Cuban-American Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart measured up to his name
He addressed such issues in his native homeland of Cuba but did not focus exclusively on Cuba. His human rights advocacy spanned the globe until his death this week at 70.
Perhaps the best example of his leadership in this field was his successful advocacy of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, or the Helms-Burton Act, which he did as my colleague and a member of Congress from South Florida.
While many people worked on this act, Lincoln Daiz-Balart was the leader who brought these disparate individuals together to pass this historic legislation over the latent hostility of the State Department and the administration. He was the mover behind this surprising legislative victory.
On Feb. 24, 1996, the Cuban regime planned and executed the shootdown of two Brothers to the Rescue small private planes in international airspace over international waters, which searched for 'rafters' fleeing the dictatorial oppression of communist Cuba.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart immediately perceived that this murderous act by the Cuban government, which killed three U.S. citizens and one U.S. resident, could coerce the Clinton administration and the reluctant Congress into some positive action.
Somewhat embarrassed by its lack of any significant response whatsoever, the Clinton White House was vulnerable to his advocacy for a Cuba policy bill that had been percolating among anti-Castro lawmakers for some time but had never gained sufficient traction within broader political circles.
But now, would leaders in Congress and the administration, including the president, risk appearing to 'defend' the Cuban regime after its blatant execution of the South Florida fliers? Diaz-Balart knew this was the time to move, assembling colleagues and supporters to pass the LIBERTAD Act on March 12, 1996.
The act condemned the shootdown as a 'criminal act by Castro's air force'. It went on to place into law several policies that several presidents had adopted over the years, but that seemed in jeopardy of being weakened or eliminated entirely at the hands of appeasers within the executive branch.
Thanks to Diaz-Balart, specific provisions were codified, thus placing them in the control of Congress rather than any president. From then on, real steps toward democracy and freedom would have to be demonstrated by the Cuban regime before certain restrictions on commercial activity and travel could be lifted, ensuring that such a loosening of control did not simply fund and support the totalitarian regime.
Steps toward the normalization of relations between the two countries could only occur as progress was made on the island toward competitive political parties, free elections, a competitive economy and personal political freedoms, such as free speech.
In meetings with the administration, Diaz-Balart gained grudging agreement by asking participants about the value of freedom, which they found difficult to avoid.
One of my favorite memories of my dear friend in action is the closed-door debates we had on the provisions of the Helms-Burton bill, where Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) was the host and present was former U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), among others.
Once Helms saw that Diaz-Balart was knowledgeable on the bill, he left us alone to hammer out all the details. He knew that the legislation that carried his name was in good hands. The real work in that beautiful Senate ceremonial room was left to Diaz-Balart and we helped him along.
The Helms-Burton bill enshrined the embargo on Cuba into U.S. law. That was one of Lincoln Diaz-Balart's finest legislative accomplishments.
The LIBERTAD Act is unquestionably one of only two instances in which Congress has successfully asserted its full constitutional role in American foreign policy. (The only other instance is the Taiwan Relations Act.)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart's impact on U.S. foreign policy will outlast his unfortunate premature passing.
His values, integrity, leadership and perseverance are outstanding traits for us to follow.
For this we are grateful.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is a former Republican Cuban-American congresswoman from Miami. For years, she served in Congress alongside U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi
President Trump's announcement this week of a shortened window of '10 to 12 days' for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine reflects a continued evolution in his rhetoric. His growing frustration with Moscow and his willingness to speak plainly about Russia's escalation send a signal that many in the U.S. and Europe have been waiting to hear. But while the shift in tone signals growing frustration, it has not translated into action. Russia reads the action as a continued pause in pressure, which it has used to intensify its offensive against Ukrainian homes and hospitals. Russian forces are now making their fastest territorial gains in more than a year, and their attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Swarm tactics using Iranian-designed Shahed drones, now mass-produced and adapted inside Russia with Chinese parts, are overwhelming Ukraine's air defenses at an alarming rate. In just one day last month, Russia launched 728 drones, decoys and missiles in a single coordinated wave. Ukrainian interceptors and radar crews are doing heroic work, but they are stretched to the limit. The U.S. has tools at its disposal that remain unused. For months, a bipartisan sanctions bill, co-authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and backed by 85 senators, a veto-proof majority, has been ready to move. The legislation would impose steep secondary tariffs on countries like China, India and Brazil that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, and would significantly raise the cost of doing business with Moscow. But in July, Senate leadership pulled the bill from consideration after President Trump suggested he would act if Russia failed to move toward peace within 50 days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would 'hold off' on advancing the bill, signaling that Congress would defer to Trump's timeline. House leaders followed suit. That decision was a mistake. While it is encouraging to see President Trump express increasing resolve, deferring congressional action in the hope that Putin will suddenly negotiate has only given Moscow more time and space to