[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14557-14571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 
268 and 269--Inslee amendment and Hinchy amendment--I was detained in a 
Senate meeting on Election Reform. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on both.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to the order of 
the House of today, during consideration of the amendments numbered 5, 
7 and 8, the following order shall apply:
  (1) The amendment numbered 7 shall immediately follow disposition of, 
or postponement of further proceedings on, the amendment numbered 5.
  (2) The amendment numbered 5 shall be subject only to the amendment 
by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that has been placed at the 
desk.
  (3) The amendment numbered 7 shall be subject only to one substantive 
amendment.

[[Page 14558]]

  (4) The amendments numbered 5 and 7, and each specified amendment 
thereto, each shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent except that the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a 
designee, each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of 
further debate on any of those pending amendments.
  (5) Debate on the amendment numbered 8, and all amendments thereto, 
shall be limited to 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wynn

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wynn:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to initiate the process of contracting out, 
     outsourcing, privatizing, or converting any Federal 
     Government services in contravention of Public Law 105-270.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to focus on a 
problem facing our government, and that is unregulated and uncontrolled 
out
sourcing, or, as it is sometimes called, privatization. The amendment 
specifically says that in contracting out, privatizing or otherwise 
giving Federal work to the private sector, that we adhere to existing 
law, Public Law 105-270.
  This law, known as the FAIR Act, the Federal Activities Inventory 
Reform Act of 1998, basically says that whenever there should be an 
outsourcing, there shall also be a competition to determine that the 
taxpayer gets best value, best value in terms of quality and in terms 
of cost. Unfortunately, we find Federal agencies are not adhering to 
the FAIR Act; they are outsourcing without this control mechanism, and 
what we further find is that this outsourcing has not been beneficial 
to the taxpayer.
  Let me give you an example. In the fiscal year 2000 Defense 
Appropriations bill, my Republican colleagues wrote, ``There is no 
clear evidence that the current DOD outsourcing and privatization 
effort is reducing the cost of support functions within DOD with high 
cost contractors simply replacing government employees. In addition, 
the current privatization effort appears to have created serious 
oversight problems for DOD, especially in those cases where DOD has 
contracted for financial management and other routine administrative 
functions.''
  My point is, there is no evidence that outsourcing is, per se, better 
than Federal employees. The United States Government has a great 
resource in its Federal employees. We also have a great resource in 
private sector companies. We ought to have a competition in which 
Federal employees can compete against private companies for those jobs 
that are considered for being contracted out.
  That is what this bill would do. It is quite simple. It would give 
the taxpayer best value, both in terms of quality and in terms of cost. 
It merely requires the agencies to abide by our current law, which 
requires competition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment and claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with some of the things my colleague 
said in terms of outsourcing and trying to make it so it is not 
uncontrolled and unpredictable. The difficulty with this amendment is 
that it does not just implement the FAIR Act, the Federal Activities 
Inventory Reform Act. That act applied only to commercial activities.
  This act, if you read the language, says none of the funds made 
available may be used to initiate the process of contracting out, 
outsourcing, priva-
tizing, converting any Federal Government services.
  This applies to IT functions, it applies to SEAT management, it 
applies to ship construction, it applies to Javits-Wagner-O'Day 
functions, engineering functions. What it does in these functions under 
the current regulations as they are written is we will have to use the 
A-76 process in terms of going out sourcing any of these.
  The A-76 process is used in only 2 percent of DOD contracts, and in 
almost no civilian contracts, because it is a 2-year process. This 
would basically freeze outsourcing in non-commercial areas, something 
the FAIR Act was not intended to apply to originally.
  This amendment, in my judgment, is going to hinder and possibly shut 
down segments of the Federal Government's operations because we do not 
have in many of these areas of high expertise information technology, 
engineering, the in-house capability to perform them.
  Last year Congress mandated that GAO create the Commercial Activities 
Panel to study the policies and procedures governing the transfer of 
the Federal Government's commercial activities from its employees to 
contractors.
  This panel is going to report back to Congress in May, next year, 
with recommendations for improvements. I believe that Congress should 
await the results of this review before we start to legislate on that 
issue.
  So it is for those reasons that I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a couple points made by my 
good friend and colleague from Northern Virginia. First of all, it 
should be clearly understood, this amendment would not affect any 
existing contracts. Any existing contracts, commercial or non-
commercial, are not affected by this bill.
  Second, this bill is current law. Now, the gentleman may be correct 
in some respects that current law does not work as well as we would 
like, but that is not unique to this body, unfortunately; and efforts 
are under way to streamline current law. But it is current law; and it 
does say before you out source, you should have competition.
  We regularly come to the floor and talk about the benefits to the 
taxpayer of greater competition. There should be more competition. Does 
the process take too long? Not necessarily, when you consider the 
length of some of the contracts involved, 3-year, 5-year contracts. The 
process is a reasonable process that gives Federal employees a fair 
opportunity.
  If Federal employees are not performing some of these IT functions 
now, there would be no competition between Federal employees; it would 
be competition purely between private sector versus private sector. On 
the other hand, however, if Federal employees are performing these 
functions now and if they are doing a good job by virtue of both the 
cost that they charge to the Government as well as the quality that 
they provide based on their experience, then they should have the 
opportunity to compete to perform that contract as against a private 
sector company that is applying for that contract for the first time 
and may not be able to provide the same value.
  I believe this is a reasonable approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me

[[Page 14559]]

time and also rise in opposition to this Wynn amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) has been honest about his objections. The gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) does not like outsourcing. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) wants to try and stop outsourcing as it is 
occurring across the Federal Government today, and several weeks ago we 
were in a hearing where we attempted to talk about not only the impact, 
but also how things are occurring in the marketplace today as a result 
of the FAIR Act.
  I oppose this amendment because I believe that we are waiting to find 
out what the results really are. The hearing that we held offered an 
opportunity for both sides to provide input.
  I believe what this will do today is to shortcut a process that had 
begun several years ago, where we are waiting to find out the real-life 
examples about how well outsourcing can take place, to where not only 
the effect of saving money, but also utilizing the most cost-effective 
services, to where we can allow agencies to go and do those things that 
are their core competency and to engage themselves in the effectiveness 
for government, is what we are after.
  I support the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). I think what 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) is talking about is 
defeating the Wynn amendment because it is shortcutting, short-
circuiting, our ability to hear back a report that is due to us, where 
we can make a decision based on the facts of the case and what we are 
presently doing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Each side has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. Because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is not a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) has the 
right to close the debate.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very much troubled by an 
article that was written by Steve Kelman, who was President Clinton's 
Director of Federal Procurement Policy in the White House. Many may 
know Steve, Mr. Kelman says,

       This is not a pretty picture. If this was passed, it could 
     literally grind government to a halt. What TRAC does is 
     enormously expand the scope of the Office of Management and 
     Budget's Circular A-76, and it will include services that 
     have always been contracted out in the past. It particularly 
     affects telecommunications services and information 
     technology. It is a troubling procedure that almost 
     exclusively focuses on costs, rather than best value, and 
     demands huge investments of time and resources.

