[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14121-14138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 488 and rule

[[Page 14122]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5120.

                              {time}  2008


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5120) making appropriations for the Treasury Department, 
the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Biggert (Chairman 
pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, pending was the amendment printed in House Report 107-
585 by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), and the bill was open 
from page 75, line 11, through page 103, line 10.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, debate on the following 
amendments, and any amendments thereto, will be limited to the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent as follows:
  The amendment printed in House Report 107-58 offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Goss) shall be debated for 12 additional minutes;
  the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 
shall be debatable for 30 minutes;
  the amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5 
shall be debatable for 20 minutes; and
  the amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 9 and 
20 each will be debated for 10 minutes.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) each will control 6 minutes on the Goss amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I want to clarify, because it is not fair 
for me to claim all 6 minutes in opposition, A, because I am not in 
opposition.
  Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 
was concerned under the unanimous consent that he might not get the 
time to speak, and he is not a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, in fairness, my understanding with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and I think everybody's understanding, was that 
the proponents would have 6 minutes and the opponents would have 6 
minutes, so that my only intent, Madam Chairman, is to ensure that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) get his 3 minutes. I also want 
to ensure that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) gets his 3 
minutes. So I am not claiming the time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, we need a clarification. I think the 
gentleman from Maryland rose to claim the time in opposition to yield 3 
of the 6 minutes to the gentleman from (Mr. Menendez).
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is a proponent of Goss 
and not in opposition to Goss. So we may need a unanimous consent 
agreement here to agree that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) gets 3 minutes; that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) gets 3 minutes in supporting the Goss amendment; that the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) get 3 minutes each in opposition to the Goss amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair mistook the attitude of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Does any Member rise in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goss 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
will control 6 minutes.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, as the designee of the proponent of 
the amendment, am I correct that I will, as the person controlling the 
6 minutes, have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. In the absence of a committee Member in 
opposition; that is correct.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As the designee of the proponent of the amendment, 
do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) will control 6 minutes as the designee of the 
proponent of the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, I want to 
make clear that a unanimous consent has been propounded, which I think 
is a fair one, and what that does, it gives one Democrat a proponent of 
the Goss amendment and one Democrat who is an opponent 3 minutes 
apiece; and on the other side, one Republican who is a proponent gets 3 
minutes and one Republican who is an opponent gets 3 minutes.
  I am not going to seek any time. I am for the proposed unanimous 
consent irrespective of who closes or not. The proponent of the 
amendment, I presume, under the rules, would have the right to close.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield 
to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am still trying to get an answer as to whether the 
proponent of the amendment has the right to close. That is the first 
question I would like answered. As the proponent of the amendment, do I 
get the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members will suspend for a moment.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, it is my perception there is not 
opposition to the unanimous consent request, but I may be wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will state her current 
understanding. The 6 minutes in opposition will be controlled by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the 6 minutes for the proponent 
will be controlled by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) will have the right to close.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, as I understand, there was a unanimous 
consent request propounded subsequent to the first unanimous consent, 
and that unanimous consent was of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) suggesting that there be in effect, an amendment to the first 
unanimous consent and that that amendment would be that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 3 minutes and controls that, that 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 3 minutes, that the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 3 minutes in opposition, and 
that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 3 minutes in 
opposition.
  It seems to me that we all here, I think, agree that that would be 
the distribution of time.

                              {time}  2015

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair has allocated time 
to two Members, one as proponent and one as opponent, and those 
gentlemen may yield to other Members who request time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, the Chair has stated that the 
opposition to the amendment has 6 minutes and the proponents of the 
amendment have 6 minutes, and we have the right to close.
  There is 6 minutes in opposition to the Goss amendment, and I will 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and 
then I will close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) controls 6 minutes, and is recognized.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, after 10 years in the House, and as the 
ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, it is 
amazing on an issue that is vital to my district and my constituency 
how I have to fight for time on the

[[Page 14123]]

floor, but I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.
  President Bush came to this Chamber and said of countries who support 
terrorism, you are either with us or you are against us. It is amazing 
to me how I have heard some of my colleagues come to the floor and 
begin to equivocate. I remember the standing ovation the President 
received when he said that, about whether some terrorists are okay and 
others are not.
  For the purposes of this amendment, let me just put Cuba under Castro 
in context. On May 10, 2001, Castro visited Iran and he said, ``Iran 
and Cuba in cooperation with each other can bring America to its knees. 
The United States regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this 
weakness from up close.''
  Then we found out that Ana Montes, who was a senior analyst for our 
Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States, was a Cuban spy. She 
gave us all of the wrong information and analysis on Cuba, and gave the 
Cubans and Castro all of the sensitive information she had as a senior 
analyst on the United States, and she was specifically instructed to 
discredit Cuban defectors' reports of Cuba's biological weapons 
development.
  Then we saw the Cuban spy ring in the south of Florida. These are all 
agents of the Castro regime, who has enough money to put all of these 
people here in Cuba and to have them be able to create these 
operations; however, does not have enough food to put on the plates of 
Cuban families back in Cuba, including that of my family. What did this 
spy ring, when they came before the judge and pleaded in some cases, 
say? That they sent detailed information. On what, on the United States 
Postal System to Cuba. What a boring issue, the United States Postal 
System. But we add Castro's visit to Iran right before September and 
May, add the Defense Intelligence spy giving all of our sensitive 
information and giving us all of the wrong information about Cuba, look 
at the pleas that took place in the Southern District of Florida and 
the statements made there, and we have more than enough to be concerned 
about this benign regime that some would paint here on the floor.
  Vote for the Goss amendment for a whole host of reasons.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the Goss amendment means that we 
continue what has not worked for the last 41 years.
  One of the certifications that the President has to make is that Cuba 
is not providing technology that could be used to produce, develop, or 
deliver biological weapons, and the President could not even make this 
certification for the United States.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, 40 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this whole debate started several months ago when the 
Under Secretary of State said, ``The United States believes that Cuba 
has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and 
development effort.''
  Now, one of the first people I would go to if I heard that kind of 
accusation about a country 90 miles from our shore would be the 
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, a very respected individual. At a 
press conference he said this on May 29 in the St. Petersburg Times 
about that statement in the State Department. ``I haven't seen the 
intelligence that apparently led Under Secretary Bolton to make those 
remarks.''
  If the Secretary of Defense, fighting a war against terrorism, saying 
you are with us or against us, does not have that, where does it come 
from? The Secretary of State said when he heard that quote, and here is 
another quote, ``We did not say Cuba actually had such weapons, but it 
has the capability and capacity to conduct some research.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us talk about the facts here. The facts are that 
Cuba and Mr. Castro, who I have no respect for and want to see out of 
power, he has been in power for 42 years. What is the best way to get 
rid of him? The best way is to have American travel go, and students 
and business leaders and American ideas get to Cuba. Those ideas, those 
beliefs, that American free enterprise system, students from colleges, 
farmers to help the Cubans open up their newly announced 300 freely 
priced farmers' markets, new microenterprises open around Cuba, that is 
the way to open up that government and change it.
  Now it may not topple Castro, but 42 years of failed policy is not 
going to do it, either. Let us try something new. Let us move our ideas 
forward. Let us not let Castro stay in power any longer. Church groups, 
students, American beliefs, American tourists going into taxicabs and 
hotels, spending our time and our ideas down there, that is the 
American tradition to change this policy. Vote against the Goss 
amendment and for the Flake amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Goss 
amendment. This debate is all about consistency, and it is interesting 
that we have been debating for the past 10 minutes who gets what amount 
of time to argue what position. If we think about it, the other side of 
this debate has had 42 years to make this debate, to make their side of 
the debate. Forty-two years. Forty-two years we have had the same 
failed policy. Castro is still every bit the thug he was 42 years ago. 
He is still very much in power, and the question occurs after 42 years, 
it is about time that we decide maybe we need a change here. Maybe we 
ought to be consistent with what we are doing in the rest of the world.
  We not only allow, we encourage tourists and others to travel to 
China, even though China is very much engaged in shipping arms, and who 
knows, maybe biological weapons. They certainly have the capacity. If 
Cuba does, they do. So does Albania, for that matter. Iran very much 
has the capacity. If we believe the other side, they got it from Cuba. 
Are we saying that we should not travel to Iran? No. We are saying 
Americans are our best ambassadors all over the world, yet we say not 
to Cuba. It is time for that policy to change.
  The other side will say this is all about terrorism. Last year 240 
Members of this body said we need a change. We need a change. At that 
point the other side stood up and said it is about political prisoners. 
That was the killer amendment to the Flake amendment last year. 
Terrorism was not the chic issue it is this year; it was political 
prisoners. That was brought up and said, well, Castro has to release 
political prisoners. This year, is political prisoners in the Goss 
amendment? No. It is terrorism.
  Are they saying we should allow tourism just as long as there is no 
terrorism, even though Castro has not released political prisoners? No. 
This is simply a killer amendment; let us take it for what it is.
  If we are concerned about terrorism, I would submit that the best 
thing to do is defeat the Goss amendment and approve the Flake 
amendment. We have to realize that the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
at the Treasury Department spends between 10 and 20 percent of its 
resources tracking down grandmothers from Iowa who happen to go on a 
bicycling trip to Cuba.
  Last year a man from the State of Washington went to Cuba for 24 
hours to spread his parents' ashes at the church they built in the 
1950s. That man returned to a $7,500 fine from the Office of Foreign 
Assets Control. Now the Office of Foreign Assets Control's job is to 
shut down the international terrorist network. How can they do that if 
they are spending all of their time chasing down tourists or others who 
are going to Cuba for innocent reasons? It is time to defeat the Goss 
amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, what is new is that some hijackers smashed into the 
World Trade Center killing thousands of people and killed some heroes 
also in the Pentagon. What is new is that the administration has made 
public for the

[[Page 14124]]

first time something that the intelligence community came to the 
conclusion about in 1999, and that is there is a biological weapons 
program in Castro's Cuba. That is what is new.
  It is not a fetish, I think that is word of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), or fad, when we are talking about protecting 
American citizens. If the Flake amendment passes without the Goss 
amendment, it is not going to be a SCUD missile. Let us say that Castro 
happens to be wrong and that his denial of the fact that he has 
biological weapons is a lie, like he denied 40 years ago that he had 
another kind of weapon. I think it was a nuclear weapon, he was denying 
that. Happened to be wrong.

