[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNITED STATES-LED FORCE IN HAITI
RESOLUTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 416.
{time} 2136
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 416), providing limited authorization for
the participation of United States Armed Forces in the multinational
force in Haiti and providing for the prompt withdrawal of United States
Armed Forces from Haiti, with Mr. Mazzoli in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the first
reading of the joint resolution is dispensed with.
The text of House Joint Resolution 416 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 416
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Limited
Authorization for the United States-led Force in Haiti
Resolution''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) On September 18, 1994, the special delegation to Haiti
succeeded in convincing the de facto authorities in Haiti to
sign the Port-au-Prince Agreement under which such
authorities agreed to leave power.
(2) On September 18, 1994, after the Port-au-Prince
Agreement was reached, the President ordered the deployment
of United States Armed Forces in and around Haiti.
(3) On September 21, 1994, the President submitted a
report, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1541 et seq.), on the introduction of United States Armed
Forces into Haiti.
(4) The Congress 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.
(b) Statement of Policy.--The Congress declares the
following:
(1) The United States-led force in Haiti should use all
necessary means to protect United States citizens, to
stabilize the security situation in Haiti so that orderly
progress may be made in transferring the functions of
government in that country to the democratically-elected
government of Haiti, and to facilitate the provision of
humanitarian assistance to the people of Haiti.
(2) Transfer of operations in Haiti from the United States-
led force in Haiti to the United Nations-led force in Haiti
should be facilitated and expedited to the fullest extent
possible.
(3) United States Armed Forces should be withdrawn from
Haiti as soon as possible.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--Subject to subsection (b), United
States Armed Forces are authorized to participate in the
United States-led force in Haiti only--
(1) to protect United States citizens;
(2) to stabilize the security situation in Haiti so that
orderly progress may be made in transferring the functions of
government in that country to the democratically-elected
government of Haiti; and
(3) to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance
to the people of Haiti.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Termination of authorization.--The authorization
provided by subsection (a) shall expire on March 1, 1995.
(2) Prohibiton on foreign command.--United States Armed
Forces described in subsection (a) shall remain under the
command and control of officers of the United States Armed
Forces at all times.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The President shall submit to the Congress
reports on--
(1) the participation of United States Armed Forces in the
United States-led force in Haiti and the United Nations-led
force in Haiti, including--
(A) the number of members of the United States Armed Forces
that are participating in such United States-led force and
such United Nations-led force;
(B) the functions of such Armed Forces; and
(C) the costs of deployment of such Armed Forces; and
(2) the efforts to withdraw United States Armed Forces from
Haiti, including--
(A) for the purpose of achieving a transition from the
United States-led force in Haiti to the United Nations-led
force in Haiti, the status of efforts to implement the Port-
au-Prince Agreement and to otherwise carry out the terms of
Untied Nations Security Council Resolutions 917 (May 6, 1994)
and 940 (July 31, 1994);
(B) the status of plans to accomplish such transition to
the United Nations-led force in Haiti; and
(C) the status of plans to withdraw United States Armed
Forces from Haiti.
(b) Reporting Dates.--A report under this section shall be
submitted--
(1) not later than November 30, 1994, covering the period
since September 18, 1994;
(2) not later than December 31, 1994, covering the period
since the report described in paragraph (1); and
(3) not later than February 1, 1995, covering the period
since the report described in paragraph (2).
(c) War Powers Resolution Reporting Requirements.--The
requirements of this section do not supersede the
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et
seq.).
SEC. 5. REASSEMBLY OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the majority leader of the
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority
leader of the House of Representatives and the minority
leader of the Senate, respectively, should monitor closely
events in Haiti in considering whether to exercise any
authority that may be granted to reassemble the Congress
after the adjournment of the Congress sine die, if the public
interest shall warrant it.
SEC. 6. JOINT RESOLUTION PROHIBITING CONTINUED USE OF UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES IN HAITI.
(a) In General.--If a joint resolution described in
subsection (b) is enacted, the President shall remove United
States Armed Forces from Haiti in accordance with such joint
resolution.
(b) Description of Joint Resolution.--For purposes of
subsection (a), a joint resolution described in this
subsection is a joint resolution the matter after the
resolving clause of which is as follows: ``Pursuant to
section 6 of the Limited Authorization for the United States-
led Force in Haiti Resolution, the Congress hereby directs
the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Haiti
not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this joint resolution, except for a limited number of members
of the United States Armed Forces sufficient to protect
United States diplomatic facilities and personnel.''.
(c) Priority Procedures.--
(1) Introduction of joint resolution.--Paragraph (2) shall
only apply to a joint resolution described in subsection (b)
and introduced on or after the date on which the President
submits, or is required to submit, the report required by
section 4(b)(3).
(2) Consideration of joint resolution.--Only one joint
resolution described in subsection (b) and introduced in
accordance with paragraph (1) shall be considered in
accordance with the procedures described in section 7 of the
War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546), except that, for
purposes of such consideration, the term ``calendar days'' in
such section shall be deemed to mean ``legislative days''.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this joint resolution, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Legislative days.--The term ``legislative days'' means
days in which the House of Representatives is in session.
(2) Port-au-prince agreement.--The term ``Port-au-Prince
Agreement'' means the agreement reached between the United
States special delegation and the de facto authorities in
Haiti on September 18, 1994.
(3) United nations-led force in haiti.--The term ``United
Nations-led force in Haiti'' means the United Nations Mission
in Haiti (commonly referred to as ``UNMIH'') authorized by
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 867 (September
23, 1993), 905 (March 23, 1994), 933 (June 30, 1994), and 940
(July 31, 1994).
(4) United states-led force in haiti.--The term ``United
States-led force in Haiti'' means the multinational force
(commonly referred to as `'MNF'' authorized by United Nations
Security Council Resolution 940 (July 31, 1994).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] will be
recognized for 2 hours, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
will be recognized for 2 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton].
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the House tonight begins debate on one of the most
serious foreign policy questions we have faced this year: United States
intervention in Haiti.
It is vitally important that we have this debate, and that we act.
Twenty-thousand United States troops are in Haiti tonight. The House
has not yet voted on this question. Tomorrow Members will have an
opportunity to vote.
Tomorrow, Members will have a chance to vote on House Joint
Resolution 416, which was reported out by the Committee on Foreign
Affairs. Tonight, I would like to spend a few minutes describing this
resolution.
House Joint Resolution 416 is a straightforward piece of legislation.
It does three things. It authorizes the United States military
operation in Haiti until March 1, 1995. Second, it sets out the limited
purposes of that operation. Third, for those who oppose the United
States presence in Haiti beyond March 1, it guarantees a vote on a
resolution directing the President to withdraw the troops.
I believe the House should act on this resolution because the United
States has important interests in Haiti. I have consistently believed
that force should be used in Haiti only as a last resort, after all
diplomatic and political approaches had been exhausted. Now that the
intervention has taken place, however, we want it to succeed.
u.s. stakes in haiti
What are United States interests in Haiti today? First, a stable
environment in Haiti will reduce the flow of refugees to the United
States and elsewhere in the region, and secure our borders. Second,
ousting the de facto military leaders and restoring Haiti's duly
elected leaders protects democracy in the hemisphere. Third, the U.S.
has a strong humanitarian interest in ending human rights abuses and
alleviating suffering in Haiti.
