravery that he has shown on 
this issue. He has forced his leadership to take a step in the right 
direction. I know he has agitated them to no end, so I respect him very 
much.
  But I cannot accept this deal. It is full of ugly and gratuitous 
measures that continue to put a wall between Americans and the people 
of Cuba. The financing of sales of food and medicine and medical 
devices to Cuba is far more restrictive than the other countries.
  And who does it hurt? It hurts small- and medium-size American 
farmers, American pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical 
devices by making sales of food and medicine to Cuba as difficult as 
possible.
  It also shuts down the possibility of increased travel by American 
citizens to Cuba, which is something that dissidents of Cuba have urged 
more of.
  Mr. Speaker, we in the House will not be allowed to debate this back-
room deal. We will not be allowed to amendment it or vote on it. We 
will not be able to exercise our democratic rights.
  If my colleagues care about freedom and democracy not only in Cuba 
but in the United States House of Representatives, I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement made by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who just spoke, no, there is no comparison 
between what is going on here this evening and what goes on in Castro's 
Cuba.
  I wish that I could show the gentleman a card that I carry with me 
from a political prisoner. He snuck it out of prison and sent it to me. 
I wish I could show it to him. I will not because making public his 
name would cost him, in all likelihood, his life.
  That political prisoner is in a gulag because of an opinion, a 
belief. No, there is no comparison between what is going on this 
evening here and what goes on in Castro's Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, a gentleman who has been in Cuba many times.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, young Elian Gonzalez finally got back home 
to Cuba with his dad. I really think that this young man has, more than 
any one thing in recent history, caused the American people to focus on 
Cuba.
  I think the worst indictment that I can make about the deals that are 
being cut in the Committee on Appropriations is that most Americans 
really do not care, they do not care about Cuba, and anybody that wants 
to cut a deal, cut a deal, if it does not pass in the House, it will 
pass in the conference. What arrogance, our foreign policy, our trade 
policy is going to be because half a dozen people got together and 
decided what makes them feel good. They are going to determine who the 
dictators are and how foreign nationals are being treated.
  What happened to the old-fashioned way where we used to have 
hearings, we used to have witnesses, we used to have votes on the 
floor? I have never heard a deal being bragged about so openly. But, 
fortunately, this little Elian has been able to show America that some 
people are more concerned by the passionate dislike of who runs Cuba 
than what is in the best interest of the United States of America, what 
is in the best interest of our farmers, what is in the best interest of 
our trade, and they can cut a deal.
  If I had known this, why would I work so hard on permanent trade 
relations with China? I would have gone to the Committee on 
Appropriations and picked half a dozen people. The way to do these 
things is go to the Committee on Appropriations and say, hey, can we 
cut a deal? Let us send some food and technology to these Communist 
Chinese, forgetting what kind of government they have, and run it out 
to conference if they do not like what happens in the House.
  We cannot say that we have such passion in our heart that we distort 
what this institution is about. Today if we

[[Page 12775]]

do it for Cuba, who is going to pick the next country that we have a 
dislike for?
  And it is insulting to say that Americans cannot travel to Cuba. 
Americans should be able to travel any place that we want because we 
are the best ambassadors ever for this great country. And I refuse to 
believe that Castro and those little Communists can influence us. The 
truth of the matter is we should be influencing them with our American 
flag, with our know-how, with our productivity and being able to say we 
are not afraid of their incompetent government.
  But if my colleagues think the way to do it is to cut a deal and say, 
do not talk to anybody, do not trade with anybody, use food, use 
medicine as a tool to show how much we dislike their form of 
government, how many forms of government do we dislike where deals are 
cut? The Communists in North Korea? The Communists in Vietnam? The 
Communists in Red China? No deals are being cut for those Communists. 
But we have to have a special deal, our farmers have to suffer, our 
exporters have to suffer, our tourism has to suffer, and Americans have 
the indignation to know that they are not trusted because a handful of 
people want to cut a deal and restrict the President of the United 
States from being able to determine who visits what.
  Well, I hope this deal thing is not that contagious. I hope it is 
contained. I hope that maybe the other House does not allow this thing 
to spread over there to say that we will vote on this rule because we 
know ahead of time what the law is going to be.
  Shame.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that once, just once, the colleagues who get up 
and with such passion, and the word ``passion'' has been used so often 
this evening, talk about their objection to financing and credits and 
trade with that brutal dictatorship that has oppressed a noble people, 
our closest neighbors, for 41 years. Just once I wish, Mr. Speaker, 
that they would come and demand and ask for free elections, the rule of 
law, the liberation of the political prisoners, including the political 
prisoner who had the courage to sneak out a card to send me.
  What is wrong about demanding, just once the liberation of those 
people in a gulag rotting away because of their belief and support for 
the rule of law and for democracy?
  Why not ask for the legalization of political parties and labor 
unions and the press, the press that has the freedom in this country 
and in so many other countries in the world to cover what we say 
without censorship?
  Never, Mr. Speaker, never do we hear any of these colleagues who come 
and defend with such passion that dictatorship 41 years in power. Not 
even when I was away, not even once have we heard them come and demand 
the rule of law in elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been in Congress, I 
have worked to lift sanctions against Cuba. One hundred, sixty-seven 
Members from both sides have cosponsored H.R. 1644, my legislation, to 
lift the embargo on the sale of food and medicine without restrictions.
  I and many others of my colleagues applauded the efforts of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to include other countries 
in the removal of sanctions on food and medicine.
  Unfortunately, this agreement is the result of negotiations that took 
place without the participation of many of the people deeply involved 
in this issue over a long period of time. However, the good news is 
that a door has been opened that will never, ever close again.

