4.03.00
Senator Connie Mack

4.03.00
Yale's John Lott

3.28.00
Reform Party Chairman Pat Choate

3.24.00
Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly

3.20.00
Former Federal Prosecutor Barbara Olson

3.20.00
Yale's John Lott on Guns

3.17.00
Michael Novak

4/03/00 6:40 p.m.
Senator Connie Mack says...
“It is incumbent on the Vice President to turn those words into action and to bring about a change in the administration’s perspective on this.”

By Kathryn Jean Lopez, NR associate editor------------lopezk@nationalreview.com

Connie Mack is Republican senator from Florida.

National Review: Senator, you have said that it wouldn’t be acceptable for Elián’s father to come here and say, “I want the boy back” and then take him back to Cuba--that this should be heard out in a courtroom, and it should be asked “what’s in the best interest of the child?” What’s the likelihood that the Clinton administration will allow that to happen?

Senator Connie Mack: My sense is that they are not likely to allow it unless something changes. And I suspect one of those things that could change is if we could pass legislation to provide citizenship or permit resident status to Elián. It would move the issue away from a debate about immigration and move it into a courtroom, the purpose of which would be to make a decision about what would be in his best interest.

NR: You have a bill that you are co-sponsoring with Florida Sen. Bob Graham that would make Elián a permanent resident. In the wake of Gore’s announcement the other day, what kind of support do you have? Late last week there was talk about Democrats filibustering it. Has that changed any?

Sen. Mack: Not that I’m aware of. I don’t know that there has been any indication that they wouldn’t filibuster, but we really haven’t been able to assess yet the impact of the vice president’s position on Democrats. We did hear a statement from Tom Daschle that indicated that he wasn’t quite sure where the votes were either. It’s hard to answer that question at this time.

NR: Do you have a feel among Republicans? Rep. Steve Largent (Okla.), of course, was on the same program that you were on yesterday. He has, for a long time, supported sending Elián back to his father. Why are Republicans talking like that — Republicans who presumably would have been on the side of freedom a decade or so ago?

Sen. Mack: I agree with you. I am discouraged by a lack of focus on an extremely important principle, and that is freedom. In fact, there have been court decisions made in the past that said that in essence the court couldn’t conclude that it would be in a boy’s best interest to go back to a country that was a totalitarian state or a Communist state. So, I’m a little troubled by those who don’t consider that. Even setting that aside, it seems to me someone ought to have some concern about sending a little boy back into a family where there was a divorce. They ought to at least ask what the reason was for the separation of the husband and wife. Again, I’m a little bit surprised that some of my colleagues feel qualified to answer the question “What’s in the boy’s best interest?” I think I probably know a good deal more than most about this issue and I would hesitate to make the decision. I think that is in fact what a court should do, to take into consideration all the different conflicting reports. I would ask those who’ve already concluded that it was in his best interest to go back into a country where the future of the little boy will not be determined by his father, but will be determined by the state — I mean that’s part of the constitution of Communist Cuba. I would ask the question, again, do you have concerns about why there was a separation and a divorce between the mother and the father? Are you really comfortable sending this little boy back into a family where it is accepted behavior that grandmothers play with private parts of a little boy and bite the tongue of a little boy? I don’t know what people are thinking when they conclude that it’s in the boy’s best interest just with that little bit of information.

Believe me, I think there’s going to be a lot more. Again, I am somewhat surprised at the conclusions that some people have made.

NR: Have you talked to your colleagues about this? Do you have any feel for what’s driving them? Is it a fear of hypocrisy on “family values” issues?

Sen. Mack: I haven’t really heard that stated in the Senate. I know that in the House some of the members had the kind of immediate reaction that this is a family-values issue. But I don’t hear that on the Senate side.

NR: If the bill that you have on the floor now passes, do you expect the President will veto it?

Sen. Mack: I don’t know the answer. My instincts at this point would say that the President clearly would threaten to veto it. Again, I would at this point call on Vice President Gore — he has made the statement over and over again about the importance that he played in this administration and has been engaged in many of the decisions that they have made. I would encourage him now to become actively involved. I appreciate greatly the words that he has expressed, but now it is incumbent on him to turn those words into action and to bring about a change in the administration’s perspective on this.

NR: Is there any reason to believe that Al Gore’s break from the administration on this isn’t politically motivated by your state’s 25 electoral votes, if it is not accompanied by a challenge to the President and the attorney general — who have the power to change the situation for Elián?

Sen. Mack: People will always speculate about why a politician will do one thing or another. I don’t really need to get drawn into that debate. I’m just pleased to have him on our side and, again, would just encourage him to do more.

NR: If this remains an immigration issue, as it is now, and doesn’t go to a family court, when the time comes, it sounds like federal officials — INS officials and possibly federal marshals — may go into the Miami Gonzalez residence and take Elián by force, especially since there are all those people lined up outside who say they won’t move. Is that acceptable behavior for the United States government?

Sen. Mack: I hope it would never come to that, and we’ll have to deal with that issue if it does occur. I would certainly hope that the folks in the Justice Department would keep a couple of things in mind. One is, the family has already said that if there were a decision made in a court dealing with custody where they lost, that they would accept the outcome. I would make the case that whenever you allow the full legal rights of someone to be extended or to be presented, the likelihood that people will embrace the outcome is greatly enhanced. Therefore, I again chide the administration and the Justice Department for referring to our legal rights as “legal maneuvers.” And when they truncate someone’s rights, tensions are increased. I hope that they would keep that in mind as we move into these next several days.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home