[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 92 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    FACTFINDING COMMISSION TO HAITI

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I wanted to set the record straight on an 
amendment voted on yesterday concerning a factfinding commission to 
Haiti. Some of the rhetoric got a little heated, and that happens from 
time to time in the Senate. I think we are all probably guilty of it 
from time to time. Some of it got a little ridiculous. I was not on the 
floor when one Senator said Republicans ought to be ``ashamed'' for 
supporting a factfinding commission for Haiti.
  I do not quite understand why we ought to be ashamed for wanting the 
facts, but maybe there is something wrong with wanting the facts.
  Some questioned the motives behind the amendment aimed at getting 
answers, not limiting options.
  I do not question the motives of those who disagree with me but my 
motives are clear: Avoiding another disastrous nation-building exercise 
in Haiti. I am not ashamed of urging a step back from a policy of saber 
rattling and ill-considered military intervention.
  If I offer an amendment urging a look before we leap into invasion, 
some term it ``partisan politics.''
  We heard a lot yesterday about the need for bipartisan in foreign 
policy. Where were these voices when freedom fighters in Nicaraugua 
needed support, or when the Democratic Government of El Salvador was 
under attack, or when President Bush came to Congress before Operation 
Desert Storm? Where were the champions of bipartisanship when 
amendments tying the President's hands on arms control were offered, 
antisatellite testing prohibitions, comprehensive test bans, and many 
others when sensitive negotiations with our adversaries were underway.
  Much of this expressed desire for bipartisanship in foreign policy is 
a newfound wish. Bipartisanship in foreign policy is a worthy goal. I 
understand that, and the President of the United States, whoever he or 
she may be and whatever party we have--if we can all possibly have the 
responsibility to support our President, that is what I think most of 
us hope to do. But I want to remind our colleagues, who suddenly found 
this bipartisanship and have not discovered it in the last decade, that 
it is a two-way street. The administration cannot ignore our concerns, 
and then accuse us of partisanship when we offer ideas.
  We have not had any consultation on Haiti, nor any consultation on 
Bosnia, nor any consultation on North Korea.
  It was also stated yesterday that it would be unwise to take the 
invasion option off the table--from some of the same people who did all 
they could to take it off the table in the 1980's. We had no serious 
invasion option in Nicaragua--we had Boland amendments and 
congressional restrictions every step of the way. We had no military 
deployment option in El Salvador. We had a 55-man limit, and annual 
certification.
  Talk about tying the hands of the executive, and talking about 
restraints and restrictions. We learned a lot about those in the 
1980's.
  Several Members mentioned that General Cedras in Haiti made positive 
comments about my proposal. Let me again state what I said yesterday: I 
do not solicit or want the support of the thugs running Haiti for any 
initiative I offer. I have never spoken to the illegal military regime 
in control of Haiti. My staff has never spoken to the military regime. 
Unlike the administration which appears to be willing to allow an 
exiled Haitian politician call the shots, I make my own decisions.
  Let us review the record. I first proposed a fact finding commission 
on May 5, 1994. On May 6, I wrote to the President and offered to work 
with him. After Bill Gray was named special representative, I met with 
him on May 17 and urged him to consider the proposal. This commission 
could have completed its work by now. However, after hearing nothing 
for weeks, I decided to offer an amendment. I did not travel to Port-
au-Prince. I did not meet with sworn enemies of the United States. I 
did not bring back a dictator's disinformation and call it a peace 
plan.
  And I might say that happened with Mr. Ortega and some of our 
colleagues.
  But that is exactly what happened in April 1985. Two Senators 
traveled to Managua, met with the Communist Dictator Daniel Ortega, 
accepted his propaganda at face value, and brought back a so-called 
peace plan. One of them said it presented ``a wonderful opening.'' The 
Secretary of State George Shultz said, ``I'm sure it's a quite a 
problem for us when Senators run around and start dealing with the 
Communists themselves.''
  We all understand--most of us understand--that there are limits on 
what we can do. We do not run around the world trying to make deals 
with some of our enemies or some of our adversaries.
  A few days later, Ortega got his way and Contra aid was defeated 
after a partisan debate. That was the kind of bipartisanship in foreign 
policy some Senators pursued when a Republican was in the White House.
  So let the record show Republicans supported a simple amendment to 
look at the facts for 45 days.
  We did not say that the President's hands were tied during that 45 
days. That is how the media reported it because they just took at face 
value what one of my colleagues on the other side said.
  We did not conduct diplomacy on our own. My amendment would not have 
tied the President's hands--it did not even mention the President or 
the executive branch.
  I ask consent that two articles on the 1985 trip be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, April 22, 1985]

