[104-10170-10125.pdf — page 9]
# CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Statements of Remarks                                                                  May 20, 1970E4312- demonstration of America's commitment to resolve international disputes peacefully if the following corrective steps could be taken this year:First, A review by the Secretary of State of all disputes in which the U.S. is a party to a certain which ones, to partition of them, might lend themselves to arbitration or adjudication. Where in this review it been completed, we would urge that the United States move to take the disputes that are determined to be justiciable to the International Court of Justice or other appropriate international tribunals.Second, the employment of the provision of Article 96 of the United Nations Charter to seek advisory opinions of the World Court by the United Nations and the U.S. Specialized Agencies on issues where such an opinion would help to clarify the legal a parts of a dispute.Third, the instructing of U.S. negotiators to seek inclusion of a provision in future treaties and agreements which provides for the World Court's adjudication of disputes arising under there treaties and agreements.We believe that these steps, ought through they seem, would be favorably received by the international community and lead to an enhanced regard for the rule of law throughout the world.As Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, we have devoted considerable time and attention to this question and have sought the advice of skilled international lawyers outside the Congress.We welcome your comments and reactions to these suggestions and would be pleased to discuss them in greater detail with you of with members of your Administration,LIST OF SIGNERSSenators Edward W. Brooke, Alan Cranston, Claiborne Pell, Harrison A. Williams Jr. and Stephen A. Young.Congressmen: Thomas L. Ashley, Jonathan B. Bingham, Edward P. Beard, Richard Bolling, John Brademas, George E. Brown, Jr. Daniel E. Button, Silvio O. Conte, Jim Courters, James C. Corman, John H. Dent, John Dellenback, Bob Eckhardt, Don Edwards, Joshua Eilberg, Paul Findley, Donald M. Fraser, Peter H.B. Frelinghuysen, Cornelius E. Gallagher, Jacob H. Gilbert, William J. Green, Gilbert Gude, Seymour Halpern, Martha W. Griffiths, Ralph Harvey, Augustus Hawkins, William D. Hathaway, Henry Helstoski, Robert W. Kastenmeier, Hastings Keith, Edward I Koch, Norman F. Lent, Richard D. McCarthy, Paul N. McCloskey Jr., Abner J. Mikva, Patsy T. Mink, William S. Moorhead, F. Bradford Morse, Charles A. Mosher, John P. Saylor, James H. Scheuer, William L. St. Onge, Fernand J. St Germain I. Podell, Thomas M. Rees, Ogden R. Reid, P. Ryan, James W. Symington, John V. Tunney, Morris K. UdallCuban people's fight for independence.Unfortunately, however, most Americans are not totally aware of the valiant fight put up by the Cuban people, alone and unaided, for nearly a century.The Cubans fought a 30-year war from 1868 to 1898 against a powerful Spanish Army. They have consistently sought freedom from oppression and their battle for independence from 1868 to 1898 found the United States acting alongside of them.But we cannot forget that the Cubans so loved liberty that the number ofwas at the city hall in Havana and at El Morro Castle. On that date Cuba became a free country.Most Americans know about the significance of the battle hip Maine which made the cry remember the Maine" a part of our history. But Americans know that this country interceded on behalf of the Cuban people in their fight for independence from foreign domination.is the practical difference between land base missiles which brought on the crisis of 1962 and Soviet ships with missiles now anchored in Cuba?It is no secret that our intelligence community fears that the Soviet Union is now prepared to establish a Caribbean fleet based in Cuba, and surely this fact must relate to our own security. I say that official efforts to protect Fidel Castro by arming freedom fighters are dangerous and not in real.True, the State Department apparently speaks Cuban exiles on the grounds thatCubans from the United States are in violation of our neutrality laws. But I would like to cite an interpretation of those neutrality laws as rendered by the late Robert Kennedy when he was Attorney General of the United States.His ruling was that the neutrality laws were, and I quote:Among the oldest laws in our statutescasualties in these two wars of independence amounted to a quarter of a million people. The total population of the island at that time was less that 2 million.What this means is that one out of every four Cubans became casualties in their quest for liberty.It is shameful to say that the United States seems to have turned its back on Cuba when it is suffering from the imposition of another foreign tyranny, an international communism headed by the Soviet Union. Yet, State Department spokesman Robert McCloskey, a holdover bureaucrat, threatens freedom fighters who wish to return and help their brothers throw off the yoke of this tyranny.My colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, has already brought this to the attention of the Senate. It is my wish to bring it to the attention of my colleagues in the House of Representatives and the American public.The amount of sabotage being committed by Cubans inside Cuba is in line with the tradition of its people. Just a few days ago, on Mar 15, the Castro regime announced the execution by firing squad of a campesino who burned down a super warehouse at Bahia de Sagua.That patriot lived in Cuba and gave his life in exchange for the destruction of 2,000 tons of sugar.From all over Cuba come official admission that the Cuban people are in massive resistance to the Communist regime of Fidel Castro.It is fair to say that today resistance to Castro and communism is many times*stronger than the resistance which* were not designed for the kind of situation which exists in the world today.The late Attorney General continued and I quote from his April 20, 1961 ruling:The neutrality laws are never designed to prevent individuals from leaving the United States to fight for a cause in which they believe. There is nothing in the neutrality laws which prevent them returning to that country to ensure the fight for freedom, nor is an individual prohibited from the United States, with others of like belief, to join others in a second country for an expedition against a third country.I believe that ruling not only is just but also was made in the cause of our own security. Unfortunately, it has been all but forgotten by our State Department which continues to harass Cuban exiles and even instructs the U.S. Coast Guard to apprehend freedom fighters on the high sea -- a form of official piracy, I might add.In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Cuba is little more than a Soviet base dedicated to the destruction of our society and that of free men everywhere. I should like to emphasize that our freedom is inextricably interwoven with the freedom of the Cuban people. The ominous presence of the powerful Soviet fleet be kept just off our shores underscores this fact.## CUBAN INDEPENDENCE DAYHON. WILLIAM C. CRAMEROF FLORIDAIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESWednesday, May 20, 1970Mr. CRAMER: Mr. Speaker, May 20 is a very special day for Cubans and Americans. On that date in 1902, the Cuban## KSU STORY ONE SIDED IN TV REPORTINGHON. DONALD E. LUKENSOF OHIOIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESWednesday, May 20, 1970Mr. LUKENS: Mr. Speaker, the events at Kent State are tragic enough without having emotions aroused and magnified by biased news coverage. Today I received an article which appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 7, by Mr. William Hickey, which illustrates the irresponsible reporting of the deaths at Kent State.Mr. Hickey, who is a TV and radio critic for the paper is well equipped professionally.freedom fighters in exile are concerned when their only purpose is to help their fellow man reach the liberty for which 250,000 Cubans fought and were wounded or gave their lives.I should like to ask this question: Is it not in our own national interest that Cuba be freed from domination by a country 8 thousand times more powerful than the Spaniards of the 19th century?Does not the presence of a fleet of Soviet Navy ships anchored in Cienfuegos Harbor pose a threat to our own national security?Among those ships are a missile frigate cruiser and an atomic submarine. What21477