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


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



 COMMENDING THE PRESIDENT AND THE SPECIAL DELEGATION TO HAITI--SENATE 
                             RESOLUTION 259

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Connecticut for his generosity with the time. I would like to yield to 
the Senator from Kentucky 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
yielding the time. First, I want to commend him for his outstanding 
leadership on the whole question of whether America should be involved 
in Haiti. Obviously, at this point, we can only pray for the safety of 
our soldiers. We can certainly commend, as the resolution does, 
President Carter and Senator Nunn and Gen. Colin Powell for their 
negotiating skills allowing the ill-advised entry of our troops into 
Haiti to occur without incident.
  A great problem, of course, is now we are in Haiti. The problems have 
begun already. Certainly, President Aristide is not happy with the 
deal. Violence is still occurring in Haiti. I gather we are 
reconsidering today the rules of engagement. American troops are going 
to be in Haiti, at least at some level, for up to 18 months. Maybe they 
are going to be the local police force. Certainly, that is not what our 
military people are trained to do. In short, they are going to be in 
harm's way for up to 18 months, all in a country in which clearly the 
United States has no national security interest.
  So, Madam President, even though I am going to vote for the 
resolution, I certainly hope that the President will realize early on 
and very soon that American troops ought to be out of Haiti. No good 
can be accomplished with the entry of American troops into a domestic 
dispute. Haiti looks a lot like Somalia these days.
  We all learned an important lesson in the post-cold-war environment 
with our entry of troops into Somalia. What started out to be a feeding 
mission, as we all know, evolved into nation building. Nation building, 
plain and simple, as many other Senators have stated, is choosing sides 
in an internal dispute. That is clearly what we are doing in Haiti.
  I hope the President will conclude that this kind of venture in the 
future is not a good idea. In the post-cold-war world, obviously the 
challenges are a little more subtle. In the cold war, it was pretty 
easy to tell who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. It was 
the United States and our allies and the Soviets and their allies and 
everybody playing themselves off against each other. Now we are the 
only world power. I think we should continue to be the only world 
power, but I think it is extraordinarily important for us not to 
dissipate that power, not to overuse it, not to insert it willy-nilly 
into every conceivable conflict.
  It seems as if the strategy of this administration is to continue to 
weaken defense and threaten to use our military everywhere. It seems to 
this Senator, and it is not an entirely unique thought, that our policy 
ought to be to maintain a strong national defense, consistent with the 
world's only superpower and that status, but rarely use that power, and 
clearly use it only when it is absolutely apparent, abundantly clear, 
that our national security interests are involved. And by any 
standard--any standard--we have no national security interest in Haiti.
  So, Madam President, we are going to vote on this resolution shortly. 
I assume it will be largely supported. I think this is a very sad day 
for American foreign policy to see our troops in this hapless country 
arbitrating disputes among factions. It is certainly an ill-advised 
decision, but now our troops are there, and we pray for their safety.
  Madam President, when Colin Powell retired in 1993, there were many 
stories recapping his distinguished career. One in particular caught my 
attention not because it reviewed his record of accomplishment, but 
because it recounted the 13 rules that Powell has lived by which so 
clearly is the basis for this success. Most were characteristically 
optimistic, compassionate, and reflected the general's strong sense of 
honor, decency, and ethics.
  In thinking about events over the past weeks in Haiti, and the 
general's crucial role in securing an agreement, Powell's rule No. 6 
was apparent: ``Don't let adverse facts stand in the way of a good 
decision.'' From my perspective, General Cedras, General Biamby, 
Colonel Francois, their loyalists and their conduct fall into the 
category of ``adverse facts.'' But looking at the situation from a 
soldier's perspective--through the Powell prism--a good decision is one 
which avoids unnecessary bloodshed. General Powell, Senator Nunn, and 
former President Carter deserve a great deal of credit for avoiding an 