  I think that is a troubling assessment from somebody who understands 
the issue.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want my friend from Maryland to know I 
stand in opposition, but reluctant opposition, because I too see a lot 
of imperfections with the A-76 study approach. I see a lot of families 
getting booted in midlife, mid-career, and often the subcontractors 
come back and rebill their costs. So I see a lot of imperfections with 
it.
  But I do think one of the problems with TRAC and the reason I have 
not cosponsored it is because, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) says, you have engineering, a lot of subcontracting, and routine 
maintenance and security issues which the Federal Government under this 
legislation would not be able to farm out, and those are things the 
Federal Government needs to do.
  I want to wait for the study, but I wanted my friend from Maryland to 
know I want to work with him in the future, but it is important to wait 
for the study.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to pay tribute to my friend from Maryland, 
who I honor and look forward to working with; but on this issue we have 
to agree, this amendment is opposed by the ITAA, the American 
Electronics Association, the Professional Services Council, and, of 
course, the administration.
  What this does is expand what is currently reserved for commercial 
activities, to Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, to recompetes in many sources 
cases. This could grind outsourcing to a halt. That is our concern on 
this, that it is overly broad.
  I intend to work with the gentleman over the next year to try to get 
something workable on this. We have held hearings in our committee on 
this, but I think this amendment goes too far and it is not in the 
interests of the American taxpayer. So I have to urge my colleagues to 
disapprove it.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to acknowledge the gentleman is 
absolutely correct, he has been very generous in attempting to work 
with us and allowing us to have hearings on this issue.
  I want to make a few brief points that I have to emphasize. One, no 
existing contracts will be affected by this amendment; two, if this 
work is not currently being done by Federal employees and is in fact 
being outsourced and competed among private sector companies, that will 
continue. So those concerns probably do not apply.
  Now, what we are saying in this amendment is simply this: follow 
existing law. Existing law, the FAIR Act, says there shall be 
competition, private-public competition or private-private competition. 
In the case of Federal employees who are doing a good job, they ought 
to have the right to compete to keep their jobs, to do the work and 
give the taxpayer best value. If the private sector company can do it 
better in terms of value and costs, then the private sector would get 
the contract.
  Finally, the suggestion has been made that since we are having a GAO 
study, we do not need this amendment. I reiterate, this is the law. We 
ought to follow it. If the GAO study comes back and says we need to 
change the A-76 process, make it less burdensome, I would be the first 
one to say that is a good idea and we ought to do that and accommodate 
the need to streamline the process.
  But competition is good for America, whether it is competition 
between two private sector companies or whether it is competition 
between hard-working Federal employees with high levels of competence 
and private sector employees, companies who want to take their jobs. 
Let the competition begin. I believe this amendment is consistent with 
that philosophy.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to lend my support 
to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill before us that we are now 
debating and discussing. Although I unfortunately was not able to be on 
the floor during general debate, I really want to state my support for 
this bill and focus on an important provision that was included by the 
committee.
  First, I am very pleased that the pay parity language for Federal 
employees and the contraceptive coverage for Federal employees were 
included during committee markup of this bill. These are necessary 
changes. I applaud the committee.
  Secondly, I want to thank the chairman for including a 1-year 
extension allowing agencies to help low-income employees pay for child 
care. Many Federal employees are caught in a serious child care crunch. 
A recent study showed that one-quarter of all Federal workers had 
children under the age of 6 needing care at some time during the 
workday.

                              {time}  1615

  In some Federal child care facilities, employees are charged up to 
$10,000 or more per child per year. Many Federal employees simply 
cannot afford quality child care. So giving agencies the flexibility to 
help their workers meet

[[Page 14560]]

their child care needs encourages family-friendly work places and 
higher productivity.
  It is my hope that we can eventually pass a bill that will allow 
agencies to be authorized to permanently use money from their salary 
and expense accounts to help low-income employees pay for child care. I 
have such a bill, H.R. 555, that would do just that. I hope that the 
chairman would support me in such an initiative in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage support for the bill.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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. Smith of New Jersey:
       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 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, 
     after the President has certified to Congress that the Cuban 
     Government has released all political prisoners and has 
     returned to the jurisdiction of the United States Government 
     all persons residing in Cuba who are sought by the United 
     States Government for the crimes of air piracy, narcotics 
     trafficking, or murder.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire whether or not 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will offer his amendment now, 
and then the time will be equally divided?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
wish to offer his amendment at this time?
  Mr. FLAKE. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Rothman) seek the time in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)?
  Mr. ROTHMAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I am sharing time with the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there a Member seeking time in 
opposition?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), my good friend and 
colleague and coauthor of this amendment, be allowed to control half of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 
15 seconds.
  Among the largest new sources of revenue we could possibly provide 
the Castro regime at this point would be large scale United States 
tourism. So I and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) are 
offering this human rights amendment in the hope that any lifting of 
remaining travel restrictions to Cuba will be done carefully and 
thoughtfully with some regard to the consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to be honest about what we are talking 
about when we talk about tourism to Cuba. The dictatorship gets rich--
filthy rich--let us make no mistake about that, and will go on its 
merry way in arresting, beating, and torturing political dissidents.
  Let me just point out, Mr. Chairman, that Human Rights Watch, in its 
report, and I urge Members to read it, makes the point that conditions 
in Cuba's prisons are inhuman. In recent years, Cuba has added new 
repressive laws.
  Torture is commonplace in Cuba, and ugly beyond words. There is no 
freedom of speech or assembly in Cuba. The people of Cuba have no right 
to emigrate. And dissent continues to be suppressed with unspeakable 
cruelty. In light of this we should lift the travel ban. And to make 
matters worse, there is another outrageous lucrative form of travel to 
Cuba called sex tourism. Cuba is on the short list of destinations for 
middle-aged men looking for inexpensive commercial sex, including 
sexual exploitation by children, which is actively condoned by the 
government. We should have no part whatsoever in facilitating this kind 
of exploitation.
  I want to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, that under current U.S. 
policy vis-a-vis Cuba much travel is permitted. As a result of 
Clinton's soft and feckless policy towards Cuba, Americans can and do 
travel to Cuba for certain purposes: journalism, educational purposes, 
humanitarian missions, government business, sick family members, and 
the list goes on. The amendment I propose today focuses on the tourist 
industry and whether or not reasonable, modest conditions should be 
imposed before we lift that particular travel ban.
  Our amendment has two conditions: the Cuban government should return 
the violent criminals who have escaped American justice and who are 
currently hiding out in Cuba. The case of Joanne Chesimard is 
particularly egregious. Chesimard was sentenced to life for the murder 
of a New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, but is now living it up 
in Cuba. She--and scores of other murderers and air pirates and drug 
smugglers--must be returned to the U.S. to serve their time behind 
bars.
  The second condition, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the release of 
hundreds of political prisoners. The State Department's Country Reports 
estimates that there are between 300-400 political prisoners, and they 
are being mistreated, tortured and abused. Before we give the green 
light to tourism en masse, before we head to Havana with bathing suits 
in our bags and fun and diversion on our minds, let's not forget the 
persecuted and the oppressed.
  Let us not abandon, undermine or betray some of the most courageous 
dissidents on the face of the earth.
  We should lift the travel ban, if and only if all political prisoners 
are released. We should lift the travel ban, only when all cop killers 
and felons convicted in the U.S. are back in U.S. prisons.
  Vote ``no'' on Flake and ``yes'' on Smith-Rothman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake as a Substitute for Amendment No. 5 
                   Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake as a substitute for 
     amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 644. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used 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 transactions in relation to any business travel 
     covered by section 515.560(g) of such part 515.

  Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 additional minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
divide my time with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?

[[Page 14561]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this substitute in the form of an amendment. As 
we grew up in school, we were told that the difference between us and 
other nations is that we would allow our citizens to travel anywhere 
they want to. We could travel the world, see other cultures, visit 
other countries, without fear that we would find something better. 
Here, we are being told that that is not right.
  I as a government official can travel to Cuba, but if someone in my 
family or some of my friends at home or others want to travel to Cuba, 
they have to seek a license. Now, that is wrong.
  This amendment simply states that we ought to allow everybody the 
same privilege that we have as government officials. They ought to be 
able to travel to Cuba. We allow individuals to travel to North Korea. 
There are terrible human rights abuses going on there. We allow 
individuals to go to Sudan. There is human slavery going on in Sudan, 
probably discovered by people going there on visits. We allow people to 
go to Iran. Iran considers us the ``Great Satan'' and has been 
implicated in State-sponsored terrorism. But somehow, we still do not 
allow our citizens to go to Cuba. That is simply wrong.
  Now, Fidel Castro, let us stipulate from the very beginning, is a 
tyrant, and we ought to stipulate that from the beginning and decide 
how best can we bring change to that island. The best way, I believe, 
is through engagement, not isolation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my 
distinguished friend, who is really a national leader around the world 
for human rights, and it is a privilege to be a coauthor of this 
amendment with him.
  In 1973, Mr. Chairman, New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster was 
shot in the back of the head on a New Jersey highway. A New Jersey 
jury, after its deliberations, convicted Joanne Chesimard of first 
degree murder and sentenced her to life in prison for the death of New 
Jersey State Trooper Foerster. She escaped prison and she went to Cuba 
where she now resides and lives freely. She is one of over 77 convicted 
felons living in freedom in Cuba. We cannot get her back. Why not? 
Castro will not send back those Americans convicted of crimes in 
America, including murder and air piracy; he will not permit them to 
come back.
  Now, some of my colleagues, good and decent people all, wish and 
believe forthrightly that travel restrictions should be lifted on Cuba. 
They say it hurts Americans.
  Well, we have sanctions on all kinds of countries. We had it on 
Libya, we just voted on that yesterday; Libya and Iran, and other 
countries who do terrible things to our people. Cuba is doing the same. 
Think of the widow and the orphaned son of Trooper Foerster and those 
families of the other victims of the 77 felons still in Cuba. How would 
we answer them when my colleagues say, well, let us release and do away 
with all restrictions on travel to Cuba. They have no good answer. 
Castro must release those individuals and then we can have free trade 
with Cuba. We already have some trade and travel with Cuba; we need the 
stick and carrot approach. Castro needs to return those convicts to 
serve their time in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
to ensure that no funds in this bill may be used to enforce travel 
sanctions on Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, in January of 1998, I was in Cuba to witness the 
historic visit by Pope John Paul II. During his time in Cuba, the Pope 
declared ``May Cuba, with all its magnificent potential, open itself to 
the world and may the world open itself up to Cuba.''
  Mr. Chairman, whenever I travel to Cuba, I try to meet with Ekizardo 
Sanchez, one of the most respected dissidents inside Cuba and someone 
who actually spent 8\1/2\ years in a Cuban prison. Mr. Sanchez has 
repeatedly stated, ``The more Americans on the streets of Cuban cities, 
the better for the cause of a more open society in Cuba.''
  I firmly believe that unrestricted travel by Americans to Cuba would 
be one of the best actions the United States could take to open 
political space for all Cubans. Most importantly, however, I support 
this amendment because I firmly believe it is the right of all 
Americans to be able to travel wherever they wish.
  The current sanctions on travel to Cuba are undemocratic and go 
against the traditions and the values that make the United States of 
America so great and so respected in the eyes of the world community. 
The American people are not fools. They should be able to see firsthand 
both the good and the bad about today's Cuba. They do not need the 
United States Government to censor what they can see.
  I trust the American people. I believe in their right to travel 
freely. I should also add that I have met with countless Cuban 
Americans who believe they should have the right to visit their 
relatives in Cuba any time they want and not just when some bureaucrat 
at the Treasury Department says they can.
  Last year, this amendment passed with strong bipartisan support. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Flake substitute. This is the right 
thing to do. I hope it will be passed with a very strong vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Flake amendment because it would prolong the suffering and the 
oppression of the Cuban people under the totalitarian Castro regime, 
and I support the Smith amendment, because it would deny the Cuban 
dictatorship additional funds to host killers of U.S. police officers, 
cop killers such as Joanne Chesimard, who gunned down, in cold blood, 
New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, or those who murdered New 
Mexico State trooper, James Harper.
  The Flake amendment, however, would help keep those and other 
fugitives of U.S. justice in the lap of luxury, fugitives wanted for 
murder, for kidnapping, for armed robbery, among other terrible crimes.
  The Fraternal Order of Police has said this about attempts such as 
the Flake amendment: ``The American people and the Fraternal Order of 
Police do not feel that we must compromise our system of justice and 
the fabric of our society to foreign dictators like Fidel Castro.''
  I oppose the Flake amendment because it would provide that Communist 
regime with much-needed hard currency to extend its reign of terror.