                              {time}  2030

  Let us say that he happens to be wrong again and that he does have 
biological weapons, as our intelligence community says so and has said 
so repeatedly, not just Mr. Bolton, Mr. Ford, the head of the State 
Department intelligence department, the intelligence community. By the 
way, they have both said that there is a lot more that the intelligence 
community does not let them say. There is a lot more that we know.
  Let us say that Castro does have biological weapons. Let us just say. 
It is not a fad now. Let us just say. He is not going to use Scud 
missiles. He has got a lot of travelers going back and forth. This guy, 
this gentleman here, who happens to be in prison, his name is Padilla, 
because he was preparing a dirty bomb that he wanted to throw here in 
Washington, and let us say that he is able to get out of prison and he 
wants to go where there are already thousands of other terrorists given 
safe harbor by the only terrorist regime in this hemisphere. Under the 
Flake amendment if Goss does not pass and the President is out of the 
picture, this man, or any other man, cannot be licensed, cannot be 
checked, cannot be reviewed, suitcases cannot be opened; he gets to go 
to the only terrorist state 90 miles from here without our Treasury 
Department, where we are spending 40 percent of the money of the 
Federal Government for security on this bill. Not one cent can be spent 
to check him or any other terrorist that wants to go to the only 
terrorist state in this hemisphere. That is what the Flake amendment 
would do if Goss does not pass.
  What does Goss say? That the President has to be in the mix, that the 
President has the authority, has to have the authority in this war on 
terrorism to check this man and to check his suitcase and to license 
him.
  It is not illegal to go to Cuba. A number of colleagues went to Cuba. 
Here is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). Here is the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). They love to go to Cuba. They love 
the mojitos on the beach where the Cubans cannot go. But this man, this 
man, this man----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken 
down.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You know it is true. You know it is true.
  Mr. OBEY. I want the rules enforced.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida will be seated.
  The Clerk will report the words.

                              {time}  2041

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I understand I was not out of order. I 
certainly meant no offense.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on 
his demand?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is not worth it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his demand.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, in recent years there has been a growing 
body of second-guessing about the adequacy of the policies of the 
United States toward Cuba.
  However, President Bush made it clear in a recent speech why there is 
no real justification for a change of policy by his Administration.
  Unfortunately, the Castro regime continues to engage in severe human 
rights abuses. Cubans are deprived from the basic right of choosing 
their government by free elections. Political prisoners are maltreated, 
to the extent that some die in detention as a result of the physical 
abuse and the lack of subsequent required medical attention. Citizens 
in Cuba do not enjoy any of the rights common to free people.
  The Cuban government is sensitive to its citizens contacting 
foreigners, in particular human-rights activists. During President 
Carter' visit, Castro put up a show for the benefit of foreign 
audiences by allowing Mr. Carter to meet with a number of prominent 
rights activists. However, as soon as the former President left the 
Island, the Cuban regime put in motion a massive effort to neutralize 
the ephemeral achievement of the activists.
  Presently Castro is trying to amend the Cuban constitution, so that 
the authoritarian system will become forever entrenched not only de 
facto, but also in the law.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this is certainly not the time to 
soften American policies towards Cuba. Indeed, a policy of 
accommodation towards Castro will also encourage him and other 
dictators. It will also discourage fragile democracies that happen to 
be burdened by economic downturns, or political upheavals.
  Peoples and governments around the world are watching our policies 
towards Cuba as a bench mark to our commitment to the spread of 
democracy. Let's not discourage those seeking freedom on the Cuban 
island and in other places. Let's stay fast and send the message that a 
long as there is no hope afforded to the people of Cuba by its present 
regime, the United States will not change its policies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be sued to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control 
     Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related 
     transaction.
       (b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to the issuance of general or specific licenses for 
     travel or travel-related transactions, and shall not apply to 
     transactions in relation to any business travel covered by 
     section 515.560(g) of such part 515.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, may I just state for the record for the folks at home, 
I am Mormon and I do not drink mojitos, or whatever they are.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of 
the Flake amendment. What the Flake amendment simply says is that this 
is all about freedom. Our government should not tell us where we can 
and cannot travel. It is a fundamental right of every American to 
travel. Every one of us ought to have the right to go to Cuba to see 
what a mess Fidel Castro has made of that island. We should have that 
right firsthand.
  That is what this amendment is all about. When you strip away 
everything else, should you be allowed the right to travel to Cuba, or 
anywhere else you want, or should your government tell you where you 
can and cannot travel?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the greatest antidote to totalitarianism is an informed 
mind. I would like to read a quick passage

[[Page 14125]]

from an independent journalist, a dissident in Cuba, Oscar Espinosa 
Chepe: ``The passage of the House amendment last year to end the travel 
ban reflects a public opinion that every day understands more clearly 
that the effort to isolate Cuba has only increased the suffering of the 
Cuban people and strengthened the positions of the most recalcitrant 
elements in the Havana regime. Experience demonstrates that 
isolationism breathes life into totalitarianism. It helps it exercise 
control over citizens subjected to its power and to reinforce its 
monopoly over their minds. On the other hand, contact between peoples 
free individuals from falsehoods and from the lies without dignity to 
which they are obliged to lead.''
  Mr. Chairman, it has been the American policy from Republican 
presidents and Democrat presidents that we engage; it has been in the 
American policy that we engage the Soviet Union, that we engage China, 
that we, just a few minutes ago, voted to engage Vietnam.
  We should do the same with Cuba. The simple reason is that it has 
been a bedrock principle of American policy that travel is a device 
that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best 
ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people from communist 
countries. There is no reason to make this exception for Cuba.
  We want Americans to go down and exchange ideas, to show them the 
taste of freedom, to know what kind of brutal totalitarian regime they 
are living under. A people cannot rise up and ask for alternatives if 
they are not acquainted with those alternatives.
  We are simply saying this 42-year practice of turning our backs, of 
looking inward, of being hypocrites while we go to China and Russia and 
Vietnam, must be ended.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I call for a yes vote on the Flake 
amendment. I encourage Members to vote for the Flake amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member oppose the amendment?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our friend, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), to speak in opposition to the 
Flake amendment, an amendment which runs contrary to the spirit and 
letter of our U.S. anti-terrorism policy.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say I have the greatest respect for the 
gentleman from Arizona. He is as solid as a rock and totally believes 
in his position here. In previous years, I have actually supported him 
and Mr. Sanford before him on opening up travel. I supported the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) at the Committee on 
Appropriations with regard to food and medicine.
  But I have to tell you, the question was asked earlier what has 
changed, and I rarely have changed my position on any issue over the 
last 8 years, but today I am going to change my position on this issue 
after careful research because the world has changed. It changed 
September 11, and we have to listen to our intelligence community and 
make informed decisions.
  Why should we be concerned? Well, the President has said those 
nations that harbor terrorists are terrorists and should be treated as 
such. A gentleman just compared China, Vietnam or other countries such 
as that, to Cuba. There are no allegations that I know of of those 
nations harboring terrorists. We have concerns in our intelligence 
community about Cuba harboring terrorists.
  What about the proliferation, production, of biological weapons? We 
have information in our intelligence community that Cuba is up to no 
good.
  Somebody said that we should try something new after 42 years. Mr. 
Chairman, this is not the time to try something new. This is the most 
serious time in the history of our country. We have got to be extremely 
careful.
  This is not a trade issue where you do want to promote travel and 
open up markets. This is a national security issue and should than 
treated as such. We need to treat Cuba like Syria, not like Mexico. 
There is a huge difference. I am going to listen to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and our intelligence community, not Fidel Castro and 
his propaganda.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree in principle with the issues that bring those 
proponents of this amendment to the floor today on opening markets and 
how to engage. But this is different. We have information that should 
gravely concern us.
  Let me tell you why I have changed my position: Because I would 
rather be safe than sorry. I would rather be safe than sorry. I do not 
want to come back to this floor because somebody from Cuba was involved 
in a terrorist action in this country and we promoted open travel 
between the U.S. and Cuba. I am changing because I am better informed, 
and the world has changed.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, it was said you cannot travel 
to Syria. You can travel to Syria. You can travel to Iran. You can 
travel to North Korea. You can travel to China. So that is not the 
issue. The issue is consistency here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the point bears repeating that we are talking about 
having a foreign policy that makes sense and has made sense in the past 
and will in the future. We have decided that nations with whom we 
disagree, who have foreign policies with whom we disagree, what should 
be our policy toward them with regard to Americans traveling to those 
nations?
  We have disagreed with Syria very vigorously, yet we have said 
Americans can travel there. We have disagreed and continue to disagree 
very vigorously with Iran and their support of terrorist groups, but we 
have said Americans can travel there. We have had problems with China 
and Russia and their support through equipment and materials to 
countries we think should not get those materials because of the 
weapons systems they might be used for. But we say, Americans, you can 
travel to China; Americans, you can travel to Russia.
  The one country that we have this policy with is Cuba. So we are now 
seeing this bogeyman created, that somehow September 11 is related to 
the last 43 years of a failed policy.
  Well, in my view, what this debate should be about tonight is what 
increases the chances of the people of Cuba growing up in freedom and 
growing up in democracy and knowing a market economy. I was in Cuba the 
first week of January with several members of Congress. I took this 
picture at a church in Cuba. It is the same town where Elian Gonzales 
now lives.
  To me, this is the future of Cuba. What increases their opportunity 
to grow up in freedom? Is their opportunity for freedom increased by 
having Americans never see them, by having Americans never come to 
their church and visit with them and talk about America? Is that what 
increases their chances of freedom, of knowing what freedom is about, 
of hearing them talk, as we did, with people in Cuba about what it 
means to have freedom of the press? Why is The New York Times not 
available? Why do not you let people have open newspapers?
  I think that what will increase their chances for freedom is what we 
do tonight. Vote no on the Goss amendment and for the Flake amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  I think in so many ways this debate is about our government versus 
their government, and our government is about democracy. It is about a 
republic. Their government is about really one guy basically, Fidel 
Castro.
  What is wrong with him? Well, let us just start with the fact that he 
came

