Description: H.Amdt. 404 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds in the bill to implement or enforce sections 193 or 414 which relate to limiting air and ferry travel to Cuba. Submitted by Rep. Barbara Lee
Ayes favored allowing commercial flights and ferry service to Cuba. Noes supported effort by Rep Mario Diaz-Balard to block them. (debate below vote tally)
| Abraham Aguilar Amash Ashford Bass Beatty Becerra Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Bonamici Boustany Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capps Capuano Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chaffetz Chu, Judy Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Crawford Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny Davis, Rodney DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Duckworth Edwards Ellison Emmer (MN) Engel Eshoo Esty | Farr Fattah Fincher Foster Fudge Gabbard Gallego Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Hahn Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Hinojosa Honda Hoyer Huelskamp Huffman Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Jolly Jones Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kuster Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lee Levin Lewis Lieu, Ted Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Luján, Ben Ray (NM) Lummis Lynch Maloney, Carolyn Massie Matsui McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore | Moulton Mulvaney Nadler Napolitano Neal Nolan O'Rourke Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Peterson Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Rangel Ribble Rice (NY) Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanford Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schweikert Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Sinema Slaughter Smith (MO) Smith (WA) Speier Swalwell (CA) Takai Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Velázquez Visclosky Walz Waters, Maxine Welch Yarmuth |
| Aderholt Allen Amodei Babin Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blum Bost Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Cárdenas Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Clawson (FL) Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comstock Conaway Connolly Cook Costello (PA) Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Curbelo (FL) Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Deutch Diaz-Balart Dold Donovan Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers (NC) Farenthold Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Frankel (FL) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Garamendi Garrett Gibbs Gibson Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Graham Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Grayson Griffith Grothman Guinta | Guthrie Gutiérrez Hanna Hardy Harper Harris Hartzler Hastings Heck (NV) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Hill Holding Hudson Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurd (TX) Hurt (VA) Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jordan Joyce Katko Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kirkpatrick Kline Knight Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Latta Lipinski LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lucas Luetkemeyer MacArthur Maloney, Sean Marchant Marino McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McSally Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Murphy (FL) Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Newhouse Noem Norcross Nunes Olson Palazzo Pallone Palmer Pascrell Paulsen Payne Pearce Perry | Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Poliquin Pompeo Posey Price, Tom Quigley Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney (FL) Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce Russell Ryan (WI) Salmon Scalise Schrader Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Sherman Shimkus Shuster Simpson Sires Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Stefanik Stivers Stutzman Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Vela Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (FL) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Young (IN) Zeldin Zinke |
| Boyle, Brendan F. |
| Adams Brady (TX) Cramer | Doyle, Michael F. Jackson Lee Nugent | Stewart Tiberi |
Ms. LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to administer, implement, or enforce section 193
or section 414 of this Act.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
the reading to be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Sanford for his leadership
as it relates to this amendment and helping us try to end these
outdated and failed policies toward Cuba. I rise in support of our
amendment, and I am very proud to cosponsor this simple, bipartisan
amendment. This amendment would strike two provisions included in this
bill that would further limit travel to and from Cuba via flights and
ferries. Not only are these provisions inappropriate policy riders,
they would deny Americans the right to travel to Cuba.
I understand some of my colleagues, including our subcommittee chair,
have a personal interest in Cuba, yet personal interest should not
stall progress nor interfere with what is good for the American people.
I am joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a
diverse coalition of organizations and businesses in strong opposition
to this and other attempts to undermine efforts to normalize relations
with Cuba.
Not only are the current provisions in this bill wrong for diplomacy,
they are patently antibusiness. That is why this amendment is supported
by the United States Chamber of Commerce, Orbitz, the American Society
of Travel Agents, and the broad-based coalition Engage Cuba.
These provisions that are currently in the bill set us back 50 years.
They would eliminate flights that airlines have already invested in and
would kill a new market for maritime carriers. Simply put, these
provisions are an affront to Americans' basic freedom. Cuba is the only
country in the world, including North Korea, Iran, China, and Vietnam,
where Americans cannot freely travel. The President's announcement to
expand travel was a step in the right direction.
We should be passing the bipartisan and bicameral Freedom to Travel
to Cuba Act, H.R. 664, which I am proud to cosponsor with my colleague
Mr. Sanford, rather than moving backwards with these misguided
provisions.
Opponents to normalize the relations are quick to claim that renewed
engagement somehow rewards the Cuban Government. That couldn't be more
wrong. In order to engage on issues like human rights and democracy,
Americans should be able to do just that. This amendment allows that.
Those who are serious about moving our relations forward to the
betterment of both Americans and Cubans know that increased exchange
and formalized relations are the path we need to be on. A majority of
Americans and Cubans agree: we need a 21st century approach to our
relations with this nation 90 miles away from our shores.
[[Page H3889]]
This is 2015, my colleagues, not 1960. The rest of the world is doing
business with Cuba, allows its citizens to travel to Cuba, and also has
normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. The United States is isolated.
This amendment begins to thaw that freeze and to keep our country
moving forward in this next decade and, further, to become part of the
world family who understands that Americans should, like other citizens
in other countries, have a right to travel wherever they so desire.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I intend to strike the
last word so as to give the speakers more time.
Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, my comments will be brief. It is quite simple. The
concept is this: if I travel on Delta Airlines to Moscow, it does not
mean that I support Putin; if I travel on Royal Caribbean to Shanghai,
it does not mean I support the Chinese regime.
This bill is fundamentally, as my colleague from California has
pointed out, about Americans' right to travel. It is, secondarily,
about something we talk about as Republicans, which is balance of
power. If we don't want the President overstepping his bounds, we
shouldn't overstep our bounds as Members of Congress. That is precisely
what this bill does in trying to proscribe the President, though he has
full authority within the licensing, within the Department of Commerce,
to do as he has done.
Finally, I think it is about American opportunity. Why should we have
Canadian or Mexican jets traveling to a country that we are allowed to
travel to rather than American jets?
Ms. LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, just a couple things from the debate
that we have heard. The sponsor of the amendment talked about that this
may be a personal issue for some. Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank
and very clear: this is not a personal issue.
Let me also talk about what the language in the bill does that this
amendment is trying to take out. It doesn't deal with the overriding
issue of policy versus whether we like the President's policy or not.
It deals with one specific issue and one specific issue only, Mr.
Chairman: whether we should condone, whether we should approve, whether
we should permit the trafficking of confiscated--in other words,
stolen--property.
When the gentleman from my side of the aisle said that, you know,
this is an issue about traveling to other countries, when we travel to
Russia, we should be able to do that, that is fine. But is he also
saying, which is what this amendment says, that we should condone the
use of stolen, confiscated property, property that was stolen and
confiscated illegally from Americans? So if you support this amendment,
Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is it is okay to do business on
property that was stolen from Americans.
Now, I can understand having differences of opinion on overall
policy, but the language in the mark deals specifically with
confiscated--in other words, stolen--properties from Americans. For the
life of me, I would never understand how anybody can justify doing
business on confiscated, stolen property and then try to obfuscate the
issue talking about policy, which is not what is in the mark.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a distinguished gentlewoman from the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As the chairman points out, do we really want to trample on the
property rights of innocent Americans whose properties were illegally
stolen by the Cuban regime?
The gentleman from South Carolina is correct, the concept is simple,
but the concept he doesn't seem to understand is this: it is not about
travel to Cuba. This is about protecting American properties that were
illegally seized by the Castro government. We are selling out these
legitimate property claims to thousands of American citizens. Respect
for private property rights, Mr. Chairman, has been a consistent
American policy since the founding of our Republic.
The Cuban regime illegally confiscated property from American
citizens. Our citizens have not been compensated, and we know there is
no respect for the rule of law in Cuba. If an American's property has
been seized, what does that American do? Well, there is no fair court
for recess. Let me tell you what the Inter-American Law Review has
noted about the Cuban regime's confiscation of U.S. assets. It says it
is the ``largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign
government in history.''
So this is what this amendment is about. If this amendment to strike
the use of confiscated property were to pass, we would be, in essence,
allowing and condoning the trafficking of stolen goods. Currently,
there are over 8,800 claims certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, which is under the U.S. Department of Justice. American
citizens whose properties were seized illegally--almost 9,000 have
filed claims--the Castro regime doesn't care. These certified claims,
are they just small? No. They are worth approximately $8 billion.
This body must protect the interests of those citizens, of all of our
citizens, so I implore our colleagues to not support these misguided
attempts to normalize relations with the Cuban regime on the backs of
American citizens. We are better than that. We must not allow this
amendment to pass. We are about protecting American private property
rights. This language in the bill protects American citizens,
constituents that we represent in our congressional districts.
Is this Chamber really going to side with a Communist tyrant in Cuba
over American citizens? The Cuban regime should not be allowed to use
American properties stolen from our citizens for its commercial
benefit. If the U.S. endorses such a practice, what message will we be
sending to other rogue regimes who would love to be confiscating
American properties?
So, if we want to help the Cuban people, and I am sure that all of us
do, let's not give their oppressors more resources to violate their
rights. We are here to protect private property rights of American
citizens. We must reject this amendment, and rather than striking the
provisions directly, which my colleagues could have done, they are
offering limitation amendments that would prohibit funds to enforce
those same provisions. Let's not do this.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's not trample on
the rights of American citizens.
{time} 1015
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Three quick points. If you follow this logic, then no
American plane should fly into Saigon, no American plane should fly
into China, no American plane should fly into Russia, because indeed
property was confiscated at the time of the Russian revolution, the
Chinese taking, or, for that matter, what happened in Vietnam. There
are American properties there.
This is not about American property rights. This is about
legalistically trying to undo that which has been changed.
The other thing it is about is, again, legalism. What the bill
actually says is if a boat docks in the previous 180 days within 7
miles of a port or property where there may be land somewhere
connected.
This is a legalistic attempt to undo what the President has proposed.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from California has
expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
[[Page H3890]]
word in order to express my strong support for this amendment and my
appreciation to our colleague from California for offering it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is the bill, and the language that we are trying
to strike out reads: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation originating from
the United States if such flights would land on, or pass through,
property confiscated by the Cuban Government, including property in
which a minority interest was confiscated, as the terms confiscated,
the Cuban Government, and property are defined in'' the paragraphs
below.
