[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 131 (Monday, September 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   COMMENDING THE PRESIDENT AND THE SPECIAL DELEGATION TO HAITI, AND 
           SUPPORTING THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN HAITI

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) commending the President 
and the special delegation to Haiti, and supporting the United States 
Armed Forces in Haiti.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

                            H. Con Res. 290

       Whereas the special delegation sent to Haiti on September 
     17, 1994, has succeeded in convincing the de facto 
     authorities in Haiti to agree to leave power;
       Whereas on September 18, 1994, after an agreement was 
     reached in Port-au-Prince that day, the President ordered the 
     present deployment of men and women of the United States 
     Armed Forces in and around Haiti;
       Whereas the Congress and the people of the United States 
     have great pride in the men and women of the United States 
     Armed Forces and fully support them in all their efforts 
     overseas, including those in Haiti: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress--
       (1) commends the efforts of the President in sending former 
     President Jimmy Carter, retired General Colin Powell, and 
     Senator Sam Nunn to Haiti in an effort to avoid the loss of 
     American lives;
       (2) fully supports the men and women of the United States 
     Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in Haiti with 
     professional excellence and dedicated patriotism;
       (3) supports the efforts of the President, through the 
     special delegation, to provide for the departure from power 
     of the de facto authorities and the return of democracy and 
     the rule of law in Haiti;
       (4) affirms the commitment to national reconciliation and 
     adherence to the rule of law in Haiti; and
       (5) supports an orderly withdrawal of all United States 
     Armed Forces as soon as possible.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request 
entered into earlier today, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Michel] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, and I rise 
in strong support of the courage and commitment that will finally make 
real the promise of democracy in Haiti.
  In the past 24 hours we have witnessed a remarkable triumph of 
diplomacy in America's back yard. At a time when many thought that the 
United States had exhausted every avenue for peace and democracy in 
Haiti, at a time when many thought the brutal state-sanctioned 
terrorism of Haiti's military junta could only be stopped by fighting 
fire with fire, at a time when many believed that a painful military 
conflict was simply unstoppable and unavoidable, the President of the 
United States has proven them wrong. And of course President Clinton 
knew that when America's vital interests are at stake, when the very 
principles of liberty and democracy are on the line right here in our 
own hemisphere, then the United States can never abdicate its 
leadership, even when that leadership requires force.

                              {time}  1740

  But President Clinton also knew that there is a kind of leadership 
that is tougher than force, a kind of commitment that is mightier than 
the mortar shell, and that is the commitment not just to peaceful ends, 
but to peaceful means to achieve them. It is easy to force a conflict. 
It is a lot harder to forge a real peace.
  That is why the people of Haiti and the people of America owe a 
tremendous debt of gratitude to President Clinton. He was willing to 
push for a peaceful solution up to the 11th hour, to rid Haiti of its 
military dictators through reason, not aggression, and in so doing, he 
saved untold American and Haitian lives.
  All Americans are grateful to the President, to General Powell, and 
to Senator Nunn, whose calm, deliberate toughness served us so well at 
the negotiating table. We are also thankful to President Jimmy Carter.
  All three of these individuals brought to the peace negotiation 
tremendous skill, tremendous desire, and commitment, and I would say 
that we would not have this outcome today were it not for the 
dedication and the force, and really the combination of these three 
individuals. President Carter brought tremendous experience, tremendous 
commitment, to the process of peace. Senator Nunn has been one of the 
outstanding voices for defense and for defense efforts in our Congress 
and in our country. And Colin Powell served admirably in the last 
administration, and I believe was seen not only by citizens of the 
United States, but perhaps, most important in this case, by the 
military leaders in Haiti as someone who should be looked up to for his 
integrity, his character, and the vision that he has given to the 
military in the United States.
  So thanks to their work around the clock over 3 days and thanks to 
yesterday's agreement, we can now expect a smooth and steady path to 
democracy in Haiti.
  Today every American has reason to be proud, whether or not they 
supported the use of force in Haiti, for today America has stood up for 
the basic rights and liberties we fought so hard to achieve for 
ourselves more than 200 years ago.
  By supporting this resolution, by supporting the achievement of these 
past days and weeks and the progress that is yet to be made in Haiti, 
by supporting the brave young troops that have been deployed to 
maintain order and stability in this time of transition, we send a 
powerful message to the nations of the world. And this message could 
not have been sent and this agreement could not have been achieved 
unless we had the best, the best trained, the best motivated, the most 
talented, and the most committed troops in the world. And unless this 
country and our taxpayers had not made the commitment that they have 
made, to keeping our armed services to be the best in the world, we 
could not have had this agreement. It was the readiness and capability 
of our Armed Forces that brought this agreement about.
  So by supporting this resolution and by supporting this achievement, 
we send a powerful message to the nations of the world. When a 
government is built on fear and not on the faith of its people, when a 
government practices torture and oppression and smothers the voices and 
the votes of its fledgling democracy, when a government exports its 
people and its problems throughout our hemisphere, then there can be no 
compromise. The United States of America will not back down.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution, 
to support our troops, to support the leaders who made the agreement 
possible, and to support the commitment of this Nation to democracy and 
to the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the majority 
leader in sponsoring this resolution. It commends the President, former 
President Jimmy Carter, retired Gen. Colin Powell, and Senator Sam 
Nunn, and it expresses our full support for the men and women of the 
United States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in Haiti 
with professional excellence and dedicated patriotism. It further 
supports an orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the early hours of this mission, and, thus 
far, things have gone well. We want our troops to know they have and 
will continue to have our support and the support of the American 
people. But, at the same time, we in the Congress must reaffirm our 
constitutional rights in national security and foreign policy matters.
  Let us face it: The President's Haitian policy has been 
controversial, to say the least. We have never had any kind of a vote, 
much less a debate in this House, worthy of the term on this important 
policy question.
  As I said, we are relieved that our troops did not have to deal with 
resistance in the initial landings. That is indeed a blessing. But this 
new American intervention in Haiti has just begun. There are many, many 
questions that remain to be answered about the agreement that was 
reached between the special delegation and the military rulers of 
Haiti, and about the ongoing mission and the duration of our military 
presence there.
  So I just want our Members to know that I will do all I can to see to 
it that through our usual procedures and processes, the House plays its 
proper role in oversight and in fact-finding, and I think it also 
imperative that the American people get the answers to the many 
questions they have raised to us. Of course, we want to continue during 
the course of that process to support our troops who are there to do 
their official duties.
  Like it or not, American Armed Forces are in Haiti. We are glad that 
thus far the mission has proceeded without major incident. But we do 
have a long way to go. It is the job of the House to make certain that 
we carry out our constitutional duties in this area, with the 
dedication and the sense of mission that characterizes the men and 
women of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time 
allocated to the minority side by managed by my distinguished friend, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], our ranking member on the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barlow). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I was deeply 
concerned Thursday night to hear from our President that he believed an 
invasion of Haiti would be necessary and greatly relieved on Sunday 
night to hear that our diplomatic efforts had succeeded.
  Former President Carter, Senator Nunn, and General Powell deserve our 
deepest gratitude: they negotiated tirelessly and courageously to reach 
a reasonable compromise with Haiti's leaders. President Clinton 
exercised leadership, pursuing every avenue toward peace even as he 
prepared for war.