Fourth, the United States has an interest in proving that we mean
what we say. Two Presidents endorsed the objective of returning the
legitimate government to power in Haiti. The intervention authorized by
this resolution meets these objectives and promotes these interests.
congress should authorize
Three weeks ago, just before the President sent United States troops
to Haiti, Members said the President should not commit troops without
an authorization.
In voting on this resolution, Members have an opportunity to exercise
their constitutional responsibility. Congress should share
responsibility any time U.S. troops are deployed abroad for possible
combat purposes. Congress should be on the record. If Congress is to
play a role in these very difficult decisions, Members must be willing
to step up to the plate. We do that by voting on the question of
authorization, not simply by expressing our views through a sense of
Congress resolution.
The fact that we are authorizing after the operation has begun makes
no difference. The House faces a clear choice: Do United States troops
in Haiti continue to operate solely on the President's authority, or do
they also have the support and authorization of Congress? I believe we
ought to authorize.
March 1 deadline
Some of my colleagues believe that U.S. troops should come home
immediately. Others say they ought to be home by the end of the year. I
believe that is too soon. The President has committed the United States
to an important mission: to bring stability to Haiti so that the
Haitians can try to restore peace and civil order. We ought to give the
Haitians some time to accomplish this. I believe March 1 is an
acceptable deadline for this authorization.
Other says that March 1 is too soon, or that it is wrong to set any
kind of deadline. I think most of my colleagues would oppose an open-
ended authorization. They do not want the United States to get bogged
down in Haiti. They want to see some limit to our presence there.
In short, the deadline in this resolution makes sense.
First, it should provide enough time. The Pentagon has said that the
job of the United States-led mission can and should be completed within
6 months. This resolution provides the time our military has said they
need to get the job done.
Second, the March 1 deadline provides some pressure to make sure the
job gets done in that time frame. It is intended to provide incentive
to avoid mission creep or any plans to keep the United States-led force
in Haiti indefinitely.
Third, this resolution does not tie the President's hands. The
authorization provided by the joint resolution expires March 1. The
Congress can vote to extend that authorization, or take any other
action at that time.
limited mission in haiti
This resolution does make clear, however, that we are authorizing the
deployment in Haiti for limited purposes: To protect United States
citizens; to stabilize the security situation so that progress can be
made in transferring the functions of government to the democratically
elected government in Haiti; and to facilitate the provision of
humanitarian assistance.
House Joint Resolution 416 does not authorize nation-building. It
does not authorize U.S. troops to rebuild democracy. United States
Armed Forces should not be running Haiti, or rebuilding it. That is
the responsibility of Haitians themselves, with help and support from
the international community.
expedited procedure
Finally, this resolution guarantees that Members of Congress will
have the opportunity to vote again, after March 1, 1995, if they do not
approve of the President's plans for a U.S. role in the United Nations-
led force.
I know some of my colleagues wish the President had never committed
troops to Haiti. But the troops are there and it is unwise to pull them
out immediately. Passage of this resolution will guarantee a chance to
vote on this issue again after Congress reconvenes early in 1995.
Specifically, this resolution provides expedited procedures for
consideration of a joint resolution that would direct the President to
withdraw all United States troops from Haiti, after March 1, 1995.
conclusion
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It sets a
responsible middle course for our policy in Haiti.
It supports United States troops in Haiti, while clearly defining the
limited role they will play; it gives U.S. troops a reasonable period
to accomplish their mission, while not tying the President's hands; and
it puts Congress on record in support of the President's policy, while
retaining our prerogatives to pass judgment on the continued wisdom of
this operation at a later date.
{time} 2140
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, as we meet today, 25,000 United States
troops are bearing the burden of an extremely difficult mission in
Haiti, performing the mission in an outstanding manner with the
excellence we have come to expect of them.
We often speak abstractly of ``the use of force'' or ``American
military might.'' But, we all know that those vague expressions boil
down to our young men and women at the bottom of the chain of command,
turning down blind alleys in Haiti, trying to police and restore order
in a place that has never known it.
In the course of this debate, I ask my colleagues to search their
consciences as to whether, on this day, we will concern ourselves with
the security of those young men and women in our military who defend
our interest each and every day.
Let us ask ourselves whether we will defend the constitutional
prerogatives of this Congress. And, let us also consider, after all is
said and done, whether we will just go along with a fateful decision to
put U.S. lives on the line in a mission that most of us believe to be
ambiguous and ill-conceived.
All of us support the ideals of constitutional democracy and the
respect for human rights in Haiti. And I strongly support President
Aristide's early return. He has become a powerful symbol to Haitians
who hope that, at long last, representative democracy might be
respected and the promise of economic stability and social justice
might be kept.
However, along with many of my colleagues, I have not been convinced
that the use of American military force was necessary to achieve those
worthy objectives.
Mr. Chairman, the President should have come to the House before
deploying troops in Haiti. Instead, he rushed to launch an invasion
even while his own negotiators were in the clutches of potentially
hostile elements.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the proposal by the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Torricelli] House Joint Resolution 416, because it retroactively
provides congressional authorization for the unilateral decision by the
President to deploy United States Armed Forces in the occupation of
Haiti. Moreover, like the policy that it blesses, this resolution
ignores the will of the American people. Congress should move instead
to call for the immediate, safe, and orderly withdrawal of United
States troops from Haiti.
I cannot, as House Joint Resolution 416 would have it, sign onto any
foolhardy strategy that neglects the bitter lessons of the fruitless
United States occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934 or our recent
costly experience in Somalia.
Let there be no doubt: By approving House Joint Resolution 416 we
would be authorizing a mission and I quote from the Torricelli
resolution, ``to stabilize the security situation in Haiti'' in the
course of the transition back to a democratic government.
This language accepts President Clinton's definition of the United
States mission in Haiti, despite the fact that ambiguous objectives,
improvised rules of engagement, and ever-expanding tasks assumed by the
United States military have rendered this definition virtually
meaningless.
This vague authorization could lead our troops down a blind alley
with unintended consequences.
Moreover, the President has made it absolutely clear that, in his
view, he does not need congressional authorization to continue the
occupation of Haiti.
The only real effect of the Torricelli resolution, therefore, is to
authorize the mission through March 1, after which the President can be
expected to proceed with his plan to deploy 2,000 to 3,000 United
States troops in Haiti through February 1996 under a U.N. peackeeping
force. The March 1 date in this resolution, in sum, also is
meaningless.
Also, under this resolution, Congress would not have an opportunity
even to reconsider the long-term deployment of United States forces in
Haiti until early April 1995.
If Congress were to move as quickly as possible, as provided for
under this resolution, to disapprove the deployment of United States
forces, those troops might still be in Haiti--with the implicit
blessing of Congress--more than 7 months from now.
Moreover, this resolution does not ensure that United States forces
in Haiti will remain under the operational command and control of
United States military officers at all times, because it carefully
exempts the planned U.N. peackeeping phase from its prohibition on
foreign command.
