[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21569-21570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    THE INFLUENCE OF CUBAN AMERICANS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 14, 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you the 
attached article written by Mr. Frank Calzon, entitled ``Blame Castro, 
not the Cubans.'' Mr. Calzon is the executive director of the Center 
for a Free Cuba in Washington, DC, and is a tireless fighter for 
democratic causes. I believe Mr. Calzon makes an excellent case in his 
article and I encourage my colleagues to learn from it.

                      Blame Castro, Not the Cubans

       Although prejudice can be found anywhere, Americans might 
     be shocked that bigotry has raised its ugly head in the upper 
     reaches of the Clinton administration.
       The pugnacious debate about Cuba has grown uglier since The 
     New York Times quoted unnamed administration officials 
     asserting that Cuban Americans hold U.S.-Cuba policy hostage. 
     If this were said about the NAACP's interest in South Africa, 
     or the Jewish-American community's concerns about Israel, 
     cries of outrage against such bigotry would resound across 
     America.
       While critics might object to the influence of Cuban 
     Americans, interest groups (ethnic, regional, professional, 
     corporate, etc.) are simply a fact of life. When Cuban 
     Americans write to their members of Congress, they are 
     exercising their right to petition the government for redress 
     of grievances. When my sisters attend a political rally, they 
     are enjoying the right of assembly guaranteed by the 
     Constitution. Until now, I believed that when my parents 
     register and vote, they are fulfilling a civic 
     responsibility. But now I know that ``a senior government 
     official'' thinks that what they are really doing is 
     ``holding U.S. policy hostage.''
       To note the virulent attacks on the Cuban-American 
     community is not to assert that its members are exempt from 
     responsibility for the shrillness of the debate. We are not. 
     But it might be instructive to remember that whether it was 
     workers attempting to unionize 100 years ago, African 
     Americans demanding an end to discrimination in the 1960s, or 
     women struggling to achieve equality today, the victims of 
     great injustices are sometimes a nuisance to those not 
     interested in their plight.
       What could Cuban Americans say that would be so 
     objectionable?
       That the administration's accords with Fidel Castro have 
     been negotiated in such secrecy that sometimes not even 
     the Cuba desk at the Department of State is informed.
       That the ``adjustments'' in Cuba policy are often presented 
     as fait accompli, ignoring the Congress and U.S. laws.
       That the government's spinning and lawyerly hair-splitting 
     over-shadow Cuba policy, promoting a mind-set that believes 
     in giving Castro the benefit of the doubt. The most recent 
     example: the suggestion that a legal opinion is needed to 
     determine whether the embargo statutes prohibit not only 
     American sales to the Cuban government but also sales through 
     the Cuban regime
       The debate provides a sobering commentary on the values 
     held by some American elites on the eve of the 21st Century.
       For some, Castro is the one remaining beacon in a pantheon 
     that once included Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. 
     As long as Castro or North Korea's Kim Iong Il, the son of 
     the deceased Kim Il Sung, remain in power, it can be said 
     that the socialist experiment has not been a complete fiasco.
       Yet the American people have an instinctive aversion to 
     tyranny and object to providing assistance that could 
     lengthen Castro's rule. Most Americans agree that the problem 
     is Castro, not the Cuban Americans. Because Castro refuses to 
     base U.S.-Cuban relations on any--sort of reciprocity-and 
     certainly because of his abhorrent human-rights

[[Page 21570]]

     record--those seeking to soften the sanctions rely on 
     ``spinning'' policy, redefining the meaning of the law and 
     slandering the Cuban-American community.
       How did it come to be, that without further congressional 
     action, the Cuban Adjustment Act--which protected Cuban 
     refugees since the mid-1960s--now has a different meaning?
       Furthermore, what prevents other laws from being subjected 
     to similar whims of the executive branch?
       What prevents other communities--blacks interested in South 
     Africa, Irish-Americans concerned about Ireland and Jewish-
     Americans following events in Israel, for instance--from 
     being accused by unnamed government officials of holding 
     American policy hostage because they disagree with the 
     government?
       The implications of this issue obviously extend beyond 
     Cuban Americans.

     

                          ____________________