This is just a job killer for Americans. We have a hundred thousand
Americans who are visiting Cuba illegally. You know how they get there?
They go to Mexico. Who gets the business? Mexican airlines. They go to
Canada. Who gets the business? Canadian airlines. Or, any other country
in the world that has normal travel relationships with Cuba.
You are just cutting off the ability for American enterprise to get
access to Cuba, where everybody wants to go, because there are family
feuds going on here, because it is including property which has a
minority interest.
How are the airlines, how are the people going to decide what
property has been confiscated, who is the ownership title? Those are
big legalistic problems in the United States when we confiscate
property to build freeways or railways.
This amendment really screws up the ability for America to be
involved in a business that Americans want to do. They want to travel.
Censorship of American travel--this is just ridiculous in these days.
What is the message to the world? Do we prohibit our citizens from
going to countries that are communist countries? You can go to Vietnam,
China, and Russia, but you can't go to Cuba because there is a lot of
feuding going on in Florida.
In fact, Florida is going to benefit from this because where are the
airports that these scheduled airlines are going to leave from? They
are Tampa, they are Miami, the businesses in your State.
So if you want to give American jobs to Americans, and you want
commerce to occur, and you don't want to continue this censorship of
Cuba, then vote for this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. A couple of points I would just like to make.
First of all, confiscated property 50 years-plus ago should be part
of negotiations in terms of bilateral discussions as it relates to
normalizing relations with Cuba. What is in this bill right now is what
we have indicated, and which is why we offer this amendment.
This bill prohibits Americans from traveling to Cuba. It eliminates
jobs in America, and it eliminates economic growth through our maritime
industry and our airline industry.
Once again, all of the issues that occurred 50 years ago are subject
to discussion based on any bilateral negotiations taking place.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Could I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) has
45 seconds remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just make three last points. As was correctly pointed out by
my colleague from California, indeed this is about American jobs. It
indeed is about, again, this larger notion of private property rights.
I would stand my private property rights record up to anybody. I
believe strongly in private property rights and legal code, which is
why Ms. Lee is correct: should there be bilateral relations between
Cuba and the United States, this would be part of that discussion.
But the idea of creating a legal hurdle for an airline not to be able
to fly from Miami or Tampa to Havana--and instead, those jobs go to
other places around the globe--makes no sense to me.
Finally, I would simply say this. We have tried 50 years of one
policy, and it hasn't worked. It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged
travel to the Eastern Bloc countries. I think it would make sense in
this instance.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has
expired.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of things that, by
the way, you will notice, at very few times actually deal with language
in the mark, the language in the bill. By the way, for example, that
this is going to hurt American jobs.
To argue, Mr. Chairman, that American companies will benefit from
trafficking in stolen property that was stolen from American companies
I think is probably the definition of an oxymoron, number one.
Number two, there is a lot of obfuscation. The language in the bill
doesn't say that Americans can't travel. The language says that they
cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from, property that was stolen
from Americans. Stolen from Americans.
So I understand that the gentleman says that his property rights
record is as good as any, but, Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill
deals with a specific issue, and one specific issue alone: Should we
condone, should we allow, should we permit, should we encourage the
trafficking, the profiting from stolen property--property that was
confiscated from Americans, whether there are certified claims or not.
If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is
okay for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from Americans,
illegally stolen from Americans. I think, frankly, that is a sad day.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to come here to the floor and listen
to colleagues who struggle to support free trade agreements with our
allies come to the floor and advocate for expanded trade with one of
our enemies, taking advantage of properties stolen from American
citizens.
I heard that we have a personal interest in this matter--and I do. I
am an American citizen. I was born here. And I want to do justice by
American property owners.
Shouldn't we resolve these 8,818 claims before proceeding? Shouldn't
we do justice by these families, these businesses whose property was
stolen with no due process, with no hearing by the Castro government?
Whose side are we on, Mr. Chairman? That is the question here. As
Americans, do we want to be on the side of those who were aggrieved by
a tyrannical regime--American citizens--or do we want to reward that
regime by allowing others now to profit over those stolen properties?
That is the question that we need to ask ourselves today.
This is not about travel. No one is here advocating for restricting
travel to Cuba. Many people travel to Cuba today legally, and that
would not change. But I cannot stand for violating the property rights
of my fellow American citizens.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, again, before I yield back, as Mr.
Curbelo just mentioned, this is not an issue of travel. This is not an
issue of the overriding policy. This is not an issue of even arguing
whether President Obama has been a good negotiator or a horrible
negotiator on anything. This is about whether we want to condone,
permit, accept, in violation of everything that the United States
stands for, the trafficking of stolen property, property illegally
confiscated from American citizens.
If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are supporting, you
are condoning, you are assisting, you are helping trafficking and the
profiting on property that was stolen from Americans.
This cannot stand. This should not stand. I would respectfully ask
for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
[[Page H3891]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to administer, implement, or enforce section 193
or section 414 of this Act.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that
the reading to be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Sanford for his leadership
as it relates to this amendment and helping us try to end these
outdated and failed policies toward Cuba. I rise in support of our
amendment, and I am very proud to cosponsor this simple, bipartisan
amendment. This amendment would strike two provisions included in this
bill that would further limit travel to and from Cuba via flights and
ferries. Not only are these provisions inappropriate policy riders,
they would deny Americans the right to travel to Cuba.