[[Page 14126]]

into power by hoodwinking people, by stealing hotels, properties, and 
in many cases, breaking up families and executing many of them. He is 
pro-communism, he is anti-American, and the other thing is he is 
bankrupt.
  In Cuba right now, their debt is $11 billion. Venezuela, one of their 
strongest allies, suspended oil shipments based on the fact that Cuba 
owes them $63 million. Right now, Cuba owes Russia $20 billion. Now, 
when you get in a position like this and you are not exactly a Sunday 
school teacher from next door, you are liable to cut some deals with 
some unsatisfactory characters.
  That is what this is about. This is not about your good constituents 
or my good constituents going to Cuba. Indeed, last year alone 156,000 
Americans went to Cuba. This is about people that you want to keep 
track of that might be going over there to hide, just like an old 
outlaw post.
  Here is a quote from Castro that gives his sentiments. This, by the 
way, is from May 10, 2001, just on the eve of 9/11. ``Iran and Cuba, in 
cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. 
regime is very weak and we are witnessing this weakness from close-
up.''
  Why would you say that if you are pro-American? What interest that 
would be pro-American that would say you would bring America to its 
knees? That is a statement of war. It is a statement of antagonism.
  Let us add on these statements. Here is something from John Bolton, 
the Under Secretary for Arms Control. ``Cuba has at least a limited 
offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has 
provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue States like Iran, 
probably Iraq, probably Syria, probably a dozen others that we do not 
know about. We are concerned that such technology could support 
bioweapons programs in those States.''
  So you have got a guy who is a one-man dictatorship, a guy who is 
bankrupt, a guy who is anti-American, and a guy who is developing 
biological weapons to probably be used to ``bring America to its 
knees.'' Why do we want to be the first one to blink?
  That is what this is about. Why are we blinking first? Castro is on 
his way out. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) last year probably has done some humanitarian good, 
although it is hard to say, because I know when we go over there, we 
get filtered information.

                              {time}  2055

  But why do we want to start giving him a money train called tourism? 
I know about the tourism game. I represent coastal Georgia. It is our 
number one industry from Savannah to Saint Simons to the Sea Islands, 
all over. Tourism is a money train. Why do we want to give it to Fidel 
Castro?
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose a friend, but I do urge my 
colleagues to enthusiastically vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
Flake amendment, quite simply because I firmly believe it is the right 
of all Americans to be able to travel wherever they wish.
  I support this amendment because I believe the current sanctions on 
travel to Cuba go against the very traditions and democratic values 
that make the United States so respected in the eyes of the world 
community.
  I trust the people of America. They are not fools. They should be 
able to see firsthand, freely and whenever they choose, both the good 
and bad about today's Cuba. They do not need the Federal Government to 
censor what they see or how they might experience Cuba.
  I believe that increased travel by Americans and others would make 
Cuba less insular and more exposed to American ideas.
  I believe Cuban Americans should have the right to visit their 
relatives as often as they wish, without seeking the approval of the 
U.S. Government.
  This is not a debate about whether U.S. citizens should travel to an 
undemocratic or repressive country. If that were true, then Americans 
would not be able to travel to China, Vietnam, Burma, Sudan, Syria, 
Iran, and North Korea. But Americans travel freely to these countries, 
as is their right. Why then do we continue to prohibit the travel to 
Cuba?
  Vote ``yes'' on the Flake amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), and the amendment he has brought to the floor, but I rise to 
disagree with the amendment and to point out that the Bush 
administration said they will veto this bill, or at least they are 
likely to, and I will give the specific language in a second, but that 
they are likely to veto this appropriations bill if the language comes 
through that limits the embargo.
  A statement from the administration said that the administration 
understands that an amendment may be offered on the House floor that 
would weaken current sanctions against the Cuban government. The 
administration believes it is vitally important to maintain these 
sanctions.
  The function of the travel sanctions is to prevent unlicensed tourism 
to Cuba that provides economic resources to the Castro regime, while 
doing nothing to help the Cuban people, and these sanctions should not 
be removed. It goes on to say, as noted in the July 11 letter from 
Secretaries Powell and O'Neill, the President's senior advisor 
recommended he veto a bill that contains such changes.
  This bill, the Treasury-Postal bill is, for 2003, a homeland security 
bill. The committee provides over $4 billion in support of the homeland 
security effort. It establishes a separate appropriation for the Office 
of Homeland Security. This bill is our bill for homeland security. The 
President and the administration make the point that this weakens the 
bill. Cuba is a known harborer of international terrorists, has strong 
ties to other terrorist states.
  Castro said in a meeting last year with the Iranian leader that Iran 
and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can destroy America. Quote: 
``The United States regime is very weak and we are witnessing this 
weakness from close up,'' end the Castro quote there.
  Ending the embargo would assist terrorists in using Cuba as a forward 
operating base miles off our shore. According to Secretary of State 
Powell and Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill in a recent letter to the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), they said that the Cuban government has refused to 
cooperate with the global coalition's efforts to combat terrorism, 
refusing to provide information about al Qaeda. On November 13, 2002, 
the Cuban Foreign Minister delivered a speech at the United Nations in 
which he accused the United States of war atrocities in Afghanistan. 
And on June 8, Castro compared President Bush's terrorism policies to 
Nazi Germany's efforts to assert world hegemony, suggesting that the 
administration permitted the 9/11 attacks in order to ``reshape the 
world as they wish.''
  This is not a regime to send money to. This is not a regime to open 
the sanctions up with. It is clear at this time where our 
administration thinks we need to be in this regard. This is not a time 
to reevaluate this policy, and I urge that we defeat the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Secretary O'Neill, in 
testimony before the Senate just a few months ago, stated that if it 
were up to him, he would basically agree to my amendment. He would not 
enforce the travel ban because it takes away money from terrorism.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake 
amendment. I had the opportunity on two occasions to visit Cuba, and I 
went there

[[Page 14127]]