                              {time}  1630

  This amendment would help propagate a system of slave labor, where 95 
percent of workers' wages are retained by the dictatorship, where the 
workers have no individual or collective rights as they must remain 
subservient to the Communist party and the upper cadres of the 
tyrannical regime.
  The Flake amendment would help promote a tourist industry built on 
prostitution, particularly teenaged prostitution, and the exploitation 
of women. In fact, Cuba's tyrant Fidel Castro has boasted to his 
national assembly that highly educated jineteras, who are prostitutes, 
have low rates of AIDS, and, therefore, there is no tourism healthier 
than Cuba's. This appeared in the July, 2000, edition of the New 
Republic.
  I rise in support of the Smith amendment because he does not ignore 
political prisoners, such as Dr. Oscar Elias

[[Page 14562]]

Biscet, Vladimiro Roca, and Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, who languish in 
squalid jail cells in isolation, devoid of any light.
  I ask my colleagues to search their conscience, to listen to the 
echoes of America's Founding Fathers who understood that when one 
people suffer, all of humanity suffers.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake 
amendment. Many years ago, Hans J. Morganthau once said that when food 
does not cross borders, troops will. What he meant by that is the basic 
of all relationships is really trade and commerce.
  I sincerely believe that not only what Hans J. Morganthau said, but 
also what one of my predecessors, Congressman Steve Symms, said when 
the Carter administration first shut down free and available travel 
between the United States and Cuba.
  He said, if we truly want to change Cuba, if we truly want there to 
be a revolution, what we should do is load up a B-52 bomber and fly 
over the Cuban island and open those bomb doors and allow millions of 
Sears Roebuck catalogs to fall on Cuba. And when those Cubans opened 
those catalogues and see what they do not have, Mr. Chairman, they will 
cause their own revolution.


  Mr. Chairman, let us open the doors and let the light shine in. 
Instead of taking our word for it, the American people can go find out 
for themselves.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues who wish to support the Flake 
amendment, how did my colleagues just vote on the Iran-Libya Sanctions 
Act? Did they say, we do not need sanctions? No, they said, in some 
circumstances, sanctions are appropriate.
  In this case, we need sanctions to make sure that Castro returns the 
killer convicted by an American jury, sentenced to life for the bullet 
in the back of the head to a New Jersey State trooper, and the 76 other 
convicted felons he is harboring in Cuba living free.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, he keeps confusing sanctions with travel bans.
  The gentleman has supported, this body has supported, a law which has 
been in effect now for 7 years which says, when we impose sanctions, we 
can no longer restrict the right of Americans to travel. Iran 
sanctions, yes. Banning Americans from going to Iran, no. That is 
existing Federal law.
  I hear and I understand the evils of the Castro regime and the 
stories. Are they worse than any of the stories of the gulag in the 
Soviet Union, or Communist China during the cultural revolution, or 
North Korea, or any other place where Americans have an unimpeded 
right, and always did, to travel? Why? Because it is in America's 
foreign policy interest to establish contact with the people of those 
countries. People-to-people diplomacy is the most effective diplomacy.
  Why is Castro still in and the Soviet Union collapsed? What a great 
policy we have. He is the longest-standing leader in the world. Boy, 
has American policy worked.
  By the way, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, people who 
make compelling arguments frequently about the absurdity of some 
government regulation, the notion that a Federal agency, the Office of 
Foreign Assets Control, decides who can go and who cannot go, whether 
we like the purpose of the trip or whether we do not.
  Micromanaging the details of the individual American's right to go to 
a place and establish those contacts I suggest to Members is totally 
inconsistent and an anathema to the entire philosophy of the GOP party. 
This is the most absurd kind of regulation, that seeks to determine 
which relatives have positive purposes, which people have negative 
purposes.
  It does not work. Government cannot handle that. This is a relic of 
another time. Make this Cuba situation the same as Iran, Russia, all 
the other authoritarian regimes where Americans are permitted to 
exercise their constitutional right to travel. Vote for the substitute 
and against the underlying amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding time to me.
  I just want to talk about three people. Their names are Rocco Laurie, 
Werner Foerster, and Joanne Chesimard.
  Rocco Laurie was born in Staten Island. He joined the police 
department in the late 1960s and then enlisted in the Marine Corps and 
went to Vietnam. He came back to rejoin the police department.
  He was married in May of 1970; and, in 1972, he and his partner were 
on a foot patrol in the lower East Side of Manhattan. His partner was 
shot eight times in the back and was killed instantly. Rocco Laurie was 
shot seven times. He died 5 hours later.
  Werner Foerster was a State trooper who was shot twice in the chest 
and then, execution style, twice in the head by Joanne Chesimard. 
Joanne Chesimard was convicted and then fled the United States and 
lives, I guess, as a hero in Cuba.
  Recently, a couple of months ago, her companion so many years ago was 
arrested. He has now brought forward charges and reports that Joanne 
Chesimard was involved in planning the assassination and killing of 
police officers Rocco Laurie and Foerster, who were gunned down more 
than 30 years ago.
  Is it too much to ask that we declare and demand of Fidel Castro that 
he send someone like Joanne Chesimard back to the United States before 
we pay him these courtesies? Do we not owe it to the honor of their 
families, their legacies, their wives, their police department, the 
communities from which they came? Is that too much to ask?
  I think that is the purpose here. Send those cop killers back, people 
who robbed innocent people of their lives, so that then we can go about 
our travel. That is fair and reasonable.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  I am somewhat surprised by my presence today on the House floor. It 
was a year ago this month in which we addressed the issue of Cuba and 
the opportunity to sell agricultural commodities, food, and medicine to 
that country. By an overwhelming vote of both parties in this House, 
this amendment was passed. Ultimately, through a long process, that 
amendment is being implemented, and rules and regulations have been 
announced by the Department of Treasury for us to comment on, and the 
opportunity for that trade, at least in theory, is now taking place.
  In that same time frame, an amendment was offered to do what the 
gentleman from Arizona attempts to accomplish today, and by a vote of 
232 to 186 we all agreed that travel to Cuba should be allowed. Yet 
that part of the day's activities a year ago remains to be implemented.
  So I rise today to support the gentleman from Arizona in his effort 
to open the opportunity.
  My interest in this topic began really in a selfish way, in trying to 
find a way to create additional markets for the farmers of my State, a 
place to export their agriculture commodities. But as I addressed and 
concerned myself with this issue, it became clear to me that this is 
something more than just about the self-interest of trade and exports 
of agriculture commodities to Cuba. It is about Cuban people. It is 
about freedom. It is about democracy. This is about the opportunity of 
changing a way of life.
  In Kansas, we will try something once. If it fails, we very well may 
try it

