[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             MAY IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on my colleagues from 
Florida and Texas, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Mica. That was an excellent 
presentation on the burden of the severe over-regulation on our small 
businesses and the problems that that creates. Most Americans are 
shocked when they hear that 95 percent of all employment in this 
country, depending on which state you are talking about, is created by 
what we all know as small businesses. It is rather ironic, because all 
of us in this profession, while trying to look neat for those who voted 
for us, frequent dry cleaning establishments. I always use this as an 
example when talking about small business. We have all heard how rough 
it is. I will not forget that the average start-up cost for a small 
business is $138,000. This money is used to hire a few people, put the 
equipment together, get a good store front in a good location, and try 
and keep the clothes cleaned and pressed and looking good for the men 
and women in whatever neighborhood you try to set up. That is stunning.
  Trying to stay in business, it appears, is even worse. So I would 
like to associate myself with all the remarks in that splendid 
presentation.
  Mr. Speaker, I assume I will be the last speaker tonight, and the 
House is not in tomorrow. We are all going home for the weekend. I am 
going back to beautiful Southern California and then Santa Barbara, 
Santa Maria, and San Luis Obispo, areas of this country that are so 
beautiful it takes your breath away. I'll be making some appearances in 
a Republican primary for the lady of my choice. I know what I am going 
to hear when I get home, and it is not going to be about Haiti. 
However, the topic of Haiti may come up, especially if anybody is out 
there, that is in the C-SPAN audience of 1\1/2\ million listening to my 
words tonight.
  I know they are going to be bringing up all sorts of scandals. It 
seems to turn into a nightmare with each passing day, and with each 
passing week. We are all trying to sort out here how to be fair to both 
parties, to the other body, the U.S. Senate, and to the White House 
itself, on how to handle all this. Especially with respect to the rules 
of this House on decency, comity, which is a word not used in the 
general public, but used around here. We do not want to sound like 
comedy, but comity, which means respect for one another. We don't have 
some of the wilder debates of the Canadian Parliament or the British 
House of Commons, which some of us, at least my wife, thinks might be 
good for a change around here, to let off some of the steam. The great 
Disraeli was shouted down at his first speech and never got to speak. I 
don't know if we want to carry it that far, so I will go with the rules 
of the House.
  I am still trying to sort out in my mind how I have my freedom of 
speech and represent the freedom of speech for my district, but at the 
same time I can't discuss the scandals that are surfacing and how they 
might impact foreign policy. As was the case last week when Laman Smith 
of Texas put news magazines in the Record. This caused our Speaker to 
remind everybody that the White House is included in the respect and 
comity that we show to other Members of the House and to Members of the 
other body.