Our colleague from California, Mr. Royce, has authored a worthy
amendment to address that glaring defect.
Mr. Chairman, we have developed a substitute to the Torricelli
resolution on Haiti with the following key provisions that better
reflect the will of the House: It expresses the sense of the Congress
that the President should not have ordered the occupation of Haiti. It
says that the President should immediately commence the safe and
orderly withdrawal of United States forces from Haiti and should
conclude that withdrawal as soon as possible in a manner consistent
with the safety of those forces.
It expresses the same of the Congress that the President should take
diplomatic steps to set up a U.N. peackeeping operation in Haiti
composed of military personnel from other countries.
In the event that the President has failed to respect the will of
Congress by withdrawing the forces, this substitute also provides for
House and Senate votes no later than January 21, 1995, on a resolution
requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces within 30 days.
This substitute also prohibits foreign command or operational control
of United States forces in Haiti at all times. It also requires
Presidential reports on the costs of all Haiti expenditures, on human
rights, and on plans for withdrawing United States forces.
Mr. Chairman, President Clinton made a unilateral decision on Haiti.
Now, we are each called upon to decide for ourselves whether the
President's policy is worthy of our support. Of all the ambiguity about
our mission in Haiti, there is one immutable fact before us today: A
vote for Mr. Torricelli's resolution, House Joint Resolution 416, is a
vote for the President's policy to put American lives on the line in
Haiti.
My colleagues, I believe we can better respond to the will of the
American people by supporting the substitute to the Torricelli
resolution that I will offer during the course of this debate.
{time} 2150
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have always believed, and I have said this
many, many times, as a member of the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, that foreign policy ought to be bipartisan, and I do not
believe we ought to use serious events in foreign policy to bash the
President. I believe when the President is right, he is our President,
and ought to be supported.
During the Persian Gulf war, I broke with my party and supported
President Bush, because I felt that he was right, and let me just say I
think we need to give credit where credit is due. President Clinton
sent envoys to Port-au-Prince. They negotiated a settlement. As a
result, our troops occupied Haiti without having to shoot their way
through and, indeed, we have seen during the course of events that the
Haitian people have welcomed our troops and that the President really
has done a good job here.
Now, I wish that the President had come to Congress prior to sending
the troops to Haiti, because I think that Congress does have ultimate
authority in making these decisions. But the fact of the matter is that
right now we are faced with the fact that we do have troops in Haiti
who are performing a mission and who, so far, have performed it very
admirably, and the mission has been successful.
I think it is very, very important that Congress now authorizies that
mission, and that is what H.J. Res. 416 is doing. I think that it is
very important to have this resolution. We can debate the merits of it.
We can debate whether or not the March 1 deadline is something that
ought to be there, and quite frankly, I have some doubts about that,
because I think that we have gone into Haiti to do a job, and we ought
to do the job, we want to get out as soon as possible, but I think that
we need to stay until the job is done.
I believe that we do have vital interests in Haiti. Ask anybody in
south Florida, ask anybody who has looked at our immigration policies
that have fallen apart. We understand that when Haitian boat people
come to this country trying to get into this country to flee tyranny
and oppression in their country that certainly we do have a vital
interest in who comes to our shore.
This is not something that is on the other side of the world. This is
very close to us in our own Western Hemisphere, and what goes on in
Haiti certainly affects us here in the United States.
Let me say to my colleagues that I think in some quarters of this
Congress there is a dangerous attitude of isolationism, and while it
might be very nice to say we have pressing problems at home, and we
should take care of those problems first, and I do agree, I think as a
superpower, we certainly have an interest in what goes on in the rest
of the world, particularly when it is in our hemisphere right here at
home.
I do not think we should cut and run or pass resolutions that say we
made a mistake or the President made a mistake. I do not think the
thing here is to score political brownie points. The thing here is to
say we have our troops in Haiti who are doing a job, who have done it
admirably; we support them; we want to continue the mission and then
get out. That is what H.J. Res. 416 provides, continue the mission and
get out, authorize the U.S. operation in Haiti, sets the limited
presence in Haiti, provides for a resolution, if we need to stay beyond
March 1. I think that what this Congress ought to do now is
responsibly, in a bipartisan approach, support our forces in Haiti and
say that we have a job to do, and when that job is completed we ought
to get out.
I think that is in the best tradition of bipartisan foreign policy
that Congress has done through the years, and I think that is what we
ought to do now.
Let me again say the President should have come to Congress first,
but let us also give credit where credit is due. The operation has been
a success. It is continuing to be a success. This Congress needs to
support our troops in Haiti.
I will certainly support H.J. Res. 416, and will look at any
amendments, and I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, my friend, for
putting forth this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let me address some of the comments of
the former speaker, and I am sure that the gentleman is sincere in his
statements.
But I would like to take a look at what has happened in the past. I
remember when George Bush wanted us to support Desert Storm, and the
majority of the Members on the other side of the aisle turned their
backs on our men and women in uniform in Desert Storm. It was not until
after that mission was successful that we were forced to come back here
and vote so that Democrats could have a cover vote on Desert Storm.
Those are the facts.
When they talk about bipartisanship, let us make sure that we talk
bipartisanship. Because when it fits the other shoe, that is not the
case under this body.
Let me take a look at what has happened. The President had months to
prepare. He scaled down two aircraft carriers, loaded helicopters,
loaded Army, brought all the equipment on, went to the United Nations
for approval, went to the U.N. How about the U.S.? How about this body?
{time} 2200
How about this body? The gentleman stated he should have come to
Congress. If the President even felt he was right in being able to
invade Haiti, why did he bypass this body and yet go outside of it? So
when you say we cannot say that the President made a mistake, let me
tell you why the President made a mistake. Did you know that by not
coming to Congress, our men and women do not fall under the Geneva
Convention? Just that little fact. If we had had anybody taken
prisoner, just like in Vietnam, because it was not an act of Congress,
they would not be covered; they would be called jailbirds, not
prisoners of war.
I remember we wanted to look at domestic policies, Members on that
side of the aisle every day look at the billions of dollars we spent in
the extension of Somalia, and we got 22 Rangers killed and 77 wounded
because we had an administration that would not give them the armament.
Now put yourself in those situations, put yourself in the situation
of a father given the Medal of Honor by the President of one of those
Rangers. When you talk about mistakes, when Dante Caputo, an emissary
who wrote the memo on the 23d of May, saying that the President was
doing this to boost his polls, on the 23d of May, gentlemen, he spelled
out the whole thing. We want to bring Mr. Caputo back here and under
oath have him testify about Strobe Talbott and the mission in Haiti.
So, yes, we do need to take a look at what happened.
What about the multinational force the President said was out there?
Do you know that until day 5 we did not have a single multinational
force? Where was that multinational force when our men and women were
taking the risk going into Haiti? They were nowhere to be found.
Do you know how many there are today? Ten. Ten of them in a safe
haven in Haiti.
We are out there taking the risk.
You say what about the Haitians, what about the boat people who are
coming across? How about the Caribbean Nations we have been so good to
and have taken care of? It would be less expensive until we can force a
peaceful resolution in Haiti.
You say not to say the President made a mistake. I disagree.
