The New York Times June 21, 2000
Senate Kills Plan for Panel to Review Cuban Embargo
By Lizette Alvarez.. June 21, 2000
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Senate voted today to defeat an effort to create a special commission to study the effectiveness of the American economic embargo against Cuba.
The amendment was struck from the defense authorization bill by a vote of 59 to 41, after Republicans and a few Democrats rallied against it, calling the measure ill-timed, ill-advised and a backhanded attempt to change Cuba policy.
The measure would have created a commission in which Republicans, who tend to support the Cuban embargo, would have been outnumbered by Democrats, who tend to want to end it.
The defeat came as no surprise. Even Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who was one of the measure's sponsors, did not expect the amendment to survive. But it served a larger purpose today for critics of the Castro government: to keep the debate over Cuba policy alive in
Congress at a time when the Clinton administration is softening on sanctions against other defiant nations. On Monday, the administration announced the easing of sanctions against North Korea.
Among those who voted to remove the amendment was Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican. Mr. Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, originally co-sponsored the measure, an indication of just how sensitive the issue of policy toward Cuba remains.
Supporters of a commission said American policy toward Cuba was outdated. "Castro is in no position to export revolution, none whatsoever," said Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, alluding to the country's financial crisis. "According to the Pentagon, Castro represents no
real threat to national security. So times have changed.
"We have in place a policy that has not worked in 40 years. It was a different world in the 1960's."
But the measure's opponents argued that nothing has changed, so Cuba should not be rewarded by a commission likely to recommend ending the embargo.
"This is the same regime that sent its troops to Africa to further the cause of Communism," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, who said he supported lifting sanctions against the Communist government of Vietnam but only after it carried out new policies. "It's the
same regime that continues to repress and oppress its people."
The question of whether the United States should alter its policy toward Cuba, specifically on trade, took on new life this year, when a powerful coalition that included agribusiness giants increased pressure on lawmakers from farming states to open new markets. Human rights and major business
groups have also lobbied extensively on this issue.
Two Senate and House delegations sympathetic to weakening or lifting sanctions recently visited Cuba to see conditions there.
House Republican leaders continue to grapple over how to proceed on a measure, which some of them oppose, that would permit the export of food and medicine to Cuba under certain restrictions. The measure, sponsored by Representative George Nethercutt, a Washington Republican, has delayed
consideration of the huge farm spending bill. A similar provision has passed the Senate.
While opponents of the bill, including Cuban-American lawmakers, say they will fight to block it, there have been recent signs of compromise.
The House Republican whip, Tom DeLay of Texas, who has been a staunch supporter of the embargo, is now trying to broker an agreement between anti-embargo House members and Florida lawmakers who oppose sales to Cuba, his spokesman said today.
The spokesman, Jonathan Baron, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying that while Mr. DeLay "remains opposed to easing sanctions on rogue states, including Cuba, whenever there are disagreements in the Republican conference, the leadership works to resolve them."
Last weekend, the Cuban American National Foundation, an anti-Castro lobbying group, began running television ads reminding voters that Cuba is run by a Communist government.
At the very least, Cuban-American lawmakers want to ensure that Cuba will be denied private and public financing to buy food and medicine. The Nethercutt measure excludes public financing and is silent on other forms, House Republican aides say.
"American farmers are being told, if only you can sell some crops to Cuba, your crisis will be relieved," said Senator Robert G. Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat. "Cuba has no money."
But Republican leaders face a quandary over how to handle Mr. Nethercutt in this election year. He is a Republican who faces a tough re-election effort in a one-time Democratic district. And he maintains that he has enough votes to win on the issue.
Mr. Torricelli said he and the two Florida senators met with Senator Warner to try to persuade him to set aside the measure, arguing that the best time to create a commission is after a new president is elected. "It makes more sense for a new president to consider the idea," he said.
Justice Dept. Asks Appeals Court to Allow Boy to Return to Cuba
By Neil A. Lewis .
WASHINGTON, June 20 -- The Justice Department asked the full 12-member federal appeals court in Atlanta today to quickly affirm the immigration service's ruling that Elián González should be able to go home to Cuba with his father.
The department also asked the court to shorten the process by which Elián and his father could return to Cuba. The government's brief was in response to an appeal filed last week by Elián's Miami relatives to overturn the ruling by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In its brief, the department asked the court, the United States Court of Appeal for the 11th Circuit, not only to decide in favor of the immigration service but to issue a mandate enforcing the ruling immediately. That would eliminate the usual seven-day waiting period after a decision.
If the court accepts the government's request, Elián and his father, Juan Miguel González, could board a flight for Cuba hours after the ruling.
Mr. González is under a court order not to take Elián back to Cuba until the court issues a mandate.
The most important remaining legal issue is whether federal courts should give great deference to the rulings of the immigration service in the case. In the absence of an explicit law, the immigration service had ruled that Elián, as a 6-year-old boy, could not request an asylum hearing
on his own. The ruling meant that Elián's father, and not Elián's Miami relatives, spoke for the boy. The relatives have fought to have the boy remain in the United States.
A panel of 3 of the 12 judges on the court decided that the ruling by the immigration service was reasonable and should not be reviewed by the courts. The Miami relatives asked the full 12-member court to reconsider the case.
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company |