invasion and the risks that such action could have involved for 
American service men and women.
  But, there are two other Powell rules that I want to mention, rule 
No. 7, ``You can't make someone else's choices. You should not let 
someone else make yours,'' and rule No. 8, ``Check small things.''
  I think those are good rules to apply to the debate today. The Senate 
has the responsibility to look at the details--to check small things--
and carefully, objectively and independently evaluate the President's 
choice to deploy over 10,000 soldiers to Haiti. With so many lives at 
stake, with our Nation's credibility at risk, we shouldn't let someone 
else make a choice without thoroughly considering the ``small things,'' 
like the decision's merits.
  In doing so, I find myself asking precisely the same questions this 
week as I did last week. What are our goals? What are the rules of 
engagement?
  How, when, and under what circumstances will the administration 
transfer command of American troops to the United Nations?
  A week ago, the President and Ambassador Albright maintained that our 
objective was to remove the military junta from office and the island, 
in other words completely remove the threat. Secretary Christopher 
disagreed and indicated removal from power was the objective. President 
Carter seems to have agreed with the Secretary of State. In fact, he 
publicly rebuked the President's position saying, ``It is something 
that is not understood by most people. It's a serious violation of 
inherent human rights for a citizen to be forced into exile.'' Our 
basic goals seem confused.
  If we are not quite sure why we went in, can we answer what are we 
actually doing in Haiti? General Shelton says it is not to disarm the 
population. In fact, he and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have made 
clear that we will also limit our security role and allow the Haitian 
police and military to continue to carry out day to day law 
enforcement. Intentionally or not, I think many Haitians will believe 
that the United States has become a silent partner in oppression.
  The lead paragraph in the Post today says it all: ``In plain view of 
American soldiers, Haitian police wielding rifle butts and clubs 
attacked crowds of demonstrators who streamed through this capital 
today to sing, dance, and cheer United States troops flowing into the 
country. Witnesses said at least two of the demonstrators were clubbed 
to death.''
  Their friends and family must be wondering why we are there? Who's 
side are we on? Democracy or dictators?
  Like it or not, our presence presumes responsibility. We will be held 
accountable not just by Haitians, but by the world, for the political, 
security, and economic conditions, and problems which develop.
  The American public is understandably and most immediately concerned 
about the danger that our soldiers may be caught up in a civil war. I 
think that concern is well founded and guided the military's decision 
not to engage in disarming the population, to limit the rules of 
engagement to fire only under hostile fire, and to restrict our 
involvement in civil disturbances.
  But, even if we can stretch our imaginations to assume that our 
soldiers will be able to serve in the shadows, there are other emerging 
problems driven by the ambiguities of the agreement which was 
negotiated which must be addressed.
  Frankly, most disturbing is the confusion surrounding the matter of 
general amnesty. There are serious questions to be asked including who 
is going to pass this law, who will it cover and what crimes will be 
pardoned? The current Parliament is one that has been justifiably 
denounced by the administration and the international community as 
illegitimate. Elections held by the military last year filled 13 
parliamentary vacancies left by members who fled with Aristide. 
Secretary Christopher has said the United States would try to arrange 
the return of the 13 recognized parliamentarians prior to drafting and 
passing an amnesty law. I hope that this can be achieved but seriously 
question the feasibility of such an exercise. Failure to restore a 
legitimate parliament would be crippling blow to democratic prospects.
  After establishing who will pass the law, the administration has to 
resolve questions about who it will apply to and for what crimes. 
Secretary Christopher has indicated it should cover all 7,000 members 
of the military. He argues, as does the President that a general 
amnesty was inherent in the Governors Island accord.
  This overly broad interpretation should shock our collective 
conscience. When he rallied the nation to the cause of invasion, the 
President was graphic in his descriptions of the military regimes 
brutality. He explicitly described:

       *  *  * a campaign of rape, torture, and mutilation. People 
     starved, children died, thousands fled * * * a reign of 
     terror (with) people slain and mutilated with body parts left 
     as warnings to terrify others; children forced to watch as 
     their mother's faces are slashed with machetes.

Now, the President expects us to say, ``Never mind.''
  It may have been a necessary evil to amnesty the political offenses 
associated with the actual coup. But for the United States to protect 
Cedras and his loyalists from any consequence for their monstrous 
atrocities so vividly documented and recounted by the President is an 
assault on the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, 
upheld in the Constitution, and embodied by the Judeo-Christian ethic 
which guides our Nation.
  In one breath the President calls a nation to arms to eject brutal 
thugs who--

       * * * gunned down Father Jean-Marie Vincent, a peasant 
     leader and close friend of President Aristide. Vincent was 
     executed on the doorstep of his home, a monastery. He refused 
     to give up his ministry and for that he was murdered.

  Hours later, he asks us to abandon any thought of Father Vincent, 
abandon our sense of right and wrong, abandon good judgment, abandon 
our principles, and spare Cedras any consequence for his conduct. In 
fact, the President has asked us to go one step further and allow the 
military junta access to their frozen assets.
  When thugs pay no price, indeed, in this case are paid off, we become 
a nation of hypocrites. We literally snuff out the torch of liberty and 
truth.
  The Pledge of Allegiance our citizens embrace, the very envy of most 
nations, does not say, ``with justice of all--except thugs who outlast 
our threats and survive an international siege.'' Our Nation, our 
communities, and our families believe in liberty and justice for all, 
not for just some, not just for the moment, not just for the sound 
bite.
  Sparing the military any consequence for their campaign of deliberate 
atrocities compromises America's image as democracy's standard bearer, 
unless of course we accept double standards and deceit.
  Madam President, a few short months ago, we completed a painful 
chapter in American history. American soldiers left Somalia. Today, by 
all accounts, Somalia is no closer to democracy, no closer to peace, no 
closer in fact to having a government than it was before the United 
States began the misguided mission of nation building. In the sad words 
of our Ambassador, ``There's no more Somalia. Somalia is gone.''
  Our policy in Somalia failed, we lost 36 Americans because we had no 
clear purpose, our troops had a murky mission, at best, we were 
attempting to establish democratic institutions and impose principles 
of conduct in a country with no practical experience or history to 
guide them through the changes.
  Once again, it is unclear what our purpose is, indeed it is unclear 
that Aristide, the leader we are attempting to restore welcomes our 
role or shares our goals. Our soldiers have unclear guidelines and an 
uncertain operational mission. I do not doubt Haitians wish for 
democracy, but as Charles Krauthammer so aptly said, ``we are to 
restore democracy to a country that has never had it, build a civilian 
controlled military where it has never existed and create a secure 
environment for the peaceful transition of power among murderous 
rivals.''

  In applying the Powell axiom, in checking the details, what he calls 
the small things, I find big problems. I do not believe the resolution 
before the Senate begins to address these significant issues, nor do I 
believe the agreement negotiated by President Carter's able team 
resolves the crisis in Haiti. I think the crisis has just begun.
  As it unfolds, American men and women in uniform deserve our 
recognition, support, and the knowledge that the chain of command will 
take every step necessary to assure they are well equipped, prepared, 
and capable of carrying out a clearly defined mission. I commend the 
leadership's effort to draft a resolution which clarifies the Senate's 
support for our soldiers and the hope that they will be brought home as 
soon as possible. But in the coming days and months they will need more 
than our declarations of pride. Their well being depends on 
establishing credible goals and sensible policy.
  Yesterday, David Broder pointed out that:

       The President and his national security advisers are 
     singularly lacking in any long term policy perspective. Each 
     step of Haitian policy--from the initial offer of an American 
     haven for refugees to the fateful decision to go beyond 
     economic sanctions to the threat of force--was taken as if it 
     would somehow resolve the problem by itself.