  Now we know that no invasion will occur. No Americans will parachute 
in the dark into Haiti, or wade ashore to face armed opposition.
  But make no mistake about it: The immediate crisis may be over, but 
great challenges still lie ahead. Haiti's leaders have given their word 
to many understandings. Now these promises must be carried out. All 
parties involved on all sides must make every effort to see these 
understandings kept. Every effort should continue to support and 
protect our Armed Forces.
  We now must rely on cooperation and help from other nations to keep 
the situation peaceful. This must be a matter of involvement, not only 
of military forces but reorganization of peace keepers.
  Our troops are well-trained and know their charge. Our diplomats are 
ready for action. The spirit of the last 48 hours must continue.
  The days, weeks, and months ahead are a time of history, with 
American lives still hanging in the balance. It will be some time 
before we can say whether this compromise resolved the crisis--or only 
prolonged it. Our every move, therefore, must be made with the kind of 
care, foresight, and deliberation shown by Senator Nunn, General 
Powell, and President Carter.
  This resolution will be instrumental in helping us achieve that end.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are grateful to former 
President Carter, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell, 
and Senator Sam Nunn for securing an agreement in which the ruling 
military regime in Haiti has promised to relinquish power. Let me say 
that while many in Congress have grave reservations about the 
President's policy in Haiti, we all give our United States troops in 
Haiti our full support as they respond to the call of duty.
  Regrettably, the agreement leaves unanswered some important 
questions, including whether the senior military leaders will leave 
Haiti after they step aside. Nor is it clear that President Aristide 
will accept the provision for a general amnesty that is in the 
agreement.
  Major questions regarding the extent of a continuing American 
military presence in Haiti also must be answered.
  Even as the President has committed the United States to a long-term 
mission in Haiti, he has yet to explain to the Congress or the American 
people the nature and terms of that commitment or the role that United 
States forces will play as part of the proposed follow-on United 
Nations peacekeeping operation. Today's vote should not be 
misunderstood as congressional authorization for an initiative 
undertaken unilaterally by the President.
  In 1915, President Wilson said he was sending the Marines into Haiti 
on a limited mission to restore democracy. Nineteen years later, the 
Marines departed without restoring democracy after an occupation in 
which thousands of Haitians lost their lives.
  By undertaking this initiative, the President has embarked our Nation 
on a long-term engagement in the affairs of another sovereign State. It 
is more urgent now than ever that he come before the Congress to 
explain the terms and conditions of that engagement, as well as the 
estimated costs that the American people will have to bear for our 
military involvement and for our aid to Haiti.
  Unless the President persuades the Congress and the American people 
that United States interests in Haiti justify the costs he wants us to 
pay and the risks he wants our Armed Forces to run, the Congress may 
have no alternative but to set a time limit on United States 
involvement in peacekeeping operations in Haiti.
  Accordingly, while I emphasize the necessity of closely examining the 
extensiveness of our commitment in Haiti, accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our distinguished leader for 
bringing the resolution before the House and I urge its adoption.
  We all join in congratulating President Clinton for what is a very 
significant political and diplomatic success, expressing our gratitude 
to President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn for their 
extraordinary service in reaching the agreement that they did with the 
Haitian leadership, our deep respect for the discipline and dedication 
which our military men and women have brought to the task that has 
enabled all of this to come about.
  We have averted not just an armed invasion of Haiti but we have also 
averted a potentially very serious constitutional disagreement between 
the Executive and the Congress.
  Just as we are endorsing reconciliation in Haiti, we need to proceed 
now cooperatively and with mutual respect to develop together between 
Congress and the President a sustainable policy in Haiti, one that 
involves this Congress in a substantive way. I may not be as sanguine 
as my leader is with regard to the way all of this evolves in the 
coming days in Haiti, but I do hope we will have a full debate soon and 
fulfill Congress' responsibilities under the law, especially with the 
War Powers Resolution.
  That can wait a little while at least. Today we can all breathe a 
collective sigh of relief and again state our profound thanks to 
President Carter for his continued and brilliant service to the 
country.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I would like to add my thanks to President Carter, General Powell, 
and Senator Nunn for their tireless efforts in bringing this crisis to 
a peaceful conclusion. However, if anybody was watching the news 
conference today at the White House, and they heard General Powell and 
they heard President Carter speaking, they got a much different picture 
than they got from President Clinton's speech to the Nation last week. 
And it really is kind of disconcerting.
  Because Colin Powell indicated that General Cedras was a patriotic 
man. I believe he used the words ``a man of honor'' during his 
comments. And last week President Clinton depicted him as a 
bloodthirsty tyrant who was running all over the people of Haiti and 
was a horrible person.
  And we were also told that Emile Jonassaint was not really acting as 
the leader of that country but the military junta was running the 
country and yet when it came time to sign the agreement they said they 
had to get into cars and go to the presidential palace and that while 
the general still had some misgivings, the President said, we are going 
to sign this agreement to make sure that there is not a lot of 
bloodshed. So he was in charge.
  I do not know whether President Clinton was misinformed or just 
misleading the country. But the facts, the facts are that he did not 
have his facts straight. And I think that is very, very sad.
  We have been very concerned for months now about the President's lack 
of knowledge and ability in the area of foreign policy. And here is 
another glaring example of where he did not know what he was doing. And 
we had 20,000 American young men's lives at risk. And he had 
miscalculated and did not have the answers. Obviously, because Carter 
and Powell said he did not today.
  In addition to that, it is not going to cost just millions of 
dollars, it is going to cost Americans billions of dollars before this 
is over. So in the future, before the President starts making these 
decisions, he should come to the Congress, not just the United Nations, 
he went to the United Nations to get their approval. He got their 
approval. But he did not get the approval of the people of America who 
are represented by the Congress of the United States.
  We all understand what is at stake here. So in the future, I would 
urge the White House to think about the representatives of the people 
so the people of the United States could be heard before we put 
American young men and women's lives at risk.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I thank the majority leader for bringing the resolution that I rise 
now to support. In brief response to my colleague from Indiana, lest he 
be reminded that it is already costing us a considerable amount of 
money to stabilize Haitians elsewhere than in Haiti.
  I come from the State of Florida where we have suffered megashocks as 
a result of the influx of not only Haitian refugees but refugees from 
all over the world. Those megashocks have cost us immeasurably in our 
social services, our economic undertakings, our schools, our jails and 
our hospitals.
  President Clinton and President Carter, Senator Nunn, and Colin 
Powell are to be deserving of all of our praise. But no more so than 
the men and women of the armed services who allowed for this to take 
place. We also should be reminded that Resolution 940 calls for a 
multilateral undertaking and it is not just American soldiers that are 
involved in stabilizing Haiti.
  Let me say, finally, stabilizing Haiti for Haitians is better than 
stabilizing Haitians in safe havens. Hemispheric democracy is worth the 
sacrifice.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, indeed I do commend the efforts of former President 
Jimmy Carter, retired Gen. Colin Powell, and Senator Sam Nunn, for 
their efforts to avoid the loss of American lives. I support the men 
and women of the United States Armed Forces who are going to be 
carrying out this mission in Haiti. I support the efforts of the 
delegation to remove the generals and hopefully restore democracy. I 
affirm a commitment to national reconciliation and adherence to the 
rule of law in Haiti, and I want our troops out of there as quickly as 
possible.
  That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have some strong reservations about 
the wording of this resolution. I have some very serious questions 
about it. Does it, in fact, endorse this intervention? I do not. I did 
not endorse the sanctions when they were first put on. I did not 
endorse the sanctions when they were made tougher, when they punished 
and pulverized the economy of the poorest nation in the Western 
Hemisphere. I have not supported those sanctions, and I do not support 
the concept of invasion. I did not think it was in the national 
interest for American troops to go into Haiti and invade and, if 
necessary, engage in war against the Haitian people.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not support the concept of intervention. 
Most particularly, I do not support the idea of leaving those troops in 
Haiti without deadline or without any concept of when they are going to 
come out, because I do not know what they are going to be facing in the 
weeks and months to come.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no national interest in putting our troops into 
Haiti. There is likewise no cause for leaving them in Haiti without a 
firm and concrete time and plan for departure.
  I am very, very concerned about this resolution. Is it a Gulf of 
Tonkin resolution that gives the administration carte blanche 
opportunity to leave our troops in Haiti, for whatever purpose? Is 
``nation-building,'' the concept that failed so badly in Somalia, going 
to be employed in Haiti now?
  I think we have a lot of questions to answer. Certainly we support 
our troops in every effort they made down there, but we also want our 
boys home. And do not want them brought back in body bags.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, though I was opposed to an invasion, I take 
this opportunity to agree with this concurrent resolution commending 
our majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and 
the minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  As it turned out, this turned out well. We should give credit where 
credit is due. I think the dogged determination of the President of the 
United States speaks well for the results.
  Former President Jimmy Carter, retired Gen. Colin Powell, and our 
colleague across the way, Senator Sam Nunn, did tireless duty in 
expressing the need for peace in Haiti.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this could not have been 
done, this near miracle could not have come to pass, were it not for 
the fact that we had a strong military, capable of fulfilling the 
threat that was posed to the Haitian leaders. I hope every American, I 
hope every member of this body, as well as those in the administration, 
who has any question about the need for a strong military will look at 
this example.
  These young men and these young women who were about to go in harm's 
way have high morale, had high morale, despite the fact that they have 
been cut back drastically in numbers, despite the fact that their 
modernization has been slowed down, and despite the fact that so much 
of their training dollars have been cut.
  My admiration goes out to those young folks in uniform, because they 
made it possible. They were competent, they were ready, and they were 
anxious to fulfill their duty. I hope that in the days and years ahead, 
this body, backed by the American people, with the full understanding 
of the administration, will understand the need for national security, 
will understand the importance of a strong national defense that we 
have cut to the bone already.
  Now is the time for us to regroup, express our appreciation for their 
efforts, they made it possible, and do our best to keep them from 
falling out of the bottom of the barrel financially. We must keep our 
military strong. This is a poignant lesson to all of us in this 