Talks Set on `Contra' Aid Rescue; President to Meet Key Senators Today 
                            On a Compromise

                   (By Lou Cannon and Rick Atkinson)

       With time running out, President Reagan's top foreign 
     policy advisers struggled yesterday to find a formula that 
     would avert almost certain rejection in Congress of the 
     administration's long efforts to resume aid to the rebels 
     opposing the leftist government of Nicaragua.
       ``Our hope now is the Senate Democrats,'' said one White 
     House official, who said Reagan would meet today with Senate 
     Minority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and other Senate 
     leaders in a final bid to find a bipartisan compromise that 
     would provide $14 million in ``humanitarian aid'' for the 
     rebels, known as ``contras.''
       ``We don't have much of a fallback position because we've 
     already fallen back considerably,'' the official said.
       Because of what both congressional and administration 
     sources said were problems of timing, a meeting between 
     Reagan and Senate leaders scheduled for yesterday was 
     postponed until today.
       Byrd met for three hours in the Capitol yesterday afternoon 
     with 10 other Senate Democrats, including John Kerry (Mass.) 
     and Tom Harkin (Iowa), who described a three-page peace 
     proposal given to them by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega 
     during talks in Managua over the weekend.
       White House Deputy press secretary Robert Sims said the 
     proposal, which had not been made formally to the U.S. 
     Embassy, contained ``nothing new'' and did not provide for 
     ``a dialogue of reconciliation.'' He said its main purpose 
     appeared to be aimed at influencing a vote against the aid 
     proposal, which is scheduled to come up for a vote in both 
     chambers on Tuesday.
       Secretary of State George P. Shultz, leaving a White House 
     meeting on the aid issue, was asked his opinion of the Ortega 
     plan and flashed a thumbs-down signal.
       The meeting chaired by Byrd was the third among key Senate 
     Democrats in the last four days in an effort to find common 
     ground on the issue of aiding the contras. According to a 
     source close to the discussions, Byrd told Reagan after the 
     first meeting Thursday that if the White House could reach a 
     compromise with Senate leaders before the Tuesday vote the 
     minority leader would find an ``alternative legislative and 
     procedural approach to the contra aid issue.''
       Administration sources, aware that some compromise in the 
     Senate is their only hope for sustaining Reagan's hard-fought 
     effort to provide at least a semblance of aid for the rebels, 
     said they were willing to compromise on all procedural 
     issues. These sources said that the administration's 
     remaining goal was to provide the $14 million in aid, which 
     could be used for food but not for arms, until the next 
     fiscal year, and that Congress could determine the mechanism 
     provided that it is an official agency of the government.
       One source suggested that the likely mechanism would be not 
     the Central Intelligence Agency but ``an interagency group'' 
     that would be subject to close review by Congress to see that 
     the money was not funneled indirectly into military aid.
       A Democratic source said that, during yesterday's meeting 
     chaired by Byrd, ``one senator who has generally supported 
     aid to the contras made a proposal, the general consensus of 
     which the group was able to agree on. Whether they can agree 
     on the particulars remains to be seen.''
       Reagan is focusing on the Senate because administration 
     officials privately concede that they have almost no chance 
     of winning an acceptable version of the aid request in the 
     House.
       They expect passage instead of a Democratic alternative 
     that would provide $10 million for Nicaraguan refugees 
     distributed by the International Red Cross or the United 
     Nations and $4 million to Mexico, Colombia, Panama and 
     Venezuela to administer any peace plan these countries--known 
     as the Contadora group--might be able to produce.
       In his Saturday radio speech, Reagan termed this plan a 
     ``shameful surrender'' to the Sandinista government of 
     Nicaragua. But administration officials said that, if the 
     Senate passes a plan acceptable to Reagan, it may be possible 
     to work out a compromise in a conference committee between 
     the two chambers.
       Appearing on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Senate Majority 
     Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) expressed some optimism, 
     saying, ``we think we can resolve this issue on Tuesday with 
     pretty broad bipartisan support.''
       Instead of conferring with the Democrats yesterday, 
     Reagan's leading policy advisers met among themselves. 
     Shultz, national security affairs adviser Robert C. 
     McFarlane, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and CIA 
     Director William J. Casey convened at the White House to 
     assess prospects for a compromise.
       The administration brushed off the Kerry and Harkin report 
     that Ortega had offered a new proposal that would call for an 
     immediate cease-fire, restore freedom of the press and make 
     other conciliatory gestures if the United States halts 
     support for the rebels.
       Kerry said Ortega's offer contained ``approximately six new 
     elements'' and provided ``a wonderful opening'' to resolve 
     the conflict ``without having to militarize the region.'' He 
     and Harkin outlined the plan in a three-page memo, which was 
     made available to the administration.
       According to the memo, Ortega called upon the United States 
     to discontinue direct and indirect support to the rebels and 
     to enter immediately into new conversations with Nicaragua. 
     He went on to guarantee access to these talks 
     to congressional observers and to solicit U.N. and Red 
     Cross assistance for the resettlement and repatriation of 
     any citizen who wishes to live in Nicaragua or any 
     neighboring country.
       The memo said that Ortega pledged to ``guarantee full 
     freedom of the press and reaffirm political pluralism and 
     fundamental freedoms'' as well as ``unconditional amnesty for 
     any member of the contras who surrenders his weapons to 
     representatives of the governments of Nicaragua, Honduras or 
     Costa Rica.''
       A State Department spokesman said last night of the Ortega 
     proposal: ``We see this as mainly a restatement of old 
     positions. There appear to be only two new points--the 
     conditional promise of cease-fire and the restructuring of 
     the composition of the bilateral talks.''
       Including congressional participants in the talks does not 
     appear to be workable, he said, because ``they're dictating 
     who will speak for the United States, or attempting to.''
       Former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, appearing on 
     CBS' ``Face the Nation,'' criticized Kerry and Harkin for 
     sidestepping normal diplomatic channels.
       ``If the Nicaraguans want to make an offer, they ought to 
     make it in diplomatic channels,'' Kissinger said. ``We can't 
     be negotiating with our own congressmen and Nicaragua 
     simultaneously.''
                                  ____