I take a look at the commitment and the things we are trying to do in
this Congress, and it is wrong. I do not like our troops under U.N.
Control. President Bush in Desert Storm had our troops under Colin
Powell, Schwarzkopf, and we had control of them, not the U.N., not the
Boutros/Boutros-by-golly.
But we had control of our troops.
I will fight and do everything I can to take that control away.
So, yes, I think the President did make mistakes. I think we need to
point it out so we do not make these same mistakes in the future.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the gentleman and point out the fact
that I believe 87 Democratic Members did vote for the Persian Gulf
support.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman is exactly right.
Mr. ENGEL. And I was one of those 87 Members.
I also remind my friend that I do not think any of the Republican
Presidents came to Congress for the invasion of Grenada, for the
invasion of Panama, or for the bombing of Libya.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me deal with the question. We were in a different
time in the history of this world and of this Nation. In Grenada, you
remember the Soviet Union was still the Soviet Union and Cuba was still
a definite threat to the United States. You remember the Cubans in
Grenada were building hardened runways for bombers that could reach the
United States. To me that is a national security threat. And the Cubans
themselves.
Then you look at Panama, there is a little thing called the Panama
Canal, which was a national security threat. At the same time some
Members of this body supported the Sandinistas, which we were afraid
that the same individual in Panama was supporting, and at the same time
the Panama Canal was a threat and a tie to the drug cartel. So I do not
think you can draw any parallel.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to identify myself with the gentleman's comments
about the American forces remaining under American control. We have
that right and responsibility to our Armed Forces.
Those of us who drafted the resolution felt so strongly about that
point that we inserted the following: ``U.S. Armed Forces described in
section A shall remain in the command and control of the officers of
the United States Armed Forces at all times.''
I therefore suggest to the gentleman one way to make sure these
forces are kept under U.S. control is to vote for the resolution.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman.
Is this true during the peacekeeping forces? Second, who is going to
pay for it? Who is paying for the guns, the buyback, who is paying the
Haitian soldiers, how much is the United States going to pay in this
peacekeeping force? All of these questions, when we take a look at and,
in my opinion, we are in a place where we do not belong in the first
place.
Haiti could sit there for the next two decades and not be a threat to
the United States.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the question of command under the peacekeeping forces
of course is not addressed in our resolution or, in my understanding,
in the gentleman's. Indeed if the gentleman, at a future time, wants to
have a resolution dealing with that, I think many of us would be
sympathetic. We have dealt only with U.S. forces in the occupation.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in our resolution, the substitute resolution we address
that issue and we demand that our U.N. peacekeeping forces, the U.S.
part of that would be under U.S. command.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me just tell the gentleman sincerely, we look at
Somalia and Bosnia and Haiti, and I look at the Navy. We have had to
send back 35 ships for repair. We have had three air wings stand down
because they do not have fuel or parts to fly. Top Gun, the famed Top
Gun, did not fly all this month because it did not have fuel to fly
against this one class.
This is what we are doing, we are cutting training, cutting
readiness, taking money out of the budget to support things like this.
When the President says he wants a well-trained force highly equipped,
and you push out and beyond the year 2010 a new airplane, the inventory
is going down. My problem is we have as much operations today as we had
in Vietnam and in Desert Storm, but we are killing our troops.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan debate. I want to emphasize that.
It can be very useful in throwing light on the circumstances
surrounding the liberation of Haiti. The debate can make an
immeasurable contribution to the making of foreign policy for this
hemisphere in the future. It is not partisan, because there are
Democrats who disagree with the actions being taken in Haiti as well as
Republicans.
We would like the American people to listen very seriously to the
principles involved here, to the comparison of this particular action
in Haiti with other actions that have been taken in this hemisphere;
Grenada, Panama. It is very important because if we want to decide
suddenly it is wrong to do it this way, it was wrong to do it that way
in Grenada, Panama and maybe we will set some standards for the future
that all Presidents will follow.
In setting those standards, I think we should consider very seriously
the following: This is not an invasion of Haiti. This is a liberation
of the people of Haiti. It is not even an intervention because the head
of state of Haiti, the democratically-elected President of Haiti, has
been here in Washington for the last 2 to 3 years. We took back and are
taking back the government that was elected by the people of Haiti, the
democratically-elected government.
That is not an invasion. That does not compare to Grenada. Grenada is
a little island with 100,000 people at that time. We moved in there
overnight with something like 17,000 troops, for an island of 100,000
people.
You know, there was no discussion, there were no negotiations with
the leaders of Grenada. Whether you like them or not, at least there
should have been some kind of negotiations. There was no consultation
with the United Nations. That is totally different from what happened
in the case of Haiti. For 3 years, for 3 years negotiations have gone
on, deliberations with respect to Haiti. The use of force was
undertaken only after all other efforts had failed.
It was only as a last resort.
This is a liberation not an invasion, not an intervention. This is
military assistance for a democratic ally in this hemisphere.
When we liberated Paris, we did not call that an invasion, when we
liberated France, we did not call that an invasion. They were being
held captive, an allied occupied nation. The greatest, riskiest
undertaking was the landing at Normandy and that was undertaken to
liberate a continent, to liberate Europe.
{time} 2210
As my colleagues know, we did that because it was necessary to save
democracy in Europe, because it had a bearing on our own Nation, a
liberation of an occupied allied nation. This is a hostage rescue
operation. We had hostages. Seven million people in Haiti were being
held hostage by an armed forces of 7,000, but that armed forces had all
the guns, they had all the armor, they had all the equipment. That
armed forces had been trained.
Listen. It was trained by the United States of America. Most of the
officers were trained at Fort Benning, GA. The Haitian army is a
creation of the United States of America. General Powell said in a
debriefing at the White House after the negotiations that on the walls
of the military compound in Haiti there are the pictures of all the
commanders of the Haitian armed forces, and the first two people on
that wall are American Marines, white American Marines who commanded
the first armies of Haiti. They established the army.
We cannot say that Haiti does not matter to us. We created the armed
forces. We have dominated Haiti commercially, politically, militarily,
since Haiti came into existence. That has been the history.
As we have always been concerned about any nations in this
hemisphere, suddenly we cannot become unconcerned. We have to be
concerned about Haiti also because of the large number of refugees that
have come from Haiti in an attempt to get into this country. We cannot
turn our back on refugees. We are party to international conventions.
We have a long history of accepting refugees.
We have done things to the Haitians that were never done to anybody
else, especially laws that have been erected in order to keep the
Haitians out, in order to stop our country from behaving in a most
inhumane way, in a totalitarian way. It was necessary to resolve the
conflict in Haiti and allow a situation to exist in Haiti where the
people of Haiti would want to stay at home and those who were outside
would go back home, as they will now. They will go back home.is is not
an invasion, and I say, You can look at your television sets and see
that it's not an invasion. We're not an occupying army. We are a
liberating army. The people have welcomed this liberating army. They
are jubilant that they can again breathe free as human beings who are
not under the domination of a set of military criminals. There wasn't
an invasion, not a declaration of war.
The action in Haiti must not be compared to Korea, or Vietnam, or
world War II. It must be compared to Grenada, to Panama, Nicaragua. We
have a tremendous amount of military assistance we gave to the Contras
in Nicaragua.