country.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us are here tonight in support of the troops 
there, and with praise for the people who went and negotiated the 
agreement that kept us from having to invade.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about some of the wording in this 
language, some of the language in this particular resolution. I wonder 
if I might ask a question of the author of the resolution. It might 
allay some concerns that I have.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], 
is the resolution, as a matter of policy, meant to support the 
intervention?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I guess I would hesitate to try to 
embellish on the language that I think is fairly clear. The resolution 
says what the resolution says.
  It commends the efforts of the President in sending Mr. Carter, Mr. 
Powell, and Senator Nunn. It supports the men and women, as I know the 
gentleman does, who are carrying out their mission in Haiti with 
excellence and patriotism. It supports the efforts of the President, 
through the delegation, to provide for the departure from power.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield me to reclaim my time, it is 
right there that I think there is some concern. It says it supports the 
efforts of the President, through the special delegation. Then it goes 
on about the return of democracy and the rule of law in Haiti.
  That could turn out to be a very long-term mission for the 
intervention if in fact we mean that, but as I understand it, it is 
only as it relates to the mattes that were in the agreement signed by 
President Carter and the provisionary president of Haiti, is that 
correct?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. That is my understanding.
  Mr. WALKER. Also, where we say we support an orderly withdrawal of 
all U.S. Armed Forces as soon as possible, do I gather that the House, 
in acting here, is suggesting by that language that we mean to get the 
troops out of there at an early date?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I think that is everyone's goal, is my understanding. I 
know it is impossible today to be able to be specific about that, but I 
am sure we all hope, and I am sure the President and the administration 
hopes they can be out as soon as possible.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman. I just want to put on the record 
that a number of us were concerned about the invasion. Many of us are 
also concerned about the intervention. I think we ought to have a full 
policy discussion of the intervention itself at some later date. I 
thank the gentleman for answering my inquiry.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Glickman], the distinguished chairman of the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I too had serious questions and concerns about the 
intervention, but as Shakespeare said, ``All's well that ends well,'' 
and through either the incredible tenacity and spontaneity of the 
negotiating crew, perhaps a miracle from the heavens, whatever, this 
thing looks like it is going to be resolved in a much more constructive 
way than we worried about last year.
  Certainly the dogged perseverance of our President played a major 
role in this, as well as former President Carter, General Powell, and 
Senator Nunn's role. I agree with my colleague from Missouri, a strong 
military played a great role in this, as well as nontraditional 
conflict resolution, which former President Carter was so vividly 
involved with, and something this country needs to pursue much more 
aggressively.
  I would say, however, that I do not believe this resolution 
authorizes any action. It is a commendatory resolution, and I do think 
that this Congress needs to authorize the continued role of the United 
States before that role might get away from us.
  I know that Presidents, from the current one to previous ones, do not 
think it is convenient to involve the Congress too directly in its 
authorizing process, but given of the length and purpose of the mission 
and how it will change and evolve, it is perfectly appropriate that the 
people of this great country of ours, through their elected 
Representatives, the Congress of the United States, have a role in 
fashioning and paying for this kind of a mission.
  While I commend our troops, I commend our President, and I think we 
are doing the right thing, I do believe that this resolution should not 
be taken as an authorizing resolution, which is something this Congress 
should do before we go home for our break.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I share the tremendous sense of relief that I know all 
Americans feel today, as we watch the fruits, not of armed conflict but 
of negotiation in Haiti. The agreement reached in Haiti by former 
President Carter, former Chairman Powell and Senator Nunn demonstrates 
the power of informed negotiation--even in a situation where we have 
seen dangerous polarization of the extremes. I am gratified that this 
agreement--at long last--spells the end of the cruel and punishing 
international embargo that has systematically destroyed Haiti's 
infrastructure and devastated Haiti's poor. Lifting this embargo should 
help to raise the morale of a people that have suffered the burdens of 
economic isolation and have been torn apart by deadly internal 
division. As a result, the seeds of democracy should find more fertile 
ground to take root and flourish. But, Mr. Speaker, as I watch our 
troops set out on this mission of democracy-building, I remain terribly 
concerned that we are becoming embroiled in a long-term commitment that 
makes resolution of Haiti's internal problems a problem for America to 
solve. This will result in very high costs, not only in terms of risk 
to American lives, but also in terms of American resources. I urge the 
administration to follow through on the President's commitment to bring 
our troops home as soon as possible, keeping in mind that our soldiers 
cannot, for all of our best intentions, impose democracy in Haiti. 
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled that it took until now for this 
House to have a formal after-the-fact debate on this subject. We 
watched in frustration all summer as a resolution regarding the 
potential U.S. invasion of Haiti languished in this House without 
action, even as the American people were strongly opposed to a hostile 
invasion of Haiti. But at this moment our troops need and deserve the 
full support of the American people as demonstrated through the support 
of this resolution.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  (Mr. McCLOSKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I think it 
is a perfectly worded and crafted resolution. An entire prayerful 
Nation is grateful and relieved that we are not in any sort of 
offensive warfare operation in Haiti. Troops are going in peacefully. 
Cedras and his associates are pledged to leave office and I think also 
very importantly, sanctions have been lifted and some sort of economic 
improvement and stabilization can occur very soon.
  I am amazed that anyone but I could see it already on the talk shows 
very early last night that anyone as such should begrudge this success. 
No doubt there will be difficult times ahead and many perils but I 
think momentum is going our way and the way of the people of Haiti. I 
think Mr. Carter deserves a Nobel prize but I also think in its very 
complicated context we must remember, and I regret to say this because 
I am overjoyed for our President's success, there was minimal 
consultation with the Congress. Constitutionally and politically there 
should have been an authorizing vote with the President building 
support in plenty enough time to get it. I might say also that this 
once again showed that the credible threat of force of the internal 
scene works. Helicopters were coming in and Cedras capitulated.
  I might say as another major challenge, we have lost the momentum in 
Bosnia. Look at the New York Times today to see how the innocent people 
there of all ethnic backgrounds continue to be shackled and 
slaughtered. We need serious leadership there by our President to lift 
the arms embargo and set Bosnia free. We have an interest in Haiti. 
There is even more at stake in Bosnia. Again congratulations to the 
President, Mr. Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any one of our colleagues today 
will oppose this resolution which in fact recognizes our troops and the 
tireless efforts on the part of General Powell, former President Carter 
and Sam Nunn. I rise to support that as well. But make no mistake about 
it, Mr. Speaker. This resolution and our vote today is not in fact 
endorsing the failed policies of President Clinton in relation to 
Haiti. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are those that wonder 
how could we come to the brink of war. Well, perhaps it was Dante 
Caputo who is the U.N. special counsel to Haiti who summed it up best 
in a memo dated May 23, 1994 that he sent to the Secretary-General. I 
will quote from that memo today. It says the conclusion that Dante 
Caputo draws is the U.S. administration considers that an invasion of 
Haiti is its best option.
  It goes on to say that the President of the United States' main 
advisers are of the opinion that not only is this the best option but 
it is politically desirable. The Americans see in this type of action a 
chance to show after strong media criticism of the President, the 
President's decisionmaking capability and the firmness of leadership in 
international political matters.
  In fact, he even gives a date. Back in May of this year, Dante Caputo 
says we have to solve this problem by the November elections.
  Mr. Speaker, this is all in black and white. He even goes on to say 
in his memo which I have put in the Record twice already that in fact 
the United States hampered a diplomatic solution and actually applied a 
brake.
  Mr. Speaker, the President really had these 3 people come to his 
rescue to bail him out at a time when the American people were totally 
opposed to a military intervention. The President misled the American 
people last week when he said that the immigration was a major problem. 
After all, it was candidate Clinton on November 12, 1992 who said that 
he was going to reverse the policy of President Bush and allow the 
immigrants to come into our borders. Last Thursday he said in fact that 
that was the reason for going in there militarily. He said it is a 
multinational force. We all know it is not. It is the American troops 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I will rise in support of this resolution but make no 
mistake about it. This is certainly not a vote of confidence on behalf 
of this President and his failed foreign policy.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  (Mr. FOGLIETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the extraordinary work 
of President Bill Clinton in his handling of the crisis in Haiti. This 
triumph which will pave the way for a peaceful transition to democracy 
on this troubled island can be added to the President's growing list of 
foreign policy victories in regions such as the Middle East and the 
former Soviet Union. I would like to commend the hard and great work of 
former President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell and Senator Sam Nunn in this 
mission.
  I have traveled to Haiti several times over this past year. I have 
seen the scars from the violence, desperate poverty, and fear that 
plague the people of Haiti.
  The work ahead will be the hard work. Haiti has a long history of 
political instability. It will be the work of the multinational forces 
to turn Haiti away from that legacy.
  Let us not allow history to repeat itself.
  The police and military forces in Haiti must be retrained and 
professionalized so they can become partners in the process of 
reconciliation--instead of instruments of repression. Furthermore, we 
must bring economic opportunity to the people of Haiti. Stable 
democracies can only prosper in a climate of economic progress.
  Our soldiers, along with the multinational forces which will join 
them, have embarked on a noble cause. I offer my prayers for their 
success and safe return.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], a member of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Congratulations, Mr. and Mrs. America. You are now 
the proud parents of another little country filled with new dependents 
who are looking to you to pay for their food, shelter, clothing, and 
other essentials. This fiasco will cost us billions by the time it is 
over. It will have further stretched out exhausted and diminished 
military forces so we may well be unable to meet real challenges to our 
national security and vital interests, should such challenges arise.
  The case that expending these billions is necessitated by our 
national interests has not been made. As a Member of Congress, I feel 
the insult of seeing our President seek the approval from the United 
Nations but not from the Congress of the United States for an American 
military operation. Yes, we are breathing a sigh of relief today that 
we have found in the initial phases to reduce the risk to our military 
personnel.