I understand some of my colleagues, including our subcommittee chair,
have a personal interest in Cuba, yet personal interest should not
stall progress nor interfere with what is good for the American people.
I am joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a
diverse coalition of organizations and businesses in strong opposition
to this and other attempts to undermine efforts to normalize relations
with Cuba.
Not only are the current provisions in this bill wrong for diplomacy,
they are patently antibusiness. That is why this amendment is supported
by the United States Chamber of Commerce, Orbitz, the American Society
of Travel Agents, and the broad-based coalition Engage Cuba.
These provisions that are currently in the bill set us back 50 years.
They would eliminate flights that airlines have already invested in and
would kill a new market for maritime carriers. Simply put, these
provisions are an affront to Americans' basic freedom. Cuba is the only
country in the world, including North Korea, Iran, China, and Vietnam,
where Americans cannot freely travel. The President's announcement to
expand travel was a step in the right direction.
We should be passing the bipartisan and bicameral Freedom to Travel
to Cuba Act, H.R. 664, which I am proud to cosponsor with my colleague
Mr. Sanford, rather than moving backwards with these misguided
provisions.
Opponents to normalize the relations are quick to claim that renewed
engagement somehow rewards the Cuban Government. That couldn't be more
wrong. In order to engage on issues like human rights and democracy,
Americans should be able to do just that. This amendment allows that.
Those who are serious about moving our relations forward to the
betterment of both Americans and Cubans know that increased exchange
and formalized relations are the path we need to be on. A majority of
Americans and Cubans agree: we need a 21st century approach to our
relations with this nation 90 miles away from our shores.
[[Page H3889]]
This is 2015, my colleagues, not 1960. The rest of the world is doing
business with Cuba, allows its citizens to travel to Cuba, and also has
normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. The United States is isolated.
This amendment begins to thaw that freeze and to keep our country
moving forward in this next decade and, further, to become part of the
world family who understands that Americans should, like other citizens
in other countries, have a right to travel wherever they so desire.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I intend to strike the
last word so as to give the speakers more time.
Ms. LEE. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, my comments will be brief. It is quite simple. The
concept is this: if I travel on Delta Airlines to Moscow, it does not
mean that I support Putin; if I travel on Royal Caribbean to Shanghai,
it does not mean I support the Chinese regime.
This bill is fundamentally, as my colleague from California has
pointed out, about Americans' right to travel. It is, secondarily,
about something we talk about as Republicans, which is balance of
power. If we don't want the President overstepping his bounds, we
shouldn't overstep our bounds as Members of Congress. That is precisely
what this bill does in trying to proscribe the President, though he has
full authority within the licensing, within the Department of Commerce,
to do as he has done.
Finally, I think it is about American opportunity. Why should we have
Canadian or Mexican jets traveling to a country that we are allowed to
travel to rather than American jets?
Ms. LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, just a couple things from the debate
that we have heard. The sponsor of the amendment talked about that this
may be a personal issue for some. Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank
and very clear: this is not a personal issue.
Let me also talk about what the language in the bill does that this
amendment is trying to take out. It doesn't deal with the overriding
issue of policy versus whether we like the President's policy or not.
It deals with one specific issue and one specific issue only, Mr.
Chairman: whether we should condone, whether we should approve, whether
we should permit the trafficking of confiscated--in other words,
stolen--property.
When the gentleman from my side of the aisle said that, you know,
this is an issue about traveling to other countries, when we travel to
Russia, we should be able to do that, that is fine. But is he also
saying, which is what this amendment says, that we should condone the
use of stolen, confiscated property, property that was stolen and
confiscated illegally from Americans? So if you support this amendment,
Mr. Chairman, what you are saying is it is okay to do business on
property that was stolen from Americans.
Now, I can understand having differences of opinion on overall
policy, but the language in the mark deals specifically with
confiscated--in other words, stolen--properties from Americans. For the
life of me, I would never understand how anybody can justify doing
business on confiscated, stolen property and then try to obfuscate the
issue talking about policy, which is not what is in the mark.
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a distinguished gentlewoman from the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As the chairman points out, do we really want to trample on the
property rights of innocent Americans whose properties were illegally
stolen by the Cuban regime?
The gentleman from South Carolina is correct, the concept is simple,
but the concept he doesn't seem to understand is this: it is not about
travel to Cuba. This is about protecting American properties that were
illegally seized by the Castro government. We are selling out these
legitimate property claims to thousands of American citizens. Respect
for private property rights, Mr. Chairman, has been a consistent
American policy since the founding of our Republic.
The Cuban regime illegally confiscated property from American
citizens. Our citizens have not been compensated, and we know there is
no respect for the rule of law in Cuba. If an American's property has
been seized, what does that American do? Well, there is no fair court
for recess. Let me tell you what the Inter-American Law Review has
noted about the Cuban regime's confiscation of U.S. assets. It says it
is the ``largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign
government in history.''