out of curiosity to also see what many of my constituents have come to 
tell me, and that is that there are some opportunities there, cultural 
exchange, educational opportunities.
  When I came back from my first trip, I noticed that on the plane 
coming back, there were 20 students from Mt. San Antonio College that 
were playing in athletic games with students in Cuba, and I asked them, 
what was your curiosity? What did you think about the Cuban government? 
What did you think about the people there? Many of them said that they 
were very supportive and felt that they were a part of a student group 
there that they could work on different issues and learn about each 
other and break down those barriers that we hear about every single day 
here by some of the rhetoric that we are even hearing here tonight.
  I met with students, medical students from California, from Boston, 
from New York, who are there because they cannot get into medical 
schools here, who are learning about how to become professionals in the 
health career field. That is one of the reasons why I went.
  Trade promotion also needs to be a part of this discussion.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first, so the record is clear, 
Paul O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, has cosigned a letter with 
Secretary Colin Powell to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) saying 
that we would recommend that the President veto such legislation if it 
reaches his desk with the Flake amendment or any language that weakens 
current policy. So let us be very clear about that.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that travel to Cuba by 
Americans is permitted, providing it is with a purpose. There are 13 
broad categories for which travel may be authorized. Something on the 
order of 200,000 people visited Cuba last year, so travel does take 
place, but it has to have a purpose.
  There is a dark side to Cuba travel as well. Some of my colleagues 
think the travel is a panacea if we just have unfettered travel, 
somehow human rights abuses will be ameliorated and we will see some 
changes. That has not happened with the Canadians, with Europeans and 
others who routinely go to Cuba. There has been no mitigation of the 
human rights abuse. It has gotten worse in Cuba over this last several 
years. It is Pollyannaish, I would say to my colleagues who think 
otherwise.
  There is also another dark side. The Protection Project just recently 
came out with a report again about human trafficking and sexual 
exploitation. I am the prime sponsor of landmark human trafficking law, 
and we have seen an increase in sexual tourism in Cuba. Here is what 
the Protection Project says. Canadian sex tourism is largely 
responsible for the revival of child prostitution. So there is a dark 
side to this seeming panacea of travel.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that Cuba continues to share 
the dubious distinction of being named a terrorist state by the 
Department of State. They join the infamous and the cruel, six other 
rogue nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.
  I think in this stage of the debate, it is worth reiterating that the 
Goss amendment would merely require that before we provide the means 
for Castro to obtain millions of dollars in revenues for his 
dictatorship, that three mutually reinforcing homeland security 
criteria are met: That the Cuban government does not process and is not 
developing biological weapons that threaten the U.S.; that Cuba is not 
providing terrorist states or terrorist organizations technology that 
could be used to produce, develop, or deliver biological weapons; and 
that Cuba is not providing support or sanctuary for international 
terrorists. These are exceedingly important criteria.
  I would say to my colleagues, if you do not think they are relevant, 
vote for the Flake amendment. If you think they are relevant, I would 
ask you to vote for the Goss amendment and against the Flake amendment. 
If you think that the Cuban dictatorship is clean, you should also vote 
for the Goss amendment. What is there to hide? Let the scrutiny begin. 
Let a full-scale, presidential review and determination be made to 
ensure whether or not biological weapons in Cuba are real. If you 
think, as I do, that the dictatorship poses very serious threats to the 
safety and well-being of Americans, then I would urge my colleagues to 
vote for the Goss amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not forget, Fidel Castro is a dictator, a mass 
torturer, and he is a terrorist. Just look at the country's human 
rights practices. It is unconscionable. The recent State Department 
Report makes it very clear people are routinely beaten for their 
beliefs.
  Vote ``yes'' on Goss.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I read an interesting article in today's 
Washington Times about a retired Air Force colonel, Ed Hubbard, a 
former POW in Vietnam, who traveled down to Miami this week to have a 
press conference where he was awarded with some medals for his bravery, 
which he truly deserved, but it was also to point a finger, if you 
will, at the person that he suspected of being the Cuban interrogator 
and torturer in Vietnam.
  Well, as it turns out, it was a very interesting article, and after 
he was awarded these pins, the colonel stunned everybody in the room by 
saying, you know, let me say something. The best way to topple 
communism and I quote, in today's Cuba, he said, ``is by establishing 
relations with Fidel Castro. Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe 
because we showed them how we live. I have to believe the same thing 
will happen with Cuba.''
  That is Retired Air Force Colonel Ed Hubbard, a POW, tortured in 
Vietnam by a Cuban, who very strongly believes that we should open the 
door with Cuba. I think that says it all.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The starting point for this debate this evening should be that 
Americans have a constitutional right to travel, and history shows us 
that the Framers of the Constitution and the signers to the Declaration 
of Independence thought it was an inalienable right and one that came 
from natural law and that governments were given a duty to protect.
  I have heard three arguments from the opponents of lifting this 
travel ban. The first is that because we disagree with the policies of 
Castro that we should prevent our citizens from traveling to Cuba; yet, 
if we look across the globe, there are many, many regimes that we 
disagree with on policy reasons: China, for one, Iran for another; but 
on a daily basis, our citizens are allowed to travel there. So that is 
not one that holds up.
  Secondly, we have heard that history precludes it, as in the Bay of 
Pigs, I had heard that referred to earlier. Well, we just debated 
earlier this evening a bill that would establish trade with Vietnam, 
our citizens are allowed to go there. And what about Vietnam? We lost 
48,000 American boys in a war with that country, and yet we allow our 
citizens to go there. So it is not history that precludes it.
  Lastly, probably the thinnest argument is that argument around 
terrorism. I just want to remind people that when we rounded up the 
Taliban, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld rounded up the al Qaeda 
suspects in Afghanistan at the Battle of Kandahar, where did they send 
them? They sent them to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. If there was any chance 
of Cuba being a hotbed of terrorist activity, that never would have 
happened.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the Flake amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.

[[Page 14128]]

  As I have listened to this debate tonight, I think it has been a good 
debate. What strikes me about the argument of the opponents to the 
Flake amendment is that there seems to be this fear of Fidel Castro, a 
tiny dictator in a country 90 miles from us who is, by all reasonable 
accounts, I would argue to my colleagues, not a threat to this country. 
Even in the days of the gravest threat when the Soviet Union was at its 
greatest power, we still allowed our American citizens to travel there. 
We allow families of Cubans who are still in Cuba to travel there, 90 
miles off our shore, once a year. We allow Cuban families to give money 
to their relatives in Cuba.

                              {time}  2112

  The Pope has gone to Cuba. Many Americans under certain restrictions 
have gone to Cuba. My suggestion to my colleagues is why are we afraid 
to allow Americans to go there and spread democracy, to make the 
arguments and be examples to the people of that country, 11 million 
people that we are a good country, that we are not a country that Fidel 
Castro says we are, but when we are his scape goats we somehow fall 
into that trap. I urge support of the Flake amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Just to answer the points made by my good friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), if Castro poses no threat to the United 
States, I would like the gentleman to place a call to the parents of 
Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre, Mario de la Pena and Pablo Morales, 
and four young men, three of whom were United States citizens, one of 
whom was a United States resident, one was a decorated Vietnam veteran, 
who were killed by Fidel Castro's air force when they were in 
international air space. Apparently he poses a threat to some United 
States citizens.
  The gentleman is right. The Pope did go to Cuba. Jimmy Carter did go 
to Cuba. And what happened? The greatest crackdown on dissidents yet 
after Jimmy Carter's visit and every international human rights 
organization will tell you, the greatest crackdown in Cuban history 
since Castro took power after the visit of the Pope, after the visit of 
Jimmy Carter and after the visit of 500,000 American visitors to the 
island of Cuba.
  And as repeatedly articulated by President Bush, one of the pillars 
of our efforts to eradicate this cancer of global terrorism, and to 
secure the security and domestic tranquility of our country is to deny, 
impair, and expose the financial infrastructure which provides a 
lifeline to these agents of terror, agents like Fidel Castro. To deny, 
impair and expose. That is precisely what our current U.S./Cuba policy 
does.
  Why are we discussing an amendment that would instead provide funds 
to the Castro dictatorship, a country which every recent 
administration, Democrat or Republican, has repeatedly labeled as a 
state sponsor of terrorism. As has been pointed out on the floor, Paul 
O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, Colin Powell, Secretary of the 
State recently stated that this country has an implacable hostility to 
the United States.
  I would point my colleagues to a news report that just came out hours 
ago in a meeting between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Rodrigo Alvarez 
Cambras, special envoy of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Cambras 
emphasized the Castro regime's ``support for Iraq against the threats 
from the United States.'' And he reiterated their firm commitment of 
both these terrorist states to expand their bilateral cooperation, two 
sworn enemies of the United States working together motivated by their 
hatred of our country.
  I ask my colleagues tonight to not help the enemy, to support 
freedom, to support our U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, to vote ``no'' on 
the Flake amendment, vote ``yes'' on the Goss amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleague, a POW was 
mentioned by the gentlewoman from Missouri. There was a POW that cannot 
say that. He spit in the face of one of the Cuban interrogators while 
he was being tortured. The Cuban took out his pistol and blew his 
brains out.
  I go to the POW meetings every single year, and I will tell my 
colleagues that is not, that is not their policy, to open up Cuba.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the debate. And let me say, both sides of 
this debate want the same thing. We want a free, democratic, and 
prosperous Cuba. The question is how do we get there? Should we go the 
same route that we have gone for the past 42 years that has ended in 
utter failure? Fidel Castro is still around. He is still a thug. He is 
still very much a bad guy. We will all stipulate that. The question is 
how do we best remove him? How did we make sure that he does not have 
the only megaphone in Cuba?
  Currently we silence Americans who would like very much to go to 
Cuba, to see the situation there, to explain to their Cuban brethren 
that we have a better way and to see what 40 years of socialism have 
wrought on that island. We prevent them from doing so, and we allow 
Fidel Castro to have the microphone, the only one they hear. We 
recognize the rest of the world, in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, 
you name it. We not only allow travel; we encourage it. Yet, in Cuba, 
we say we will go a different route. We will isolate.
  Well, we have the verdict: 42 years, nothing has changed. Nothing has 
changed.
  Let me read you a quote:

       I have called for lifting economic sanctions generally, 
     unilateral sanctions, because I believe they do not work. 
     Well, Cuba is a tough case and admittedly a difficult one 
     because we have had sanctions there over the years. They have 
     not worked either. Sanctions, frankly, have not worked very 
     well in Cuba.