[[Page 14563]]

again, but if it fails a second time, we are going to be a little more 
skeptical. Maybe by the third time after failure we will decide to try 
something new.
  For 42 years we have tried to change the government of Cuba, and we 
have failed. It is time for us to try something different that actually 
may work. It is time for a change. So Kansans with their common sense 
would say, okay, we tried, it does not work. Is there not something 
else we can do?
  All of us want to change. Everyone that I have heard speak today 
wants to change the behavior of the government in Cuba. The question 
is, how we do it? What we have done does not work. I rise in support of 
the substitute offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell said that we will participate in 
activities with Cuba that benefit the people. I have now met with the 
dissidents of Cuba who say that this is the right policy and that we 
can change the behavior of the country for the benefit of the Cuban 
people. I ask that we try something new today.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Rothman amendment and in 
opposition to the Flake amendment. People of good will can have 
different opinions regarding the efficacy of easing restrictions, 
travel restrictions on Cuba. But certain facts are undeniable and are 
undebatable:
  First, Cuban citizens enjoy no rights of free speech;
  Second, there have been and there is no prospect of there being any 
democratic free elections in Cuba;
  Third, as has been already pointed out, Cuba holds hundreds of 
political prisoners who are only guilty of being people of conscience;
  And, fourth, Castro continues to disrespect in its entirety any basic 
level of human rights for his own people.
  Then, on the other hand, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
argues that, although that may be true, the way to change that is for 
more Americans to go to Cuba and allow more cash into Cuba.
  I only wish that were true. If it were true, it already would have 
occurred, because Europeans and South Americans and people all over the 
world have been travelling to Cuba for years.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I rise in support of his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not difficult to support the positions that are 
taken by both sides here, those who have convicted murderers in Cuba 
and would want to see that they meet justice here in the United States.
  For those, it would seem to me that the best way to do it is the way 
we do it with other countries, and that is to have extradition 
treaties. We cannot have that unless we are trying to have some 
relationship, unless we are trying to talk to people.
  What you are doing here really is not beating up on Fidel Castro. He 
could care less what we are talking about here today. * * * You are 
saying that we do not trust Americans.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. My amendment is not disgracing anybody. I 
deeply resent it. * * *
  Mr. RANGEL. I think the gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The gentleman's disrespect is out of order.
  Mr. RANGEL. I am telling you this, that Americans----
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask that words be taken down, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend.
  Would the gentleman from New Jersey again state his request of the 
Chair?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would ask that the words that we were 
disgracing the American people with this amendment be taken down.
  First, I would ask that those words be read back.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members will be seated.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will be seated.
  The Clerk will report the words.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my words be 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's words are withdrawn.
  We will now proceed in order, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) has 45 seconds remaining of the time that was yielded to him by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it abundantly clear to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the concept that I think 
is disgraceful has nothing to do with individuals but has something to 
do with the American people having the right, in my opinion, to visit 
any country that they would want to visit.
  I really believe that it is very bad policy for Americans, who are 
able to go to China, able to go to North Korea, able to go into Moscow, 
to be able to say that we are this fearful that we will be overwhelmed 
by the people, the good people in Cuba, or by Fidel Castro or by the 
military. So it seems to me that it is really offensive to the American 
people for someone to say that they have such little confidence in 
their willpower to succumb to communism in Cuba when we are strong 
enough, we are the strongest Nation in the entire world, to be able to 
say that flag that flies so hard is our flag.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment that my friend, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), has presented, and certainly in 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Rothman) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) before the body 
today.
  Cuba is different. Cuba is 90 miles away. It is in this hemisphere. 
The Secretary of State of the United States says Cuba is different in 
treatment on these issues. The President of the United States says Cuba 
is different in treatment on these issues. Within the last 2 weeks, the 
President has said that the United States stands opposed to such 
tyranny, talking about Cuba, and will oppose any attempt to weaken 
sanctions against the Castro regime until it respects the basic human 
rights of its citizens, frees political prisoners, holds democratic 
free elections, and allows free speech.
  That is a higher standard than even the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) have put 
forth in this amendment. This is a sanction. Clearly, it is a travel 
sanction; but it is a sanction on a country that is the only 
dictatorship in our hemisphere.
  Mr. Chairman, 77 convicted U.S. felons are in Cuba, people who have 
killed police officers are in Cuba, people on the FBI's 10 most wanted 
list are in Cuba. We need to have respect for our rule of law before we 
move forward with this kind of change in policy.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Cuba is a country roughly the size of Pennsylvania with 
a population approximately double the size of Indiana, about 12 million 
people. Yet with our failed policy of the last 40 years, we have 
elevated Castro and Cuba to China or Russia proportion. With our 
foreign policy, we trade with Russia. We let our people travel to 
Russia. We trade with China. We let our people travel to China. And we 
should be doing the same with respect to our foreign policy and Cuba.
  There are three good reasons to vote for the Flake amendment: first 
of all, for our constitution. Our citizens' constitutional rights 
should not be trampled upon, forbidding them from travel to Cuba; but 
we should allow them to

[[Page 14564]]

travel with the Constitution and take it to Cuba and show our freedoms 
and our liberties and other respect for human rights.
  Secondly, having just been down to Cuba 2 months ago, having met with 
representatives of the Catholic Church, dissidents, human rights' 
leaders, people that have been in prison, what do they think about 
lifting the travel embargo? They are for it. Now, we can talk all 
around this issue in this great Chamber, but what about the people that 
are most affected by this policy? They want us to lift the travel 
embargo, the people that are dissidents and human rights' leaders and 
leaders of the church in Cuba.
  Thirdly, Castro. Castro uses this trade and travel embargo to blame 
us for his problems. Let us open up the system to American ideas of 
human rights, free markets, capitalism, respect for one another and for 
the right to vote. Let us try and change after 40 years of failure. Let 
us vote for the Flake amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that, from my district at 
least, is a local issue. I represent a district that is 90 miles from 
the shores of Cuba and people visit under the existing process right 
now.
  But one of the things that has been talked about, as recently as my 
last colleague who spoke, many of my colleagues have visited Cuba and 
they have met with dissidents and they have stayed in hotels. One of 
the things they are probably not aware of is that no Cuban is legally 
allowed to eat and enter a hotel in Cuba. They might have eaten with 
one of the so-called dissidents, but it was illegal under Cuba law, and 
the only reason why they could is because they are a Member of 
Congress.
  Cuba is treated differently. But there is no other name on the list 
that people have offered that is 90 miles from our shore, but also has 
a unique system that Cuba has.
  People have talked about Castro being in power for a long time. In 
many ways this dictatorship has been the most controlling in the world. 
If we look at the process of tourism and what keeps the Castro 
dictatorship around is, in fact, hard dollars. Passing the Flake 
amendment would, in fact, enable Castro to continue.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, 10 years in prison, a criminal fine of 
$250,000, a $50,000 civil penalty. Are these punishments for bank 
robbers, ax murderers, Al Capone, John Dillinger? No. No. This is what 
can happen to a United States citizen exercising his or her 
constitutional right to travel to Cuba without a license.
  What is this license? In this case it is permission. Permission from 
our own government to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. We 
are treating our own citizens like school children who need permission 
to leave their classroom. We would expect this from the Cuban 
government, not from the government of the United States.
  In fact, what we have done is erect our own Berlin Wall preventing 
free travel of American citizens. To paraphrase a former president, 
President Reagan, it is time to tear the wall down.
  The travel ban has allowed our preoccupation with Fidel Castro to 
undermine a fundamental constitutional right. So let us invade Cuba, 
again, but let us do it this time with academics, missionaries, 
investors, human rights activists, and tourists. Let the college kids 
on spring break be the vanguard of this invasion. I know and I am 
confident that the result will be victory for the Americans and for the 
Cubans.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I was having a conversation with a 
colleague last night about this issue. He said a dissident came from 
Cuba and lobbied against the embargo. I tried to point out that if the 
totalitarian regime in Cuba allows one to come to the United States to 
lobby against sanctions against the dictatorship, it is with precise 
permission. If, however, one is truly seeking democracy, they are 
thrown in a dungeon or thrown out of the country or executed.
  So what the Smith-Rothman amendment is saying is before the $5 
billion a year, at least, in American tourism is sent to the 
dictatorship, let the representatives of the Cuban people, the leaders 
of the political parties, let them out of prison, and the cop killers 
and other fugitives from American justice including Joanne Chesimard 
and the other ones that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) so 
eloquently was talking about, send them back and do not have them 
living in protected luxury by the totalitarian regime 90 miles away. 
That is all the Smith-Rothman amendment is saying.
  It is not a question of insulting anyone's intelligence. It is a 
question of saying the people who represent the Cuban people, who are 
in prison today have a right to be free, and those who kill American 
cops and sell drugs and are terrorists have a need to be in prison in 
the United States.
  Vote for Smith-Rothman. Vote against the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Flake substitute amendment and I do so because our current policy 
towards Cuba is a relic and it needs to be updated.
  It should be a priority of this Congress to change any program or any 
policy if it is deemed to be unsuccessful. Yet, we have allowed 40 
years of unsuccessful public policy, and we have done next to nothing 
to improve it.
  One way to foster change is through this amendment of our colleague 
from Arizona. The amendment would prohibit Treasury funds from being 
used to regulate the travel of American citizens to Cuba. It would 
effectively open up Cuba's borders for the free world and for free 
world ideas.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress, it is fair to say that I was 
inclined to believe that we needed to reassess our relationship with 
Cuba. After visiting Cuba myself this year and meeting with the 
fantastic people of that country, I returned convinced that our policy 
is wrong. Americans want to travel to Cuba by an overwhelming 66 
percent. Doing so will be good not only for the Cuban people and for 
Cuba, but it will be good for our country. Maintaining the status quo 
will do nothing to foster democracy in Cuba. We need to speak strongly 
today on the floor to reverse 40 years, 40 years of unsuccessful public 
policy. We need to tear down this travel ban, and we need to allow 
Americans to travel freely to other countries.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the voices of those who 
think Fidel Castro is a great guy; and I have heard the voices of those 
who want to do business in Cuba at any price, regardless what that 
price is. Americans love to travel, but they love democracy and human 
rights, and they love that more than anything else because they enjoy 
it more than any other country in the world.
  The belief that Americans can change Castro through tourism flies in 
the face of millions of visitors from Canada, Mexico, Spain, Europe, 
Latin America and other parts of the world who over the last decade 
have visited Cuba and have not had one iota of change towards democracy 
and human rights.
  We are a great people, but to believe that we uniquely possess the 
one key that can unlock, the changing of the mind of Fidel Castro, is 
to be incredulous.
  What this amendment would do if adopted, it would take a law and let 
it lawlessly be violated because we would have no enforcement funds to 
prosecute that law. If you do not believe