So this is what this amendment is about. If this amendment to strike
the use of confiscated property were to pass, we would be, in essence,
allowing and condoning the trafficking of stolen goods. Currently,
there are over 8,800 claims certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, which is under the U.S. Department of Justice. American
citizens whose properties were seized illegally--almost 9,000 have
filed claims--the Castro regime doesn't care. These certified claims,
are they just small? No. They are worth approximately $8 billion.
This body must protect the interests of those citizens, of all of our
citizens, so I implore our colleagues to not support these misguided
attempts to normalize relations with the Cuban regime on the backs of
American citizens. We are better than that. We must not allow this
amendment to pass. We are about protecting American private property
rights. This language in the bill protects American citizens,
constituents that we represent in our congressional districts.
Is this Chamber really going to side with a Communist tyrant in Cuba
over American citizens? The Cuban regime should not be allowed to use
American properties stolen from our citizens for its commercial
benefit. If the U.S. endorses such a practice, what message will we be
sending to other rogue regimes who would love to be confiscating
American properties?
So, if we want to help the Cuban people, and I am sure that all of us
do, let's not give their oppressors more resources to violate their
rights. We are here to protect private property rights of American
citizens. We must reject this amendment, and rather than striking the
provisions directly, which my colleagues could have done, they are
offering limitation amendments that would prohibit funds to enforce
those same provisions. Let's not do this.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let's not trample on
the rights of American citizens.
{time} 1015
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Three quick points. If you follow this logic, then no
American plane should fly into Saigon, no American plane should fly
into China, no American plane should fly into Russia, because indeed
property was confiscated at the time of the Russian revolution, the
Chinese taking, or, for that matter, what happened in Vietnam. There
are American properties there.
This is not about American property rights. This is about
legalistically trying to undo that which has been changed.
The other thing it is about is, again, legalism. What the bill
actually says is if a boat docks in the previous 180 days within 7
miles of a port or property where there may be land somewhere
connected.
This is a legalistic attempt to undo what the President has proposed.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from California has
expired.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
[[Page H3890]]
word in order to express my strong support for this amendment and my
appreciation to our colleague from California for offering it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is the bill, and the language that we are trying
to strike out reads: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation originating from
the United States if such flights would land on, or pass through,
property confiscated by the Cuban Government, including property in
which a minority interest was confiscated, as the terms confiscated,
the Cuban Government, and property are defined in'' the paragraphs
below.
This is just a job killer for Americans. We have a hundred thousand
Americans who are visiting Cuba illegally. You know how they get there?
They go to Mexico. Who gets the business? Mexican airlines. They go to
Canada. Who gets the business? Canadian airlines. Or, any other country
in the world that has normal travel relationships with Cuba.
You are just cutting off the ability for American enterprise to get
access to Cuba, where everybody wants to go, because there are family
feuds going on here, because it is including property which has a
minority interest.
How are the airlines, how are the people going to decide what
property has been confiscated, who is the ownership title? Those are
big legalistic problems in the United States when we confiscate
property to build freeways or railways.
This amendment really screws up the ability for America to be
involved in a business that Americans want to do. They want to travel.
Censorship of American travel--this is just ridiculous in these days.
What is the message to the world? Do we prohibit our citizens from
going to countries that are communist countries? You can go to Vietnam,
China, and Russia, but you can't go to Cuba because there is a lot of
feuding going on in Florida.
In fact, Florida is going to benefit from this because where are the
airports that these scheduled airlines are going to leave from? They
are Tampa, they are Miami, the businesses in your State.
So if you want to give American jobs to Americans, and you want
commerce to occur, and you don't want to continue this censorship of
Cuba, then vote for this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. A couple of points I would just like to make.
First of all, confiscated property 50 years-plus ago should be part
of negotiations in terms of bilateral discussions as it relates to
normalizing relations with Cuba. What is in this bill right now is what
we have indicated, and which is why we offer this amendment.
This bill prohibits Americans from traveling to Cuba. It eliminates
jobs in America, and it eliminates economic growth through our maritime
industry and our airline industry.
Once again, all of the issues that occurred 50 years ago are subject
to discussion based on any bilateral negotiations taking place.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Could I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) has
45 seconds remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just make three last points. As was correctly pointed out by
my colleague from California, indeed this is about American jobs. It
indeed is about, again, this larger notion of private property rights.
I would stand my private property rights record up to anybody. I
believe strongly in private property rights and legal code, which is
why Ms. Lee is correct: should there be bilateral relations between
Cuba and the United States, this would be part of that discussion.
But the idea of creating a legal hurdle for an airline not to be able
to fly from Miami or Tampa to Havana--and instead, those jobs go to
other places around the globe--makes no sense to me.
Finally, I would simply say this. We have tried 50 years of one
policy, and it hasn't worked. It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged
travel to the Eastern Bloc countries. I think it would make sense in
this instance.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has
expired.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of things that, by
the way, you will notice, at very few times actually deal with language
in the mark, the language in the bill. By the way, for example, that
this is going to hurt American jobs.
To argue, Mr. Chairman, that American companies will benefit from
trafficking in stolen property that was stolen from American companies
I think is probably the definition of an oxymoron, number one.