                              {time}  1840

  However, last night on ABC's Nightline, hosted by the main man, Ted 
Koppel himself, they covered one of the scandals from A to Z. They 
began with a C-SPAN clip of this Member, Bob Dornan, standing up here 
showing the front page of the Washington Post and a button that had 
circulated that said, ``I believe a certain woman that is bringing 
charges against an elected official.'' At the beginning or after they 
showed this short clip of my speaking, they said, ``From Congressman 
Bob Dornan, a noted basher of Professor Anita Hill.'' Let's stop right 
here! That is not true. Then it went on to say something else to 
somebody on the other end of some political spectrum. Everybody has 
something to say about the current scandals that I am not mentioning.
  I just want to correct the Record. We have called Nightline. They 
were both very apologetic and very polite.
  They said maybe they had jumped to conclusions. What my staff told 
them was that to support Justice Clarence Thomas, from the Court of 
Appeals here in D.C., is not to have bashed Professor Anita Hill. I 
analyzed some things that she did on television or radio shows around 
America. I do not believe I ever did it on the House floor. If I did, I 
stand corrected. We cannot find a single speech I ever made against 
Anita Hill on the floor of the House.
  What I did say, was that it is most unusual that she followed 
Clarence Thomas from job to job and that she never even put him on 
notice for anything he was saying in her presence. A rule of fairness 
at the entry level of sexual harassment, is that you let somebody know 
if you do not like the way they are speaking in front of you. That goes 
for a manly man, who might decide to tell the boys, ``Hey, count me out 
when you tell dirty jokes, I do not like it.'' That is what my dad 
always told me to do. Put people on notice. I have done it a few times, 
but failed my father mainly by either just giving a weak, perfunctory 
laugh or walking away. I am a father of three grown daughters, all in 
their thirties, and four granddaughters, God willing, more to come out 
of our grandkids, and I think any woman who does not like somebody's 
mouth, and it is usually a male involved, should stand up and tell 
them. If they persist, there is no other way to handle it before you 
have to take it to the courts.
  So I want Ted Koppel and the Nightline crew to know that, yes, I have 
discussed scandals on this House floor. No, I have never bashed 
Professor Hill. I was a supporter of someone I think is a wonderful 
person and is an excellent Justice at the Appeals Court level. I think 
he is going to be a superb Supreme Court Justice.
  I would like to comment on what a lot of writers are saying now, 
about Clarence Thomas. He seems to have been ``struck mute,'' in the 
way he handles his job on the Supreme Court. They say it is because of 
having his reputation trashed, what he called a ``high-tech lynching,'' 
and I hope that is not true. I think the further we get from that 
terrible year of 1991, and what liberal staffers on the Senate side 
tried to do to his reputation, Clarence Thomas wins on the respect 
factor in the long run. And Anita Hill may have struck gold.
  I read in one of the news magazines that she made, brace yourself, 
$500,000 last year, half a million dollars. She did not make $10,000 
the year before. She was sort of dragged, according to her, kicking and 
screaming symbolically further and further into this arena by staffers 
of two Senators.
  Now there is a new scandal on the front page of today's Washington 
Times. To avoid all elected officials here, let us just look at Dan 
Lassiter, who was never elected to anything, from the State of 
Arkansas.
  There are now new charges. Investigators want to know whether Dan 
Lassiter contributed thousands of dollars to certain campaigns and if 
he used a New Mexico resort. His name is stunning. I will never forget 
it, a great call sign for the Air Force or Navy flight of four, ``angel 
fire.''
  It was 22,000 acres in New Mexico. It appears to have cost naive 
investors upwards of $40 million or more. So more will be heard on 
that.
  I guess we will have to meet with all the Parliamentarians and write 
some new rules around here, if and when the House committees, the 
relevant committees, start having hearings on the financial scandals.
  There is a new button that is in our Cloakroom now that says, ``Full 
Disclosure Now.'' That means, when do we get these hearings that the 
Senate voted 90-something to a couple of people and that were 
voted here 380-something to a few to have these hearings. Where do we 
go from here before we take the memorial 50th anniversary of D-Day 
district work period break that begins 2 weeks from tomorrow?

  Now, do these scandals affect foreign policy where people can die. I 
said here last night that six moderate to conservative Democrats told 
me they thought it would have an effect. That there were people in the 
White House talking about military force in Haiti and that it was 
driven by domestic concerns.
  I have here the draft of the House Republican Policy Committee, 
chaired by the very distinguished Henry Hyde of Illinois, my good 
friend. I think this will probably be approved, Mr. Speaker, on 
Tuesday. I want to read it in its totality just in case somebody on the 
National Security Council convinces the White House to put people, men 
and now women, in harm's way in Haiti. I want this Republican Policy 
Committee draft on record, because we had a unanimous vote to move on 
this.
  I do not know what they do in the Democratic Cloakroom, but in the 
Republican Cloakroom we have something cleverly titled ``The Boarding 
Pass.'' All the people racing out to catch airplanes. I am leaving in 
the morning. I did not have to grab it and run to Dulles or National 
Airport.
  Our Boarding Pass is put up by the Republican Conference, Dick Armey, 
chairman, and it gives us themes to discuss at town hall meetings or 
with our voters or in appointments in getting out and about in our 
various districts.
  And the weekend theme is the coming GOP majority. Followed by 
recurring theme, health care, and then it says, ``Clinton's Haiti 
policy, welcome to the sunshine state.'' I am going to read that.
  But first, I want to reread a letter that I quickly read last night, 
because I only had 5 minutes, and re-submit it for the Record today, 
because it comes from, I will just use his first name, Howell, from the 
Carolinas, I will not even say which one. Howell took me for a tour of 
his textile plant in Haiti, a beautiful facility.
  My father was a businessman and always prided himself on having the 
best working conditions for his workers of anybody in the field. I was 
one of those workers in California Heating and Air Conditioning for 
three long summers, crawling around among spiders under houses putting 
in units or updating heating units til I got promoted to the air-
conditioning and forced-air part of my father's business. This is when 
I was 14, 15, and 16 years of age.

