[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5983-5984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           THE RAID IN MIAMI

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in the early morning hours of Holy Saturday, 
a little piece of America died. America's shining beacon of freedom 
faded in the Florida sky as many of us grieved over the astounding 
actions of the United States Government. This administration betrayed 
America's past and joined history's inglorious list of governments that 
have chosen to use excessive force against its own law-abiding 
citizens.
  Our founding fathers believed in a Government of, for, and by, the 
people, a Government designed to serve and benefit the people, not to 
serve and benefit the needs of Government, and certainly not to 
substitute brute force for the rule of law. These are reminiscent of 
the tactics used by tyrants and despots. The decisions by this 
administration that led to the events of last Saturday will be 
remembered as a day of shame in our American history.
  My comments today are not directed toward the law enforcement 
officers who carried out the operation; I understand they are charged 
with a duty and must follow the directives of the Attorney General and 
the President of the United States. My comments today are not directed 
at the ultimate disposition of Elian's residency or custody, and they 
are not intended to be partisan or political, but they do go directly 
to the heart of who we are as a Nation and what we expect of our 
Government.
  As most people know, the Elian Gonzalez matter is pending in Federal 
court. Just last Wednesday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
ordered that Elian Gonzalez must remain in the United States during the 
review of his Federal court case. The opinion of the court suggests the 
INS and the Department of Justice were wrong in not granting Elian an 
asylum hearing. In the final footnote of the opinion, the court 
encouraged the parties to avail themselves voluntarily of the Eleventh 
Circuit's mediation services. The court believed that mediation was an 
appropriate avenue to resolve this heart gripping situation.
  The Attorney General did not listen to the court. She was obsessed 
with reuniting Elian with his father at any cost. Perhaps she would 
have been wise to listen to the words of Daniel Webster: ``Liberty 
exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.'' Perhaps she should have 
listened to her own words: ``I'm trying to work through an 
extraordinary human tragedy. And the importance of working through it 
is that we do so in good faith, without violence, without having to 
cause further disruption to the little boy.'' This statement was made 
nine days before the raid.
  The night before the raid, mediation between the Department of 
Justice, the Miami family and Juan Miguel Gonzalez had gone on all 
night and into the wee hours of Saturday morning. Even as the 
negotiations continued on the telephone with all parties, agents of the 
administration dressed in fatigues and masks exploded into the home of 
Lazaro Gonzalez with machine guns drawn--and one machine gun that was 
pointed dramatically in the face of a screaming child.
  The Government held all the power, and the Government used 
intimidation to force a family, a loving caring family, into a corner. 
Remember this is the family originally selected by the Attorney General 
to care for Elian.
  The administration offered ultimatums when fair mediation was needed. 
This administration resorted to the power of a machine gun to 
intimidate an American family. What possible benefit could come from 
this act?
  Tactics such as these deserve a full explanation. Why would the 
Department of Justice stage a raid when mediator Aaron Podhurst stated 
that a deal between the parties was ``minutes to an hour away''? Why 
would they be so impatient with a solution so near? The Attorney 
General said that they

[[Page 5984]]

had a window during which to conduct the raid of Saturday through 
Monday. Why could they not have waited for negotiations to play out.
  What credible information existed to suggest this level of force 
needed to be used?
  Another question that deserves fuller explanation speaks to the 
impact of the raid on the boy. Wouldn't any psychologist or 
psychiatrist who actually examined the child say this action would 
further traumatize the boy? But sadly, the INS team of experts never 
did examine the boy to make an informed evaluation.
  How could such tactics possibly be in the best interests of a child 
who has suffered so much? What right did this administration have to 
add this trauma to the terrible loss Elian has already suffered? And 
why did he have to suffer at the hands of the people who are supposed 
to defend the rule of law, the INS, the DoJ, and the President of the 
United States.
  Let's think for a moment about the decision the father and the 
Justice Department made in putting Elian's life at risk with the plans 
for the pre-dawn raid. I have never questioned the father's love for 
the boy, but I cannot imagine any father would choose to put his son's 
life at risk a second time. But it is not an unloving father who put 
his son in harm's way-the father is as much a victim as Elian in many 
ways. The father had a simple choice: travel to a safe house in Miami 
and have Elian voluntarily transferred into his custody or insist on 
remaining in Washington and have the U.S. government seize his son in a 
violent, dangerous raid. Just as it wasn't the father's decision not to 
come to his boy's side for the first four months of this ordeal, it was 
not his decision to remain in Washington, forcing a raid at gunpoint. 
Castro would not allow the father to travel then and he would not allow 
him to travel last weekend.
  President Clinton promised my colleague Senator Graham that Elian 
would not be seized in the middle of the night, and now we must ask 
again, why did he promise one thing and yet do another?
  Elian deserves access to all of his legal options, Elian deserves an 
asylum hearing, and he deserves the protection of U.S. law. Yet that is 
for another day. The use of force must be dealt with today. Does the 
end justify the means? Will these means ever be justified?
  There have been accusations of playing politics with this issue.
  But perhaps we ought to recognize what several of the Attorney 
General's long-time supporters have said. The four mediators from Miami 
that were involved in the negotiations with Janet Reno have clearly 
challenged the administration's characterization of the events of last 
Saturday. They said they were close to an agreement and felt confident 
a peaceful solution could have been reached.
  We cannot simply sweep these issues away and dispense of them in the 
name of politics. This is a long, sad story and I'm sure many would 
wish it would simply fade away. But if we accept and commend the 
actions of our government for acting hastily in choosing excessive 
force over peaceful mediation, we have traveled down a very troubling 
road. We dare not condone such use of force to settle legal disputes. 
This strikes at the very heart of the balance of power and the 
integrity of our judicial process.
  This child and no child should face the intimidation and trauma of an 
automatic weapon in his face--especially when perpetrated by the 
American government--a government that has always stood for freedom and 
human rights throughout the world. As a father and grandfather, I am 
heartbroken for the frightened, vulnerable child in that photograph. My 
hope is that no other administration official utter the words, ``I am 
proud of what we did'' and instead express regret and sorrow for the 
trauma and pain suffered by the entire Gonzalez family.
  What happened saddens me as an American, a father, and a Senator. Mr. 
President, last Saturday morning, a little bit of America died in that 
raid and I hope we never again dim the light of freedom for those who 
look to us for hope. I yield the floor.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________