  You might think that was the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) or the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) or others who made that statement or 
even me. It was not. It was Vice President Cheney.
  As I mentioned before, Secretary O'Neill in testimony before the 
Senate just months ago said that if it were up to him he would not 
enforce the Cuba travel ban because he knows that if we are concerned 
about terrorism, then the last thing we want to do is expend resources 
from OFAC, or the Office of Foreign Assets Control, tracking down 
tourists, tracking down innocent grandmothers from Iowa, when we could 
instead be tracking down real terrorists and those who are perpetrating 
the terrorism war against the United States.
  I would urge my colleagues to remember what this is all about. The 
Flake amendment says that we should be free, we should be free as 
Americans to travel where we want to. The Goss amendment says no. Vote 
``yes'' on the Flake amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of the proposed legislation to lift the ban prohibiting Americans from 
traveling to Cuba. I would like to thank my colleague, the Gentleman 
from Arizona, for his leadership in regard to this amendment, and for 
drawing the attention of Congress to this very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, for four decades, American citizens have been unable to 
travel to Cuba, be it to visit family or to conduct business. As 
lawmakers for a democratic nation, I do not see how we can limit our 
own people from contact with a nation that can benefit so extensively 
from the influence of the strongest ambassadors of freedom in the 
world--American citizens. After all, what speaks more strongly for the 
power of democracy, than citizens who enjoy the liberties to earn 
income and to travel?
  Mr. Chairman, free American travel to Cuba, in addition to reforming 
the Cuban political system, increasing rights enjoyed by Cuban 
citizens, and improving Cuba's economic condition, sends a powerful 
message of freedom. We must emphasize the value of personal freedom, as 
it applies to American citizens, by lifting this ban against American 
travel to Cuba.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Flake Amendment to end funding of the travel ban to Cuba. I heartily 
agree with the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) which stated in 
a recent letter

[[Page 14129]]

to Congress that ``the right to travel is among those rights that our 
Nation's founding documents refer to as `inalienable'.''
  Recently, we Americans have been asking ourselves: ``Why do they hate 
us? Why do other nations hate Americans, when they know so little about 
us?''
  Many Cubans must be asking themselves the same question: ``Why do 
they hate us? Why does the American government continue to support a 
forty-year embargo of our country, which has contributed to the 
collapse of the economy, and has done nothing to increase personal and 
political freedoms?''
  Cubans must think: ``if Americans only knew us--if they knew our 
culture, our language, our music--they would develop policies which 
would support exchange and abandon the failed policy of isolation.''
  Isn't that what Americans think? If countries around the world opened 
their borders to American visitors, opened their markets to American 
goods, and increased people-to-people exchanges through programs such 
as the Peace Corps, hostility towards our country and our people will 
be reduced.
  Americans and Cubans are both right. It is only through greater 
openness and exchange that peoples of the world connect to each other--
through personal bonds, commerce, and for mutual political benefit--and 
break down barriers in their own countries and across borders.
  Ending the travel ban not only follows the spirit of the 
Constitution, it will be economically beneficially to the United 
States. According to the recent Brattle Group study, opening travel 
with Cuba will bring $415 million annually to the ailing airline 
industry; increase U.S. economic input by $1.6 billion; and create over 
23,000 jobs in the American economy.
  Vote for the Flake amendment. Vote to uphold Americans' 
Constitutional right to travel whenever and wherever they want. Vote 
for lifting the travel ban to Cuba, and tear down this wall that 
separates our two countries once and for all.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider the second amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce any restriction on remittances to 
     nationals of Cuba covered by section 515.570(a)(1)(i), 
     (a)(2), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(2) of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Current U.S. policy prohibits Americans from sending more than $1,200 
a year to family members in Cuba. Understand, again, that this applies 
only to Cuba. No other country has this cap. And if you dare exceed 
this limit, be careful, the remittance police are watching and the 
penalties are severe. You can get 10 years in jail and a $55,000 fine. 
But, the law is actually rarely enforced. There has never been, in 
fact, a single prosecution. But that is going to change, because one 
year ago this week, President Bush personally directed the Department 
of Treasury to expand its capability to enforce limits on remittances 
to the fullest extent of the law.
  The White House, in other words, has made the enforcement of the 
Cuban remittance limits a national priority. While I oppose both the 
embargo and the travel ban, let me suggest that the cap on remittances 
is truly the cruelest aspect of our policy towards Havana.
  It restricts American freedoms. It limits family charity and denies 
hopes for tens of thousands of Cubans, and at the same time it breeds 
disrespect for our law because we all know that Cuban-Americans are 
doing the right thing and are circumventing this policy.
  This policy does not punish Fidel Castro. Instead, it punishes 
American citizens and their relatives in Cuba. Let us be clear, none of 
this money comes from the United States Government. None of this money 
goes to the Cuban Government and Fidel Castro. It is direct aid from 
ordinary people who care to ordinary people who need. And it is the 
official policy of the United States that you should only do just so 
much. This policy would be silly. It is a real tarnish on the golden 
rule. But it is tragic. And it is un-American.
  Tonight, if we support this amendment, we can end this policy, end 
this cruel aspect of our policy to Cuba.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman saying essentially that it 
is their money, these Americans, and they know what to do with it?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is what I am saying.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 5 
minutes in opposition to the Flake amendment. The gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has consumed 2\1/2\ minutes of the 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Let us take a look at what is really going on in the world today. Why 
are we concerned about Fidel Castro? Yes, he is a petty little thug 
down in Cuba. They say how weak he is. Fidel Castro is demonstrably 
stronger than Saddam Hussein in terms of his ability to hurt the United 
States of America. But Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro both share 
something. They share a blood grudge against the United States of 
America. And you might have some weak guy like bin Laden over there who 
looks very weak; but both of those fellows, both Saddam Hussein and 
Fidel Castro, have a blood grudge and can kill thousands, if not 
millions, of Americans in this day and age in which we live. It 
behooves us to do everything we can to get rid of Fidel Castro and get 
rid of the Saddam Husseins of this world before they decide to kill 
thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Americans.
  They have a blood grudge, and no one should ignore that. You ignore 
it and if something happens, we are having to take the responsibility 
for not acting on this.
  What is this all about? $1,200? Fidel Castro is broke. And by taking 
off all of these restrictions on the remittances, by just taking off 
the lid on the $1,250 in remittances, we will be bailing out Castro, 
just at a time when Castro as we have seen over and over again as was 
demonstrate earlier by what was presented to us, his regime is almost 
in collapse.
  This has nothing to do with the well-being of the Cuban people. If it 
would, the Cuban-Americans in this body would be rising up and saying, 
my goodness, you are doing something to hurt the Cuban people. What we 
are doing here is to limit the power and strength of the Saddam 
Husseins and Fidel Castros of this world to hurt the United States of 
America. Our President knows that.
  When those buildings went down in New York, who would have guessed 
that some weakling named bin Laden would have been able to do that?
  Fidel Castro has a much greater grudge than bin Laden had against the 
United States of America. He has from his very first moments put Robert 
Vesco in a position to organize the drug trade throughout this 
hemisphere. He has over his 43 years of power had one of the worst 
repressive regimes and anti-American regimes in the world.

[[Page 14130]]

And when we talked about POWs in Vietnam, this man hates the United 
States so badly that he sent torturers over to Vietnam to torture our 
POWs.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, regular order. I would ask for an 
additional 30 seconds for being interrupted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an additional 30 
seconds based on the interruptions.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the 
gentleman an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) controls 5 minutes. 
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) controls 5 minutes for 
consideration of this debate.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Point of inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  We have taken into consideration the interruption that took place in 
the gentleman's time. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes, and if the 
gentleman wishes to yield himself an additional 2 minutes, he is 
certainly welcome to do that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 
seconds.
  Fidel Castro sent torturers to torture American POWs half way around 
the world because he hates the United States of America. Everyone who 
has ever got into serious conversations with this man over his 40 years 
of rules has come away understanding this man has a visceral hatred for 
the United States of America.
  At this time when we are threatened by international terrorism, we 
should not be doing anything to strengthen his regime, whether it is 
permitting millions of people to go down there and spend money and bail 
him out or whether it is increasing the amount of money that Americans 
can send to Cuba.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close and would 
inquire does the opposition have an additional speaker.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will be closing now, I guess I 
should take my extra 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. It is my intent to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will have 2 
minutes to close debate and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) will have 2 minutes to close.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me use 30 seconds to praise my 
friend for being so courteous, and I thank the gentleman for that 
thought.

                              {time}  2128

  I think this is a vital discussion. Who would ever have thought that 
we would be living in this world 2 years ago. We live in a world where 
3,000 Americans have been slaughtered before our eyes. We live in a 
world where we understand that the bin Ladens are little kooks over 
there halfway around the world, living in a dictatorship like with the 
Taliban, can do us horrendous harm.
  We have nothing against the people of Cuba. The people of Cuba are 
wonderful people. In fact, if we are doing something against the people 
of Cuba's well-being, we have Cuban Americans with us who would be 
jumping up in order to protect their interests.
  No, the people of Cuba are our friends, just like the people of 
Communist China are our friends, but what we have to do is make sure we 
weaken the stranglehold these gangster regimes have on those people, 
and it is especially important for us to weaken that stranglehold on 
these regimes that are headed by monsters, Frankenstein monsters, who 
have a blood grudge against the United States of America. Nowhere is 
that more demonstrable than in Fidel Castro.
  Bin Laden hates us, but I will tell my colleagues that Fidel Castro's 
hatred of the United States is as equal to that of bin Laden, and there 
are countless quotes to suggest that.
  No, we do not want this man's regime to be maintained. We do not want 
to bail him out at the end just as his economy is about to collapse. We 
want to keep the pressure on. He has had 40 years of tyranny, 40 years 
of tyranny. If we were to let up on the Soviet Union after 40 years of 
tyranny and started letting them become part of the economy of the 
world, Communism would still be in power in the Soviet Union today and 
the Cold War would still be on.
  No, we want to keep a stranglehold on the Castro regime while 
reaching out to the people of Cuba.
  By the way, all of these restrictions can be eliminated just by the 
stroke of a pen. All Castro has to do is to permit free elections, 
permit opposition parties, permit the democratization of society. Then 
we will have all of these be eliminated.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate this debate. I appreciate the good words of my colleague 
from California. I cannot say that I disagree with any of them. Fidel 
Castro is a thug. We have said it again and again and again. What this 
debate is about is the best way to topple him, to make sure that he 
does not remain there longer than the 42 years that he has been in 
power. Let us get back to what this amendment really does.
  Currently, Cuban American families who live here in the United States 
are told by their government that they can be charitable but only so 
charitable. They are told that they can only send up to $100 a month to 
their family members in Cuba. I do not think that our government ought 
to be in the business of telling families how charitable they can be. 
This money is going directly to Cuban families.
  I asked someone who does not agree with my position on allowing 
tourists and others to go to Cuba, I asked him why he supported 
remittances, and the answer was, remittances are different. Remittances 
are subversive. I agree with that statement, not that they are 
different. Tourism, I believe, is subversive as well, but if 
remittances are subversive, then let us do a lot more subversing, I 
say, if that is a word. Let us be a lot more subversive. Let us allow 
families to send whatever they would like to their families in Cuba. 
That is not what this country is about, limiting family charity.
  That is all this amendment says. At the current time, families are 
allowed $1,200 a year. Currently, the State Department estimates that a 
lot more goes to Cuba. It goes in violation or it goes illegally. We 
should not make criminals out of families for wanting to help their 
families in Cuba.
  Let us support this amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to give 
the gentleman an extra 30 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if I can take it.
  The CHAIRMAN. We have a unanimous consent agreement under which we 
are operating here.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will 
be postponed.


             Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any sanction imposed by the United 
     States on private commercial sales of agricultural 
     commodities (as defined in section 402 of the Agriculture 
     Trade Developments and Assistance Act of 1954) or medicine or 
     medical supplies (within the meaning of section 1705(c) of 
     the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba

[[Page 14131]]

     (other than a sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one 
     or more other countries).
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For the Members of this House who were Members in July of 2000, this 
amendment will sound awfully familiar. Two years ago this month, I 
offered a similar amendment, in fact, nearly identical amendment, to 
the one I offer this evening to the Treasury Postal appropriations 
bill.
  This amendment would ban the implementation, the enforcement of the 
sanctions against the export of food, agriculture, commodities and 
medicine to the country of Cuba. The history of this amendment is such 
that this amendment passed 301 to 116 two years ago this month. A 
majority of Republican Members of Congress, a majority of Democrat 
Members of Congress supported this amendment.
  Ultimately, through efforts of the leadership of this House, along 
with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the Trades Sanction Reform Act of 2000 
was signed into law as part of the agricultural appropriations bill and 
trade on agricultural products, food and medicine was authorized in a 
limited fashion.
  Beginning last Thanksgiving, Cuba has purchased more than $100 
million worth of U.S. commodities. Thirty States have sourced 650,000 
metric tons of food to Cuba. Given the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, had 
the Committee on Rules allowed me to have a waiver of a point of order, 
I would have offered an amendment to clear up a number of problems that 
have arisen, not in creating problems for the country of Cuba but 
creating problems for our farmers, our ranchers and our companies that 
seek to export agriculture commodities, food and medicine.
  We have a myriad of restrictions related to the license, shipping, 
financing that, in my opinion, create only handicaps for us, not 
creating any kind of pressure on the country of Cuba, and so this 
amendment tonight is an attempt to again reaffirm our support as a 
Congress, as a House of Representatives for trade with the country of 
Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who rises in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  As we debate this amendment, it is imperative we focus and base our 
arguments on the facts and the reality of trading with the terrorist 
regime just 90 miles off the U.S. shores. Not only is the Castro regime 
a tyrannical one and one of the worst violators of the world, not only 
does the dictatorship use slave labor, not only does it force children 
to work in the farming sector as stated in the State Department human 
rights report, it has also proven to be an unworthy economic partner.
  Here are the facts which clearly show that Cuba is not, nor will it 
ever be, a panacea for American farmers and investors so long as the 
current regime is in place.
  In fact, number one, the Euromoney Country Risk Rating lists Cuba as 
one of the top five riskiest countries to invest in out of the 185 that 
they surveyed. Fact: Cuba is rated by Dunn and Bradstreet as one of the 
riskiest economies in the world. Fact: The Wall Street Journal's Index 
of Economic Freedom ranks Cuba as the most risky investment and as 
having the least free economy of the 156 countries surveyed. Fact: Cuba 
is already in default on $8.2 billion of its $11 billion debt.
  In April of this year, Mr. Chairman, three Chilean fish exporters 
stopped shipments to Cuba after Cuba failed to make an installment 
payment of $3.7 million on the $20 million deal.
  Also in April of this year, a South African company stopped shipments 
of its diesel engines to Cuba after the dictatorship failed to make the 
required payments on a 1997 contract.
  Even Venezuela has stopped oil shipments to Cuba because Cuba has 
accrued with them a $63 million debt, missing payment after payment on 
below-market sales of petroleum.
  It is imperative, Mr. Chairman, to maintain the precautions and the 
safeguards currently in place as part of U.S.-Cuba policy. The 
protection, Mr. Chairman, afforded by existing U.S. restrictions on 
trade with the Castro regime is a reality reaffirmed by the U.S. 
International Trade Commission. The ITC stated in its report that, 
existing U.S. laws, because they prohibit U.S. financial institutions' 
dealings with Cuba, ensured that there was no U.S. exposure to Cuba's 
foreign debt moratorium.
  The ITC report added that extending credits and financing to a 
bankrupt Castro regime would expose taxpayers to footing the bill once 
Cuba defaulted on its payments. We certainly do not want that.
  We as Members of Congress, Mr. Chairman, elected to represent and 
defend the interests of our constituents, cannot and must not support 
an amendment which would essentially force the American taxpayer to 
absorb such losses.
  And there is already cause for U.S. concern. Under the compromise 
language in the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, ag sales to Cuba have 
occurred. Yet despite repeated congressional inquiries, there has not 
been an independent or Government confirmation that payments have been 
received from Cuba.
  Before we support the unrestricted and unsupervised sales called for 
in the Moran amendment, would my colleagues not agree that it would be 
prudent to examine whether current regulations are being fully complied 
with? We should also pause, look to the experiences of others and learn 
from them in order to protect the American people.
  For example, the European Union recently wrote a 15-page letter of 
complaint to Cuba's so-called finance minister, Carlos Lage, citing the 
discriminatory and uncertain trading environment of the Castro regime. 
Do we want to subject American investors to loss of contracts, 
confiscation of machinery, equipment and financial investments or even 
jail time? This is not an exaggeration. These are well-documented 
tactics employed by the Castro regime to retaliate against investors 
who voice dissatisfaction with the dictatorship's policies.
  Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure.'' Thus to prevent the victimization of our farmers and 
investors at the hands of Castro's erratic and failed economic 
policies, we must uphold existing U.S. law.
  I ask my colleagues to champion the cause of hard-working Americans 
throughout this great Nation and prevent their from being used as 
experimental subjects to test Cuba's debt-filled waters. I ask for a no 
on the Moran amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that 42 years of trade 
embargoes with Cuba have not changed Cuban Government policies, have 
not changed North Korea, Sudan, Libya, or Syria.
  Forty years ago U.S. controlled most of the ag commodities in the 
world. The embargo might have had some impact at that time. Today we 
have a global economy. Countries simply buy elsewhere if we have an 
embargo. It costs us market share.
  A 2002 Texas A&M study showed that Cuba trade restrictions costs U.S. 
agriculture $1.24 billion annually and $5 billion for ag and ag-related 
business.
  Reaching back into my somewhat vague and sordid past, it seems to me 
that if someone ran the same play for 43 years and it did not work, 
maybe they would try something different. So

[[Page 14132]]

I would suggest that we might try that. Not asking to trade weapons, 
computer chips, petroleum or plutonium. We are simply saying that food 
and medicine does not jeopardize national security. It helps our 
country and our ag.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our 
time. How much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 30 
seconds remaining and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our 
time.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran). He has been a very strong leader in this House in 
supporting agriculture and not restricting the transfer of food and 
medicine to countries like Cuba, the sale of food and medicine by 
American farmers. He is part of the Cuba Working Group, a bipartisan 
group of 23 Republicans, 23 Democrats who have worked very hard to 
change this policy and bring a sensible policy to this country.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and teammate on the 
Cuba Working Group. We have heard mention many times today committees 
and communism and changing foreign policy. Months ago 23 Democrats and 
23 Republicans came together, formulating ideas, bringing them forward 
through amendments and bills, having meetings and working in a 
bipartisan way to try to accomplish some things. Tonight is the 
cumulation of that. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to reiterate to my colleagues that in a letter dated July 11, 
2002, Secretary of State, Colin Powell; and Paul O'Neill, Secretary of 
the Treasury, have made it very clear that, and I quote them. ``We are 
writing to reiterate the administration's strong opposition to any 
legislative efforts that weaken the United States' current Cuba policy 
by permitting U.S. citizens to finance the Cuban purchase of American 
agriculture commodities or by changing the restrictions on travel.''