  I know good working conditions from poor. And Howell and his family's 
textile plant in Haiti was as good as I have ever seen.
  I was there all morning watching the coffee breaks, the lunch break, 
the machine facilities for lunches. And it was excellent.
  Here is what he wrote to me, this is dated April 12, last month, 
1994. And I can see from the letterhead that he is into a new career 
field in the restaurant business.
  He says, ``Dear Congressman, I will never forget the morning you rode 
through the streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, with me during the 
riots.''
  We went out, I would ask the people listening to my words to picture 
Haiti as though you are looking at a bull, an animal from the top down. 
It is only a third of the Island that Columbus discovered in 1492. He 
discovered it, as a matter of fact, this very week of 1493. I believe 
he named it Hispaniola. Haiti it is only a third of the Island, the 
western third. There is two big, long peninsulas that come out with a 
big Island in the middle of this natural port, as natural a port as 
Guantanamo Bay.

                              {time}  1850

  Teddy Roosevelt once put the entire Great White Fleet inside 
Guantanamo, and I have seen writings from the turn of the century where 
the whole United States fleet could have gone into Port-au-Prince in 
Haiti.
  I went way out on the Southern peninsula, the bigger of the two 
horns, during this election period among election riots. Seven people 
were killed within 5 minutes just right of where we were. Our charge 
d'affaires, a tremendous lady in the Foreign Service, said, ``We had 
better get out of here.''
  I saw a lot of horror there. I saw the torture house right down by 
the port facilities where they deliberately would torture people at 
night. This is back 4 or 5 years and several juntas ago. They would 
allow the screams of the people being tortured to waft up, bringing a 
terrifying chill to everybody in the lower city area. On a cool, calm, 
clear night they told me at the Ambassador's house, which was then 
occupied by a charge d'affaires that sometimes you could hear the 
screaming all the way up in the area where the larger homes were. All 
chilling stories about the horror of Haiti.
  For those who want a crash history course, it is fascinating. 
Napoleon sold the Louisiana Purchase to our third President, Thomas 
Jefferson, for one reason only: to get money to continue his war of 
combat in Haiti, because he thought Haiti was such a rich little slave 
colony. They were getting more money out of Haiti than they would ever 
get out of New Orleans, (which was to become the State of Louisiana two 
decades later) or the entire Louisiana Purchase, going up to the 
Missouri and Mississippi headlands.
  Interestingly enough, Haiti's birth as an independent nation was 1 
year after the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon got the money from this 
fledgling country that was by then given, using our Constitution, only 
17 years old. Yet it was not enough. Haiti became an independent nation 
in 1804. The first independent nation in the Caribbean. It is just 
tragic that it has lived such a violent, turbulent history over the 
last 190 years. Haiti has ended up in this tragic state now where the 
people are starving to death because of our policy of sanctions on this 
country, while we try to restore an unstable non-democrat. Although 
elected in the 1960s, Jean-Bertrand Aristide is more in the category of 
Allende, who won in the 1930s, or yes, even an emerging terror like 
Adolf Hitler, who won 34.-something percent. Just because you win an 
election does not always mean you are a democrat, even if you win with 
63 percent.
  Back to the letter from my friend Howell. He says, ``Riding with you 
during the riots, your interest was most appreciated. Our factory was 
`nationalized' after Aristide came to power. I lost everything. All I 
brought back from Haiti was a couple of bullet wounds.
  If Brian, who was then my chief of staff and has now gone into 
business in Orange County, ``if Brian is still with you, tell him 
hello. I have some interesting information firsthand from Ron Brown,'' 
I don't know what Ron Brown he is referring to, it must be his Ron 
Brown, ``concerning a diversion of funds from the Nation of Haiti to a 
congressional caucus,'' he means a sub-caucus. ``Give me a call if you 
are interested. Best of luck, Howell.''
  If anybody in the Carolinas, Mr. Speaker, is hearing my voice, I have 
yet to call him, but I will.
  Here is what our Republican Conference boarding pass says about what 
we might expect over the weekend on Haiti. I repeat the title: 
``Welcome to the Sunshine State.''

  ``By giving in to sit-ins by one liberal sub-caucus,'' and this must 
mean the Black Caucus, ``and a hunger strike by Trans-Africa's Randall 
Robinson, Clinton continued to display his lack of leadership in 
foreign policy. According to Democrat Senator Bob Graham, the 
President's decision to switch course on Haiti will amount to a very 
substantial green light for people to leave Haiti.''
  The luckier ones will survive. Many will drown at sea, as probably 
half a million Vietnamese, more like 600,000 or more, drowned in the 
South China Sea because of action taken in this Chamber a year and nine 
months before I was sworn in. I'm talking about the votes of the spring 
of 1975, which cut off all economic and finally all military aid by 
that newly elected Watergate class in the spring of 1975 to Vietnam.
  ``The President's erratic Haiti policy now appears to be cynically 
tied to moving forward with his liberal domestic agenda,'' so our 
conference is making the case that it is not scandal-driven, it is 
liberal domestic agenda driven, ``particularly government-run health 
care. Clinton needs the Black Caucus's support, and according to Dalton 
West of the Global Strategy Council, Clinton is giving the foreign 
policy issue away in order to hold his whole coalition together.
  ``President Clinton, however, may be painting the United States into 
a corner. If the tougher economic sanctions don't end Haiti's military 
rule, United States military action may be the only option left.
  ``The Boston Globe reports, however, that `Haiti's military believes 
it can continue to ignore the United States, because the Clinton 
Administration is not serious about restoring Aristide to power.'''
  ``Commenting About Clinton's new policy on Haiti, the New York Post 
writes, `Simply translated, it says Randall Robinson will eat, but lots 
of Haitian children will starve,''' That was the New York Post.
  Here is the Henry Hyde-led House Republican Policy Committee, and I 
appreciate this and stand by every word myself: ``Statement of 
Republican Policy on Haiti,'' and this is the loyal opposition which 
expanded Tuesday by one. There are now 177 Republicans in this House.
  I noticed in our boarding pass it says, ``How about a re-vote on the 
President's massive tax increase of last year, which only won by one, 
or how about a re-vote on the ban on semiautomatic weapons that look 
ugly?'' Interesting thought.
  Most people who earn their living analyzing or toting elections say 
that we should take 16 seats, a slam dunk. I would never count those 
chickens until the votes are counted, but that means if we take 16 
seats, the Republican Party has 193 Members. That is more than Ronald 
Reagan had with 192 when he was sworn in in January of 1981, and 
President Nixon twice hit 192, never got beyond that.
  President Eisenhower had a majority in the 220s in 1953 and 1954, and 
then lost it, and then fought back to about 203, I believe. Then he 
lost it again in the elections of 1958 and dropped down in the dismal 
area where we are now and have been for the last 40 years.
  One hundred and ninety-three would be a magic number, rebuilding what 
the late Tip O'Neill called the conservative coalition, where it 
flushes a lot of moderate Democrats who will come out and vote more 
conservatively when the Republican numbers get over 190. Here we sit at 
177, the House Republican Policy Committee.
  Here is our statement on Haiti: ``Republicans strongly oppose calls 
for United States military intervention in Haiti. In the absence of 
threats to American citizens in Haiti, there are no United States 
National interests at stake that compel us to take such action.
  It is not a solution to Haiti's chronic internal problems. That would 
be a serious and costly mistake for the United States. U.S. armed 
forces should not be sent into combat as a substitute for sound foreign 
policy.''
  Forgive me if I say amen at that first paragraph.
  ``President Clinton's uncertain Haiti policy seems more responsive to 
stormy political winds whipped up by United States domestic special 
interests than to any careful assessment of our national interest in 
Haiti. The President said, `We have an interest in bolstering democracy 
and human rights in Haiti.' This is true, but as events in Somalia have 
made painfully clear with the loss of 30 American young lives, we have 
not the means nor the ability to send American troops to forcibly 
impose democracy and respect for human rights on every one of the 
dozens of countries where those rights are lacking.
  ``United States forces occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934 without ever 
achieving any durable political reform. There is no reason to believe 
that our will can be imposed upon Haitians any more effectively today 
than it was from 1915 to 1934.''

  The third paragraph, ``The President says, `We have a humanitarian 
interest in preventing a massive and disastrous exodus of Haitians by 
sea,' and, indeed we do. Clinton himself recognized this when he 
abruptly reversed his campaign rhetoric even before his inauguration.'' 
That is because the boats were underway, ``and embraced the hard choice 
of the Bush Administration, continuing the policy of forced 
repatriation of Haitians picked up at sea.''

                              {time}  1900

  I would have changed that, ``rescued at sea,'' because many of them 
were on the edge of death.
  ``Now by reversing himself again and reinstituting shipboard 
processing of asylum seekers--'' I have never heard of that in my life, 
a floating immigration office at sea--``Clinton is encouraging Haitians 
to risk their lives in rickety boats and dangerous seas,'' shark 
infested waters I might add, recalling some of the horrible shark 
attacks on a plane crash stuffed with people going to New York in the 
days of Veto Mark Antonio, a member of this Chamber, ``Dangerous seas 
while the United States consular facilities in Haiti continue to 
process asylum applications.
  ``Rather than continuing to make veiled threats to use force,'' I 
would have added over and over again, ``Clinton should abandon his 
administration's haphazard and quixotic,'' I love that word as in Don 
Quixote, ``quixotic approach to Haiti and formulate a policy that has 
some credibility. He should begin by loosening the grip of Jean-
Bertrand Aristide and his well-heeled lobbyists over U.S. policy 
options. He should aggressively work with regional friends, the 
organization of American States and the United Nations to seek 
agreement among Haiti's parliamentarians, military leaders and 
president.'' I would call him ex-President Aristide because a new 
president was appointed by the Parliament down there yesterday. As I 
said last night, the Parliament that still sits in Haiti, however you 
want to characterize it, was elected in the same election on 16 
December 1990 that elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
  ``And we should seek agreement among Haiti's parliamentarians, 
military leaders'', and Aristide himself, ``to schedule new 
elections,'' let him try again, ``in order to get beyond the current 
impasse. A bold and effective solution to the looming refugee crisis 
may lie in the use of Ile De La Gonave. . .'' That is this big island 
that I described between the two peninsulas, the horns of the one-third 
of the Island of Hispaniola known as Haiti. It is the island near Port 
au Prince, right inside the Port of Au Prince, ``as a safe haven for 
Haitians.''
  Now let me spell that name to drive, Mr. Speaker, some of our 
watchers and listeners to their geography books and their atlases. Isle 
of the Gonave, G-o-n-a-v-e. I assume the ``e'' is silent, being French. 
Isle, I-s-l-e, de, d-e, la, l-a, Gonave. That giant island is more 
friendly to the United States than any comparable part of Haiti.
  If we are going to put any young American Marines, male and female, 
to touch Haitian soil, and they do not land on this island only as a 
first step to set up a safe haven for Haitians trying to escape either 
starvation, now caused by us, or some of the cruelties of the military 
junta there, then they have no right to ask any American under a 
Commander in Chief, who dodged the draft twice. On the third go-round 
he was drafted with an induction date of July 28, 1969. He had that 
induction notice politically suppressed and reversed. As I have said 
many times on this floor, I have never heard of anybody ever doing that 
other than a tragic automobile accident with severe injuries, or a 
severe athletic injury. Nobody undoes a draft induction show-up date. 
Every military base I have visited, and I have been on about 10 of them 
in the last 4 months, people come up to me of all ranks and military 
positions and jobs and say that it is hurtful to be put in harm's way 
by somebody who three times avoided the call of his country and let 
other young high school kids to in his place.
  Our last and fifth paragraph on the Republican policy statement. 
``Only bold initiatives like this,'' combining using this Island of 
Gonave,'' with active diplomacy, will lead to a resolution of Haiti's 
problems. The Clinton administration should be broadening its 
diplomatic engagement, not limiting its options to costly and 
unworkable solutions. Above all, Haitians must take responsibility for 
their own future. No action by the United States can substitute for 
that.'' Now, that calls to mind President John F. Kennedy's stirring 
words, and I imitate him as flattery, not derision, when he said, ``In 
the end it will be Vietnamese boys that will have to win their own 
freedom.'' I do not know when we are ever going to learn here not to 
relive the mistakes of the past. But if we are going to go into Haiti 
because of its current problems of over a 190-year span since it won 
freedom in 1804, what are we going to do about Cuba? That has been a 
dictatorship from the middle of the fourth decade, and what are we 
going to do about Castro? Even in the ill-fated Bay of Pigs when the 
same President Kennedy denied air coverage while the men on the beach 
were depending on it, we were still using Cuban boys, really tough men 
no matter how young they were, to fight for their freedom, and we left 
them hanging out there on the limb to be captured, several thousand of 
them by Castro, who did put his air power over the beach at the Bay of 
Pigs. How can we ask a young woman or a young man under a flawed 
command to go in and put their life on the line when we will not do it 
for Cuba. There are still Cuban boat people of all colors and 
backgrounds trying to sail north to refuge in the world's largest, 
truly free democracy?
  I have to pay a little respect to India which is twice our size and 
does have wild democratic elections where an average of 40, 50, 80 
people are killed in every election that they have there. So I will 
take our system of open elections.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope when we come back for votes on Tuesday, or when 
the House comes back in to debate on Monday, there will be no surprises 
by the National Security Adviser, Tony Lake, convincing Mr. Clinton 
that the way to go in Haiti is to put American forces in there.
  I was sickened when the U.S.S. Harlan County pulled away, just a few 
days after the firefight from hell on October 3 and 4 in Somalia, from 
a gang of 40 rent-a-thugs screaming, ``You're going to get what you got 
in Somalia,'' 40 rent-a-thugs is what the best intelligence sources can 
tell the press now. They drove back U.S. Forces of mostly engineers who 
were told they could not bring their now banned for civilian ownership 
semiautomatic M-16's with them. It does not have a treble burst 
function. They had to carry only sidearms, only their Beretta. And now 
we are being told by caucuses in this House that the men on the Harland 
County could have scared off these 40 rent-a-thugs. Why did we not go 
in? Well, the fact remains we did not because there was guilt at the 
White House because the Commander in Chief, according to the liberal 
Washington Post, went into a pay phone up at a golf course in Martha's 
Vineyard and made a call down to I guess Tony Lake and said send in 
that special operations group, whatever they call it. He did not know 
the term ``Delta,'' which is the biggest known secret in the world. Now 
staffers at the White House, as high as you get, say that the one 
incident we cannot run from is the death of 18 of America's best-
trained Army personnel in Aideed country near the Bacarra Market in 
downtown Mogadishu.
  I rushed my words last night when I was talking about having widows 
and sisters up in the gallery, having fathers call me who had survived 
two or three tours in Vietnam without ever being scratched, who lost 
their son. Mr. Joyce has retraced his very steps as his son was 
fighting for his life and then lying there dying. He said, ``I was on 
the ninth hole at a golf course outside of Chicago.'' He will live with 
that memory forever. In a beautiful tribute in Newsweek magazine about 
3 weeks ago to his son he asked, ``Why did my son die in Mogadishu, 
Somalia?''

  There are no clear answers, and that is why I am going to recite on 
the floor next week the six Cap Weinberger commandments which outline 
when we should not put American men and now women in harm's way. And I 
have added four to those, not to round it off to a mosaic 10, but there 
are four new things that have come up. One of them Cap Weinberger 
pointed out to me just last week, that American forces should never be 
put under foreign command.

                              {time}  1910

  They should always go into combat under U.S. commanders or under 
allied commanders who trained with us under ratified treaties such as 
NATO.
  One of the things I have had to add to Cap's six and his newest 
seventh is we have to make sure our people are trained and armed 
properly. None of this U.S.S. Harlan County Beretta 9mm only, and no 
weapons. It was sickening that we turned around. It has created 
problems for us in Bosnia and everywhere else in the world, but 
nevertheless, we did turn around, and now we are stuck with a totally 
different situation in Haiti.
  As far as this Congressman is concerned, I will make this promise: I 
hope somebody, Mr. Speaker, from the White House is listening, that if 
any American soldier, sailor, marine, pilot, or crewman, any man or 
woman dies in any operation in Haiti other than an operational accident 
off the coast, but dies from hostile fire, I will travel at my expense 
to anywhere in the country and personally talk to the mother, the 
father, the widow, any children over 13, and I will try to bring their 
opinions back to this House. I will try to extend the sympathy of my 
Government that we have squandered lives in another non-clearly-defined 
operation that may be driven by something other than human rights 
considerations, America's vital interests or the interests of any 
legitimate allies. For any of the aforementioned reasons from what 
those six moderate Democrats told me to get scandals off the front page 
or, as my Republican Party in its majority opinion believes, that it is 
to try to hold together a coalition of liberal people in this House.
  The Republican Party has taken seven for seven this year and last of 
all the special elections. We probably are going to pick up a great 
number of seats in this Chamber and may even have an outside chance at 
taking control of the Senate which, in the last 40 years, was under 
Republican control for President Reagan's first 6 years. I am not going 
to sit here as member of the Committee on Armed Services as a peacetime 
veteran, trained to be a combat fighter pilot, but serving under five-
star general President Eisenhower, never having to kill another 
mother's son or to put my life in jeopardy other than in the dangers of 
flying supersonic aircraft in tough operational training.
  I owe a debt to those who died before me. That is why I am going to 
Normandy with our distinguished colleague, retired two-star general 
Sonny Montgomery of Mississippi, why I will probably go back to Europe, 
this Christmas after we adjourn and the elections are over and walk the 
battlefield at Bastogne, in Belgium, and find that field at Malmedy 
where German war criminals machine-gunned to death 108 young U.S. 
prisoners, some of them 18 years of age. Where the army violated an 
order from this House, this Chamber then, that no 18-year-olds would 
ever be sent in combat. They would stay here and replace others of 
older age who would go over. Pretty soon we usually find this is the 
military way of doing things, suddenly somebody does not get the word, 
and here are 18-year-old young Americans in combat against German 
Waffen SS and Panzer Divisions. I owe a debt to those men behind me, 
and I owe a debt to those that came after me in Vietnam.
  I want our young military people on active duty to live through their 
career, whatever time they give to their country. If they are called 
into combat, they should know the ground upon which they stand and that 
their country, including this Congress, both Houses, are going to back 
them up, that there is a victory goal in sight, that if the policies 
change, we will debate it in this House. There will be a whole new 
operational plan that they will be properly trained, and I am going to 
put in the Record those 10 commandments and hope to send them to all of 
the Chiefs of Staff of the various militaries under the Chairman, Gen. 
John Shalikashvili, and let us see if we cannot adopt a policy in this 
House so we do not have any more no-victory conflicts like Korea or 
Vietnam. No more indecision such as we have seen in Bosnia and the 
ultimate tragedy that took 30 or our Nation's finest men in uniform in 
Mogadishu, Somalia.

  Here are those commandments right here, Mr. Speaker. I have time to 
read those Cap Weinberger-Bob Dornan commandments. I ask Cap if I could 
structure them in a Mosaic way and make them all thou-shalt-not, and he 
said, ``Of course,'' and he added that seventh one. The first six are 
pure vintage Cap Weinberger from a November 28, 1984, speech.
  1. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless the situation is 
vital to U.S. or allied national interests.
  2. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless all other options 
already have been used or considered.
  3. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless there is a clear 
commitment including allocated resources to achieving victory.
  4. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless there is clearly 
defined political and military objectives.
  5. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless our commitment of 
these forces will change if the objectives change.
  6. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless the American 
people and the Congress support the action.
  Here is the one that Cap Weinberger asked me to add last week. Cap, 
forgive me. We have worked out the language without you signing it off 
on here to include ratified treaties.
  7. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless under the 
operational command of American commanders or allied commanders under a 
ratified treaty.
  The following three are my own, and I will send them to Cap 
Weinberger to get his opinion before I send it on to the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff.
  8. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless properly equipped, 
trained, and maintained by the United States Congress.
  9. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless there is 
substantial and reliable intelligence information including human 
intelligence.
  10. Thou shalt not commit U.S. combat forces unless the Commander in 
Chief and Congress can explain to the loved ones of any American 
soldier, marine, pilot, or air crewman killed or wounded why that man 
or woman was sent in harm's way.
  I added to the last one ``sent in harm's way'' to indicate that 
people just do not turn up in harm's way. Somebody sends them there.
  Now, the leprechaun that brought me these from my office, Mr. 
Speaker, brought me another article that I am going to read part of, 
and then submit for the Record. It is by the man that I think is the 
best writer on all affairs, military and foreign policy, that involves 
military operations or potential operations, and that is Vietnam 
veteran, and I believe he is also a Korean combat vet, Harry Summers, 
Jr. He writes for the L.A. Times Syndicate.
  Here is what Col. Summers says. Title: ``Let Blood And Thunder Men 
Practice What They Preach,'' blood and thunder men. He wrote this in 
the traditional great barracks that need a lot of reworking, I might 
add, Schofield Barracks, in Hawaii.
  For those of you who are Pearl Harbor buffs or movie buffs, that is 
the barracks that Burt Lancaster grabbed an air-cooled .50-caliber 
machine gun and went up on the roof to singlehandedly shoot down 
attacking Japanese Zeroes and Kates.
  Here is what he says: ```Resolved,' that the resolution of the 24th 
North Carolina Regiment, August 26, 1863, `that the blood and thunder 
men should practice what they preach, by getting into the ranks and 
fighting, or forever hold their cowardly tongues, whether saint or 
sinner.''' A great civil war quote that I never saw. ``Then and now,'' 
Harry Summers writes, ``the view of those in the ranks who would close 
with the enemy with rifle and bayonet differ considerably from those 
who preach the virtues of military involvement far removed from the 
battlefield. To the civilian interventionists and editorialists now 
baying for United States soldiers to be committed to action in Bosnia, 
in Haiti, or in any other trouble spot around the world, military 
operations to them are an intellectual abstraction.

