[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2710-S2713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          A MODERN DAY TRAGEDY

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to 
tell a story--a modern day tragedy about a mother, Elizabeth, who so 
loved her son, Elian, that she tried to bring him to the shores of the 
United States of America from Cuba--to the shores of freedom. Had she 
succeeded, she would have joined her family members already in the 
United States: her cousin

[[Page S2711]]

who arrived only last year; her son's great uncle and his family who 
have been in the United States for many years; and another cousin who 
has been here for over fifteen years. She would have been reunited with 
many other relatives who must today remain anonymous for fear of 
retribution by Castro against those still trapped in Cuba. Instead, she 
met with tragedy in the Florida straits. Elizabeth died. Her five-year-
old son survived.
  Let me be a little more specific. On November 21, 1999, a group of 14 
Cuban citizens boarded a boat bound for the United States and the 
shores of freedom. The motor failed shortly after departing and the 
group was forced to return to Cuba. Think of the anxiety at this 
moment, having to return after risking everything. The anticipation. 
The disappointment. The fear.
  When the boat returned to Cuba, one of the other female passengers, 
Arianne Horta, placed her young daughter back on the shore of Cuba. She 
then wanted to make sure that Elizabeth was positive in her decision to 
take Elian. And despite the fact that Elian had a father in Cuba, 
Elizabeth brought her son back on the boat to set sail for the second 
time that night--seeking freedom on the shores of America.
  If you are interested in what Elian's mother really wanted, think 
about the act of choosing to keep her son on the boat, while Arianne 
took her child off the boat. This is as clear a message as a mother can 
send that she wanted freedom for her child. She wanted freedom despite 
the risks involved, despite a failed attempt to flee hours earlier, and 
despite the fact that the father remained in Cuba.
  Think about that moment of choice for Elizabeth--put my son on the 
beach and he can live with his father, or keep him with me so we could 
have the hope of freedom. It is clear to me that she valued freedom 
above everything. Now think--if that was you, and you died, would you 
want the child returned to Cuba?
  Think of yourself in Nazi Germany. A mother successfully smuggles a 
child out, but dies in the process at the hands of the Nazis. The 
father, probably under duress, demands the return of his child. Would 
we contemplate returning him? Would we return a child under the same 
circumstances to Saddam Hussein's Iraq? If a mother and child were 
scaling the Berlin wall and the mother was shot, but the child was 
pushed over--would we send the child back? Absolutely not.
  On the night of November 21, this group of Cuban nationals repaired 
their boat and set sail a second time. On the following night, the boat 
capsized. The survivors clung to anything that would float and hung on 
for dear life. After a day struggling for her life, Elizabeth died. But 
before she passed on, she told a fellow passenger who did survive, 
Nivaldo Fernandez, to make sure that Elian touches land, to make sure 
he touches dry land.
  As many of my colleagues know well, if a Cuban refugee reaches 
American soil they will not be sent back to Cuba. Every Cuban knows 
that reaching ``dry land'' means they will be free from Castro's iron 
fist. Elizabeth's dying wish was for her Elian to reach dry land. There 
can be no doubt about what she wanted for her son.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor today with great disappointment--
disappointment in this Administration and disappointment in the 
Attorney General. Elian Gonzalez's mother's death will be in vain and 
this little boy's struggle for freedom, his struggle to live in 
America, simply is being dismissed if the boy's best interests and the 
family's legal rights are not considered.
  Many will say that this is a simple decision, the INS and the 
Department of Justice should merely reunite a father with the son he 
loves. I think all of us recognize the intense and profound bond 
between parent and child. It is to be respected and cherished. It is a 
natural instinct to want to reunite parent and child. But these are by 
no means ordinary circumstances. I ask the American people to look 
beyond the headlines, to understand the intense pressure this father is 
under. It is unlike anything you or I will ever experience in a free 
America. I have no doubt the father loves his little boy. But how many 
of us have stopped and thought about why this father did not come to 
his son the day he was found, exhausted and dehydrated having survived 
a treacherous trip at sea. Consider why he has not come for almost 5 
months to support his son, hug his son, comfort his son. Again, I would 
suspect it is not out of lack of concern for his boy. I would suspect 
it is because Castro would not let him.
  Is it possible the father wants the boy to remain with his family in 
Miami and live in freedom? My understanding is that the father knew 
Elian and his mother were coming to this country and even told other 
family members that he would get to America if he ``had to do so in a 
bowl.''
  I can't imagine anyone disagrees with the notion that Castro controls 
the father's words and actions through duress--through intimidation. 
The fact is that none of us knows the true wishes of this father. 
Castro has used this father and son to manipulate both Cuba and the 
United States.
  Today, the United States is not about to reunite a boy and his 
father, instead we are about to reunite a child and his dictator. And 
we are doing so against his mother's wishes. We may be doing so against 
his father's wishes, as well.
  Last week, a spokesman of the Cuban embassy stated ``Elian Gonzalez 
is a possession of the Cuban Government.'' In Castro's Cuba, the state 
always has the last word in how a child is raised--it does not matter 
if a parent disagrees. According to Cuban law, any parent who questions 
the regime or takes any action deemed to run contrary to the 
revolution's goals could be imprisoned or executed.
  Let me quote a former Cuban Government official from a recent 
Washington Post op-ed.

       Within Cuba, the return of Elian will not be seen as an act 
     of justice by the U.S. government, but rather as yet another 
     victory for the bully-boy tactics of Fidel Castro. This is 
     why the dictator is trying to recover Elian--to convert him 
     into a different kind of symbol--a symbol of the Revolution--
     even though for that to happen, Elian would have to renounce 
     his mother, the family in Miami that took care of him and 
     even in fact, his father, Juan Miguel. Because upon returning 
     to Cuba, he will not belong to his family. He will be another 
     son of the Revolution.

  If Cuba were a free country, this situation would have been easily 
resolved. But Cuba is not free, it is a police state. In fact, Article 
8 of Cuba's Code for Children and Youth states: ``Society and the State 
work for the efficient protection of youths against all influences 
contrary to their communist formation.''
  Make no mistake, in Cuba, Elian will not have a normal childhood.
  In Cuba, Elian will be allowed to live with his father until he is 
eleven; thereafter he will be sent to work in a farm-labor camp for 45 
to 60 days per year.
  In Cuba, Elian will face compulsory military service until he is 27.
  In Cuba, Elian will be indoctrinated in the glories of ``the 
revolution'' and taught to regard any Cubans who reject Castroism--
including his dead mother--as counterrevolutionaries and traitors.
  In Cuba, Elian will be allowed to attend college only if his 
``political attitude and social conduct'' satisfy the regime in Havana.
  Returning Elian to Cuba means returning him to Fidel Castro. When I 
was a child, my parents had the last word in my upbringing. In Cuba, 
Castro's wishes carry the day--he can override any parent. Be assured 
Castro will begin his manipulation of Elian from the day of his return. 
I can see the images now--parades and banners, welcoming home the young 
defender of the ``Communist Revolution.'' Elian may remain closer to 
Fidel than any other child may be forced to suffer. The boy may get 
better treatment as a result, but this will be only on the surface. 
This innocent child will be captive--a prisoner in his own homeland. 
The regime cannot afford for this boy to return to Cuba only to 
renounce Castro's ways. Elian will be treated, not as a child, but as 
an opportunity to exploit. His home, his education, his father's 
salary, everything, will be provided as Fidel dictates. The pathetic 
efforts of a desperate tyrant to legitimize his method of oppression 
will make Elian a test. My colleagues, he is a child. Instead of 
Fidel's cruelties, he needs compassion.
  There is a reason Elian's mother and countless others have risked 
everything and have given their lives in the hope that their children 
will taste freedom. And while Elian's mother's voice

[[Page S2712]]