                              {time}  2230

  Elian Gonzalez, who left today, helped us to put aside some of the 
hate in Miami and to move forward. We will keep pushing that door and 
that door until it falls and it opens forever. When Juan Miguel 
Gonzalez stood at the airport today and looked at the American people 
and in both English and Spanish said thank you for giving my child back 
to me, thank you for having your system work on my behalf, and try to 
work with each other so that we can have better relations in the 
future, Juan Miguel had no understanding, I am sure, the legacy that he 
and his little boy have left behind.
  This door is open, and it will never, ever close again. We will trade 
with Cuba as much as we can now, and we will lift the embargo soon. 
People can stand here and accuse people of being bad Americans and 
supporters of the Castro regime. I am a supporter of Juan Miguel 
Gonzalez. I am a supporter of Elian Gonzalez. I am a supporter of 
children in Cuba who have never harmed my child; and their father, this 
Congressman, should not harm them at all.
  The bad news is that this was a back room deal that is going to be 
hard in some cases to enforce. The good news is that we have 170 people 
over here that are going to stay on the State Department, Treasury 
Department, the administration, joining Members from the other side, to 
make sure that every possible opening in that door works to our 
advantage and to the advantage of the Cuban people.
  It is over. It is over. Mark it on the calendar. The day Elian left, 
he took with him the sickness of the embargo and he threw it away at 
sea. Elian's tragedy is going to be our sanity, because starting today 
we will do what is right and some day when that little boy grows up 
some reporter will go to him and say, do you know that you played a 
role in these two people coming together? And he will know what 
happened, and his father, that 31-year-old articulate, direct, but 
compassionate man, who had the courage and the strength to say I will 
wait the system out, if they had taken my child, I would not have been 
the diplomat that he was.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, recently this House passed significant 
legislation to open up trade with China, a Communist nation, in direct 
contradiction to the policy we established with that bill and to the 
policy established in H.R. 4461, the agricultural appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2001. This rule will limit our efforts to allow limited 
trade with Cuba and several other nations.
  Let me hasten to add that the sanctions that would be lifted by the 
agricultural appropriations would be related to food and medicine, a 
very limited trade but yet significant. Our American farmers would 
welcome this trade opportunity.
  Putting aside it is bad policy to use food and medicine as political 
leverage, this House, by a substantial margin, engaged with China 
trade, which is in the right direction, rather than isolation. We 
should do that for Cuba. Why not trade with Cuba? Cuba is only a few 
miles away; and China indeed is many, many thousands of miles away. 
This rule is a bad rule.
  Mr. Speaker, recently, this House passed significant legislation, 
designed to open up trade with China--a communist Nation.
  In direct contravention to the policy we established with that Bill 
and to the policy embodied in H.R. 4461, the Agriculture Appropriations 
Bill for Fiscal Year 2001, this rule limited our effort to allow 
limited trade with Cuba and several other nations.
  Under this Rule, the provisions in the Agriculture Appropriations 
Bill that would lift current economic sanctions against Cuba, Libya, 
North Korea, Iraq and Sudan, would be subject to a point of order.
  That means that one Member of this House--for any reason or for no 
reason--will have the ability, the power to overturn the policy trend 
of trading with other nations, notwithstanding their governmental 
structures.
  Let me hasten to add that the sanctions that would be lifted by the 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill would relate only to food and medicine, 
a very limited trade policy. Our American farmers would welcome this 
trade opportunity.
  Putting aside the fact that it is bad policy to use food and medicine 
as political leverage, this House, by a substantial margin, voted to 
engage China in trade, rather than pursue isolation.

