[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD ALLOW CONTRASTING VIEWS ON CUBA

  (Mr. TORRICELLI asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, like many Members, I have long 
considered the New York Times to be one of the most venerated 
institutions in this country, a principal dialog for opposing positions 
in our national debate. I therefore rise with some regret.
  Today, the New York Times has published the 12th in a long series of 
editorials and op-eds against American policy toward Cuba. The American 
public may believe because those views are never answered in their op-
ed page that there are no contrasting views. In fact, month after month 
for a second year Members of this institution and others in the country 
have attempted to enter into that debate. Indeed, a few months ago 
after repeated rejections, simple letters were offered explaining that 
there are other views who believe in the American embargo of Cuba. Even 
that letter was offered.
  Today, in their editorial, the New York Times termed as a ``fanatical 
faction'' that believes in the American embargo. That fanatical faction 
includes the House, the Senate by a two-thirds margin, President Bush, 
President Clinton, and two-thirds of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the New York Times deserves its high reputation but it 
better serves its history and this venerated view if it allowed 
contrasting views.

                          ____________________