escalate. Every week of delay is a missed opportunity to tighten the financial pressure on Putin's war machine. And the clock is not just ticking in Ukraine. The broader contest involves China, too. Beijing's role in this war has become increasingly visible. Chinese companies are supplying entire weapons systems, not just components. Chinese-made drones and decoys are helping Russia saturate Ukrainian airspace. Chinese officials have even welcomed delegations from occupied Ukrainian territories and continue to sell heavy machinery to companies operating there. European officials report that China's foreign minister recently told the EU that Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war and fears that a Russian defeat would allow the U.S. to focus more squarely on Asia. Ukraine has responded accordingly. In early July, Kyiv arrested two Chinese nationals on espionage charges after they allegedly attempted to steal information about Ukraine's Neptune missile program. Days earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions on five Chinese firms accused of supporting the Russian war effort. These are not symbolic gestures, they are signs that Ukraine is increasingly realistic about the stakes and about China's alignment with Moscow. Support for Ukraine is not a distraction from U.S. competition with China. It is a critical part of it. Weakening Putin's military capacity weakens a key pillar of China's global strategy. And allowing Russia to continue its aggression without consequence would embolden Beijing's worst instincts from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun voicing stronger concerns about Beijing's role. In the recently concluded round of trade talks, senior U.S. officials reportedly raised objections to China's purchase of sanctioned Russian oil and its sale of more than $15 billion worth of dual-use technology to Moscow. These are important warnings — but without follow-through, they risk being absorbed into the pattern of delay that Moscow and Beijing are already exploiting. The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill should move forward. It represents the most serious effort yet to impose real costs not only on Russia, but on the network of countries (especially China) helping it survive sanctions. It complements, rather than competes with, the administration's efforts to pressure Moscow. And it sends a message that the U.S. is serious about backing up its warnings with action. Countdowns can be useful. They create urgency. But urgency without follow-through is no substitute for strategy. What matters now is not how many days remain on the clock, but whether we are using each one to act. Jane Harman is a former nine-term congresswoman from California and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She is the author of 'Insanity Defense: Why Our Failure to Confront Hard National Security Problems Makes Us Less Safe.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Freshman Dem admits ‘voters feel like Democrats have sort of been a–holes to them'
Voters think Democrats are 'a–holes,' prominent freshman Rep. Sarah McBride said, blaming that perception for her party's electoral setbacks. 'I think voters feel like Democrats have sort of been a–holes to them,' McBride (D-Del.) told Politico's 'The Conversation' in an interview set to drop Sunday. Democrats, whose party symbol is a donkey, aka a jacka–, have been deep in soul-searching about how they were trounced across the board in the November election. McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress, argued voters want 'respect,' and Democrats don't give it. 'I do think that a voter asks two questions when they're considering who to vote for. The first question is: Does this candidate, does this party like me? And by extension, do they respect me?' the Delaware Democrat told host Dasha Burns. 3 Rep. Sarah McBride wants her party to be less off putting to voters. Bloomberg via Getty Images 3 The November election marked the first time Democrats lost the popular vote in a presidential election in 20 years. TNS 'If you can't answer that first question to a voter's satisfaction, they won't even get to the second question, which is: What does this party think? What does this candidate think? And I think we lost that first question.' Other prominent Dems have raised similar concerns their party has become too elitist and engaged in excessive culture war battles which have repelled the working class. Following President Trump's win in November, for example, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) contended many Dems came across as 'condescending' and had an attitude that working-class voters should be 'smart enough to realize they're voting against their interests.' Others have raised concerns that Democrats had been too hostile towards men, and some, such as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), dinged the party for being too dismissive towards voters who had concerns about transgender competitors in women's sports. 'I do think that we have to basically create a tent that is united on three fundamental principles,' McBride continued. 'One is working people need more support and help. Two, democracy and freedom are good. And three, we're not going to be a‑‑holes to voters.' Much of the off-putting attitudes voters are reacting to aren't necessarily from elected Democrats, but rather from influencers and big-name commentators, she cautioned. 3 Democrats are scrambling to course correct ahead of the 2026 and 2028 elections. Getty Images 'The reality in today's environment is that your party ecosystem is defined not just by politicians or the party, but also some of the loudest voices online that in voters' minds reflect and represent that broader coalition,' the Delaware Democrat stressed. 'When we have an environment where we've got some very loud people who are shaming and calling people who disagree with them — even in rhetoric — bigots, when we have those folks saying that to a wide swath of voters, including voters we could win, and we aren't explicitly stating something to the contrary, then a voter will then just paint us all with one broad brush.' McBride also posited that Trump's rise to political power has been 'fueled by a frustration that government no longer works or delivers for people' — something she blamed on gridlock in Congress.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs.
WASHINGTON — For all of President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared with last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.'