[[Page 12776]]

  We are willing to trade with China.
  Why not Cuba?
  China is thousands of miles away.
  Cuba is a stones throw away.
  Under this Rule, points of order against legislating on an 
appropriations bill are waived generally.
  However, several provisions are specifically left without waivers.
  Those unprotected provisions include Title Eight of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill, and that Title consists of the ``Trade Sanctions 
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.''
  If Title Eight remains in the Bill, the President could not impose 
sanctions against Cuba and the other countries, unless Congress 
consents.
  It seems to me that such a process provides adequate oversight, in 
the event our Government finds it prudent to sanction one of these so-
called ``rogue'' nations.
  Mr. Speaker, we can well expect that the food and medicine trade 
provisions of this Bill will be struck.
  Similar provisions were struck from the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill.
  I understand that some Members feel strongly about the practices of 
those governments in Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iraq and the Sudan.
  I too feel strongly about some of their practices.
  But, this House took a bold step recently, an historic step.
  Why then today, should one Member, for good reason or bad, be able to 
reverse that step, change that policy position?
  There is no good answer, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge my colleagues to stand for consistency in our foreign policy--
Reject this Rule!
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
It does not protect a decision that was made by members of the 
Committee on Appropriations to take vital steps towards sanction 
reform, to lift the ban on food and medicine to innocent citizens of 
the Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Iran and, yes, Cuba. I worked hard, 
along with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), 
along with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson), to work to make sure that we could lift these sanctions 
to be able to help American farmers, to be able to sell their products 
abroad, because they are suffering from low prices today.
  This rule ignores what we did, two votes in the subcommittee and in 
the full committee. Let me say, while we worked hard with our 
colleagues, we were not, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and 
I, included in the deal, in the negotiations. This is not a compromise. 
It is a capitulation. That is what this is about.
  The Republican leadership has made a promise that sanction reform is 
going to be attached to some other future legislative vehicle, but that 
vehicle remains a mystery. We are going to leave sanction reform by the 
wayside. There is too much at stake for our farmers, and our foreign 
policy should not punish people who suffer under repressive regimes.
  These unilateral agricultural sanctions hurt the most vulnerable in 
target nations. Imagine, my God, food and medicine we want to deny to 
people. Who are we, for God's sakes?
  Just 2 weeks ago in this body, or several weeks ago, we talked about 
permanent trade relations with China; and we said that China that 
abuses human rights, that pirates our intellectual properties, that 
proliferates nuclear warfare, is all right but Cuba is not. It is 
mindless. It is absolutely mindless and disingenuous. Vote against this 
rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) has 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a rule about the agricultural appropriations 
bill. The underlying bill is about America. It is about its land and 
its people. It is about the farmers that grow our food. It is about how 
we treat that food, how we deliver it, how we give it to poor people, 
how we give it to the school lunch program, school breakfast program, 
how we give it to women and infants, how we deal with poverty in 
America. That is what this bill is about.
  The people who produce that food came to this committee and they 
said, why can we not sell that food and sell our medicines to other 
countries? Why do we have sanctions against the products that we do 
such a good job in raising? Why do we not lift those embargoes that we 
have created in our country, embargoes against Sudan, against Libya, 
against North Korea, against Iran and, yes, against Cuba?
  Yes, these countries have been problem countries; but we have never, 
as the richest, most powerful Nation in the world, used the food as a 
weapon to hurt women and children.
  So this bill is about people. It is about food, and it is about 
medicine. This debate on this rule is a sham, because what the 
Committee on Rules did is they undermined the whole intent of 
bipartisan debate in the subcommittee, of bipartisan debate of the vote 
in the full committee; and the Committee on Rules comes along and 
waives all points of order except for one, and that is the point of 
order that deals with this issue.
  They waive another point, but they take care of it in another part of 
the bill.
  It is interesting what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) just 
said. Elian went home and he is free, and here the United States 
Congress is held hostage. It is a bad rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for its deliberation. I agree 
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on one thing he said 
today. Today is an important date. It is a date that is infamous. It is 
the only time that the United States has sent back over the Berlin Wall 
a child whose mother died to bring him to freedom, and in that sense I 
agree that today is a date that will be remembered by history.
  Mark my words, yes, soon we will have trade with Cuba. Soon there 
will be a Cuba whose concentration camp doors will be open and you, yes 
you, will have to see what you have been purposefully ignoring. There 
will be, there will be a----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be seated. The Clerk will 
report the words.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the word ``purposely.''
  Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). For what purpose does the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) seek recognition?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my request that the 
gentleman's words be taken down, with the expectation that there will 
be no words used on this floor which can in any way be interpreted as 
attacking another Member.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
is withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not attack other Members, I attack injustice. I 
attack oppression. I believe in those words, ``In God We Trust,'' not 
``In Gold We Trust.'' I believe that the people who have come here and 
defended the embargoes against South Africa, and I defended the embargo 
against South Africa, should not have the double standard that they 
show.
  I believe that Cuba will be free, and I believe that the American 
people will be proud of this Congress having stood with the freedom and 
the aspirations of the Cuban people. This is an important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 12777]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 179, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Boucher
     Clay
     Clement
     Cook
     Danner
     Dicks
     Fattah
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Oxley
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Shuster
     Stark
     Stearns
     Vento
     Waxman

                              {time}  2303

  Messrs. DEUTSCH, WEXLER, ROTHMAN, and McIntyre changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________