[[Page 14565]]

that the law is legit, change the law. But do not act lawlessly by 
saying we will not enforce a law that exists on the books.
  Mr. Chairman, it will open the floodgate of dollars to Fidel Castro's 
Cuba. If the American people knew that 60 percent of Cuba's GDP goes to 
a tourism industry that is a state-run operation, a tourism industry by 
which Fidel Castro owns 50 percent of all of the foreign hotels and all 
of the Dollar Stores, which are inflated, to gouge tourists who go, 
they would say no, I will not visit there.
  If, in fact, they knew that tourism does not go on behalf of the 
Cuban people but goes on behalf of the state, they would not go there. 
If they knew when they visit those hotels and tourist spots that the 
workers there cannot be hired directly by that foreign company, but is 
hired by the state employment agency sent there for which the state 
employment agency is paid in dollars, and Cubans are paid in worthless 
pesos, which is the equivalent of slave labor, to those of my 
colleagues who believe in the trade labor movement and labor rights, 
they must vote for the Smith amendment and against the Flake amendment.
  For those who believe that, in fact, opening up the flood gates, as 
is suggested, and I do have great faith in Americans, but what happens 
when they go to Cuba, suggestions that tourism will facilitate 
visitation and engagement with human rights activists, political 
dissidents and independent journalists should be dispelled by the fact 
that Cuban law makes it a crime against the state to engage human 
rights activists and political dissidents. And believe me, that law is 
enforced.
  Ask the two Czech citizens, one a parliamentarian and the other a 
journalist, who traveled to Cuba as tourists and were engaged with 
human rights activists, and were imprisoned.
  Mr. Chairman, sunning one's self on the sand and surf on Varadero 
Beach, taking in a show at the Tropicana, smoking a Cohiba and sipping 
a Cuba Libre may indulge the fantasies of some, but it will not bring 
democracy to the Cuban people, it will not bring freedom to the Cuban 
people, and it will not bring respect for the human rights for those 
people in Cuba.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona for his amendment. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I have not heard anybody on this floor suggest, as my 
friend from New Jersey stated, that we think Fidel Castro is a great 
guy. I do not know where that came from. Nobody has suggested that. I 
do not think anybody comes close to believing that. We know he is a 
dictator. There is no question about that.
  But we want the idea of American freedom to find its fruition in Cuba 
as well as America. This travel restriction is un-American. Americans 
should be able to travel any place they want. And as they travel, they 
communicate with the citizens of other countries. When the Cuban people 
see the way we live because of what we believe in, that is going to 
topple the dictatorship.
  Forty years. How long does it take to realize that a policy is not 
working? Our current Cuba policy has not worked. Let us build upon the 
freedoms that every American citizen represents when they travel 
someplace else.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues that the historical context should be 
considered here as well. If it had not been for the way that the former 
regime had treated the Cuban people, the Communist Revolution could not 
have succeeded. The Batista government treated many of the Cuban people 
miserably, particularly its darkest-skinned citizens. That history has 
a lot to do with why Fidel Castro is still in power today.
  Now it is time to try a different approach. Now it is time to let, 
yes, our students; imagine what would happen if they went to Cuba on a 
spring break. Fidel Castro would have nightmares over that threat.
  But when Cubans see the way we live here, that is what is going to 
bring freedom to Cuba, and that is what is going to enable us to trade 
with Cuba, and that is what is going to enable us to have a real 
neighbor that we can work with.
  Mr. Chairman, 40 years is too long. It is time to realize that the 
policy we are using today is not working. Let us try a new one. Let us 
pass this amendment.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, there are several points I would like to make. Number 
one, there has been some statement that restriction on travel to Cuba 
would be unconstitutional. That is incorrect.
  The United States Supreme Court has twice ruled that travel 
restrictions on Cuba, on Americans traveling to Cuba, is 
constitutional: Zemel v. Rusk in 1965, Regan v. Wald in 1984.
  Forget the Constitution, we just exaggerated saying it is 
unconstitutional, is it the right policy choice? That is a fair 
question.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the right policy choice, and we choose 
to impose different treatment to different countries based on our own 
belief of what is fair and what will work.

                              {time}  1715

  Make no mistake about it. There is some travel now to Cuba. If we 
eliminate all those restrictions, Castro will benefit by $5 billion in 
American hard currency.
  Do we want to let him say 40 years of totalitarian rule will be 
rewarded with this? Treatment of your political prisoners will be 
rewarded with billions of dollars of American cash? Your failure to 
return cop killers, people who were convicted by juries in America, 
juries of their peers, of first degree murder, sentenced to life and 
Castro holds them in luxury and freedom down there and will not release 
them? What is the message we send to American law enforcement, State 
and local, about what we will do if they get killed by someone who then 
seeks refuge in Cuba?
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a great debate. I said at the beginning 
that we ought to stipulate that Fidel Castro is a tyrant, that he is a 
liar, but I am surprised that those who agree with me on that are so 
eager to accept the notion that he wants tourism, that he wants more 
trade. I would submit that he does not.
  When I was a child and my room was messy, the last thing I wanted was 
for my mother to come in. You do not want people to come in. So why 
should we take Fidel Castro's word for it? We ought to send our people 
there.
  Let me just close by saying, it has been said that people can have 
differing opinions on this subject. They certainly can. Those who 
believe in isolation have had the last 40 years. It is time for those 
who feel differently to enact a new policy and move forward. If freedom 
is what we want for the Cuban people, let us exercise a little more of 
it ourselves.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority 
whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I was sitting here watching the debate. It was almost identical to 
debates of old, when we were fighting for freedom in the Soviet Union, 
when we were fighting for freedom in El Salvador, when we were fighting 
for freedom in Nicaragua. History proved us right and proved you wrong.
  Allowing travel to Cuba is a terrible mistake. The benefits of free 
trade cannot flow to people who are ruthlessly oppressed by a rigidly 
controlling totalitarian regime. Supporters claim that American 
tourists will help average Cubans. But letting Americans travel to Cuba 
will strengthen Castro and do nothing to improve the lot of average 
Cubans. Freedom cannot penetrate Castro's Communist cadre because it 
operates more like an organized crime syndicate than a legitimate 
government.
  But surely, we are told, joint ventures with foreign investors will

[[Page 14566]]

change all that. All joint ventures in Cuba remain under Castro's 
thumb. Those businesses cannot even hire a Cuban worker without 
Castro's blessing. All the property in Cuba belongs to Castro. All the 
income that comes from these Americans will go to Castro.
  We are also told that if we support trade in China, we ought to 
support it in Cuba as well. But China and Cuba, I think, is a poor 
comparison. In China, the government is allowing the rudiments of a 
market economy to form. Trade with China does benefit average people. 
Cuba is a monolithic island under the heel of Castro's regime. Under 
this dictatorship, the only entrepreneur is Castro. Castro's thugs 
cannot meet the basic needs of their people. This tyrant is teetering 
on the brink of an abyss. Why in the world would we reach out now to 
draw his evil, abusive regime back to safety?
  Let it fall. Let it fall and liberate the Cuban people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  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) as a 
substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) will be postponed.
  Therefore, further proceedings on the first-degree amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will also be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 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. 7 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 the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, in the shadows of this great Republic of 
the United States is a small island 90 miles off our shore called Cuba. 
The most powerful Nation in the world somehow just fritters when we 
consider talking to the Cuban people, trading with the Cuban people or 
visiting in Cuba. The sanctions that we have had against this small 
nation that have been locked into place for over 40 years just have not 
worked. They never do. Unilateral sanctions never do work. It is so 
arrogant that not only do we have these sanctions against the Cuban 
people and their government but we are arrogant enough to put sanctions 
against our friends and our allies that want to do business with the 
people in Cuba.
  It falls beneath the dignity of a great country to try to bring down 
a government in any country by using food and medicine and economic 
exchange as a weapon in order to do that. There is no way that we are 
going to convince the American people that Fidel Castro is more of a 
tyrant, more of a dictator, more oppressive than people in other parts 
of the world which we are doing business with.
  In this very body, I could hear the opposition saying, ``The only way 
to bring down communism in China is to engage these people in economic 
activity. The only way that we can bring about democracy is by using 
the tools of trade and cultural exchange.''
  We are saying the same thing about Vietnam, and a bill will be up 
before we go on recess, a country that is responsible for the taking of 
so many American lives. Again in North Korea, they are responsible for 
the loss of so many American lives. Again in China, responsible for the 
loss of so many American lives. We have never even had anyone mugged in 
Cuba. Yet we are saying that we have a higher standard in terms of 
ignoring the country and providing sanctions against us.
  But there is something else, too. Trade is a two-way street. We now 
have farmers in the United States that have had markets closed to us. 
It just seems to me that if China has to go all over the world to get 
its dairy products, its meat, its rice and its chickens, then why 
should the United States of America markets be closed? Why should Cuban 
Americans not be able to do business with Cubans? Why do we put these 
handcuffs on ourselves when we truly believe that trade and opening up 
new economic opportunities is really the key to democracy?
  So it just seems to me that, once again, we have an opportunity by 
taking away the funds that really operate this bureaucracy and to say 
that we respect the American people, we respect their economic 
judgment, and we respect the right of Americans to travel anywhere that 
Americans want to travel, that we are a strong people, we have a rich 
history and we do not allow Communists to frighten us here in the 
United States, in Havana, in Moscow or Hanoi.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Human Rights.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the Rangel amendment because Cuba's terrible record of human rights 
violations was not exported there. The degrading treatment that the 
Castro regime inflicts on its own citizens is not the end result of the 
U.S. embargo on Cuba. The embargo is not responsible for the gulags for 
prisoners of conscience. The embargo does not forbid independent labor 
unions from existing. The U.S. embargo is not responsible for the 
systematic persecution and mistreatment of religious organizations, 
nonviolent opposition movements and human rights dissidents.
  The U.S. embargo is not what drives a police officer to beat 
unconscious a political prisoner while she is on a hunger strike. The 
U.S. embargo does not mandate the summary execution of independent 
journalists and conscientious objectors. It is the totalitarian regime 
and its tyrannical leader who are the sole creators of a state that has 
perpetrated the most deplorable violations of fundamental human rights 
and freedoms against its own people throughout the last 42 years.
  How does this Congress tell Vladimiro Roca, who is going on his 
1,471st day in prison, the last 1,343 of those days have been spent in 
solitary confinement, that the very embargo he praised in a pamphlet 
entitled, The Homeland Belongs to Us All, an action which led to his 
imprisonment, will be weakened by those who choose to justify the 
inhumane behavior that Castro renders on his people?
  They demand the innate human rights that every individual should 
never be denied. Castro has repeatedly stated that he will not change. 
He has underscored his position over and over again of socialism or 
death.
  The regime continues to exert absolute control over all investments 
and business endeavors, requiring that all payments be channeled 
through the dictatorship's agencies. Its disregard for property rights 
of any kind has resulted in the regime falling into disgrace with even 
its most loyal trading partners, such as Canadian, Mexican and European 
investors whose machinery and payments have been stolen by the regime.

[[Page 14567]]

  I urge my colleagues to strongly vote ``no'' on this amendment that 
goes against our American principles of freedom and human rights.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment that we 
normalize our relationship with that tiny island 90 miles off our 
coast. I do not think any of us are here today to condone Castro's 
actions. That is not the point. The point is that we need a rational 
foreign policy toward Cuba that is not based on emotion.
  Yes, we want cop killers back in the United States. No, we do not 
condone gulags. But there are gulags in Cuba. There are gulags in 
China. There are gulags in Korea. That is not the point. We need a 
rational policy.
  Second, the policy we have is not rational, and it has failed. It has 
failed for 40 years. It failed even when the Soviets abandoned Cuba. If 
this embargo did not work when the Soviets abandoned Cuba, it is never 
going to work. All it does is impose hardships on the Cuban people, and 
that plays right into Castro's hands.
  Members of the State Department have said privately that this embargo 
is just what Castro wants, because it bans Cuban nationalism and allows 
him to continue his regime. Let us normalize our relationship as we 
have done with China and other countries.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to, number one, stress to all of those who may 
be listening that the United States embargo allows the donation of 
food, clothing and medicine to the Cuban people. The embargo also 
allows the controlled sale of medicine, medical supplies and 
agriculture products to Cuba. It is extremely important for us to 
remember that, because people keep saying and acting like that is not 
the case. We have taken allowance to put in humanitarian considerations 
in there, which is far more than we get out of Castro.
  Now, a lot of people keep talking about China, and I just returned 
from China 2 weeks ago, and want to talk a little bit about the 
difference between Communist China and Communist Cuba. Number one, they 
have a precedent. They do have two systems under one nation. Hong Kong, 
they have left the capitalism in Hong Kong. China has not infiltrated 
that and messed it up.
  Secondly, they can also look across the waters and see Taiwan, which 
they consider still part of China and a province, but they understand 
how capitalism works because of Taiwan and because of Hong Kong.
  Number two, China is eager to get into the WTO, not just as a 
business proposition, but they are interested in joining the world 
community today, one of human rights and business transparency and 
labor unions and audits and all the things that we have in the West.
  Number three, there are already American companies doing business in 
China: International Paper, Rayon Air, Motorola, Coca-Cola. Motorola, 
12 percent of their receipts are from China right now. The Chinese 
people are interested in capitalism, and the reason is, their brand of 
socialism is China, Inc., what works. They do not have this mantra to 
the throne of Karl Marx the way Mr. Castro does.
  It is very important to remember that Jiang Zemin is far more 
democratic than Fidel Castro. That is why he is not afraid to have the 
Olympics come to Beijing and open up the nation to the scrutiny of the 
world by having the Olympics right in his capital.
  I also want to say Russia has been alluded to here. Here again, you 
do not have one person. I went with the Speaker when the Speaker of the 
Dumas invited the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) on a trip, and 
they wanted to talk to us about reform.
  One of the big reforms that the Russian people were interested in was 
judicial reform. They are interested in democrat processes. They do not 
believe in the old tenets of communism of 50 years. China, reform; 
Russia, reform; Cuba, no, sir. They are still stuck in time, and as 
long as Fidel Castro is there, they will not change.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rangel amendment. 
Although relations with most communist governments, such as China and 
Vietnam, are normalized, the United States continues to prohibit 
virtually any and all political, economic, or even cultural exchanges 
between the people of the United States and the people of Cuba. Since 
the early days of the Cold War, our government has been entrenched in 
an absolute embargo that has created much suffering on this Afro-
Hispanic island only 90 miles away. This embargo is archaic, it is 
inhumane, and it must be changed.
  Like many Members, I, too, have visited Cuba many times and met with 
the anti-Castro organizations. But, barring none, they communicated 
that the best way to address all issues, including human rights 
concerns, is to at least end the embargo, so dialogue can take place.
  We all must be concerned about human rights violations, wherever they 
may occur in the world, including in our own United States of America, 
as minorities in our own country clearly understand. But the United 
States embargo against Cuba is a failed policy that has only served as 
an impediment to a rational foreign policy.
  Now, for those who support fair trade, which I do, it is wrong to 
prevent the United States companies, our U.S.-based companies, our 
farmers, especially, from accessing the Cuban market. This could also 
mean thousands of jobs for United States workers. So we are really 
doing a disservice to our own people in our own country.
  Not only must we strike down the restrictions on United States 
citizens' travel to Cuba, but we should end the embargo, and we should 
end it right away. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I listened to my colleagues, and it is 
interesting, when we talk about Cuba, the word ``emotions'' always 
slips in; but I hear my colleagues come to this floor on other parts of 
the world, on questions of famine and human rights and AIDS, and they 
speak very passionately. We do not say it is an emotional issue.
  We also question China, and yet many people vote against China MFN 
because they believe China should be sanctioned in that regard, but 
they believe we should lift everything as it relates to Cuba. But 
forced abortion, arrest of dissidents, Tiananmen Square, a whole long 
list, it seems to me if that after 25 years of engagement is our human 
rights success in China, we should review that policy.
  Lastly, why, if lifting the embargo means the end of Castro, why is 
it his number one foreign policy objective? If it means his end, as 
everybody would suggest, why is it his number one foreign policy 
objective?
  The fact of the matter is that I would ask my colleagues who 
vigorously support human rights and democracy, who seek sanctions in 
other parts of the world, like the Sudan and other places, that they 
need to understand that if we vigorously enforce a sanctions regime 
wherever we seek to impose sanctions, then we have an opportunity to 
have a public policy success using peaceful diplomacy versus anything 
else.
  Lastly, we are the largest remitters of humanitarian assistance to 
the people of Cuba, more than all the other countries of the world 
combined over the last several years. It is Castro who keeps his people 
hungry by his failed policies.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).