Number two, there is a lot of obfuscation. The language in the bill
doesn't say that Americans can't travel. The language says that they
cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from, property that was stolen
from Americans. Stolen from Americans.
So I understand that the gentleman says that his property rights
record is as good as any, but, Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill
deals with a specific issue, and one specific issue alone: Should we
condone, should we allow, should we permit, should we encourage the
trafficking, the profiting from stolen property--property that was
confiscated from Americans, whether there are certified claims or not.
If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is
okay for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from Americans,
illegally stolen from Americans. I think, frankly, that is a sad day.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating to come here to the floor and listen
to colleagues who struggle to support free trade agreements with our
allies come to the floor and advocate for expanded trade with one of
our enemies, taking advantage of properties stolen from American
citizens.
I heard that we have a personal interest in this matter--and I do. I
am an American citizen. I was born here. And I want to do justice by
American property owners.
Shouldn't we resolve these 8,818 claims before proceeding? Shouldn't
we do justice by these families, these businesses whose property was
stolen with no due process, with no hearing by the Castro government?
Whose side are we on, Mr. Chairman? That is the question here. As
Americans, do we want to be on the side of those who were aggrieved by
a tyrannical regime--American citizens--or do we want to reward that
regime by allowing others now to profit over those stolen properties?
That is the question that we need to ask ourselves today.
This is not about travel. No one is here advocating for restricting
travel to Cuba. Many people travel to Cuba today legally, and that
would not change. But I cannot stand for violating the property rights
of my fellow American citizens.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, again, before I yield back, as Mr.
Curbelo just mentioned, this is not an issue of travel. This is not an
issue of the overriding policy. This is not an issue of even arguing
whether President Obama has been a good negotiator or a horrible
negotiator on anything. This is about whether we want to condone,
permit, accept, in violation of everything that the United States
stands for, the trafficking of stolen property, property illegally
confiscated from American citizens.
If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are supporting, you
are condoning, you are assisting, you are helping trafficking and the
profiting on property that was stolen from Americans.
This cannot stand. This should not stand. I would respectfully ask
for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
[[Page H3891]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
*****************************************************
Description: H.Amdt. 308 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Amendment sought to strike section 540 from the bill which prohibits use of funds to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban military or intelligence service or to any officer of the Cuban military or intelligence service, or an immediate family member thereof. Submitted by Rep Sam Farr
Purpose:
An amendment to strike section 540 from the bill which prohibits use of funds to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban military or intelligence service or to any officer of the Cuban military or intelligence service, or an immediate family member thereof.
Ayes supported President Obama's initiatives to open trade with Cuba; noes supported amendment by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart to stop any opening on trade. (debate below vote tally)
| Aguilar Bass Beatty Becerra Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Bonamici Brady (PA) Bustos Butterfield Capps Capuano Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Cramer Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Duckworth Edwards Ellison Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah | Foster Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Green, Al Grijalva Gutiérrez Hahn Higgins Himes Hinojosa Honda Huffman Israel Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kirkpatrick Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lee Levin Lewis Lieu, Ted Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Luján, Ben Ray (NM) Maloney, Carolyn Matsui McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Moulton Nadler Napolitano Neal | Nolan O'Rourke Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Peterson Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Rangel Rice (NY) Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Scott (VA) Scott, David Sensenbrenner Serrano Sewell (AL) Sinema Slaughter Smith (WA) Speier Swalwell (CA) Takai Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velázquez Visclosky Walz Waters, Maxine Welch Yarmuth |
| Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Ashford Babin Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bera Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blum Bost Boustany Brady (TX) Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Cárdenas Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Chaffetz Clawson (FL) Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comstock Conaway Connolly Cook Costello (PA) Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Curbelo (FL) Davis, Rodney Denham Dent DeSantis DesJarlais Deutch Diaz-Balart Dold Donovan Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers (NC) Emmer (MN) Engel Farenthold Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Frankel (FL) Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Garrett Gibbs Gibson Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Graham Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) | Graves (MO) Green, Gene Griffith Grothman Guinta Guthrie Hanna Hardy Harper Harris Hartzler Hastings Heck (NV) Heck (WA) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hice, Jody B. Hill Holding Hoyer Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurd (TX) Hurt (VA) Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jolly Jones Jordan Joyce Katko Keating Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kline Knight Kuster Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Latta Lipinski LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lynch MacArthur Maloney, Sean Marchant Marino Massie McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McSally Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Mulvaney Murphy (FL) Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Newhouse Noem Norcross Nugent Nunes Olson Palazzo | Pallone Palmer Pascrell Paulsen Pearce Perry Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Poliquin Pompeo Posey Price, Tom Quigley Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney (FL) Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce Ruppersberger Russell Ryan (WI) Salmon Sanford Scalise Schrader Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Sherman Shimkus Shuster Simpson Sires Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Stefanik Stewart Stivers Stutzman Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (FL) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Young (IN) Zeldin Zinke |
| Adams Boyle, Brendan F. | Grayson Jackson Lee | Kaptur Roe (TN) |
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I am serving my 22nd year in the United
States Congress, and I have never seen a provision in an appropriations
bill like this.