cannot be heard now, her actions were loud and clear.
  I would not be so angry if we were truly reuniting a parent and 
child. But if we return Elian, the United States will be caving to the 
demands of the last tyrant in the Western Hemisphere and will be 
sending a six-year-old boy to a place that Human Rights Watch states 
has a ``highly developed machinery of repression.'' And the United 
States will be doing this without providing basic civil rights to 
Elian--without permitting his legal options to play out.
  Instead, our Government is short circuiting justice for political 
expediency and we will have to live with that. The outrage and fury I 
feel toward the administration, the Department of Justice and the INS 
for the manner in which they have handled the Elian Gonzalez case is 
overwhelming.
  The United States is a Nation committed to the principles of freedom, 
justice, democracy and respect for human dignity. We are a nation built 
upon a rich diversity of heritage. We celebrate the uniqueness of our 
roots, family traditions and cultural experiences. And while this rich 
diversity is the strength of our great country, we, as Americans, share 
a common bond that is even stronger. That common bond is our precious 
freedom. Freedom to pursue our dreams, freedom to raise our children, 
freedom to speak our minds, and freedom from a government that dictates 
what we say, where we should live, and what we will become.
  These principles strengthen our democracy, our nation. These 
principles are what continue to draw people to America's shores. Our 
democracy is designed to preserve and protect the rights of the weak 
and the strong. Our judicial system is designed to promote access to 
justice for all Americans. But what we have seen in the past several 
weeks from our own Justice Department in its' handling of the Elian 
Gonzalez case shakes the very foundation of our American principles.
  Instead of defending these principles, this Administration has 
intimidated Elian's American family with the sheer weight, power, and 
force of the United States Government. This Administration has chosen 
to grind down this family's emotions and trample on the family's 
rights. In the process, the best interests of this boy have been 
undeniably neglected and his mother's wishes ignored. This 
Administration's treatment of a young child has evolved into an 
exercise of cruel and unusual punishment to preserve a pre-determined 
outcome and to placate an old and bitter dictator.
  The United States is a free country. We have a Bill or Rights, a code 
of laws, and a separation of powers which guarantees no administration 
shall be able to sidestep the law. We are a country in which the 
judicial system should be permitted to work without presidential 
influence for political expediency--and certainly without bringing the 
mighty weight and power of the government down on the weakest of all 
people--a child.
  But, in the last four months, this administration, our United States 
Government, has overstepped its bounds. Mr. President, I am 
disillusioned by the present status of this struggle for freedom. 
Disillusioned that these calls to honor freedom have fallen on deaf 
ears. But, then I think of the Cuban parents who so loved their 
children that they sent them unaccompanied to the United States in the 
1960's in what became known as ``Operation Pedro Pan.'' Fourteen 
thousand and eighty-four children were sent away from the clutches of 
Castro by their loving parents to go to America to live in freedom. 
These parents willingly sent their children in order to escape Castro--
in order to escape oppression. Many, if not most, of these children had 
no family in the United States. But they were sent to the United States 
with their parents wish for freedom--freedom at all costs.
  We know Elian's mother sought freedom for her son--and she paid the 
ultimate price. We know many in Elian's family had already come to the 
United States; some recently, some long ago. But we have taken the sad, 
sad action of assuming a man whose very life and that of his family, 
depends upon the goodwill of a tyrant, has the ability to speak freely. 
What a tragedy that this man cannot speak openly and freely about his 
true desire. What a sad day in the history of the United States of 
America.
  Our founding principle--our Declaration of Independence--declares, 
``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness.'' We, the inheritors of this legacy, must not force people 
into tyranny.
  I appeal to the President and the Attorney General to resolve this in 
such a manner that Elian's struggle and his mother's tragic death will 
not have been in vain. Perhaps we, the United States of America, will 
realize that if we don't, we are making a tragic mistake in the 
handling of this case. It is not too late, though, to do the right 
thing for this little boy. I call on the President of the United States 
and the Attorney General once again, to consider what is in the little 
boy's best interest.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was listening to Senator Mack. And I 
really wish all Americans could hear his concerns and message because I 
don't think the message he is sending today is getting out to people. I 
really believe most people think this is just a technical issue, it is 
automatic, it is what ought to happen.
  I think what the Senator from Florida shared with us indicates that 
this is not an ordinary situation. It is very unordinary. Cuba is not 
an ordinary country. It is a very unordinary country, in the manner and 
in the ways the Senator from Florida described it, and more.
  I thank him for coming here and asking the President and the Attorney 
General in a senatorial way--he made no threats, and there were no 
connotations in his voice. He clearly said, I ask that you consider the 
other side of this coin.
  I thank him for that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator 
from Florida. But I am reminded, it is a pathetic thing. It is pathetic 
to see this child twisted and turned and seduced, if I may say--
something that goes far beyond the capacity of a 6-year-old child to 
analyze and describe in appropriate terms.
  But I say this: My sympathy goes out to the family in Miami that has 
been attached. But I also know this is a place where we often preach 
family values, family control, no interference by government, to remind 
everyone that this is a country of laws. If we subvert the law simply 
because there is pressure coming from one corner or another, what kind 
of message does it send to the millions of people who would crowd our 
shores and want to be here? It would say, well, we discriminate because 
we have louder voices in one place than we have in another.
  Again, I think we have to remember that this country is founded on 
the principle of being a nation of laws, and one can challenge and go 
to court.
  But to say, no, we are not going to obey the law, I don't think, 
frankly, does the cause of our country or the cause of this little boy, 
in the final analysis, any value.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, there was an interest here, certainly. There 
are some who have discriminated against one group or another, who have 
not spoken out for one group and have spoken out for another.
  In my career representing the State of Florida and the Senate, I have 
spoken out for every group looking for honest and fair treatment, 
whether they be Cuban, whether they be Nicaraguan, or whether they be 
Haitian. I have done that. I am proud that I have done that. Some of 
those positions have not been particularly popular in my State. But I 
have always taken that position.
  Again, I think the right thing to do is to ask a very simple 
question: What is in the boy's best interest?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In all due respect, I say this to my friend from 
Florida for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration. 
Reunification of families is something we wrestle with here all the 
time--people pleading to allow a relative to join a family that has 
been here for years. And we say: No, the law doesn't permit it, the 
rules don't permit it. So we say: Sorry, we can't do that.
  I get lots of pleas in my office--I am sure every Senator does--
saying: Let

[[Page S2713]]

my mother come from country X, Y, or Z, or otherwise, and let us join 
together.
  I say once again, if we forget we are a nation of laws, then all of 
us--the people in this room and the people throughout the country--
ought to be bound by the same rules and the same laws. We cannot make 
the kind of exception that looks as if it is responding to particular 
pressure in a particular moment.

                          ____________________