          [From the Christian Science Monitor, April 23, 1985]

                   11th-Hour Fight For Aid to Contras

                           (By Julia Malone)

       Reagan administration officials and senators staged 
     marathon last-minute talks Monday to try to reach a 
     compromise on President Reagan's request for $14 million for 
     rebel fighters in Nicaragua.
       Although Mr. Reagan has managed to forge 11th-hour 
     agreements during earlier critical votes, he faced a possible 
     clear defeat on the Central America question. Both houses of 
     Congress are scheduled to vote on the aid request today. As 
     of this writing, lawmakers and the administration had not 
     reached an accord.
       White House spokesman Larry Speakes conceded early Monday 
     that prospects were not bright for a Reagan plan to aid the 
     contras, who are fighting the Marxist Sandinista government 
     of Nicaragua. Even in the GOP-controlled Senate, the ``vote 
     looks very close,'' said Mr. Speakes. ``In the House we've 
     always been a bit farther behind.''
       The presidential spokesman held out some hope that Reagan 
     could pull off a last-minute victory. ``I think there's a 
     rush to underestimate our strength in both houses,'' he said, 
     adding that the administration was ``making progress'' on 
     Capitol Hill.
       As he spoke, a band of protesters perched outside the White 
     House gates, blocking two entrances and waving white 
     handkerchiefs as they chanted, ``No contra aid,'' and ``Hey, 
     hey, Uncle Sam. We remember Vietnam.''
       Dressed in ``hippie'' fashion, the youthful demonstrators 
     were reminiscent of the antiwar movement of the 1960s.
       Inside the White House, Senate majority leader Robert Dole 
     (R) of Kansas, minority leader Robert C. Byrd (D) of West 
     Virginia, and other lawmakers worked on a possible 
     alternative plan for aiding contras that might attract a 
     majority on Capitol Hill.
       Current law requires the approval of both houses to release 
     the $14 million in contra aid.
       Congressional opposition last week forced the President to 
     switch his request from military aid to ``humanitarian'' 
     aid--help such as food, uniforms, and medicine. But leading 
     Democrats have opposed even that proposal, especially if the 
     aid is distributed by the US Central Intelligence Agency.
       Many lawmakers have balked at helping rebels overthrow a 
     government that has diplomatic relations with the United 
     States. Also, while lawmakers are growing increasingly 
     critical of the Sandinista government, many are also 
     lambasting the contras as ``terrorists.''
       The Reagan administration on Monday continued to turn 
     thumbs down on a peace plan that Nicaraguan President Daniel 
     Ortega offered two Democratic senators last weekend.
       US Secretary of State George P. Shultz, on NBC-TV's 
     ``Today'' show, called the offer a ``fraud'' that was 
     ``designed to distract attention'' just before Congress votes 
     on contra aid. As presented to Sens. John Kerry of 
     Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa during a visit to 
     Nicaragua last weekend, the plan calls for a cease-fire and 
     restoration of some civil rights if the US stops helping the 
     contras.
       Speakes repeated some of Mr. Shultz's charges, saying, ``We 
     regard it as mostly a smoke screen in order to try to 
     influence the congressional vote.''
       He also said that the plan was ``meaningless and amounts to 
     a call for (the contras) to surrender.''
       Mr. Shultz meanwhile criticized the Democratic senators for 
     making the trip to Nicaragua.
       ``I'm sure it's quite a problem for us when senators run 
     around and start dealing with the communists themselves,'' he 
     said.
       The White House also released a text of a letter sent April 
     4 to the presidents of four Latin American countries 
     describing the Reagan peace plan for Central America. While 
     pointing to progress in El Salvador and Guatemala, Reagan 
     said in the letter, ``Only in Nicaragua have we seen efforts 
     to promote national reconciliation frustrated by the 
     government's negative response.''