                              {time}  1820

  But this operation was not justified to begin with. This 
administration blockaded Haiti, starving its people, and when hungry 
Haitians took to their boats it was used as an excuse to use our 
military forces to install President Aristide in power, an unstable, 
anti-American Marxist.
  This military action is justified on a crisis that this 
administration created itself. Let us pray that a minimum number of 
lives are lost by the time this misadventure is over.
  Yes, congratulations to Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn and Colin Powell. As 
far as this administration, this episode again underscores the 
incompetence of our Commander in Chief in the arena of foreign affairs. 
Next time he needs to come to Congress and talk to us about it rather 
than to the United Nations. Here the people rule.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I join my colleagues in commending President Carter, General 
Powell and Senator Nunn on their considerable achievement, but also the 
President, who had the vision and the skill to send them, Bill Clinton.
  There is a palpable sense of relief in this Congress today that war 
has been averted. The fighting that so many feared for today has not 
occurred. But the best testament to the negotiators is not any words 
that we can offer but the simple fact that many young Americans and 
perhaps Haitians by the score who would have lost their lives today 
remain alive.
  We leave for another day the debate about whether an investment in 
American lives and treasure is properly expended in Haiti. It is left 
for another day because in truth we all recognize that there are 
difficult days ahead. Fighting may have been averted, but it is 
probably not avoided. Expenditures may have been reduced, but they 
almost certainly are going to be made. And unresolved as well is a long 
awaited and much needed national debate about in this post-cold-war 
period when our vital interests arise, how we will define them, and 
when they will be met.
  It is no secret that many of us in this institution do not believe 
that the crisis in Haiti involves those vital interests. Yet today, 
with American forces in the field, with the President having stated 
that our credibility is now at issue, we stand with our forces, but 
still waiting for that debate to take place.
  Unresolved as well is the question about whether the American people 
will be heard and this Congress will be consulted when this President 
or any other President decides that those vital interests are at issue.
  This country came perilously close to American fighting men and women 
being in combat against the better judgment of the American people and 
largely without the support of the American Congress. In a democratic 
nation, no man holding any office can hold the power to commit lives, 
the credibility of this country, the good name of our Nation, and 
untold billions without the support of our people or this Congress, no 
matter the cause. That is the law. It is not the advice of the 
statutes, it is the War Powers Act. It is our Constitution. We serve 
nothing if we go to Haiti to support their constitution but compromise 
our own in the process.
  I commend the President of the United States and most particularly 
those who negotiated on his behalf, and of course those who represent 
us in the field.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], a member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the concurrent 
resolution as a means of expressing my full support for the men and 
women of the United States Armed Forces who are, in the words of the 
resolution, ``carrying out their mission in Haiti with professional 
excellence and dedicated patriotisms.'' Also it is entirely appropriate 
to offer commendations to the special delegation sent to Haiti on 
September 17, 1994, which included former President Jimmy Carter, 
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and the 
distinguished senior Senator from the State of Georgia, Senator Sam 
Nunn.
  It certainly is appropriate to express support for the orderly 
withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces as soon as possible, but 
the fact of the matter is that they should not be in Haiti at all. Our 
armed intervention in Haiti is not demanded by the vital national 
interest of the United States; nor is there any legitimate 
justification which has been offered to support this ill-advised 
intervention in Haitian affairs. Our Nation is proud of its mission and 
responsibilities to support democracy, but not one drop of American 
blood should be spilled to reinstate President Aristide to his 
Presidency in Haiti. It is true that he was democratically elected, but 
he certainly is no democrat. It is vehemently argued by some that he 
did not practice retribution on his political adversaries and did not 
encourage violence by his supporters, but the facts to the contrary are 
unassailable. Many Haitians are understandably fearful about 
retribution from him and his followers upon his resumption of the 
Presidency. That circumstance, along with the fact that the outrageous 
American embargo of Haiti has resulted in the malnourishment of 
hundreds of thousands of Haitians, including pregnant women and 
children, and all without noticeable positive effect, those two factors 
plus many other factors certainly can lead one to expect that we will 
both have a difficult time of defending President Aristide's safety in 
Haiti and that our troops will increasingly become a target for 
violence.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, this Member can be totally supportive of the 
members of our Armed Forces, as is the case, without supporting our 
intervention in Haiti. The intervention was unjustified before the 
invasion was launched on Sunday, and it remains unjustified. Given the 
opposition to military intervention in Haiti by the majority of Members 
of both parties in this Congress, and the overwhelming opposition to 
this intervention by the American people, President Clinton should have 
sought the approval of the Congress before launching this military 
action in Haiti. Instead the invasion was launched before the 
resolutions filed in the Congress could be voted upon this week.
  Mr. Speaker, this House and this Congress should urge the quiet 
withdrawal of American forces from this ill-advised mission. The 
President's judgment on launching this intervention in Haiti was wrong 
and the Congress should do whatever is necessary to extract our 
personnel from Haiti before the casualties begin on this misguided 
mission.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there is a sense on the floor that we 
may be diverted and save many American lives in this conflict, and to 
former President Carter and his team I give my heartfelt thanks and 
hope that they continue in negotiations.
  I would also like to say that I was opposed and still am to the 
invasion of Haiti. It is not clear why we are there or what we are 
going to do in Haiti. Aristide has been characterized as a madman, but 
yet we are going to replace him.
  I learned from a briefing today with that team, did Members know that 
General Cedras is staying in Haiti and can possibly run against 
Aristide in the December elections? He is not going anywhere, and that 
bothers me.
  It also bothers me that a few months ago during Desert Storm that the 
majority leader in a partisanship vote here fought to keep sanctions 
during Desert Storm instead of invading.
  I am concerned even more with the President's lack of process in not 
consulting with this Congress. If the President felt it was in his 
realm to go ahead and proceed, and in a speech he said there was a 
right to this, and he stripped down two aircraft carriers, loaded the 
troops in helicopters, months of preparation, but even if he felt there 
was a right in doing this, why did he fail to come to the Congress of 
the United States to bless it if it was right? That bothers me in that 
process.
  I look at the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], who said 
he supports the President's foreign policy. I will tell the gentleman 
the father of that ranger that was killed in Somalia along with the 22 
troops and the 77 wounded that chastised the President when he gave him 
the Medal of Honor for his son did not agree with that.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee for yielding me this time and I rise in strong support of 
this resolution. I want to commend President Clinton for his good 
policy. I think that what came out of this is something that shows that 
those people who would detract from the President and use partisanship 
at this point in time are really off base. I think everyone in this 
House ought to be supporting this resolution. I think everyone is 
relieved that we did not have to invade Haiti, and I think that foreign 
policy ought to be conducted in a bipartisan manner. Just the way I 
supported President Bush when he decided to send troops to the Persian 
Gulf, I think in this peacekeeping mission Members on both sides of the 
aisle ought to support our President.