Actions taken by the United States in this Western Hemisphere is what
we are talking about. Let us decide how we are going to behave. Are we
going to go it alone in this hemisphere and not be concerned about all
the other nations, and to what extent shall we be concerned? If
criminals took over Puerto Rico tomorrow, and Puerto Rico is a part of
the United States, but if criminals took over any island close to the
United States tomorrow, are we just going to turn our backs and say the
criminals can have the island? If they are using the island for the
transshipment of drugs, are we going to turn our back and say that they
can continue to transship drugs into this country? The great rationale
for the invasion of Panama was the transshipment of drugs into our big
cities going through Panama. We have not even talked about the extent
to which they have gone through Haiti and the criminals who control
Haiti, how they enrich themselves through the drug transshipment
industry.
President Clinton has acted with the noblest of motivations. There
was no political gain from going into a situation to liberate a people
who can do nothing for him politically, to liberate a people when the
polls showed that they were not in favor of it, to liberate a people
when most of the Members of Congress were against it. There was no
political motivation here. It was the noblest of motivation, the kind
of motivation that Abraham Lincoln had when he set the slaves free. He
had nothing to gain politically. he was criticized around it. Everybody
else opposed it. When Abraham Lincoln acted to set the slaves free, it
was the right thing to do.
A great nation like the United States should use its power, use its
prestige, to help the least of the nations among us, and Haiti is the
least, represents the least, of the nations among us. We have done the
right thing in saving Haiti from a group of military thugs who are
holding the people of Haiti hostage in order to set a good example for
what we do in the future. It ought to be an example which will guide
foreign policy in the future. We have more to fear from criminals now
than we have to fear from Communists or any other people or
ideologists. Criminals are a major force throughout the world. They are
selling nuclear weapons into all kinds of activities, and who knows
when they will next take over a nation somewhere near us and we will
have to act.
So, let us proceed with a debate with the understanding that this is
a new world order, we have an armed forces that is already there. What
do they do in their spare time? You know, are the forces utilized here
doing something they would not be doing on a training exercise? This is
like a huge training exercise. Not a single soldier has been killed
yet, not a serious casualty yet.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mazzoli). The time of the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Owens] has expired.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] to allow the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham] to address him.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend that I
would agree with him that, if Haiti were developing nuclear weapons, if
there were a real threat, or some power went in there, I think the
President would be fully within his rights. But the logic that the
gentleman uses on drugs, on immigration and refugees, if that was the
logic, Mr. Speaker, we would have invaded Mexico a long time ago just
from California.
We spoke to Colin Powell, and he said, and I quote, ``I have great, I
have great, reservations about what we did in Haiti,'' and I take a
look at why we need to go into different nations. There are a hundred
different places we can go into, and my only point is; it is that they
were not the same initiatives as far as national security in either of
Grenada or in Panama and that Haiti could sit there for the next two
decades and not be a threat to the United States.
Mr. OWENS. Panama was a drug problem.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It was a drug problem; I agree. But we also had a
Panama Canal, and Panama was much more of a drug problem than ever in
Haiti.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, what do the Washington Post, the New York
Times, and 73 percent of the American people have in common? All of
them agreed that we should not have invaded Haiti.
Even the liberal press that normally blesses any Clinton undertaking
has agreed that Mr. Clinton should have sought congressional approval
before invading Haiti.
Now, weeks after the fact, we are just getting around to debating
this miserable policy. Congress should not be consulted as an after-
thought when American troops are being put in harm's way.
While there are times when it is appropriate for a President to act
first and seek the blessing of Congress later, this was not one of
those cases.
There were no American lives in danger as there was in Grenada, where
stealth was important to rescue American students.
There was no drug smuggling dictator who was violating United States
law, as there was in Panama.
Haiti had not invaded a neighboring country which was in danger of
being wiped off the map if the United States did not intervene
immediately.
In short, there was no reason for the United States to commit troops
to an invasion without Congress first expressing its will and the will
of the American people.
In this Kentuckian's opinion, we had no reason for waging war on that
tiny country.
Congress should speak loudly and clearly that we do not approve of
Mr. Clinton's misguided attempt to meddle in the internal affairs of
Haiti.
We should not give our retroactive support for an ill-conceived
occupation of a country where we simply have no national interest.
Let us get our troops out as quickly and safely as possible.
{time} 1020
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, amidst the gamesmanship that is being
played by some leaders to gain political advantage out of our mission
in Haiti, I want to state unequivocally that I support what our men and
women in the Armed Forces are seeking to achieve just 700 miles from
our border.
First and foremost, I support the principles behind this mission.
Just as important as it is to return democracy to Haiti, it is vital to
stop the brutality of the military regime that overturned the will of
70 percent of the Haitian people. The rule of the military leaders was
a reign of terror, torture, and a climate of fear was used as a means
of suppression.
It is within the interests of the United States to halt this pain in
a nation so close to our borders. Every day that Cedras, Francois, and
Biamby ruled the streets of Haiti was another day of embarrassment to
our Nation, which is now the sole remaining world leader.
It is important that we halt the tyranny which was leading to an
unacceptable influx of immigrants at a time when immigration is one of
the most compelling issues confronting us.
It is also in our national interests to depose the unelected leaders
of Haiti, who most believe are part of the Caribbean-South American
drug trafficking axis. We believe that we do have a vital strategic
interest in removing the military government that deposed President
Aristide.
We believe that the end of our mission will occur as soon as is
possible, but we must finish the job. It would be wrong to set an
arbitrary deadline for withdrawing the troops in this mission, and it
would be a dangerous precedent for future efforts.
If this legislation would be passed to set a date certain, we can
just hear the whispers of the democracy foes in Haiti. ``Let's just
wait until March 1st. Wait it out until March 1st, and then we will be
free to go back in to continue our rape, our murder, our slaughter.''
We must not place handcuffs on our troops when they are out to
perform a perilous mission.
Lieutenant General Shelton and all of our troops in Haiti deserve
incredible credit for an overwhelmingly successful mission thus far.
Thousands have landed without a single combat death, thank God. And as
Anthony Lewis noted in the New York Times on Friday, the Haiti mission
lacks the confusion of the Grenada effort and the excessive force of
the Panama effort. Instead of the political rhetoric and whining, we
should all be making speeches expressing pride in this mission.
In addition to being a model of military effectiveness, it is
achieving clear milestones on the way to a goal, which is the
restoration of democracy in that country. The Parliament has begun to
meet and fairly consider the amnesty resolution, which is part of the
Clinton-Carter agreement. The mayor of Port-au-Prince, an Aristide
ally, has returned to his office. People in Haiti are feeling the
shackles of repression removed and are taking part in peaceful
demonstrations throughout that country. Democracy Is returning to
Haiti.
In the same vein, we believe that order is the order of the day in
Haiti, and we are distressed by the spin that news reports are putting
on the state of civil affairs there. There is no chaos, and there are
no riots. Rather, we are proud of the effectiveness of our troops in
preserving the peace in understandably difficult conditions.