                              {time}  2145

  They would recommend a veto if the legislation reaches his desk with 
those changes.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Moran amendment. I certainly respect my 
good friend and colleague, but I urge a ``no'' vote, nevertheless.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas has 1\1/4\ minutes to close.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time, and I again reiterate that this is a vote this body has taken. 
Because of the efforts of the gentleman from Washington and the 
gentlewoman from Missouri, we have changed policy in regard to 
agricultural trade with Cuba. But this House needs to reaffirm its 
position one more time.
  Every impediment that can be placed in the way of our farmers and 
ranchers and the businesses that deal in agriculture commodities in the 
trade with Cuba, every impediment has been placed in their way. It is 
not disadvantageous to Cuba, it is disadvantageous to Americans.
  As the gentleman from Nebraska said, for 42 years we have tried to 
change the policy. They might as well be spending their cash on behalf 
of American agriculture, on behalf of the farmers and ranchers of this 
country. And as we have seen, they have the ability to do so: $100 
million in cash payments coming to the United States to pay for 
agricultural products. The market is estimated to be $1 billion.
  And for those who had concerns about the farm bill, help us export 
our agriculture commodities. Help us create markets for the farmers and 
ranchers of this country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Rangel:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the economic 
     embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-114), except those provisions that relate to 
     the denial of foreign tax credits or to the implementation of 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed to the 
amendment each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  My colleagues, when the terrorists struck New York City, many of us 
recognized that the problems that we had as Republicans and Democrats, 
as blacks and whites, as Jew and gentile, was not nearly as important 
as working together as a city in order to show our defense against the 
people who struck against us. And so it was no surprise when we came to 
Congress to see that our President had thought that that would be the 
best thing for our Nation to do.
  So we joined hands with Afghanistan and Pakistan and many other 
countries that we had serious differences with, but, at the same time, 
when they declared that they were going to be our partners in the war 
against terrorism, we took their hands and we thought it would be 
better to fight the big war than to highlight our differences.
  How in God's name, at a time like this, can we really say that Castro 
and the Cubans, 90 miles from our shore, represent a threat to our 
national security when we know that they, too, have joined in this 
great war against terrorism? And how could it possibly be that we are 
prepared to say that they have different kinds of Communists in Cuba 
than the Communists that they have in North Korea or the Communists 
that they have in North Vietnam or the Communists that they have in 
Communist China?
  My colleagues, this has nothing to do with trade policy. It has 
nothing to do with foreign policy. There is no former high ranking 
State Department official that will tell us that this embargo is 
against everything that our great country believes in. So what is it 
about?
  It is about the State of Florida. It is about the sovereign State of 
Florida. It is about the politics of Florida. The President understands 
that. The Governor of Florida understands that. And I do not have a 
problem with anyone that comes from the State of Florida. They do what 
they have to do. But do not do it to my country. Do not allow local 
politics to influence what is in our national interests.
  If trade is good enough to break the barriers between people who do 
not understand the value of capitalism, if trade is what we want for 
people to be able to buy our wares and that we can buy theirs, if it is 
good enough for China, for the former Soviet Union, for communism 
around the world, tell me why not share it with the people of Cuba?
  If my colleagues want to bring down the Castro regime, let the people 
in Cuba smell democracy. Let us go there and speak to the people in 
Cuba. Let any American that wants to travel in Cuba be able to travel 
without any fear.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida seek to control the 
time in opposition to the Rangel amendment?

[[Page 14133]]


  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  We have a policy goal, and it is a policy that has been set not only 
by the President but by the Congress and codified into law and clearly 
espoused by President Bush in repeated statements: A free Cuba, 
achieved through a democratic transition, with the release of all 
political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, the 
press and labor unions, and the scheduling of free internationally 
supervised elections.
  Now that free Cuba will not oppress its people and it will not 
threaten its neighbors. The intelligence community, as I stated before, 
has said that ever since 1999 it has come to the conclusion that there 
is an offensive biological weapons program being developed by the Cuban 
regime. That has been made public now by the intelligence community, 
but the conclusion was reached as of 1999.
  Now, the director of the Soviet biological weapons program, Dr. 
Alibek, has written in his book that by 1990, the Soviets were 
absolutely convinced that Castro had an offensive biological weapons 
program. But we are led to believe by the people who are arguing to 
open up all the trades and open up all the credits and the tourism for 
the Castro dictatorship that not only our intelligence community is 
lying, not only is our intelligence community now not telling the 
truth, but the director of the Soviet program, who defected and who our 
experts say has provided more information on Soviet biological and 
chemical weapons programs than any other defector, that he is lying as 
well. So all of those people are lying and we should make that leap of 
faith and proceed to provide billions of dollars in trade and credit to 
the dictatorship.
  Now, the denial of the U.S. market to the Cuban regime and the 
conditioning of democratic reforms for the end of the embargo 
constitutes the most important leverage that exists for the democratic 
transition to take place. In a totally personalized dictatorship, like 
the Cuban one, when the dictator is gone from the scene, when he dies, 
or however he is gone from the scene, that situation invariably will 
change. It is like when Franco disappeared from the scene in Spain, or 
Oliveira, after 50 years of dictatorship in Portugal. Inevitably, those 
regimes were faced with a different dynamic.
  But in each of those cases where there was a democratic transition, 
there was some form of external pressure, some form of solidarity with 
those people demanding, requesting, encouraging, incentivizing a 
democratic transition. If we give the dictatorship the trade and 
tourism dollars it seeks now, Mr. Chairman, unilaterally, in exchange 
for no democratic reform, like the people proposing this amendment are 
saying, that we should unilaterally, without getting any sort of 
democratic reform for the Cuban people in exchange, if we do that, Mr. 
Chairman, we risk making that regime permanent. We risk the possibility 
of that regime outliving the dictator.
  Now, in addition, it is important to realize that the U.S. embargo 
has had collateral successes. The denial of resources for the 
dictatorship has made it much more difficult for the dictatorship to 
cooperate with terrorist organizations or to develop biological 
weapons. The denial of resources, the limitation of resources to the 
dictatorship has helped. But, in addition to that, and the most 
important aspect, is the leverage that must be retained for a 
democratic transition.
  Just like Europe insisted on democracy in Spain or Portugal, before 
Spain and Portugal could become part of what was then the European 
Economic Community, today we are saying liberate the political 
prisoners, legalize political parties, labor unions and the press, and 
hold an election.
  Now, why is the issue not the Cuban people's right to be free like 
everyone else in the hemisphere? Why is the issue not the Cuban people 
deserving to be free, just like in country after country after country 
colleagues have come to this floor asking for solidarity with those 
people? But, no, in the case of Cuba, it is different. In the case of 
Cuba, it is 43 years of dictatorship and of oppression, and the efforts 
are to get more trade and more dollars and more oxygen to that regime, 
instead of talking about the torture and the political prisoners. That 
is the reality.
  But the reality of the matter is that only in this hemisphere, Mr. 
Chairman, is there an international law requiring representative 
democracy. We always talk about examples from other hemispheres. There 
are multiple differences from the decentralization that has existed in 
other dictatorships in other hemispheres to the fact that in this 
hemisphere, and only in this hemisphere, does international law require 
representative democracy.
  I want to point out one other thing, and that is as follows, and I 
never thought I would come to this floor quoting the editorial board of 
The Washington Post, but I guess Ronald Reagan used to say never say 
never. Well, The Washington Post has, in a very dignified manner, has 
focused in on the efforts of the Cuban dissidents over the last year to 
call for reforms internally. Now, they have been very mild reforms that 
the dissidents have called for, and despite that the regime has 
answered with, if you will, a Maoist-style cultural revolution.
  The Washington Post has said that if Castro, as he has been, is 
unwilling to permit more political and economic freedom, then loosening 
the embargo risks strengthening and enriching Mr. Castro and the 
apparatchiks who surround him, while accomplishing little else.
  And with regard to that dissident petition, in which Castro answered 
with his Maoist-style cultural revolution, The Washington Post said, 
until it is granted, and obviously it has not been granted, no further 
easing of the embargo should be considered.
  Now this is a good-faith editorial board. And I would wish that some 
people would realize that times have changed and that the Cuban people 
deserve, like The Washington Post editorial board has said, solidarity.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  We have heard a lot of accusations tonight about Cuba and Castro. In 
fact, if I may just make a comment, the only things Cuba and Castro 
have not been blamed for are the Chicago fire, the San Francisco 
earthquake, the stock market crash of 1929, or the one that is coming 
soon, if we are not careful.
  The point here is my colleagues could spend all the time they want 
telling us how bad Cuba is, but we took a vote tonight on Vietnam which 
was so lopsided to make the point that we cannot continue just to 
single out Cuba.
  Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct, and I do 
not want to be repetitious of his comments, but this is about the State 
of Florida. I do not feel bad about that. I wish I had that kind of 
power for one county in one State to control foreign policy on one 
issue. I wish the Bronx had that kind of power, but we do not.
  The fact of life is that this Rangel/Serrano amendment sends the 
message that it is time to change this policy. We no longer have any 
moral justification for keeping an embargo on Cuba while we deal with 
China, Vietnam, Korea, and every other country in the world. Well, my 
God, our allies in the war on terrorism are people who, in so many 
ways, have behaved towards this country 10 times worse than anything 
Cuba or Castro have ever said about us, and we still deal with them.