  I agree; there is little evidence that administration has developed a 
long term, coherent strategy. The resolution before the Senate is a 
statement of the obvious--our pride in our soldiers, our opposition to 
the junta, our respect for our colleague Senator Nunn, as well as 
General Powell and President Carter. But, I think it is essential for 
the public to understand, that the Senate continues to harbor major 
reservations about the purpose of this occupation. With several 
thousand lives on the line, the time for ad hoc policymaking has 
passed. Continued failure by the administration to clearly define and 
defend our interests such as they may be in Haiti will provoke a cut 
off of the public's support and congressional funding.
  Many years ago, a young man wrote a letter explaining why he could 
not serve in Vietnam. A young Bill Clinton said he could not fight in a 
war the American public did not understand and did not support. As he 
sends our soldiers into Haiti for an indefinite period of time, 
President Clinton would do well to heed his own advice and justify 
America's purpose, explain the policy, and seek our support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, just very quickly, on behalf of the 
majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today, the 
Republican leader be recognized to use as much of his leader time as he 
chooses; that following the Republican leader's statement, the majority 
leader be recognized to use as much of his leader time as he so 
chooses; that upon the conclusion of the majority leader's statement, 
without intervening action, the Senate vote on adoption of Senate 
Resolution 259.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. President Carter, General Powell, and Senator Nunn 
deserve this country's gratitude in negotiating an agreement with the 
de facto Haitian Government which has allowed us to avoid the necessity 
of a military invasion. The President deserves our commendation as well 
for his willingness to use this last opportunity for diplomacy in order 
to achieve our objective of restoration of democracy in Haiti. That is 
why I strongly support this resolution. I hope that we will be able to 
remove our militry troops from Haiti at the earliest possible date 
consistent with the protection of the United States interests. This 
resolution speaks to that issue and is another reason for Senate 
support.
  Our negotiators' achievement, in my judgment, proved a truth in our 
dealing with Haiti, and that is that it required two steps in order to 
avoid the use of force. The first of those steps was the credible 
willingness to use force. For 3 years, we had negotiated with the 
military leadership in Haiti, and as long as that leadership doubted 
our resolve, it was unwilling to voluntarily transfer power.
  The second element was creative diplomacy inserted at the critical 
moment, at the moment when that realization that we were serious about 
our resolve to restore democracy finally took hold in the minds and the 
spirit of the military leadership of Haiti.
  It was that combination which led us to the result that we were able 
to avoid having to actually use force.
  Madam President, I would like to talk today not so much about what 
has happened but what I think should and will happen if we learn well 
the lessons of our recent experience in Haiti.
  First is the chapter of the book on Haiti which I will describe as 
the transition chapter, those things that should happen between now and 
the mid point in October when the military leadership has agreed to 
step aside, and shortly thereafter the return of President Aristide. 
We, the United States, and the international community during this 
period must more carefully and precisely define the rules of engagement 
for our troops. We clearly must do everything to ensure their safety, 
as well as their appropriate use in the safety of the citizens of 
Haiti.
  President Aristide must set to work in reassembling his government. 
That reassembly will require the naming of a prime minister, a chief of 
the armed forces, and a civilian police chief. In doing so, I hope that 
President Aristide will reach out to all sectors of the Haitian society 
to build support for his choices. We must stand ready to help in any 
appropriate way.
  We also must help President Aristide put in place an economic plan 
that puts people back to work quickly while building a solid foundation 
for growth over the long term. There will be tremendous expectations of 
the people of Haiti, already the poorest country in the Western 
Hemisphere, who have been driven into even further misery as a result 
of the last 3 years of authoritarian rule.
  Particularly important in this rebuilding process will be the 
restoration of a private sector which 3 years ago provided substantial 
employment for the Haitian people.
  We must lift with our international partners those parts of the 
embargo which will most quickly benefit the people of Haiti. Areas such 
as transportation and energy should receive a priority in lifting the 
embargo so that they can assist in the rebuilding of the society. Other 
elements of the embargo should await further political developments, 
and some elements of the embargo, such as the embargo against the 
provision of military equipment and ammunition, should only be lifted 
over time.
  We must as quickly as possible train a police force that respects the 
human rights of the Haitian people. I am pleased that as we speak an 
effort is being made among the 14,000-plus Haitians at the United 
States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay to identify and recruit and 
commence the training of those persons who desire to serve in a 
civilian, independent, human rights-respecting police force for Haiti. 
Those are all challenges of the next few weeks.
  Madam President, in my opinion, the Haiti experience represents a 
critical chapter in our post-cold-war era. Just as the events that 
surrounded Greece in the period after World War II became the basis of 
an important doctrine that sustained us throughout the cold war period, 
the doctrine of not allowing Communist expansionism, I believe that 
there are some important lessons that will be significant beyond Haiti 
