[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



           DAY THREE OF THE UNITED STATES OCCUPATION OF HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, September 21, 1994, day three of the United 
States occupation of Haiti. With each day that passes it is becoming 
clearer that the administration does not know quite what to do with the 
country they have occupied and none of the parties involved know what 
to do with the agreement that was signed on their behalf by Emile 
Jonassaint and Jimmy Carter on Sunday. Aristide will not publicly 
support the agreement because the military leadership does not have to 
physically leave Haiti. The Haitian military leaders will not leave 
their country period and have said they won't step down unless the 
Parliament passes an amnesty law. The Parliament hopes to pass an 
amnesty law but fears that they cannot get it past the Aristide 
supporters in the Haitian Senate. Haitians are beginning to wonder if 
the agreement meant anything at all because the United States has not 
acted to lift the embargo and sanctions, ostensibly because of the 
United Nations position. While all of the involved parties go about the 
business of trying to figure out what it all means to them, American 
soldiers are still on the ground in Haiti with no orders to intervene 
in Haitian-to-Haitian unrest, no mission objective and no idea of when 
they will be allowed to go home.
  Someone down at the White House better start thinking about the 
question so many of us asked over the last few months before events 
move too far to capitalize on the agreement made this past Sunday:
  How do you move from intervention in Haiti to democracy in Haiti?
  This noon I had a phone conversation with several members of the 
Haitian Chamber of Deputies in Haiti that I believe offers some hope 
for the future of Haiti. There is a group of 48 members in the Chamber 
of Deputies who months ago issued an invitation to both the House and 
the Senate to exchange delegations for discussion about a peaceful 
resolution to the situation in Haiti. They are still there and are 
still hard at work trying to right what's wrong with their country. If 
I were to offer any advice for the White House, I would say: Start 
talking to these people now. The parliamentarians are on the right 
track and have begun drawing together different segments of Haitians 
society--members of the Haitian Parliament, the churches and the 
business sector to build what they call the ``the grand national 
consensus.'' Their aim is to balance the factions in Haiti 
concentrating on the center rather than on the two extremes of the 
military junta and the Aristide camp. Their efforts are based on the 
assumption that if there is to be any lasting change in Haiti, no one 
faction can have it all their own way. As Lawrence Pezzullo, former 
special adviser on Haiti, wrote today in a column in the New York 
Times:

       The Haitian constitution of 1987, which balances executive 
     power with parliament's--essential in a country with a long 
     history of abusive strongment--requires that the President 
     build a working majority in the legislature. It was precisely 
     father Aristide's estrangement from the elected Parliament, 
     coupled with his chilly relationship with business leaders 
     and the military that led to his overthrow in 1991 without a 
     broader governing coalition and an operating majority in the 
     Parliament, Father Aristide could face a repetition of the 
     conflict that turned violent in 1991.

  Only this time, American soldiers will be right in the thick of it. 
While American policy has tended to deal purely with the good guy-bad 
guy, Aristide-Cedras comparison, the time has come to examine what lies 
between these two extremes--a group of Haitians who simply want to 
bring longterm peace and prosperity to their beleaguered nation and are 
asking for our help in doing so.
  As we have long said, there is a better way than the Clinton 
administration's policy in Haiti, and it is long overdue, but it is not 
too late to pursue it. We need to stop the embargo, as we have now 
promised we will do. We need to bring home the troops that are down 
there in an extra-hazardous situation for no apparent gain, or 
certainly for no justification, of the national security of our 
country. And we need to follow up on the gains that former President 
Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn meant by opening the door with 
negotiations.
  When the President of the United States told the people of the United 
States last Thursday night that all efforts, all options, all 
possibilities, had been exhausted, that the only chance was invasion, 
he was clearly wrong. It is now time to admit it and get on with the 
negotiating with the people in an atmosphere that has been fighting us 
to do that. It is the right way. It is not too late yet, but we need to 
do it now.

                          ____________________