                              {time}  2200

  Now some of the facts will come out in the next few weeks because we 
do not have the time here tonight. Castro offered to help us with the 
war on terrorism, and we refused it. AP reported that. The Washington 
Post reported that. The New York Times reported that. We refused the 
help.
  Cuba has sent to us three individuals in the last year who were 
wanted in

[[Page 14134]]

this country. They have asked in return, not as a quid pro quo, for us 
to return a couple of hijackers that we have had here for over 20 years 
from Cuba, and we have not done it. No one mentions that tonight. No 
one mentions it is a one-sided issue all of the time.
  This is not about Fidel Castro and communism, this is about a stupid 
outdated policy that says in the Caribbean we are going to single out 
this island, and in the rest of the world, we will not. And it is 
across the board. I asked my favorite President a couple of years ago, 
Bill Clinton, why China and not Cuba. He said China is big. I 
understand that. Cuba is small. But children in Cuba are no less 
important than children in Vietnam or China. Let us treat them all 
equally. We have no justification for this.
  We can lift the embargo and who knows, that governor in Florida may 
still get reelected, so there is no need to play Florida politics 
tonight. Let us do what is right.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for offering this very commonsense amendment, and I urge 
Members to support this amendment which really would cut funds to 
continue to aid the United States embargo on Cuba.
  It is long overdue that the United States lift its 40-year embargo 
against this small island nation. We have seen that this embargo has 
done more harm than good. It is a grave injustice to the people of the 
United States and to the people in Cuba.
  I have participated in many fact-finding delegations to Cuba and have 
seen firsthand the devastation and the suffering that the embargo has 
created on that island nation only 90 miles from our shore. One vivid 
image which haunts me is of a child in need of dialysis treatment, 
struggling to stay alive, his future was uncertain because of his 
inability to acquire a replacement part for the sole dialysis machine 
in his town. The embargo prevented a United States-made part from 
reaching this innocent child.
  The American people and the United States Congress have voiced their 
support for lifting this archaic and antiquated embargo. Even the 
majority of the dissidents in Cuba believe that the embargo should end. 
They understand that the way to democracy in Cuba can be accomplished 
through a policy of engagement with the people of Cuba rather than the 
current policy which isolates the small island nation which just 
happens to be an Afro-Hispanic country.
  By maintaining the embargo against Cuba, the United States is 
limiting important trade opportunities, which we have heard tonight, 
including food and medicine sales.
  In addition, we have severely limited the ability of Americans to 
travel to Cuba, and this is just basically downright wrong.
  Economists have verified that if the embargo toward Cuba were lifted, 
the U.S. economy would gain $1.24 billion in agricultural exports and 
$3.6 billion in related economic output. In addition, we would create 
thousands of jobs in our country from the tourism sector.
  I am convinced that we must build a bridge in our own struggle for 
human rights and equality which happens to be a country 90 miles away. 
Let us lift this embargo.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate with great 
interest tonight, and have heard my amendment seriously 
mischaracterized. I would like to point out that the amendment merely 
is a safeguard for America and American national security. If 
everything is all right and the President certifies everything is all 
right, then there is no problem. But if everything is not all right, 
then there is a problem. I think Members would agree that national 
security for the United States of America and Americans is our first 
priority.
  I want to point out that the nation of Cuba has been about the most 
aggressive spying on the United States of America. We have now 
convicted 17 spies in the past year or two. I do not know the exact 
number, but that is close. Certainly the highest-ranking analyst at the 
Department of Defense in the DIA has recently been apprehended and has 
been a long-time spy for Fidel Castro's Cuba. These are not friendly 
motives. These are harmful to the national security. Those are the 
kinds of things that we are worried about.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the most important 
part of this discussion tonight is trying to get the United States of 
America consistent in its foreign policy, and to recognize that the 
amendment offered by the two gentlemen from New York makes a lot of 
sense to provide the kind of security that we are seeking as we debate 
homeland security this week.
  Ninety miles away from the United States lies the island of Cuba. 
People there have viewed the United States more as an adversary rather 
than a friend. But when we speak directly to the Cuban people, they 
want to engage with the United States. As I stand here tonight, I have 
constituents in Cuba who are involved in cultural exchange and who are 
being trained to be medical physicians, the same as Cuba has done to 
send these physicians all over the world to help those in need.
  As I stand here today, it is important to note that there is a strong 
religious community in Cuba, but yet the United States, its foreign 
policy, will ensure friendship with China and Vietnam, but it opposes 
the friendship with Cuba.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members tonight to not be part 
of what Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick calls the ``blame America first'' 
crowd, and that is what we have in front of us in the Rangel amendment.
  The sole mastermind behind Castro's degrading treatment of its own 
citizens is himself. Fidel Castro. Yet this amendment says if we lift 
the embargo, all will be swell in Cuba. That means U.S. policy is to 
blame for all of the misery in Cuba that we have discussed tonight. But 
our policy does not create the lack of due process.
  Our policy does not say that independent journalists and independent 
libraries are banned in Cuba. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy 
does not maintain a system of remote and unmonitored gulags for 
prisoners of conscience. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy does 
not forbid independent labor unions. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our 
policy is not the cause of systematic mistreatment of religious 
believers. That is Fidel Castro's policy. Our policy is not to punish 
nonviolent opposition movement leaders. That is Fidel Castro's policy. 
We do not say that community activists and dissidents are going to be 
harassed, prosecuted and persecuted. That is Fidel Castro's policy.
  The embargo is not what drives a police officer to beat unconscious a 
political prisoner who is on a hunger strike. That is Fidel Castro's 
policy. That is not U.S. policy. Our policy does not mandate the 
summary execution of independent journalists and conscientious 
objectors. That is Fidel Castro's policy.
  Do not confuse the issue. Do not be part of Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 
``blame America first'' crowd. It is Fidel Castro that is at fault, not 
the U.S. embargo.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, by hearing the other side on this issue, we would seem 
to believe that they were talking with Costa Rica or Panama or some 
other country where there is a functioning democracy where there is no 
state sponsorship of terrorism. The reality is that Fidel Castro is the 
only world leader who has ever called for a nuclear first strike 
against the United States.
  He is the only world leader who has ever called for a first strike 
against the United States, but they may say he is a kindly old 
grandfather now. He is a

[[Page 14135]]

good guy, so let us reward him. That is what the Rangel amendment is 
seeking to do.
  But wait a minute, 2 days ago in Greece, the head terrorist that was 
arrested there, Alexandros Yiotopoulos, for bombing numerous people in 
Greece and throughout that part of the world, where was he trained? He 
was trained by Fidel Castro's Cuba. And the Jewish community center 
bombed in Argentina in 1994 by the Iranians, where did they assemble? 
They assembled in Cuba, flew to Paraguay, crossed the border with fake 
passports, and fled back to Cuba after the attack. The bombers hid in 
Cuba for several months after the attack, and still have impugnity.
  And the kindly old grandfather goes further. In 2001, the IRA 
terrorists arrested in Colombia for training the FARC terrorists there 
in sophisticated urban bomb warfare, where were they based? In Cuba. 
Reward Castro for torturing the Cuban people and oppressing the Cuban 
people and being the only state sponsor of terrorism in this 
hemisphere, vote no on the Rangel amendment. Vote yes on Goss, no on 
the other amendments.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for the purpose of closing.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, it is time to lift the embargo and stop the 
blockade. The Castro-haters took this floor tonight to talk about 
limiting travel. But Members of Congress go to Cuba whenever they want 
to go. People are going to Cuba from all over America. Jimmy Carter was 
there, the Pope was there. Let the other American people go who want to 
go.
  People talked about limiting the remittances, but Members of Congress 
go to Cuba and they take the money to their families, all of the money 
that they want to give to them. Let us be fair to all of the families 
in Cuba. Let us stop strangling the trade. Cuba wants to trade. Trade 
is the cornerstone of capitalism. Members say that is what they want. 
That is what Fidel Castro wants.
  It is time to allow our agricultural products and our medical 
products to be sold. China is there. Canada is there. Germany is there. 
American business people need the opportunity to be there. What is all 
of this fear? We do not really fear Fidel Castro. Lift the embargo.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Rangel of New York, which bans 
all funding to the Treasury Department for enforcement of the embargo 
against Cuba.
  Forty years ago, the world order was strikingly different than today. 
We were in the midst of the Cold War, fighting communism from spreading 
its tentacles around the world. With Cuba so close to our shores, it 
was good public policy THEN to impose an embargo. However, I am 
reminded of the song ``The Times They are A-Changin''--and they have.
  The embargo has not achieved its goals. The same regime rules Cuba 
now as ruled four decades ago; the Cubans do not have human or civil 
rights; American citizens are denied their right to travel; and the 
economic consequences to American farmers and the travel industry are 
significant.
  Let's lift the embargo and move toward normal commercial and 
diplomatic relations with Cuba. Let the Cuban people see what 
democracy's all about.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: The amendment printed in House Report 
107-585 by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss); amendment No. 1 by 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake); amendment No. 20 by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake); and amendment No. 5 by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment printed in House Report 107-585 offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 247, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--182

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--247

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood

[[Page 14136]]


     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bonior
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Stearns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1037

  Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LUCAS of Kentucky, ENGLISH, GARY B. MILLER of California, 
SWEENEY, FORBES and RYUN of Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 167, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               AYES--262

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Callahan
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--167

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Brown (FL)
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bonior
     DeFazio
     Stearns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1046

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 177, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--251

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci

[[Page 14137]]


     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--177

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bonior
     DeFazio
     Goodlatte
     Hansen
     Stearns
     Traficant

                              {time}  2254

  Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 332, I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Rangel

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 226, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--226

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English

[[Page 14138]]


     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bonior
     DeFazio
     Stearns
     Traficant

                              {time}  2301

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5120) making 
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal 
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent 
Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________