This amendment in there could be labeled the ``family feud.'' There
is only one Member of Congress who is related to anybody in the
leadership and in the military in Cuba, and he is the person who put
this amendment in.
What it does is it prohibits businesses from doing business in Cuba
because it makes it almost impossible for any business to get a
license. That is why the United States Chamber of Commerce; the
National Foreign Trade Council; the Emergency Committee for American
Trade; USA Engage, which is a trade group; and CubaNow, which is
Florida's Cuban Americans, are all opposed to this provision of the
bill and support my amendment to strike it.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from CubaNow which are
in support of my amendment.
Dear Congressman Farr: We urge that House Members vote to
strip Section 540 from H.R. 2578, Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
This provision would turn back the strategic effort to
normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming
advancements to increased commerce with Cuba.
Majorities of Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Cubans
support normalizing relations and ending the unilateral trade
embargo. Bipartisan support exists in both the House and
Senate and throughout the business community and the majority
of civil society groups focused on Cuba.
The question of Cuba policy should be approached
deliberatively in the full context of hemispheric relations.
Please support the Farr amendment to strip Section 540 from
H.R. 2578.
Sincerely,
CubaNow;
Emergency Committee for American Trade;
Engage Cuba;
Manchester Trade Limited, Inc.;
National Foreign Trade Council;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
USA*Engage.
____
#CubaNow Statement on Administration Veto Threats Over Cuba Policy
[From #CubaNow]
Washington.--#CubaNow Political Director David Gomez issued
the following statement in support of the Obama
Administration's veto threats and congressional efforts to
eliminate attempts to limit or roll back the new Cuba policy:
``#CubaNow supports the recent veto threats issued by the
Obama Administration in regards to the House's current
Transportation and Commerce appropriations bills. As the
Administration noted, these bills include policy riders that
place unacceptable and regressive restrictions related to
Cuba, including Americans' right to travel to the Island and
the ability to do business with and support Cuba's growing
private sector. #CubaNow also supports the floor amendment by
Rep. Sam Farr to strike the restrictions from the Commerce
appropriations bill and other similar efforts in Congress to
keep spending bills free of bad policy that will do nothing
to help the Cuban people.''
``Congress should work on advancing U.S.-Cuba policy in a
constructive manner that recognizes there's no going back to
the failed ideas of yesterday. Only a small minority in
Congress continues to try to drag their feet. But the Cold
War is over, and it's time that Congress heeds the will of an
American public that by and large supports moving forward
with greater engagement. Our new direction will do more to
help Cuban civil society than riders that try to breathe life
into an unsuccessful half-century-old policy.''
Mr. FARR. Almost every country in this hemisphere and almost every
country in the world has normal trade relations with Cuba. We are
trying to open those up so that businesses in America, particularly our
agriculture and our other trading goods, can take advantage of the
market in Cuba--not a big one, but an important one--because it is so
close to shore.
What this amendment does is it stops all of that. It targets the
Cuban military by saying that anything related to the Cuban military
and what they own, which is a lot of businesses in Cuba, may not be
used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban
military or intelligence services or the immediate families thereof.
This is what is really so damaging. The term ``immediate family,'' as
described in the bill, means a spouse, sibling, son, daughter, parent,
grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. Now, how does a
businessperson in the United States know if
[[Page H3723]]
any of those people are working for any of the agencies that this bill
restricts from?
It hurts American businesses, and it hurts Cubans. Let's stop living
in the past. Let's strike this provision in the bill and support my
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I am glad this amendment is here.
President Obama said--and he said this a while ago--that his policies
are to help promote the Cuban people's independence from Cuban
authorities.
Now, no one can claim that the Cuban military and the Cuban
intelligence community and their direct family members are not the
Cuban authorities. Nothing is more authority than those two things.
Let's unmask what this amendment does.
The language in the mark, in the bill, simply affirms that we should
not send exports--I will make this very clear--to the Cuban military or
the intelligence community or their immediate families. In unmasking
this amendment, what this amendment is saying is no, no, no, that we do
support and that we do want to do business with the Cuban military and
the Cuban intelligence services and their immediate families.
By the way, it is the same military and intelligence services that
brutalized the Cuban people, that beat prodemocracy demonstrators, that
beat a number of American citizens in Panama recently, that illegally
smuggles weapons, which has members of that Cuban military under
indictment here in a U.S. Federal court for the murder of American
citizens.
I am glad this amendment is here because this amendment unmasks the
underlying issue, and the chairman's mark specifically deals with--
again, as I mentioned--the Cuban military and the intelligence
community and their immediate relatives.
If this amendment were to happen, what we would be saying is that we
want to do business, not with Cuba and not with the Cuban people, but
with the Cuban military and the intelligence services and their direct
relatives. Frankly, I am glad this amendment is here because it does
unmask the issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Farr amendment.
Section 540 is critical in ensuring that exports to Cuba reach and
benefit the Cuban people, not the regime's military and intelligence
services, which actively and aggressively collaborate with our enemies
throughout the world. Still today, Cuba has one of the most robust spy
networks in the United States. These are not the people we should be
rewarding with American business.
The most recent State Department report on Cuba's human rights
conditions says that harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests,
selective prosecution, and the denial of fair trials continue in the
country.