[[Page 14568]]


  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, there was a demonstration out front the 
other day and up and down Connecticut Avenue. It was the Falun Gong 
trying to tell us about religious persecution in China. Yet we chase 
after China, we give them Most Favorite Nation status for trading 
purposes, and we forget about their human rights violations.
  Yet 90 miles off the shore of Miami, we have a small country that is 
trying to survive, and we keep our foot on the back of their necks 
simply because there are few people who cannot get over the fact that 
he overthrew Batista. Batista had literally given Cuba to the 
multinationals, who practically owned it, to the gangsters, and 
everybody else who wanted to go down to Cuba and do whatever they 
wanted to do.
  Well, we may not like the revolution, but we need to get over it. He 
has been trying to survive all of these years. It is time to do away 
with this policy. It does not make good sense.
  Let me just tell you, Canada is reaping $260 million in trade; China, 
$156 million; France, $216 million. It goes on and on and on. The Farm 
Bureau wants to open up trade opportunities.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the suffering of the Cuban 
people is caused by Fidel Castro, and not by the embargo. The money 
that is paid to the employees down there by businesses that go into 
Cuba does not go to the employees; it goes to Castro. If they are paid 
$400 a month, that $400 goes to Castro, and he pays them in the local 
currency, which is worth about $5 to $10 a month.
  He is the one who keeps his heel on the neck of the people of Cuba. 
He is the one that causes the suffering down there. He is the one that 
causes the human rights abuses, and he is the one that has killed that 
economy.
  Why does he want the embargo lifted? Because he knows if we have 
tourism going down there, he knows if there is trade with him, the 
money will go into his pocket; the money will be able to prop up his 
regime, and he will be able to continue his communist philosophy and 
dictatorship down there.
  Finally, just let me say one more thing. People say he is no longer 
exporting revolution. I will tell you right now, Fidel Castro is 
supporting the FARC guerrillas in Colombia that are flooding our 
streets with drugs, that are killing our kids and ruining people's 
lives. The FARC guerrillas wear the berets that Che Guevara wore when 
he was down there exporting revolution for Fidel Castro.
  This man is a tyrant, he is a man we should not deal with, he is a 
man who has killed his own people, and he is the one that suffers; not 
the people of Cuba, because he is the one that is keeping them under 
his heel and under his boot. Five to $10 a month is what they earn 
because of Fidel Castro.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, I could not help 
but remember the words of Harry Truman. When he was interviewed for the 
biography ``Plain Speaking'' just before his death in Independence, 
Missouri, he was asked the question, ``What would you do about Cuba if 
you were still President?''
  He said, ``I would pick up the phone and call Fidel and say, I see 
you have some problems down there, Fidel. Why don't you come on up 
here, and we will talk about them and see if we can't settle this 
thing.''
  Boy, if he had only been President, and if other Presidents had only 
followed that kind of advice since then, we would not have the 
necessity of this debate today.
  Why a strong, powerful country like the United States has to make an 
enemy of a weak, defenseless little country like Cuba is a question 
that we could speculate upon for some length of time. But one thing is 
absolutely clear, the policy of the last 40 years has failed. It is 
time to open the doors and let the fresh air come in.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as the 
author will close debate on the amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us cut to the chase here. Let us cut to the chase. 
Let us cut to the chase, Mr. Chairman. Castro is 75 years old. He 
collapsed a few weeks ago and those surrounding him in the power clique 
were terrorized. His days are numbered.
  What we are talking about today is the future of Cuba. It is the 
leadership that is in prison today, Antiunez, this young man, for 
example, who is facing an 18-year sentence because in high school he 
decided to say that the regime was evil and he opposed it and he sought 
democracy. Or Maritza Lugo, the chairman, the president of the 30th of 
November Democratic Party. She and her husband are political prisoners, 
though they have little daughters, like the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who is on the floor. Well, Maritza Lugo has two 
daughters, and they are both in prison, she and her husband, are both 
in jail, because they are leading a political party in Cuba.
  And Vladimiro Roca, whose father, by the way, was the founder of the 
communist party in the 1920s, and now he is in a dungeon, because he is 
the president of the Social Democratic Party, and asked for free 
elections. Are they going to be released, and are their political 
parties going to be legalized and is the regime going to sit down with 
them and have free elections like happened in South Africa and like 
happened in Chile and like happened in Spain and Portugal and 
everywhere else, everywhere else the world stood for freedom?
  Oh, no. But in Cuba we should discriminate, despite the fact that 
they are 90 miles from our shores. That is the issue that we are 
debating here today.
  So our current law says three conditions, and the embargo is 
automatically lifted. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 
authorized billions of dollars in the legislation that we passed a few 
years ago. It is already law for assistance to Cuba. Three conditions 
is what we seek for our neighbors 90 miles away: Liberate the political 
prisoners, legalize their political parties, and sit down with them and 
have an election. Is that too much to ask for our closest neighbors? It 
is not.
  But the debate today is whether the regime continues after the demise 
of the tyrant, the death or the incapacity of the tyrant; or whether 
these people, the leaders of free Cuba, continue to receive our 
support, as this Congress has, despite the attitude of the executive 
office, not now, because President Bush supports the sanctions now, but 
other times in history they have not. Congress has always been with the 
Cuban people.
  Stand with the Cuban people and their future leaders, not the 
tyrants. Oppose Rangel.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, that proves what a great country we have, that friends 
can disagree and, at the same time, attempt to move forward.
  I think in addition to a great country, we have to really emphasize 
the importance of free trade and opening up new markets. Certainly for 
whatever tragedies people are suffering in Cuba, you cannot possibly 
believe that it is not worse in China. And if those on the other side 
of the aisle truly believe that trade is going to be the key of 
establishing better relationship and normalizing our relationship, then 
certainly I think we should have enough confidence in the American 
business people and enough confidence in the American people not to 
succumb to the dangers that communism offers.

                              {time}  1745

  This is a strong Nation. We can survive the threats of communism. We 
can enter into extradition treaties in order to bring back the convicts 
that are there. Let us face it. If the present dictator dies, who is 
going to replace him?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

[[Page 14569]]

  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 XVI, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake); amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith); and amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).


   Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake as a Substitute for the Amendment 
                   Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) as a 
substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the substitute amendment.
  The Clerk designated the substitute 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 240, 
noes 186, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 270]

                               AYES--240

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frank
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     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
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--186

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Israel
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     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
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blumenauer
     Cooksey
     Lipinski
     Meeks (NY)
     Scarborough
     Snyder
     Spence

                              {time}  1808

  Mr. HALL of Ohio and Mr. KERNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no''.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York and Messrs. HOUGHTON, BASS, WHITFIELD, and 
SHOWS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


     Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, as Amended

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Amendment No. 5 offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Rangel

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 7 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 201, 
noes 227, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 271]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle

[[Page 14570]]


     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--227

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     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
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blumenauer
     Lipinski
     Scarborough
     Snyder
     Spence

                              {time}  1818

  Mr. DINGELL and Mr. HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. TERRY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Internal Revenue Service to pay any bonus or 
     incentive payment to the Commissioner, the Deputy 
     Commissioner, the Chief Counsel, the Chief Inspector, the 
     Chief of Management and Administration, the Chief Financial 
     Officer, the Chief of Operations, the Chief of Appeals, the 
     Chief Information Officer, or the Chief of Communications of 
     the Service.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard so many Members 
coming over and saying they agree with me, but they have to oppose my 
amendment. They say they like what I am doing, it needs to be done; but 
they are going to have to vote ``no.'' They say, I want to commend you, 
Mr. Traficant, because what you are doing is an absolute necessity, but 
I am going to have to vote ``no.''
  Now, let me explain what the amendment is. Two years ago, 81 percent 
of all information given by the IRS to our constituents was false and 
wrong. This year, they corrected it and they improved, only having 73 
percent of the information given to our constituents to be deemed 
faulty. Now, I want my colleagues to listen to this. I want my 
colleagues to listen to what a GAO report said. The report said that 50 
percent of all of our constituents' calls made to the Internal Revenue 
Service are not even returned; they go unanswered.
  Now, here is what the Traficant amendment says. It lets all these IRS 
people go, but there are 10 people at the top that are prohibited from 
getting bonuses under this bill.
  Every newspaper in America says Congress must be nuts allowing these 
IRS fat cats to reward themselves with bonuses while their constituents 
are getting screwed.
  Now, I do not know if there is anybody willing to speak on this 
issue, Mr. Chairman, but I will say this. I understand the position of 
Ways and Means members, I understand leadership, but I want to say 
this. This has gone on long enough, year after year; and every year 
there is a reason. Now, one of the reasons I have heard was three of 
these positions mentioned are new people. Well, tell me, what new 
employees get bonuses the first year in the first place?
  In the legislative history let it show that if my colleagues do not 
want to remove some of these people because they personally know them 
and they are St. Ignatius, I do not mind it. But the buck stops 
somewhere, and it is not stopping in the penthouse of the IRS. That 
means Congress has an inherent responsibility to make sure that our 
constituents' calls are returned; that our constituents get correct 
answers; and that our constituents are treated with respect.
  If one out of every two Americans do not even have their call 
returned or answered, what is wrong with us? And when 73 percent of the 
advice they do give to the 50 percent that are lucky to get a return 
call, 73 percent of it is wrong. But they say it is an improvement over 
the 81 percent.
  That is right, beam me up. I have great respect for my good friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). He has done a great job on 
taxes. Look, I do not want any complimentary regards here tonight, I do 
not want any pats on the back, I want an ``aye'' vote on my amendment. 
And if it is thrown out in conference, then throw it out in conference, 
but I want to say something to Congress. If we want to get the 
attention of the IRS, we could give them all the rhetoric we want, but 
this is stone cold business. This is exactly what Congress should be 
doing.
  The Congress of the United States Government is a participatory 
democracy in this Republic, and it is time we do so. I am asking for an 
``aye'' vote.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), 
has done a lot to help with IRS reform. I walked over a moment ago and 
told

[[Page 14571]]

him I did want to compliment him as well as oppose his amendment. I was 
not talking about complimenting the amendment, however. I want to 
compliment him because in 1998 this Congress spoke almost with one 
voice at the end of the day for restructuring the IRS entirely, for 
putting in place dozens of new taxpayer rights.
  The IRS, while it still has lots of problems, including phone calls 
that are not getting answered, including information that is not being 
accurately conveyed, is doing a little better. And even the gentleman 
said that in his statement. But in 1998 the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) pushed this House to put something in place that shifted the 
burden of proof from the taxpayers to the IRS in tax court. That was an 
important reform. It was not in the original reform and restructuring 
act. It was added, in part, again because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) helped do that.
  That is what I was going to talk about in terms of complimenting the 
gentleman in terms of helping us to get to a better system. Because 
what happens now all through the system is that the IRS has to really 
look at these cases to be sure they really have merit, rather than 
taking them all the way to court and having the burden, which is 
appropriately now on them as it is in every criminal court in America, 
rather than the burden being on the taxpayers, as it was before.
  But this amendment, to my way of thinking, is counterproductive. Let 
me give a couple of examples. When we restructured the IRS, we provided 
for more incentive pay, which is part of the amendment; not just 
bonuses, but incentive pay. We actually provided they could pay these 
top people more than they were paying them at that time. Why? Because 
they could not attract good people, particularly in the information 
services area.
  Management and information services is one of the great problems at 
the IRS. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. But 
it is partly because the left hand is using 1970s software and 1980s 
computers, and the right hand is using another stovepipe system that 
does not communicate with the first one. We have had to totally revamp 
that system, and they are doing it. They finally now have a general 
contractor and have put out a modernization effort that we are 
supporting in our committees and subcommittees in Congress, 
appropriations and authorization.
  They are finally getting their act together. But to do that they 
needed better people and good people. And they are competing with the 
private sector. And I have to tell my colleague, the salaries they are 
paying these people is still significantly less than people doing 
comparable work in the private sector.

                              {time}  1830

  It is very tough to get people.
  Second, I would just like to make the point that some of these people 
who would not get an incentive payment or a bonus do not exist any more 
because we restructured the IRS and got rid of some of these positions. 
For example, there is no chief inspector. There is no chief of 
management administration. There is no chief of operations. There is a 
chief information officer but he is brand new, and I do not think we 
should penalize him yet until we see what kind of work he does.
  There is no chief of communications. Some of these lists of titles no 
longer exist because of the restructuring. So in a sense we have turned 
the IRS upside down. They have restructured the entire operation.
  We have forced them to do new performance measurements. We have 
forced them to live under some great new taxpayer rights. They are 
struggling with that a little bit. They still are not living up to what 
we hoped they would be by this point, but they are making improvements.
  This is not the time for us, in my view, to send the wrong signal to 
the people who I hope are the good guys, the people who have come in, 
new people at the top who are from the private sector who we have 
attracted to the IRS by saying, we are not going to pay you as much as 
the private sector, but we will give you a decent salary so we can be 
somewhat competitive, and we will give you a chance.
  Again, some of these people are brand new. Others have been there a 
year or two. We have to give them that chance. They are the ones that 
ought to be straightening out this bureaucracy and all of its problems. 
I would hope that while we send a strong message that Congress is 
watching, that the oversight board and the subcommittees and committees 
of this Congress ought to do their work. That we not accept this 
amendment.
  I will mention one other thing, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The new 
oversight board which is a public/private board which is unique in 
government which was very controversial in this body, but we got it 
through, is supposed to be there to provide accountability to the IRS. 
One of their jobs specifically established by this Congress is to 
review the commissioner's selection, evaluation, and compensation of 
IRS senior executives.
  Let them do their job. Let the oversight board work. Let the IRS 
continue to reform itself. Let us not penalize the very people we are 
relying on to try to straighten things out at the IRS.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the two amendments that were placed in 
the IRS reform bill by former Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, Bill Archer, the Traficant amendments could not get a hearing 
for 12 years.
  Yes, the first one shifted the burden of proof from the taxpayer to 
the IRS who was guilty in a civil court. The second one said they could 
not seize their homes without judicial consent. We let that go for 50 
years.
  Here are the statistics. Seizures of homes dropped from 10,037 a year 
to 150. Wage attachments dropped from 3.1 million to half a million. 
Liens dropped from 680,000 to 160,000.
  You are right. Some of these positions do not exist and some of the 
reforms we did have worked. But the bottom line is someone is 
responsible here and new employees do not get bonuses. Those people at 
the top that are coming in, the Congress is saying no bonuses until you 
return our constituents' calls and until your information makes sense. 
That is not an unreasonable demand.
  Let me say this, I commend Chairman Archer for having the courage to 
make those changes because they were not in the bill. The IRS 
vehemently opposed them as did the Clinton administration.
  It is time to make this change and it is time to send this message. 
We are not from Western Union, but this strikes at the core.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Are there further amendments?
  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. 
Shaw) 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. 2590) making 
appropriations 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, 2002, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.




                          ____________________