in this post-cold-war era.
  As has been stated moments ago by Senator McConnell, the nature of 
the threat has clearly changed. No longer have we the luxury of 
focusing on a single, massive, potent adversary. The post-cold-war 
world will require greater flexibility, the nuances and intuition of 
knowing a particular society, how to use a variety of responses to 
unique threats, each with their own special characteristics. We must 
rethink and restructure in this more complex world.
  Part of that rethinking and restructuring will require closer 
relationships between the executive and legislative branches. Just as 
was the case in post-World War II America, where a bipartisan foreign 
policy was developed, a foreign policy that sustained us for the better 
part of 45 years, a similar effort at structuring a bipartisan foreign 
policy with a commitment both from the executive and the congressional 
branches for its fulfillment will be critical in this post-cold-war 
era.
  The Western Hemisphere is clearly being recognized as a region of 
special importance to the United States. That has been the case 
throughout our history. But for much of this century our focus has been 
elsewhere--on Europe or on the Pacific basin. I remain frustrated that 
oftentimes our debates assume the only national security interests for 
the United States are those which are found, for instance, in the North 
Atlantic region. I believe that the United States not only has a 
historic interest in the Western Hemisphere but also as we move into 
the post-cold-war era there will be a tendency for the democracies of a 
particular region, whether it be in Asia or in Europe or in the Western 
Hemisphere, to accept the reality that they have a special 
responsibility for the democracies of that region.
  Clearly, the United States must provide a significant amount of the 
leadership in doing so in the Western Hemisphere. The protection of 
democracy has been elevated in terms of an important component of our 
national interest, a component worthy of aggressive diplomacy and, if 
necessary, a diplomacy backed by force. We will need to look for new 
institutions in terms of meeting these post-cold-war challenges. 
Regional security arrangements, for example, are already being 
seriously discussed in areas such as Africa and the Middle East. I 
believe it would be very much in the United States interest through the 
Organization of American States to encourage regional security 
arrangements within the Western Hemisphere. The alternative to such 
arrangements is either a crisis ignored and allowed to fester and 
become a greater threat to the region or calling upon the United States 
as the singular cavalry for each Western hemispheric flash point.
  Mr. President, for the better part of a half century, the United 
States has been involved in the training and equipping of militaries 
throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. This is a time to revisit 
what are our goals in our relationship with an institution, the 
military, which is important in almost all of the countries of the 
Western Hemisphere. It is my hope that we will begin to use our 
resources in order to encourage a different kind of military, one that 
emphasizes such areas as civil works, such as our Corps of Engineers, 
life and safety protection such as our Coast Guard, and emergency 
assistance and reconstruction activities which are increasingly being 
played by our military services. I believe that the United States can 
assist in an appropriate and respectful reformation of an important 
institution, an institution that should not be challenging democracies, 
as it has in Haiti, but, rather, sustaining democracies as it has for 
200 years in the United States.
  Finally, Madam President, a lesson that we have learned from this 
Haiti experience is that delay does not make decisions easier. 
Throughout this crisis, there has been a theme of putting off decisions 
in hopes that the problem would go away or become more practical. The 
fact is that has not happened. There were points along the road when a 
more assertive U.S. policy could have avoided reaching the end that we 
currently find ourselves. Ideally, we should have moved immediately 
after the coup with the kind of international diplomacy based on the 
outrage of the world community for what happened in September 1991, or 
during the time when the military dictators stiffed the Governors 
Island accord and turned back our ship, the Harlan County, at the port 
of Port-au-Prince. Those were opportunities that were missed. I believe 
that we have paid a price for our assumption that delay would lead to 
an easier course.
  Madam President, Haiti is not the last challenge that we are going to 
face. As we struggle to develop new ways to define our interests in an 
increasingly multipolar world, I hope that we can all assume some 
humility in acknowledging that none of us has the answers in this 
complex post-cold-war era. The strength of our democracy includes 
debates like the one that we have been having over the past several 
days on Haiti, debates which help us to better understand our national 
interests, better develop a national consensus so that a critically 
important foreign policy can be framed for the 21st century as our 
grandparents did the last half of the 20th century.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Florida 
for his continued advocacy of freedom and democracy in Haiti.
  Madam President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] followed by 5 minutes to the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Helms] which I believe will be the expiration of all 
time. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be allowed 5 minutes 
of the leader's time, for a total of 10 minutes, and that has been 
cleared by the leader on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, my predecessor in office was a Shakespearean 
scholar. I could never compete with him in relating Shakespearean 
lessons to our times. But the relationship of ``Hamlet'' to our 
invasion of Haiti by President Clinton jumped off the pages of 
literature.
  Hamlet, witnessing Norway's Army commanded by Fortinbras causing 
Denmark to go to war on Poland for ``a little patch of ground'' said:

       Examples gross as earth exhort me:
       Witness this Army of such mass and charge,
       Led by a delicate and tender prince,
       Whose spirit with divine ambition puffed
       Makes mouths at the invisible event,
       Exposing what is mortal and unsure
       To all that future, death and danger dare,
       Even for an eggshell.

  What is the United States security interest in that ``little patch of 
ground'' in Haiti that would cause us to risk American troops?
  I applaud my distinguished colleague, Senator Sam Nunn, and the other 
two emissaries, former President Carter and Gen. Colin Powell, because 
they did an outstanding job, and they bought time which helped avoided 
an ill-considered invasion. I think it is our responsibility to support 
our troops and to assure their safety.
  I ask the President now to define this mission. What are the rules of 
engagement for our forces? What are our objectives? Can these 
objectives be reasonably achieved? Have the unique risks to U.S. troops 
been fully considered? What if the supporters of General Cedras and 
President Aristide are in conflict? What will our role then be, and how 
will we maintain the safety of our troops in this type of police 
mission?
  Madam President, I think the President should come and report to 
Congress and to the American people. He needs to set the parameters of 
this mission. He needs to set a timetable for withdrawal and determine 
and report the full costs of this operation. The estimates that we have 
been given range anywhere from $500 million to $850 million. What is 
total cost going to be to the American people?
  I think we should have learned a valuable lesson in Somalia as to the 
real costs associated with this type of operation and the consequences 
for failing to define the mission. In Somalia, our soldiers were on the 
front lines in support of a U.N. mission that quickly escalated from a 
humanitarian mission to police action to armed conflict in which 
soldiers were killed in an ill-considered mission trying to capture an 
illusive warlord. I will never forget the testimony of the father of 
one of our lost soldiers in Somalia. With tears streaming down his 
face, having served in Vietnam himself, saying, ``What did my son die 
for, Senator?''
  Madam President, I will never feel entirely comfortable talking to a 
parent who has lost a child serving on a mission for the United States, 
but if someone's son or daughter must die in support of an operation, 
that mission must not be a U.N. mission but a U.S. mission--a U.S. 
mission that we in Congress agreed to.
  So I ask the President these questions: What is the mission, and what 
is our role? I think it is very important that we answer these 
questions now because the American people are looking for the answers. 
Why are we in Haiti?
  Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I appreciate the 
opportunity to talk about this subject. I hope we get the answers. I 
hope we learn soon what the mission is and that a time limit has been 
set for our participation in this operation so that we will not have to 
have another resolution in the future to ask the question why we are 
there, and hopefully we will not have to answer the question why we 
lost even one of our American troops in support of this ill-defined 
mission.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, it may have been Winston Churchill--I cannot 
remember for certain--who first cautioned that all citizens should heed 
the axiom that politics should unfailingly stop at the water's edge.

  For my part, I thank the Lord that as of this moment, no American has 
lost his life in the strange drama unfolding in the miserable piece of 
geography known as Haiti.
  On reflection, there were credible and obviously accurate predictions 
among knowledgeable sources in this city weeks ago that there would be 
no invasion of Haiti by the United States troops because countless 
millions of the American taxpayers' dollars would be committed in a 
financial arrangement acceptable to those who had participated in, or 
given support to, the ouster of the unbalanced Aristide in the first 
place.
  And, incidentally, Madam President, it is intriguing to note the 
number of left-of-center editors and commentators who have changed 
their tunes about this man Aristide. A year ago, it was fashionable for 
the media to go out of their way to circulate distorted praise of Mr. 
Aristide. Some called him a second George Washington--the biggest laugh 
of the year. You do not read or hear much of that any more. Aristide, 
like the fabled emperor with no clothes, has been exposed for what he 
is--and has been all along.
  Only Aristide's high-salaried press agents, hired and paid vast sums 
of money to flack for this man manage to now keep a straight face when 
talking about restoring democracy in Haiti.
  There has never been any democracy to restore in Haiti. Aristide--he 
who has proclaimed the sweet odor of the burning flesh of his screaming 
political adversaries as their lives are snuffed out by so-called 
necklaces of tires filed with blazing gasoline--he who has been 
identified all along as a Marxist--this strange, pretentious man has 
never been a symbol worthy of support by the U.S. Government and the 
U.S. taxpayers.
  Madam President, the vast majority of Americans are justifiably 
relieved that, thus far, no American life has been lost in the Haitian 
fiasco. But, sad to say, bad news is coming from another direction for 
American citizens who work and pay taxes. The bad news: By conservative 
estimates this solution to the Haitian problem, for which the President 
is taking bows, is certain to cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of 
$2 billion--perhaps far more than $2 billion.
  Just for openers, at least $891 million can already by specifically 
identified, involving 16 categories of U.S. expenditures. I shall offer 
for the Record a footnote for each item identifying the source. Several 
were made available by Ms. Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary of State 
for Legislative Affairs. I ask unanimous consent that this information 
be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Costs of U.S. Policy in Haiti