The iron fist of the Castro regime has cracked down on peaceful
democratic activists with over 2,000 dissidents arrested since the
President's December 17 announcement. Just this past Sunday, 59 members
of the Ladies in White were arrested along with 25 other human rights
activists--their crime? It was attending Sunday mass, Mr. Chairman.
The oppression is not limited to Cuba's borders. According to high-
level military defectors from Venezuela's Government, there are between
2,700 and 3,000 Cuban military and intelligence agents aiding in the
crackdown against Venezuelan protesters and opposing American interests
in that country.
These are the thugs--the very individuals--who would most benefit
from the Farr amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a diversity of views in this
Chamber with regard to our broader Cuba policy. What I cannot
understand is why anyone would want to reward the individuals
responsible for the deaths of Americans, for the oppression of the
Cuban people, for spying against our country.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the Farr amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, rhetoric is really cheap here, but I would
urge Members to read the bill and to read the second term.
It reads:
The term ``Cuban military intelligence service'' includes
but is not limited to the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed
Forces and the Ministry of Interior of Cuba and any
subsidiary of such ministry.
The term ``immediate family'' means spouse, sibling, son,
daughter, and so on.
The analysis by our own Library of Congress says that this would
severely hurt the consumer communication devices that would be sent to
families in Cuba as part of the negotiations that are going on right
now between the United States and the administration.
It would also hurt materials, equipment, tools used by the private
sector to construct or to renovate privately owned buildings, tools and
equipment for private sector agriculture activity, tools and equipment
and supplies and instruments used by the private sector.
This provision just kills the ability for the United States to open
up trade that every other country has. This is just a ``family feud''
amendment. This is not good business, and that is why the business
community is opposed.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from California has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Once again, the other side is really pushing the envelope in terms of
characterizing what this amendment actually does.
This amendment would strike provisions included in this bill that
would prohibit the Department of Commerce from issuing licenses for new
types of exports that are permitted under the Obama administration's
new policy of engagement with Cuba. This provision is not only an
inappropriate policy rider in this appropriations bill, but, if
included, it would put this House, once again, on the wrong side of
history.
Supporters of this provision claim that it would only prohibit
exporting to anyone who works with the Cuban military, intelligence
services, and their immediate families. The reality is that the effects
of this provision are much, much broader.
It would make it difficult for the Department of Commerce to issue
licenses to companies that want to export to Cuba, U.S. companies that
create jobs in the United States of America. This includes equipment
and supplies for entrepreneurs that are related to running their own
businesses here in America, and it includes the materials, equipment,
and tools to construct or renovate privately owned businesses.
Simply put, this rider is wrong. It is wrong for business, and it
certainly should not be part of a bill that funds our critical
Commerce, Justice, and Science programs.
The majority of Americans and Cubans agree that U.S. policy toward
Cuba has been an unpopular failure for more than 50 years. Instead of
including misguided provisions that undermine the process of
normalizing relations with Cuba, we should be moving toward increased
exchanges, formal relations with our neighbors, and creating good-
paying jobs in the United States by allowing the exporting of U.S.
products to Cuba.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the language Mr.
Farr is attempting to strike.
It reads:
No funds made available to do business with the Cuban
military or the intelligence services.
The only thing standing between President Barack Obama's attempt to
override the will of the people as expressed by Congress, which is we
will not do business with Cuba, is the Federal law. President Obama is
attempting to change that.
The only thing stopping President Obama from doing business with Cuba
is this language, and the language says
[[Page H3724]]
you cannot do business with the Communist military in Cuba or with the
Communist intelligence services.
It is very straightforward. If you want to do business with the
private sector in Cuba, go ahead. All this says is that you can't do
business with the Communist military or with the Communist intelligence
services.
Therefore, we urge Members to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
Mr. FARR. It is very interesting that the capitalist society out
there supports my amendment: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Foreign Trade Council, Engage Cuba, the Emergency Committee for
American Trade. They wrote a letter that they urge the House Members to
strip section 540 from H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The provision would turn back the strategic effort to normalize
relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming advancements to increase
commerce with Cuba. The majorities of Americans, Cuban Americans, and
Cubans support the normalization of relations and any unilateral trade
embargo.
Bipartisan support exists in both the House and the Senate and
throughout the businesses community and with the majority of the civil
society focused on Cuba. The question of Cuba policy should be
approached deliberatively and in the full context of hemispheric
relations.
I urge the support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time making something
simple complex. The problem here is that, in a small nation, an island
like Cuba, trying to discern whether somebody is related--a cousin, a
nephew, a so-and-so who might work for some entity--is very
problematic.
What this restriction would basically mean is that you wouldn't be
able to do any business. That is notwithstanding everything else,
notwithstanding the failure of the last 50 years, notwithstanding the
fact that everybody else in the world is doing business in Cuba, this
language would prevent us from being able to do any business there
because you would not be able to predetermine whether there was a blood
connection between some person you were selling a cell phone to and
someone who, at some point, was a grunt in the military.
{time} 2130
That is the issue. That is why we should support the Farr amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/06/02/house-section/article/h3700-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment