[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  REASONS TO OPPOSE THE GOSS AMENDMENT

  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and to include 
extraneous material.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, over the Memorial Day recess, I joined 
members of the House Intelligence Committee on an official fact-finding 
mission to Haiti. I had the opportunity to view first hand the 
destitute and destruction that has been wrought on that country by a 
belligerent band of military thugs headed by General Cedras. Mr. 
Speaker, it is a certainty that the horrible disrepair of our Caribbean 
neighbor will only worsen as long as the military junta continues to 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 24, the House considered a Sense-of-Congress 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. That 
amendment required the President to certify to Congress that clear and 
present danger to citizens of the United States or United States 
interest existed prior to the United States undertaking any military 
action, and to establish a temporary safehaven on the Haitian island of 
lle de la Gonave for Haitian refugees escaping economic and political 
hardships on the mainland of Haiti. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the 
amendment then and will oppose it today when the House reconsiders it.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration's new policy on Haitian 
refugees makes the Goss amendment unnecessary. That policy provides for 
both ship-board and land-based processing for refugees. To date, the 
Department of Defense has chartered two Ukrainian ships for the ship-
board processing, and the administration has worked out an agreement 
with Jamaica to permit ships to anchor off the shores of Kingston for 
further processing. Additionally, the administration has secured the 
participation of the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees.
  Returning Haitian refugees to lle de la Gonave is to return them to 
Haiti. Ile de la Gonave is a 280-square mile island just west of Port-
au-Prince. Ile de la Gonave is Haitian territory. Thus, the Goss 
amendment represents a retreat to the old Bush administration-initiated 
policy of returning Haitian refugees to Haiti without the benefit of 
any determination of their refugee status.

  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the requirement that the President make 
certain certifications to the Congress prior to committing U.S. forces 
to Haiti is being used by General Cedras to consolidate his hold on 
power and the military's reign of terror. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath 
of the withdrawal of the Harlan County, the Haitian military does not 
believe that the United States has any resolve to commit any forces. 
The option to use force must remain open and unabated so that the 
Haitian military will know that the United States supports democracy 
and will not stand idly by in the wake of criminal anarchy in Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration's policy on Haiti represents a 
constructive effort to restore democracy to that Caribbean nation. This 
policy should be given every opportunity to succeed without the 
Congress tying the Administration's hands in removing from its 
diplomatic arsenal the threat of military force. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Goss amendment when it is considered by the 
House this afternoon.

                  Reasons To Oppose the Goss Amendment

       The cornerstone of the Goss amendment--the establishment of 
     a ``safe haven'' on Ile de Gonave--has been rendered moot by 
     Jamaica and the Turks & Caicos agreeing to assist the United 
     States in the processing of refugees. Also, Venezuela and 
     other countries in the region have agreed to accept Haitian 
     refugees.
       The Defense Department explains that turning Ile de Gonave 
     into a safe haven would require a much greater U.S. military 
     commitment that the amendment suggests on the surface:
       The island is mostly rock and swamp and lacks basic 
     infrastructure. Supplying the island would require the United 
     States to make extensive and very costly investments in 
     military logistics and engineering capabilities to transform 
     this mosquito-infested island into a ``safe haven.''
       Carrying out the provisions of this amendment would require 
     the use of U.S. military force to seize Ile de Gonave, since 
     the island is Haitian territory and now under de facto 
     control of the Haitian military. Also, Goss' contention that 
     Ile de Gonave could become a foothold for President 
     Aristide's return is disingenuous. The island is isolated 
     from the Haitian mainland, has no infrastructure, would pose 
     a serious problem regarding communicating with the rest of 
     Haiti. This provisions in the amendment would only serve to 
     add to the political uncertainty and repression in Haiti, 
     which, in turn, would lead to even greater refugee outflows.
       This amendment violates international and U.S. law which 
     prohibit the forcible return of persons fleeing persecution 
     to the country of such persecution since Ile de Gonave is 
     Haitian territory, and Haitians are fleeing the most brutal 
     government in the western hemisphere.
       Goss argued that the amendment would lift the current 
     sanctions on Haiti. This is not even remotely true.
       The State Department, the Defense Department, the House 
     Leadership, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House 
     Armed Services Committee, and the democratically elected 
     government of Haiti oppose the Goss amendment.

                          ____________________