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I would just say that I think most 
Americans are concerned about our Haitian policy. I do not think most 
Americans want intervention, invasion, call it what you will. I am not 
certain many Americans have focused on it. Maybe they think the 
President has and the administration has, or that maybe even Congress 
has. I think most Americans though expect those of us in the U.S. 
Senate and the House of Representatives to exert some effort to express 
views that may be in accord, or may not be in accord, with any 
administration views.
  For the life of me, I do not understand why we had almost a straight 
partyline vote on a factfinding commission. In 1984, we had a 
factfinding commission. It was bipartisan. It was headed by former 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and a good friend of many of us, 
former Democrat National Chairman, Bob Strauss; bipartisan. I do not 
know how many Members were on the commission. They looked at a number 
of areas in Central America and made a number of good recommendations 
that the Congress and President Reagan supported later on.
  So it is not without precedent to have a bipartisan commission to go 
down and look at the facts. In this case, there was a mixed commission 
in 1984. They had Members of Congress, and also civilian 
representatives.
  The amendment I offered was simply Members of Congress, Members of 
the Senate in this case. I believe we have that right. We do not need a 
resolution. If the majority leader and the minority leader would agree 
we ought to send somebody to take a look at it, we can do that without 
any vote.
  I hope that we continue to concern ourselves with Haiti and wonder 
what is going to happen in Haiti next, because it looks to many of us 
that a gun is aimed at Haiti and somebody is going to pull the trigger.
  There may be a time when that may be the appropriate thing to do. If 
American lives are threatened, which is not the case today, but some 
are trying to figure out and get it all set up here so that the more 
people that get on boats, the more that means we ought to invade to 
stop that.
  In my view, it is sort of self-fulfilling. It is a bad policy that is 
causing the poorest people in this hemisphere, for the right reasons, 
to flee Haiti; because they are hungry, and they are starving, they 
want to get their families out of there. But I am not certain that is 
reason to intervene, and the reason to use military force.
  But I want the record to reflect--because some of my colleagues took 
the liberty of suggesting that we were somehow doing the work of the 
military, Republicans are somehow in bed with General Cedras--that is 
not the case. It will not be the case. And I can say I am not going to 
travel down to Haiti and visit with Cedras, as some did in 1985 when 
they went down to visit with Mr. Ortega and came back with a wonderful 
peace plan.
  That is not my intention. But it is my intention, and I believe we 
have a responsibility on both sides of the aisle, to state our views 
and to offer amendments when we think we should have a discussion on 
something that may affect foreign policy, may affect trade policy, may 
affect domestic policy. And certainly there is a great concern about 
the poor Haitian people.
  I hope that we can relax the sanctions, have some airdrops, make 
certain people have food, and keep them out of these terrible boats 
they are in. There already have been lives lost in the past 30 days, 
probably unnecessarily. I hope that we might find some bipartisan 
resolution. If we cannot have that, unless we have consultation--we had 
a briefing a couple of days ago. That is not consultation.
  So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they want 
to debate who has been tying the President's hands, who has been 
offering amendments with restrictions, who has been saying we can only 
have so many men in El Salvador--you talk about restrictions, I can 
give you a bookful that we voted on in this Senate at the time Ronald 
Reagan and George Bush were Presidents of the United States. I do not 
intend to follow that course here.
  If President Clinton is right, as he was in Somalia, he will have our 
support. I hope that he will have our support in Haiti, when we know 
precisely what he has in mind.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________