                              {time}  1830

  I will say though that I think that if there is a need, and we find 
there is a need, for protracted American troops in Haiti, that the 
President ought to come to the Congress for continued authorization. 
But right now I think we need to give credit where credit is due, and I 
think the President, by forcefully stating the case and by acting the 
way he did, enabled peaceful resolution of this situation.
  And, finally, the democratically elected government in Haiti can now 
get back into power.
  We ought to commend the President, and we ought to unanimously 
support this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith], another distinguished member of our Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution which strongly supports the men and women of the United 
States Armed Forces in and around Haiti. I also rise, Mr. Speaker, to 
say that I continue to have very deep reservations concerning the 
judgment of President Clinton in ordering United States troops into the 
extremely volatile and risky terrain of Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, my overriding concern is the safety and 
well-being of each and every American soldier. While I am both relieved 
and grateful no casualties have been reported, I remain concerned the 
occupation of Haiti poses significant and unnecessary risks to the 
lives of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the timing of the invasion is not beyond question. At 
some time in the near future, it is my heartfelt belief Congress would 
have gone on record either for or against, but I think the odds were 
both Democrats and Republicans would have said no to invasion. I think 
it is a fair question to ask whether or not the timetable was 
accelerated so the Congress would be precluded from its moral 
obligation to act and weigh in on this important policy.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, memos by U.N. Special Envoy Dante Caputo also 
raise very serious questions concerning the timing of an invasion and 
the November elections. Mr. Caputo wrote May 23, 1994, to Secretary 
General Boutros-Ghali, the President of the United States' main 
advisers are of the opinion that not only does this option, the 
invasion option, constitute the lesser evil, but that it is politically 
desirable. Dante Caputo also said on May 19 Haiti represents, and I 
quote, ``a test case for which the United States has to have found a 
solution before November.''
  Mr. Speaker, the lives of American troops should have absolutely 
nothing to do with politics or November elections. They are not to be 
used as pawns.
  Finally, let us all hope and pray no harm comes to our troops, that 
democracy does ultimately come to Haiti, to that troubled country, but 
the difference is in the means. The time is long past for the indepth 
debate that we have all been clamoring for.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
commending former President Carter, Colin Powell, and Senator Nunn and 
our Armed Forces.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago I disagreed with President 
Bush's policy in the Persian Gulf, and I voted accordingly. Shortly 
after the invasion began, a resolution very similar to this one came to 
the floor. I voted for it enthusiastically. Because what we were 
attempting to say then, as we are attempting to say now, is despite our 
political differences we want the men and women in uniform to known 
that this Congress stands behind them.
  As I have listened to this debate this evening, I cannot believe my 
ears, Republican after Republican coming here to take a swing at 
President Clinton, to question the policy in Haiti. Ladies and 
gentlemen, there is plenty of time for debate on the policy in Haiti.
  I thought the purpose of this resolution was to send a clear, 
unequivocal message of solidarity to the men and women in uniform, to 
let them know that we stand behind them, and yet I am not sure that 
message will come through as clearly as it should.
  I will vote for this resolution. I have my misgivings and second 
thoughts, but I am going to hold that debate for another time and 
another place.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise today to support this 
resolution, and I certainly support our troops.
  But this really is no occasion to celebrate, because, ladies and 
gentlemen, this is really what should have been done a year ago. This 
is no opportunity for the taxpayer to celebrate, because this is the 
result of a cut-and-run policy from a year ago, and today we are using 
American troops at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars, I am told, 
for this exercise, and then to add insult to injury, we are paying the 
United Nations for the peacekeeping operation that they should have had 
a year ago, and we should have supported.
  What is even worse is 1 year ago when we told President Clinton that 
this policy of economic sanctions imposed on the country, the poorest 
of the poor, 53 cents a day average income, would not work, killing a 
thousand Haitian babies a month would not work, and now the taxpayers 
are going to pay another half a billion dollars to economically restore 
that, so that is not a day for the American taxpayer to celebrate.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  (Mr. WILLIAMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President.
  I rise to commend President Clinton for his use of negotiations 
backed by might--military might.
  I find this debate to be both interesting and ironic. Many Members 
have stated only begrudged support for our President.
  These same Members, most of them, gave unconditional support for 
former Presidents Reagan and Bush when they ordered the invasions of 
Lebanon, Panama, and the Middle East, and yes, even Granada--even that 
ludicrous and unnecessary intervention received their full support. But 
now they are reserved in their consideration of President Clinton's 
actions.
  Perhaps these Members are not being partisan. It may be that for them 
a Democratic President must always be opposed.
  Or perhaps their opposition has to do with matters of perception and 
policy.
  It may well be that some Members of this Congress oppose tyranny only 
when it comes under a Communist regime.
  It may be that some Members of Congress oppose tyrannical violence 
when it is directed at the wealthy and powerful, but never when the 
target is the poor and the hungry and the uneducated.
  These Members were not incensed I noticed when Hussein gassed and 
murdered the Kurds--that minority group of oppressed citizens. It was 
when Hussein attacked the wealthy and powerful Kuwaitis that these 
Members of Congress demanded that America intervene with all our 
military capability.
  In Haiti, it is the poor who are being oppressed--poor blacks. Such 
violence and aggression seems not to matter to some Members of 
Congress.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. But 
like many members, I think we must make it clear just what we are 
resolving today.
  With this resolution, we are not endorsing President Clinton's Haiti 
policy. We are not saying we would have approved of an invasion. We are 
not authorizing a long-term occupation of Haiti.
  What we are doing is supporting the safety of our men and women in 
uniform.
  We cannot have another Somalia. We cannot allow thugs and tin-pot 
dictators to believe they can intimidate the United States by killing a 
few of our soldiers. Because once they believe that, no American 
military person--in Haiti or elsewhere--will be safe.
  I opposed an invasion of Haiti, and I am just as concerned about the 
dangers of a long-term occupation. I believe that U.S. troops must be 
withdrawn in a timely manner. Every day our troops remain in Haiti 
drains more precious readiness and morale from their ranks.
  But now that our troops are on the firing line, we would endanger 
their safety and bring shame on ourselves if we fell into partisan 
bickering. The lives of our troops are more important than scoring 
partisan points in an election year. Let's stand by them now, and make 
sure we bring them out as quickly as possible.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  (Mr. CANADY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise to speak in favor of the resolution.
  I am relieved and grateful that American troops have not entered 
Haiti in the midst of hostilities. And I join with people throughout 
America in praying for the safety of our troops as they occupy Haiti.
  President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn deserve a great 
deal of credit for helping to forestall the Clinton administration's 
planned invasion of Haiti and the loss of American life that would have 
most likely resulted.
  However, I remain very concerned about the future role of American 
troops in Haiti. It is essential that we not allow our involvement in 
Haiti to turn into a quagmire. Our troops should be brought home 
expeditiously. And the purse of the American taxpayer should not remain 
open indefinitely.
  I am also concerned about the precedent set by this expedition. We 
must remember that we cannot be the world's policeman. We cannot solve 
all the world's problems. And we cannot establish democracy in any land 
if the underlying conditions for democratic institutions are not 
present there.
  Moreover, Congress must act to ensure that in the future, 
undertakings such as this do not occur without the direct involvement 
of the representatives of the American people in the Congress.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], another distinguished member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This Haitian policy that President Clinton has embarked on is most 
unwise, and President Clinton and his advisers and our entire country 
are going to live to regret it.
  Do you know why? Because when you march off in a foreign venture like 
this, there are four ingredients, four questions, you have to ask 
yourself. No. 1, do you have a clear goal? The answer is no in this 
case. No. 2, do you have strategy for success? The answer is no. No. 3, 
do you have the American people endorsing this policy? The answer is 
no. No. 4, do you have a exit strategy? The answer is no. Four noes to 
four questions.
  This policy is doomed to failure.
  Now, President Clinton has made himself responsible for Haiti and 
Haiti's future. This is not a wise course of action, and our Army, look 
at what you are doing to our Army. You are talking here about defending 
and speaking up for our Army. What position are you putting our Armed 
Forces in?
  There is tremendous turmoil in Haiti. You have got a civil war. You 
have got Cedras' forces, Aristide's forces, 6 to 7 million people, and 
you are going to put 15,000 Americans in there to restore peace. This 
is an impossible goal for these people, and you are putting them there.

                              {time}  1840

  You know, when you embark on an adventure like this, there is always 
a great deal of enthusiasm. I find very tepid endorsement of this 
policy here, very weak soup here today.
  What is going to happen when the going gets tough?
  Do you remember when we had our troops in Somalia and after that 
disastrous weekend, everyone was howling? The Senate, the House, over 
to see the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense. What is going to 
happen when a disastrous weekend happens here? And it is going to 
happen. You cannot have 15,000 American troops in a country like that 
and not expect some disaster to happen. What are you going to do then?
  You are going to scream then, you are going to come up with a tough 
resolution then. Well, why do you not come with a tough resolution now? 
You know what is going to happen. It is as clear as a bell what is 
going to happen with this policy.
  Now is the time to speak up, not after the people have lost their 
lives, not after the American people--the American people know what is 
going to happen here. That is why they are not endorsing this policy. 
You go home to your districts and you tell them, talk to them about 
Haiti, and you will see what kind of endorsement you are going to get. 
I know it is 7 weeks to election. Like all of you, Democrats and 
Republicans, hey, you got to watch this resolution. This resolution 
basically says nothing.
  I have basically in my entire congressional career never seen a 
weaker resolution. Have you? No one has.
  This policy is doomed to failure because again you have to have a 
clear goal, have to have a strategy for success, you have to have the 
endorsement of the American people, and you have got to have a clear 
goal. None of these four criteria have been met, not one.
  This policy is wishful thinking. When you deal in foreign affairs, 
you have got to be hard-headed; you cannot be going with a policy of 
wishful thinking.
  Remember what happened in Somalia. Remember what happened in Lebanon.
  You know what is going to happen here. Now is the time to speak up, 
not after disasters happen.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in extending our 
congratulations to the President and the heartfelt thanks of a grateful 
Nation to three great national leaders: President Jimmy Carter, Gen. 
Colin Powell, and Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. I support this 
resolution. America stands behind our men and women in uniform who 
today take up another mission to protect the peace and defend 
democratic principles so critically important in this hemisphere 
especially. Former President Carter and General Powell and Senator 
Nunn's delegation have hopefully avoided the need for the bloodshed, 
that these valiant troops have all so willingly offered to shed if 
required for their country.
  President Clinton deserves commendation by this Congress for his 
willingness to pursue peace while being ready to exercise force if so 
required. The agreement signed in Haiti accomplishes the important goal 
of restoring democratic rule in this troubled nation.
  But let us make no mistake about it. No delegation, no matter how 
highly skilled, could have achieved this peaceful victory without the 
effective threat posed by our men and women in uniform. Without firing 
a shot, it was their capability and skill which led to an agreement 
that has as its objective the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I join with my colleagues in thanking our 
citizens in uniform and the distinguished delegation led by President 
Carter, whose efforts clearly avoided bloodshead this day in Haiti. I 
support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution. I 
support the strong leadership demonstrated by President Clinton as a 
strong Commander-in-Chief in the fullest sense. He has moved forward 
with strength and conviction; masterfully using the Presidential tools 
of military force and diplomacy to achieve U.S. objectives in the most 
effective and least costly manner.
  What has Congress done for Haiti? Look in your hands and see what you 
see: Nothing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the 
gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as we meet this afternoon, thousands of United States 
troops are on the ground in Haiti on a mission of uncertain objectives 
and even less certain duration. No troops from any other nation is 
involved.
  I support the resolution before the House as an expression of support 
for the efforts of the Carter-Powell-Nunn delegation in averting 
needless bloodshed and for our many fine young men and women now 
carrying out their job in Haiti with the usual professionalism and 
effectiveness.
  However, I want to also take this opportunity to register my strong 
concern over the policy that placed our forces to Haiti in the first 
place.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has no significant national interest 
at stake in Haiti that justifies the commitment of military forces to 
that nation. Whether they go in by force or not, does not alter this 
fact.
  Beyond that principal point, many, many questions remain as to how 
this administration intends to conduct this operation.
  What is the precise role of the United States forces in establishing 
and maintaining a stable security environment in Haiti?
  What will determine when this mission is accomplished thus allowing 
the bulk of American forces to return home?
  How many United States troops will be asked to remain in Haiti to 
participate in the United Nations peacekeeping operation?
  What will be the precise command and control arrangements for U.S. 
forces serving in the U.N. operation?
  How much will all of this cost the defense budget and how will it be 
financed?
  These are just a few of the many questions surrounding this operation 
that deserve immediate answers.
  Mr. Speaker, today the administration committed this Nation to an 
intervention in Haiti that neither Congress nor the American people 
support. We have embarked upon a course full of risk and danger to 
American lives and prestige for objectives that I continue to question.
  But, having taken this step, it is my hope that the administration 
will take every opportunity to wrap this operation up as quickly as 
possible and bring all of our troops home before they become embroiled 
in the morass of Haitian politics.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening solely in support of our 
Armed Forces in the field in Haiti. I rise not at all for the process 
conducted by the executive branch of this Government that has involved 
the United States yet again in another quagmire--a process that 
involved the United Nations, a process that involved the Organization 
of American States, a process that involved the Haitian military, a 
process that involved the former leader of Haiti, the current leaders 
of Haiti, and the future leader of Haiti, but did not involve the 
people of the United States through their elected representatives in 
this Congress.
  Congress was never asked to approve the Governor's Island Agreement. 
We were never asked to vote on the proposed military engagement. Having 
served in this Congress for over 10 years, I know well the habit of the 
executive branch, regardless of party, to overstep its authority in 
committing U.S. troops on foreign soil.
  Thus, I rise in support of bringing our troops home as soon as 
possible and while they are in the field giving them the backing they 
need.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I applaud the negotiating team for reaching an agreement to allow our 
troops to enter Haiti peacefully. The greater problems, as they always 
have been, will be how long we must keep our troops there, and to what 
degree will we take on the responsibility of ensuring a stable 
political system and economy.
  There will be close to 15,000 United States troops in Haiti within 2 
weeks. Answering a specific question, Secretary of Defense Perry said 
that our troops wouldn't be leaving until sometime after the December 
election. A multinational police force will take over when U.S. troops 
leave.
  General Raoul Cedras and his comrades, including the acting President 
Emile Jonassaint, are not required to leave the country under the 
provisions of the agreement and are not prohibited from running for 
office in future elections. It is planned that Aristide will reassume 
the Presidency on or about October 15, when Cedras and Jonassaint 
relinquish power.
  We have now reached an agreement to replace an elected tyrant with an 
unelected one. Taking on the responsibility and risking lives to 
reorganize the Haitian Government and economy is a mistake.
  I support the resolution most for commending President Jimmy Carter, 
General Colin Powell and Senator Sam Nunn and for the fifth resolving 
clause that states we support an orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed 
Forces as soon as possible. If our troops are not out by the convening 
of the 104th Congress I will actively support a resolution for 
immediate withdrawal.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a few observations here. 
First of all, with respect to the delegation that President Clinton 
sent to Haiti, I have been very pleased to hear from the Members of 
this Chamber their very strong support for that threesome.
  I think it is important to recognize that together that team had 
great credibility. Each person brought his own strength to the team.
  President Carter was highly praised by his conegotiators for his 
toughness and his sensitivity and his doggedness.
  General Powell brought great credibility with the military leaders of 
Haiti and conveyed a sense of United States power and appealed to the 
sense of duty of the Haitian leaders.
  Senator Nunn brought the perspective of a legislator and emphasized 
the importance of parliamentary elections in Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out with respect to the U.S. 
Forces, they too have been highly praised here, but I am not sure this 
Chamber sufficiently understands what we asked them to do.
  We asked the U.S. Armed Forces, in effect, to prepare for two 
missions: One was a mission of forcible entry, and the other was a 
mission of entry by agreement. They did not know which one of those 
tasks they would be called upon to achieve until the very last few 
minutes.
  So their performance has really been extraordinary, as they prepared 
for both tasks but only carried out, fortunately, one. It was a great 
day to see this landing achieved in peace and to see the spirit of 
cooperation that existed between the United States military leaders on 
the ground in Haiti today and the Haitian military leaders.

                              {time}  1850

  I wanted to say a word, too, about the agreement itself. It is an 
important one, and, in reaching it, we should observe that no money was 
offered to anyone, none was requested, and the question of escape was 
not even discussed during these negotiations.
  It is terribly important for us to keep our eye on the central 
purpose of the agreement. It achieves our U.S. policy goals there. It 
removes the coup leaders from power, it assists in the return of the 
legitimate authorities to power in Haiti, it stems the tide of the 
refugees, and it creates an environment in which political reforms and 
economic reforms can take place in that impoverished nation.
  Let me also observe there has been a number of people here comment 
about their concern about an extended role for the United States. It is 
important to recognize here that the U.S. Armed Forces have a very 
limited role. They are not to become involved in nation building. They 
are to withdraw as soon as possible, after they have created a secure 
environment in which democracy and economic reforms can take place.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me simply observe that even with this 
significant breakthrough today, all of us are going to have to be 
patient, and we are going to have to be determined in the coming days. 
The agreement that was struck this weekend is an imperfect agreement, 
as one of the negotiators described it. It is not a legal one. It is, 
by necessity, a broad agreement, and it lacks a lot of details. The 
implementation of this agreement will be a daunting and challenging 
task.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution before us, in strong support of our American troops, and in 
strong support of our President's recent actions to resolve this 
situation.
  The current military regime in Haiti poses a threat not only to the 
United States but, I would submit, to the entire Western Hemisphere. 
The potential for the destabilizing nature of the military regime to 
spread to other Caribbean and Latin American countries, is, 
unfortunately, very real. While some of these nations may have strong 
democratic intentions or traditions, the relatively poor conditions in 
these countries--socially and economically--may make them more 
susceptible to a military takeover.
  The result of such a spread of military or authoritarian regimes 
would be not only chaos in terms of the number of immigrants trying to 
enter this Nation illegally, but also in terms of economic growth and 
stability for the region as a whole. At a time when the world is in a 
position to move forward politically, socially, and economically toward 
a common goal of global economic security and a universal respect for 
human rights, it would be a disgrace if we could not take actions to 
promote these ideals in our own backyard.
  I believe that President Clinton put it best in his address to the 
Nation last Thursday when he stated that the end of the cold war should 
not signal a return by the United States to isolationist policies.
  It is our moral duty, as the world's remaining superpower, to defend 
the basic human rights of all people whenever possible.
  It is this defense of basic human rights that our troops, under the 
guidance of the President, are currently protecting. Let me say they 
are doing a superb job, and that those of us still here in the United 
States, as well as all other citizens of the world, owe them a debt of 
gratitude.
  Their military powers, as well as their willingness to enter into a 
conflict when called upon, make them the true defenders of democracy. 
It is clear that the global reputation of the American military was a 
significant factor in the so far peaceful resolution of this conflict.
  Another element that deserves credit is the resolve of the President 
not to allow the Haitian military to undermine the reputation of the 
United States or democracy in the international arena. While I have, at 
times, been critical of this President's policy toward the Haitian 
dictators, and while I was not comfortable with a military invasion, I 
would like to credit the President for his persistence in the face of 
domestic and international criticism.
  It was the resolve of the President that brought us to the point at 
which we currently find ourselves; with the Haitian military despots on 
their way out and democracy on the road to return.
  I applaud the President, and his resolve, and the fact that as a 
result of his actions future would-be military dictators may think 
twice before attempting to overthrow a democracy, no matter how 
fledgling that government may be.
  Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I thank the President, his 
emissaries President Carter, Senator Nunn, and General Powell, and our 
troops and wish them godspeed on their journey. I hope that they all 
return quickly and in good health. In the meantime, I thank them for 
their efforts on behalf of the American public, the Haitian people, and 
all people whose rights may have been threatened.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago all signs pointed to an 
American invasion of Haiti. At that time, it was my belief and the 
belief of many Americans that not all diplomatic means had been 
exhausted.
  I commend the President for sending the delegation led by former 
President Carter. I am relieved and thankful that the delegation was 
successful. President Carter should be singled out for his tenacity on 
behalf of a peaceful resolution. However, we must still face the 
question of how, now that we are committed to the peaceful introduction 
of American troops into Haiti, we define our role to ensure that we 
advance our legitimate interest in the human rights and democratic 
aspirations of the Haitian people. American troops must have a clear 
mission, with sharply defined yet realistic rules of engagement. We 
must support our troops as they undertake this mission.
  There continue to be many unanswered questions about the Haiti 
agreement that the American people have a right to know. Perhaps the 
most important of the unanswered questions is the fate of the three 
members of the junta. If we are to unfreeze their assets so that they 
have access to their wealth; if we are to allow them to be granted 
amnesty under Haitian law for their crimes; we are, in essence, 
rewarding them for standing up to our Government and the international 
community during their 3 years of tyranny.
  The international community has been justly outraged over the 
brutality of the junta. The Haitian people who have been the victims of 
the junta's regime deserve justice. The United States, the strongest 
democracy in the world, has an interest in sending a strong message to 
those who flout human rights and democratic elections. How can we 
explain to the international community, the Haitian people, and the 
people of the United States that the junta, despite its long list of 
atrocities, will remain prosperous and free?
  However pleased we all are to avoid the invasion, the resolution of 
this conflict should not serve as a model for future dealings with 
brutal dictators. President Clinton in his address Thursday 
characterized the Haiti regime as the ``most violent in our 
hemisphere,'' and cited their atrocities, including the execution of 
children, as justification for the invasion of Haiti.
  We must make it clear to those who brutalize their people that they 
will answer for their actions in an international court of law. The 
barbarous junta succeeded in being treated with respect and having 
their assets unfrozen while their atrocities go unpunished.
  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to congratulate former 
President Carter, General Powell, Senator Nunn, and President Clinton 
in their efforts to find a peaceful end to the Haitian crisis. I also 
rise to support the efforts of our troops already on the ground in 
Haiti.
  Let me be clear, I am very concerned about our military presence in 
Haiti. I do not want our troops involved in any offensive military 
activities in Haiti. Trying to restore order to a country that has had 
very little order throughout its history is not a wise idea for our 
troops.
  I do not want to see our troops getting bogged down in a political 
problem that does not have a U.S. interest. Our troops should only 
defend U.S. interests which have been clearly defined. Unfortunately, I 
am not convinced of an overwhelming United States concern that requires 
United States military action in Haiti.
  It is my hope that the United States will continue to seek peaceful 
resolutions to conflicts such as those in Haiti. Furthermore, as a 
world leader, I believe we should seek responsible resolutions to 
international conflicts whenever possible through our membership in the 
United Nations.
  Should additional decisions be made, against my better judgment, 
requiring U.S. military offensive action, I will align myself with 
President Clinton and support our troops in Haiti. But, I will feel 
free to strongly voice my opposition to any offensive, invasion-like 
orders from the Commander in Chief.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the men and women in our 
United States Armed Forces, including those in and around Haiti. I do 
not, however, support military intervention in Haiti, since we have no 
substantial national interest at stake and since the history of our 
involvement in Haiti, in which United States Marines were stationed 
there for 19 years, offers little encouragement for any positive 
outcome.
  Furthermore, I oppose any additional financial burden imposed upon 
American taxpayers to engage in nation building. These nation building 
efforts expose our troops to great physical danger and subject the 
taxpayers of this country to enormous potential liability. For these 
reasons, I must oppose the resolution.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the American service men 
and women who are moving into Haiti. Their bravery and commitment to 
peace and freedom deserves the utmost support from the American people 
and from Congress.
  While I will vote for this resolution, I am concerned about President 
Clinton's underlying decision to send United States troops to Haiti. 
Haiti does not pose a national security threat to the United States 
which would justify the loss of American lives, either through an 
invasion or during a protracted occupation.
  Haiti remains a very dangerous place, and even if Aristide is 
returned to power there is a great likelihood that violence will again 
erupt. We have no idea what kind of situation our troops will be facing 
in the weeks ahead.
  The President does not have a clear plan or timetable for getting our 
troops out of Haiti, and I am concerned that our troops will be there 
for many months or years.
  The President has not clearly spelled our what the mission of our 
troops is in Haiti. It now appears that the military has agreed to 
allow Aristide to return to power, but our troops have gone into Haiti 
anyway. Why? Apparently now the troops will be used for nation 
building. This is not the purpose of the military.
  We have no idea how much the occupation will cost the American 
taxpayers, but we can expect it to be billions of dollars.
  I strongly commend the American troops serving in Haiti and support 
them wholeheartedly. Because I am concerned about their safety, I 
strongly urge the President to bring them home very soon.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Like 
others here this evening, I support our troops in Haiti and know they 
will do a superb job. However I want to make it clear, support for this 
resolution is not an endorsement of the President's decision to involve 
us in nation building in Haiti.
  Naturally, I am relieved that our forces are not landing in an 
overtly hostile situation. And for that we owe President Carter, 
General Powell and Senator Nunn a debt of thanks. However, I don't 
think we should congratulate Bill Clinton for temporarily extricating 
himself from a foreign policy disaster of his own making. There is 
still no demonstrated national security interest in a United States 
military presence in Haiti. And I am interested to learn the people who 
President Clinton branded human rights barbarians on Thursday night 
will be given honorable retirements.
  As we breath a sigh of relief that there will be no immediate loss of 
American life, we should be vitally concerned about the long term 
implications of today's actions. Today for example, the Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, of which I am a member, 
received the first of what I am sure will be many notifications from 
the administration for the reprogramming of almost $100 million for use 
in Haiti.
  The Haitian problem is not one of short term military occupation. 
President Clinton will install to power in Haiti a man who has not 
demonstrated any commitment to democracy and who has consistently 
blamed America for Haiti's problems.
  What President Clinton proposes for Haiti is identical to his nation 
building disaster in Somalia. Nation building in Somalia cost some 
Iowans their lives and, ironically, the same day President Clinton was 
asking the Nation to support him in Haiti, the United States was 
closing its embassy in Somalia and considering a United Nations request 
for military support to withdraw its peacekeeping force from Somalia. 
Why? Because 40 American lives and a billion dollars later, Somalia 
clans are still fighting and there is not even a rudimentary government 
in place.
  I certainly hope President Clinton has enough courage of his 
convictions to lay this long term commitment to nation building in 
Haiti before the House and Senate so we can fulfill our role as the 
people's representatives.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 290 and in praise of President Clinton and his 
administration for their eleventh hour effort to reach an agreement 
with Lt. Raul Cedras and the military junta that rules in Haiti. 
Through careful planning and persistence, the administration managed to 
avert a military invasion of this impoverished Caribbean island-nation.
  I also want to commend former President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell, 
and Senator Nunn from Georgia for going the extra mile to persuade the 
Haitian leaders to step down and avoid the loss of life. Yesterday's 
agreement will finally bring about the long awaited return of 
democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to his 
homeland. Despite the difficulties that will surely lie ahead, this 
agreement is a step in the right direction to open a definite path to 
democracy for Haiti. The agreement aims to foster peace, avoid violence 
and bloodshed, promote freedom and democracy, while forging a sustained 
and mutually beneficial relationship between the governments, people, 
and institutions of Haiti and the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenge before us today is to formulate a strategy 
that will guarantee the return of democracy to the Haitian nation; a 
democracy that will stand up to any challenge. We can not forget that 
the men, women and children of Haiti deserve a chance for peace and 
democracy.
  As for the United States military forces in Haiti, we must make 
certain that we are not facing a potential Somalia, that our soldiers 
will be in Haiti for a limited period of time and that the force will 
be genuinely international. The time has passed when a few pistol-
waiving thugs can turn back a U.S. ship and thwart the will of the 
international community. Once more, I want to thank President Clinton 
for his unwavering personal commitment to the restoration of democracy 
in Haiti and the return of President Aristide.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in view of what occurred in Haiti 
yesterday it is high time for Members of the House and Senate to 
reflect upon their responses to and conduct during times when the 
Government of the United States is trying to influence heads of 
governments to meet the conditions laid down in an ultimatum.
  President Bush went into Somalia for humane reasons and into Kuwait 
for economic reasons and invaded Panama to stop the flow of drugs. Some 
who supported President Bush for those reasons in each case were 
anxious to undermine President Clinton's ultimatum to a dictator just 
off our shore where all three reasons would apply. After an ultimatum 
was delivered by the United States and other nations, numerous Members 
escalated the rhetoric and encouraged the dictator to hold out and thus 
increased the likelihood that American troops would need to be used.
  In this case, in addition to humane considerations, economic 
considerations to prevent a flood of refugees, and curbing drug 
movements, not compelling Haitian leaders to comply with the ultimatum 
could have had a salutary effect on the remnants of the Russian 
military, which would be encouraged, by lack of our resolve, to go back 
into Estonia or other Eastern States. This one may have a greater 
impact on Europe than the Caribbean.
  I am one of those who spent 4 years in a condition of servitude 
because so many in Congress in the 1930's and early 1940's undermined 
and failed to support President Roosevelt and were so naive as to 
believe dictators would not continue their exploits upon a showing of 
division in the United States, and a show of weakness and resolve. 
Their actions in the 1920's and early 1940's instead sowed the seeds of 
conquest that drew us into a bigger war.
  I think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional as a restriction on 
the President's rights to direct armed forces to the extent that he 
finds he has the funds appropriated by Congress to do so, but, in fact 
the War Powers Act is worse than nothing because it by statute gives to 
the President a right in advance to embark on any venture for 60 days. 
It is bad policy and it is time now for supporters to eat crow and 
promote repeal.
  The undermining of President Clinton by some partisanship may have 
been exacerbated by the election being so close. There is every 
evidence of this when those who supported the Somalia and Persian Gulf 
excursions in Africa vocally take the exact opposite approach in this 
hemisphere. It is totally inconsistent for anyone to support the 
Somalia adventure in Africa and then so vocally undermine the President 
while an ultimatum is pending in this hemisphere.
  It is also time for once and for all to quit believing embargoes and 
sanctions will influence dictators to step aside or to influence 
political decisions. These criticisms undermine and help make more sure 
the talks would fail and thus make more sure our soldiers will be 
engaged and at risk and that the dictator will not surrender power. It 
is time for Members to become more responsible and less partisan as 
soon as an ultimatum is delivered and while sensitive negotiations are 
underway.
  It is high time for Members to become bipartisan and quit rushing out 
to undermine the President during sensitive negotiations. It is time 
for all Members to recognize that ruthless dictators will not respond 
favorably to spineless pleas for them to respond as normal people 
would.
  I support this resolution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution because I am 
disgusted by the process which has brought us to a situation where 
thousands of American soldiers have assumed the role of Haiti's police 
force for an uncertain period of time. The President has painstakingly 
and methodically painted himself into a corner, and now risks the lives 
of U.S. troops, without congressional consent, in order to save face. A 
long-term engagement by the United States in Haiti is now inevitable 
and lives may be lost in a futile effort to establish democracy and 
peace where they have never existed. American troops will perform their 
duties admirably. The dedication and excellence of our troops are the 
only certainties in this operation. Sadly, I fear our troops are 
involved in a mistaken policy, a policy which is the product of 
miscalculation and bad advice. Several years from now, the United 
States will likely be the bad guy in Haiti, as we are in Somalia. After 
sacrificing American lives in another folly, anarchy and misery still 
prevail there.
  President Aristide does not represent democracy in Haiti, nor does he 
represent the rule of law. His record speaks for itself. I am opposed 
to risking American lives and spending untold billions in a policy of 
intervention and state-building in a country with no strategic national 
interest to the United States. Unfortunately, this resolution 
represents my only opportunity to vote on President Clinton's misguided 
Haiti policy. I pray not a single American soldier loses life or limb 
in Haiti.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops. But I have some very 
serious problems supporting a resolution which commends, in any way, 
shape or form, this administration's policy in Haiti.
  I didn't support sanctions against Haiti.
  I didn't support toughening sanctions against Haiti.
  I didn't support the President's threat to invade Haiti.
  We do not have a national interest in being there. None at all.
  Like everyone else, I am glad we did not end up invading Haiti with a 
forced landing. But that does not erase the fact that we did invade. 
Our troops are ashore there now. And there is absolutely no reason for 
them to be there.
  It is very difficult for me to commend bad policy just because we 
moved it a step forward without bloodshed. It is still a bad policy.
  I commend our troops. I commend the delegation for negotiating an 
alternative to a forced invasion. But I cannot commend the policy that 
has U.S. troops in a country where they do not belong.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] that the House suspend the rules and agree 
to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 290.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 353, 
nays 45, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 424]

                               YEAS--353

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--45

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Coble
     Crane
     Crapo
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Fields (TX)
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Klug
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McCandless
     McMillan
     Packard
     Petri
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sensenbrenner
     Skeen
     Smith (OR)
     Spence
     Stump
     Taylor (NC)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Zeliff

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Buyer
     Hoke
       

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Applegate
     Bishop
     Clyburn
     Darden
     DeLay
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Gutierrez
     Hochbrueckner
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lewis (FL)
     Machtley
     Meehan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Oxley
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rush
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Tucker
     Washington
     Waters
     Whitten
     Yates

                              {time}  1914

  Mr. ZELIFF changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COX and Mr. ROYCE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. HOKE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________