       $372 Million\1\--DOD costs for next 7 months of Haiti 
     occupation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     References at the end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       $187 Million\2\--DOD/Coast Guard retrieval of Haitians at 
     sea.
       $103.5 Million\3\--U.S. Economic aid for FY1995.
       $55 Million\4\--DOD cost for transporting 12,000 troops and 
     equipment into Haiti.
       $50 Million\5\--DOD equipment and training for MNC 
     participating countries.
       $30 Million\6\--Haitian Refugee Safe Havens.
       $28.7 Million\7\--Training of Haitian civilian police 
     force.
       $15 Million\8\--Emergency military equipment and training 
     for Dominican Republic.
       $13.67 Million\9\--U.S. humanitarian assistance to Haiti 
     (1-94/9-94).
       $8.46 Million\10\--Police monitors and ICITAP.
       $7.15 Million\11\--Child survival programs for 1994.
       $7 Million\12\--Haitian refugee processing.
       $5.99 Million\13\--Family planning programs for 1994.
       $4.6 Million\14\--Immediate economic assistance.
       $1.78 Million\15\--Embargo enforcement aid for Dominican 
     Republic.
       $1.5 Million\16\--Emergency training for Jamaican forces.
       $891 Million--Total.


                               footnotes

     \1\DOD estimate, reported in Miami Herald, 9-3-94, pg. 32A.
     \2\DOD estimate, reported in Miami Herald, 9-3-94, pg. 32A.
     \3\USAID Congressional Presentation Document for FY95 Budget 
     request (includes $9 million in FY94 carryover).
     \4\DOD estimate, reported in Miami Herald, 9-3-94, pg. 32A.
     \5\Congressional notification from Assistant Secretary of 
     State Wendy Sherman, 9-17-94.
     \6\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 8-24-94.
     \7\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 9-16-94 
     (pursuant to determination by Secretary of State Christopher, 
     September 15, 1994).
     \8\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 8-27-94. 
     Presidential determination 94-34, 7-15-94.
     \9\USAID/OFDA document, 9-1-94.
     \10\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 9-9-94 
     (pursuant to determination by Secretary of State Christopher, 
     September 13, 1994).
     \11\Congressional notification from USAID, 8-14-94.
     \12\Presidential determination 94-31, 8-1-94 (MRA 
     assistance).
     \13\Congressional notification from USAID, 8-14-94.
     \14\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 9-15-
     94.
     \15\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 8-17-94 
     (pursuant to determination by Secretary of State Christopher, 
     August 16, 1994).
     \16\Congressional notification from AS Wendy Sherman, 8-17-
     94. Presidential determination 94-41, 8-8-94.