It is not antiseptic or perfect, but our troops are performing
superbly. The attacks on the mission are unfair to them, and they
should stop. The cynical commentary feeds American unease and distrust
in this effort. Rather, they should be feeling a swell of pride that we
are able to use our power to achieve this honorable purpose.
It is proper to return President Aristide to his office in Port-au-
Prince. The propaganda campaign, unfortunately aided and abetted by our
Central Intelligence Agency, has been effective, but has been mean-
spirited and filled with lies. None of the stories are consistent with
the facts or our familiarity with a man who many of us have gotten to
know. He is a man of peace, of purpose, of quiet effectiveness. While
we know he will not be a stooge, we believe he will be a friend to our
Nation, and, importantly, will not be a coconspirator in drug
trafficking, which is killing a whole generation of America's young
people.
Moreover, he has been chosen by 70 percent of the Haitian people in a
fair election, where participation surpassed that of even our most
recent American elections.
We hope that our troops continue, with God's help, to make this a
successful effort. Let us not tie their hands. Let us restore democracy
to Haiti. Let us not set any date certain. Let us give our troops the
time to do the job.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 14 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we will shortly be debating the Torricelli-Hamilton
resolution, which will authorize President Clinton's occupation of
Haiti through March, 1995. It is critically important for Congress and
the American people to understand why our troops were sent into harm's
way, and on this point the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution is quite
explicit.
According to the resolution, our forces are to be used to protect
United States citizens, to facilitate the provision of humanitarian
assistance, and, here is the ringer, to stabilize the security
situation in Haiti.
The last purpose, of course, is the critical one, since our citizens
in Haiti have never yet been in danger and there has never been any
suggestion that 28,000 troops and two aircraft carriers are necessary
to facilitate humanitarian assistance.
The American people need to know that the security situation in Haiti
has never in two centuries been stabilized. They need to know that our
soldiers' mission will not be to install a democratic government, but
only to install Jean-Bertrand Aristide. That is a very different
matter.
By voting for the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution, this body would be
voting to authorize the use of United States forces for 6 months, to
install and then prop up a murderous, bitterly anti-American, leftist
demagogue, and we will be authorizing the kind of ill-fated nation
building that President Clinton was forced to abandon just a year ago
until Somalia.
The American public and the Congress deserve a closer acquaintance
with Father Aristide, as President Clinton calls him. Father Aristide
was suspended from the priesthood in 1988 for, and I quote,
``incitement to hatred and violence.'' Father Aristide has reviled Pope
John Paul II from the pulpit as nothing more than ``the CEO of a
multinational corporation whose job was to ensure company profits.''
And Aristide has not stopped at mere words. In 1991, Aristide's mobs
destroyed the old cathedral of Port-au-Prince, the archbishop's house,
and the Vatican Embassy, and tried to lynch the archbishop and the
Vatican nuncio.
{time} 2230
Archbishop Leanza, the Vatican envoy, was saved when one of his
neighbors pretended to have orders from Aristide to spare him. The
neighbor had, in fact, been pretending. Father Aristide never sent any
reprieve.
Aristide's penchant for violence has been directed far beyond his own
church. On the wall of his office in Haiti, Aristide had a painting of
himself smiling down on a mob carrying tires, gasoline, and matches.
I have here a reproduction of that painting. Here is Father Aristide.
Here are the flames. Here is the tires. Here is the gasoline, the
matches, and the mob surrounding the capital.
This painting hung in Aristide's office when he was President. The
grisly necklaces that his followers used to murder their opponents are
referred to in slang as Pere Lebrun, Pere Lebrun being a noted tire
dealer in Haiti, sort of the Michelin man of Haiti. This photograph of
the painting shows that the painting itself that hung on Aristide's
wall contained the following inscription: ``If our power is threatened,
little Aristide, if you have a problem, command us to march and solve
it with necklacing.''
This is the humanitarian democrat, Aristide, our troops are sending
back to Haiti with his very interesting taste in art.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we would be voting to authorize. There is
more.
In September 1991, Aristide told a crowd of supporters that they
should give his opponents ``what they deserve,'' the necklace. Let me
quote exactly what he said of it, Mr. Speaker. This is what he said
about necklacing.
What a beautiful tool. What a beautiful instrument. What a
beautiful device. It is pretty. It looks sharp. It is
fashionable. It smells good. And wherever you go, you want to
smell it.
A few days after delivering that speech, a mob of Aristide's
supporters attacked Sylvio Claude, a Baptist minister, two-time
Presidential candidate in Haiti and the head of the opposition
Christian Democratic Party. Sylvio Claude had been jailed and tortured
under the Duvalier dictatorship. He sought refuge in a police station
but he was thrown to the mob which beat him to death and burned and
mutilated his corpse.
Also, 3 months earlier, Father Aristide told another mob that, and I
quote:
The people have their little matches in their hand. They
have their little gasoline not far away. Does the
constitution tell the people they have the right to forget
necklacing? No, you will learn to write necklacing. You will
learn to think necklacing. You will learn to use it when you
must.
Contrary to President Clinton's contentions, Aristide is a committed
opponent of democracy and repeatedly subverted his own constitution
during his tenure in power. As a priest, father Aristide's slogan was,
``revolution, not elections.''
Once installed in power, he repeatedly attacked the national
legislature, which was as freely elected as he was. He packed the
supreme court and refused to submit the names of his justices to the
Parliament, as the constitution required. When the chamber of deputies
sought to investigate Aristide's Prime Minister for gross corruption in
August 1991, Aristide's mobs surrounded the Parliament with tires and
gasoline in had, dragging out and beating legislators and torching
union offices and opposition headquarters.
In September, during a third attempt to question the Prime Minister,
Aristide himself appeared in the Parliament with a vase of flowers to
remind legislators that if they tried to question his fellow thug, the
flowers would decorate their graves. The legislature was completely
stymied. They adjourned, which touched off the constitutional crisis
that led to Aristide's overthrow.
I would like to ask my colleagues how they would feel, if President
Clinton, to pass this resolution to put pressure on Congress to pass
the Torricelli-Hamilton legislation, called a mob of thousands of
people armed with Molotov cocktails into in the streets of Washington
to surround this capital; if armed thugs entered this building and
dragged some of our colleagues from both parties away for a beating
before then heading off to burn the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce,
the RNC and the National Cathedral; if President Clinton named five so-
called justices the Supreme Court and refused to allow the Senate to
vote on them; what if he drove the Nation's religious leaders not just
out of Washington but out of the country; and, according to
substantially documented accounts, in the Haiti context, ordered the
murder of one of his democratic rivals for the Presidential nomination.
I would ask if my colleagues would regard this as the action of a
sincere Democrat, however large his electoral majority in 1990; or if
they think that the landslides enjoyed by Presidents Reagan or Bush in
1980, 1984, and 1988, gave them the right to subvert and brutally
coerce the other two branches of our Government. It would appear that
this is exactly what we are saying about the so-called democratic
President of Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress should also know that the lives of United
States soldiers are being put at risk to restore a man who has made his
career denouncing the United States.
In 1986, in a speech to a huge mob, Aristide asked the crowd, and I
quote:
Who is Satan, we or the Americans? The Americans. Who is
the most Satanic, the Americans or the American government?