                              {time}  1920

  Addressing the graduating class at West Point in 1869, which is 4 
years after Appomattox, ``General William Tecumseh Sherman, one of 
America's fiercest warriors, noted that phenomenon over a century ago. 
`I know there exist many good men who honestly believe that one may, 
with the aid of modern science, sit in comfort and ease in his office 
chair, and with little blocks of wood to represent men or even with 
figures and algebraic symbols, master the great game of war.'
  ``I think this is an insidious and most dangerous mistake,'' he said. 
``The soldier in the ranks is not a block of wood or a mere unit; he is 
a man like yourselves, full of feeling and passion, varying in size and 
strength, and all the attributes of manhood.''
  Now we are going to put our young American women in uniform in harm's 
way.
  ``Those words came to mind,'' Summers continues, as I trooped the 
line of the 1st and 3rd Battalions of the 21st Infantry here at 
Scofield, paraded in my honor as the newly appointed honorary colonel 
of the regiment.'' Congratulations, Harry, I did not know that. ``And 
they were brought home again the following evening as the young 
soldiers of those rifle companies and their corporals, sergeants, 
lieutenants, and captains and their wives passed through the receiving 
line at the regimental dining out. Although it is seldom mentioned, the 
first thing being an infantryman entails is unlimited liability. A Navy 
admiral, a distinguished Vietnam War fighter pilot, once said he didn't 
know the difference between direct and indirect combat. A rifleman 
does. It is called the topical crest of the hill. If you are dug in 20 
meters down the front slope with no way in hell of getting out when the 
enemy attacks, you're in direct combat. Indirect combat has its dangers 
too, but those `rear-echelon willies'''--now that is an unusual turn of 
a phrase. Those ``rear-echelon willies,'' either singular or plural, 
``on the reverse slope can cut and run if it gets too bad. The tanks 
can reverse gear and drive away. The planes can zoom out of harm's way, 
and the artillery displaced to a safer location. But the riflemen are 
stuck. They have a commitment to stand and fight, and, if need be, to 
die. That is shared by no one else in the Armed Forces. They are the 
military's true elite.'' Amen, Harry.
  ``Where once nuclear bombs and missiles were America's strategic 
forces, today conventional forces are once again the true strategic 
(that is, war-winning) force. And at the heart of conventional forces 
is the infantry. All the other arms and services exist to support their 
mission to seize and hold ground.'' And I know that this Army colonel 
is including the Marine infantry.
  ``Everything depends on combat, Carl von Clausewitz emphasized in his 
treatises on war 160 years ago. Even if you never fight, it depends on 
combat because it rests on the perception that if you did fight, you'd 
win.'' He concludes, ``But infantry units cannot be committed lightly. 
As Sherman said, they are not blocks of wood.'' Not toys, war-gaming. 
``And neither are these volunteers a kind of foreign legion. They are 
America's sons and daughters, as, to its credit, the news media reminds 
us when one of these soldiers is killed or injured in the Nation's 
service. If today's `blood and thunder men' are so anxious to 
intervene, perhaps they could, as in the 1930's Spanish Civil War, form 
a latter-day Lincoln Brigade with companies from the New Republic,'' 
that is our schizophrenic magazine here in D.C., ``the New York Times, 
the Washington Post, and other such jingoist organizations. Save the 
infantry for when the vital interests of the Nation itself are 
imperiled.'' That is Harry Summers, Jr., U.S. Colonel Retired. I think 
I will send my Weinberg-Dornan commandments to Harry.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not have to speak on Haiti next week. I will 
hold my breath over this 4-day weekend and see what the situation is 
next week.

                          ____________________