  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, let me go down the list of these items at 
the taxpayers' expense: $372 million--that is the Department of Defense 
cost for the next 7 months of the Haiti occupation; next, $187 million 
is the cost of Department of Defense/Coast Guard retrieval of Haitians 
at sea, and much of that has already been spent; $103.5 million in 
United States economic aid for fiscal year 1995; $55 million for 
Department of Defense cost for transporting 12,000 troops and equipment 
into Haiti; $50 million for Department of Defense equipment and 
training for Multi-National Coalition participating countries; $30 
million for Haitian refugee safe havens; $28.7 million for training of 
Haitian civilians for the police force; $15 million for emergency 
military equipment and training for the Dominican Republic; $13.67 
million for U.S. humanitarian assistance to Haiti; $8.46 million for 
police monitors and other equipment; $7.15 million for child survival 
programs; $7 million for Haitian refugee processing; $5.99 million, 
family planning programs for 1994; $4.6 million for immediate economic 
assistance; $1.78 million for embargo enforcement aid for the Dominican 
Republic; $1.5 million for emergency training for Jamaican forces for a 
total of $891 million already committed. I have already obtained 
unanimous consent for that information to be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, when phase II of the Haitian operation begins--meaning 
when the United Nations takes over--the United States taxpayers, as 
always, will be expected to pick up 31 percent of all of the United 
Nations' costs. This will cost the American taxpayers a minimum of $67 
million for the first 6 months alone.
  And since the United States is by far the largest contributor to both 
the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, that will be 
another enormous cost to the American taxpayers.
  So, Madam President, former President Carter, General Powell, and 
Senator Nunn, are entitled to sincere congratulations for their roles 
in all of this. They were presumably instructed by President Clinton to 
trigger the massive expenditures which I have described. They did what 
their Commander in Chief told them to do, and they did it well, and all 
of us have a deep sense of gratitude.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HELMS. That certainly includes the U.S. troops involved. I am 
particularly mindful, being from North Carolina, of the thousands of 
marines based in North Carolina, and the 82d Airborne at Fort Bragg--
and, of course, of the families of all of these fine young men and 
women.
  I want to support an appropriate resolution commendation. But the 
Senate should not be asked to support a political commendation such as 
the one drafted by the distinguished majority leader.
  Sometime, many years from now, the curtain of elapsed time may be 
drawn back so that historians may inspect the reaction of Congress on 
this matter in September 1994.
  This should be no puff job. It should state honestly and candidly 
that this very same alternative that the President implemented over the 
weekend was available and rejected 7 months ago, in February. It was 
called The Parliamentarian's Plan, which had been negotiated by U.S. 
Ambassador Pezzullo before he was dismissed because he attempted to 
resolve the matter in a peaceful manner. The Parliamentarian's Plan is 
remarkably similar to the agreement negotiated by President Carter.
  It also should be noted and made a matter of record that Senator Dole 
recommended this past May that the President send Gen. Colin Powell to 
Haiti--a suggestion that was met with complete silence at the White 
House. Madam President, now that more than 6,000 United States troops 
are on the ground in Haiti, it is appropriate to bear in mind that 
October 3 will mark the first anniversary of the death of 17 Army 
Rangers on the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia. That operation took place 
in the name of U.N.-sponsored nation building--not U.S. security.
  I will close on one final note. Look at what happened on October 3 a 
year ago, and then consider the potential that could happen still in 
Haiti. Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today with grave concerns. Our brave 
troops have landed in Haiti as an occupying force, as peacekeepers. 
President Clinton has thrown our troops into a foolhardy mission, full 
of dangers. The invasion turned into an occupation with our troops 
acting as peacekeepers.
  This is a shortsighted policy and it is our troops who are being 
sacrificed. Haiti is not a democratic country, and Aristide is not a 
proven democratic leader. As President, he ruled with an iron fist, 
using terror and violence against his own people.
  Aristide is a thug in his own right. I want to know, and Montanans 
want to know, what are we doing in Haiti? What is the mission, the 
goals?
  President Clinton did not consult with Congress, nor did he seek 
congressional approval before committing our troops. He did not have 
the support of the American people. His public address did not give a 
clearly defined mission, nor a deadline for the withdrawal of United 
States troops from Haiti. A mission without goals or support is a 
mission doomed to failure.
  And now we find that the operation has changed. An 11-hour scramble 
produced an agreement with Haitian General Cedras. I know we are all 
relieved that an invasion was averted. But the clock is still ticking. 
This isn't over yet.
  Lots can happen before October 15 and I don't want us to get bogged 
down in a useless and dangerous mission.
  The thug who was supposed to leave Haiti immediately is still in 
power. We are giving Cedras a legitimacy that he doesn't deserve. 
Aristide isn't even happy with these efforts on his behalf. Our troops 
are on the line and he can't even say thanks.
  This whole operation reminds me of Somalia. We want there to restore 
order. There was more disorder and chaos by the time our troops were 
untangled.
  Which brings up the issue of disengagement. When will our troops come 
home. This hasn't been determined. How much time and money are we going 
to sink into this operation?
  My sincere hope is that we can get our fighting men and women home 
safely as soon as possible.
  I am not convinced that this is the best course of action. I did not 
support economic sanctions. It only hurt the innocent people, finally 
sending them across the ocean in flimsy crafts. And now we are still 
working against the innocent people. As peacekeepers, our troops can 
only stand idly by and watch as Cedras' police attack, and even kill, 
the innocent people. The ones they were supposed to help. Our 
objectives are still upside down.
  I am strongly opposed to this mission. I can't begin to see how this 
mission is in our national security interest. And President Clinton has 
not given good, hard reasons for this invasion that convince me that 
this is the best, and only, course of policy.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might use 5 
minutes of the leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________