The American government, down with Satan. Down with
imperialism.
In 1987, in an open letter to our embassy in Port-au-Prince, Aristide
denounced the Reagan administration's efforts to promote
democratization in Haiti, which had resulted in the flight of Baby
Davulier Doc the previous year. He said, Aristide said, ironically
enough, ``The U.S. government has no right to stick its nose into
Haitian elections.''
More recent Aristide remarks and actions have been little better. For
the 3 days after our troops went in, Aristide refused to express even a
word of thanks to the soldiers who will apparently be protecting him.
And to this day he has refused to sign a status of forces agreement for
our forces in Haiti. This is a vital document that records the rights
of troops in that country in an apparently successful effort to
blackmail the administration into more extensive commitments to disarm
his opponents and serve as bodyguards for his cronies.
Finally, Congress should know that Aristide hates economic freedom,
too. He wrote a whole book entitled Capitalism Is a Mortal Sin. He has
repeatedly excoriated capitalism, free enterprise in his writings and
his speeches. He modestly noted in his 1992 autobiography:
I did not invent class struggle anymore than Karl Marx did.
But who could avoid encountering class struggle in the
streets of Port-au-Prince?
In the same volume he tells us of his admiration for the Castroite
terrorist Che Guevara, who embodied, as Aristide says, ``the values of
beauty, dignity, respect and love.''
We are now told that Aristide has grown, that in his 3 years of
exile, this man of God has developed a deeper insight into the moral
questions raised by burning people alive and destroying churches. It is
true that he has already instituted a sweeping reform of his past.
He told me point blank in a meeting just a few days ago in the
Capitol, there were no instances of necklacing during his tenure as
President of Haiti.
The omens for the future are less promising. Aristide is recruiting a
post-invasion security force from refugees at Guantanamo Bay using his
former police chief, Lt. Col. Pierre Cherubin. Cherubin stand as
accused of participating in drug trafficking and of ordering brutal
human rights violations.
The most notorious of these brutal human rights violations was the
execution style murder of five teenagers in Port-au-Prince during
Aristide's tenure. A Clinton administration official gave the
Washington Post classified reports detailing the evidence that Cherubin
ordered the torture and killing of Aristide's political opponents in
1991. And Rene Preval, the corrupt thug who served as Aristide's Prime
Minister, remains one of Aristide's closest confidants today.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to authorize to give our
congressional formal approval to using American soldiers to place in
power an anti-democratic, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-
religious demagogue.
I want to make clear that I am in no way apologizing for the military
dictatorship that toppled Aristide. They are clearly as bad as he is or
worse. To the contrary, my point is that the United States should not
play favorites among such unsavory alternatives. We certainly should
not attempt to deceive either the people of Haiti or the people of the
United States about the nature of our protege.
{time} 2240
Mr. Chairman, we are further told that this will not be another
Somalia-style nation-building exercise. That is also not true. By
restoring President Aristide; by committing tens of thousands of U.S.
troops for half a year; by committing thousands of our personnel for a
multi-year presence; and by assembling a huge aid package--the Clinton
administration has made solving the problems of this chronically
unstable nation, the problem of the United States.
Haiti has never had a democratic government in its long, difficult,
and bloody history. Of Haiti's 6.7 million people, 75 percent live in
absolute poverty. Per capita income is $280. The unemployment and
malnutrition rates are 50 percent. The illiteracy rate is 64 percent.
Infant mortality is 10 percent; life expectancy is 54 years. President
Clinton's embargo, which he imposed after the collapse of the
Governor's Island Accord in October 1993, has worsened this situation,
has further impoverished the poorest country in the hemisphere. It has
destroyed over 100,000 jobs, and produced rampant malnutrition. It has
worsened infant mortality.
Virtually the only infrastructure that now exists in Haiti was
created during the last American military occupation of Haiti. That
temporary affair lasted almost 20 years. Clinton administration
officials have said that a massive United States aid program is now
required for Haiti. Enforcing the economic embargo and dealing with the
resultant refugees has already cost the United States taxpayer over
$200 million. The Defense Department estimates that its military
operation will cost half a billion dollars more, just over the next 7
months. Having wrecked the already impoverished Haitian economy through
sanctions, the Clinton administration is now preparing a huge economic
reconstruction plan to pay off Haiti's overdue foreign debts, and
rebuild Haiti's crumbling infrastructure. The State Department won't
put a price tag on the total package, but states that it goes ``well
beyond'' an earlier 5-year, $1 billion international plan. President
Aristide, the man who wrote about the ``deadly economic infection
called capitalism,'' is said to be on board. And as for his conversion
to ``elections, not revolution,'' only time will tell. But the lives of
our troops are, in a very real sense, on the line.
The Clinton administration has said that our troops will be replaced
within months by a U.N. peacekeeping force, but they have not pointed
out that fully half that U.N. force, some 3,000 troops, will be
Americans.
The stated military purpose of the Clinton Haiti policy is to protect
the civilian government and maintain civil order. These are goals that
no Haitian Government has accomplished successfully in almost two
centuries. Why, Mr. Speaker, would we want to buy this trouble? It is
almost exactly 1 year after the debacle in Somalia. Why can't this
administration learn?
President Clinton has given yet another reason for intervention: to
stem the flood of Haitian immigration. But his own embargo has been the
prime engine for immigration from Haiti. President Clinton's embargo
has destroyed nine-tenths of Haiti's industrial jobs. It has created
rampant malnutrition in an already impoverished country. And the surges
in boat people are directly correlated to his own flip-flops on
immigration policy. After the 1992 election, Haitian immigration surged
because Haitians believe candidate Clinton's campaign promises about
granting temporary asylum. Haitian immigration declined dramatically
after Bill Clinton broke his promise. Haitian immigration has
consistently ebbed and flowed with this administration's vacillating
refugee policy. A clear policy, and an end to the embargo, would
address this issue. We don't need an American occupation of Haiti to
fix that.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are told that a United States occupation of
Haiti is necessary to restore American credibility. Of all the
arguments advanced by President Clinton for this mission, Mr. Speaker,
this is the most galling. America--the United States of America--has no
credibility problem except President Clinton. We won the cold war,
broke the Soviet Union, and freed Eastern Europe. We defeated one of
the largest, most lavishly equipped armies in the world, almost without
loss of American lives. We are the only superpower in the world today.
Our credibility isn't in question. And let me add, Mr. Speaker, it is
too late in the day to say that President Clinton's credibility is in
question, either. After backing down in Korea, after backing down in
Somalia, after backing down in Bosnia, after backing down in China, and
after 2 years and six or seven Haiti policies, I don't know of anyone,
anywhere, who does not question President Clinton's credibility. They
know the answer to that one, and that answer isn't going to change at
this late date because we have finally, after 2 years of bluster and
backtracking, run off three Haitian colonels. Plunging thousands of our
troops neck-deep in this snakepit isn't going to convince Kim Jong-Il
or Slobodan Milosevic of our credibility. Adopting--at long last--a
clear, consistent policy keyed to our own national interest rather than
the President's political interest, and focused on the very real
threats to that interest that exist in places like Korea--that will
provide Mr. Clinton with some badly needed credibility.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to join all my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in expressing my relief that our troops are not
facing immediate danger today. But make no mistake, the lives of our
troops, and American credibility, are both being placed at daily risk
in a cauldron of violence, for reasons that have nothing to do with our
national interest, and everything to do with President Clinton's
political viability.
From first to last this President's Haiti policy has reeked of the
crassest political motivations. His defenders now argue that because
his Haiti policy is so broadly unpopular around the country, it proves
he can't be motivated by politics. I am afraid the answer to that, is
that it proves the incompetence of the Clinton foreign policy. The
evolution of the Clinton policy is reflected in memoranda sent to U.N.
Secretary General Boutros-Ghali by Dante Caputo, his special
representative. Caputo wrote, on May 19, based on his discussions with
Clinton administration officials, that ``Haiti represents a test case
for which the United States has to have found a solution before
November.'' On May 23, he wrote further that ``the President of the
United States' main advisers are of the opinion that [the invasion of
Haiti] * * * is politically desirable. * * * The Americans see in this
type of action a chance to show, after the strong media criticism of
the administration, the President's decision-making capability and
firmness of leadership in international political matters.'' The next
day Caputo reported that the Clinton administration ``will not be able
to stand for much longer, until August at the latest, the criticism of
their foreign policy on the domestic front. They want to do something.
They are going to try to intervene militarily,'' and intervene he did,
without authorization of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are mortally weary of a Haiti policy
that, is every step, has been dictated by the necessity of maintaining
Bill Clinton's political viability. We owe it to our troops, and to the
very real threats to our national interest that do exist in the world,
to end this nation-building adventure as swiftly as possible.
{time} 1090
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr.Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for the House to stop for a
moment and understand what we are engaged in here. In that context, I
want to express my appreciation to the committee and to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] for their efforts in fashioning House
Joint Resolution 416.
Mr. Chairman, it is an awkward task for the committee to have
performed, at best, given the circumstances that we faced, but it is
better to deal with the situation after the fact than not at all with
regard to the responsibilities of the legislative branch of Government.
Mr. Chairman, we had an extremely close constitutional call with
respect to an invasions of Haiti. As Members are quite well aware, the
planes had launched and then were recalled. I think only by virtue of
the success of former President Carter in negotiating an agreement at
Port-au-Prince at that very time was the Nation spared a constitutional
tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential now, even in retrospect, for this body
to exercise our responsibility constitutionally, or risk letting it
wither from disuse. It is for that reason that, again notwithstanding
the after-the-fact posture we now find ourselves in, that I have
offered in committee and to the Committee on Rules explicit language
even now putting Congress on record as to the constitutional reality
that existed at the time the Port-au-Prince agreement was reached, and
that is that absent that agreement, the Constitution of the United
States would have required the President to obtain the approval of
Congress before ordering our Armed Forces to invade Haiti.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Committee on Rules has proposed a
rule that we will take up tomorrow that will incorporate that language
into the committee's resolution. I look forward to the adoption of that
rule and, therefore, to the affirmation by the Congress of this
important constitutional principal.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not now assert that responsibility, I do not
believe we can complain later when some President in the future acts in
disregard of the important prerogatives of this body.
Mr. Chairman, I had and I still have many questions about the wisdom
of this intervention. I believe the President would have been well
advised and more to have forged a partnership with Congress before
committing this country and its Armed Forces in Haiti. I was as
outspoken about that point as I could be, and as I think any Member of
this body was before September 18. I feel no less strongly about it
tonight.
Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the President did act
without us, and that action has changed the reality which we must now
deal with. Now we must do our best in a very awkward set of
circumstances, do our best, I think, to serve two very fundamental
objectives: first, asserting the profound constitutional responsibility
and prerogative of the Congress, the legislative branch of our
Government, in these circumstances; and, second, serving the real
national interest as it now has to be defined, given the fact of the
deployment of troops, given the fact that United States power and
prestige are now fully implicated in Haiti, and given the fact that
surely we must prefer this mission to succeed, however promptly it
needs to be concluded.
Mr. Chairman, I think House Joint Resolution 416 deals decently and
responsibly with an inherently awkward situation in meeting these two
objective. Even now, Mr. Chairman, after an intervention, it is vitally
important for us to be mindful of the proper role of Congress under
these circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, for us to assert our responsibility here is not to
indulge in some vain turf struggle with the executive branch of
Government. Rather, I think this debate and the votes that will come
tomorrow will serve to honor the profound wisdom of the Founders, who
understood that on matters of such importance, the people have to be
heard, and that that is to be accomplished through the debate and the
vote of their Representatives in Congress.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the ranking Minority Member of
the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is recognized
for 11 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week we had an
extensive debate on House Joint Resolution 416 which eventually was
approved on a party-line vote. The primary issues revolved around the
fact that the bill provides a retroactive authorization for the
President's decision to launch an invasion and occupation of Haiti,
putting the lives of U.S. military personnel in danger, and the
question remains whether or not the date for the so-called withdrawal
by March 1 is actually binding.
Assistant Secretary Wendy Sherman testified last week, Mr. Chairman,
that the March 1 date is non-binding and has no legal teeth. I think
that should be noted up front by Members. I, as did another member of
our committee, had asked that the Assistant Secretary provide this
information to us in writing. We are still waiting, and I think that is
symptomatic of the kind of responses we have been getting throughout
this entire process.
While we are waiting for the letter detailing the administration's
position, as to whether or not the March 1 date is binding, we will
hold our breath. Certainly her oral testimony put her on the record as
saying it is non-binding.
Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Torricelli], has very sincere and well meaning intentions in
offering this resolution, but let me say at the outset that my
opposition is to the deployment of our forces.
Let me make it very clear that I do not question the capability, the
commitment, or the professionalism of our forces in Haiti. As in
previous engagements and deployments, our forces are acting with great
courage and with great distinction. That should be noted. I do not
think there is any doubt on either side of the aisle that we are very
proud of our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, my concerns, however, are for the health and well-being
of our soldiers. Sending our forces into combat--or into any hostile
territory--is the most serious decision that anyone can make. On
September 18, absent a compelling national interest, our Commander-in-
Chief put U.S. forces in danger of death and maiming, without first
seeking authorization from those who directly represent them, their
families, and their children; that is to say, the Congress.
{time} 2250
Mr. Speaker, this is not some petty turf battle. The administration
went to great lengths to procure United Nations authorization while
utterly by-passing approval from the United States Congress. Even now
House Joint Resolution 416 and the other amendments that will be
offered are disregarded by the administration as superfluous and
unnecessary. Members on both sides of the aisle, it seems to me,
believe that this debate and a binding resolution justifying or turning
down an invasion and occupation should have been held prior to, not
after, the fact.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for questioning the wisdom of Mr.
Clinton's stewardship of foreign policy in general and policy toward
Haiti in particular. One only has to look at the myriad of flip-flops
and vacillations to know that this administration has not had a steady
hand when it comes to foreign policy--and one might even make that
charge domestically--but foreign policy has been constantly changing
with the sand shifting from under. Flip-flops have been had in Somalia
itself where there was mission creep. Originally the operation was a
humanitarian mission which we all supported, but we started going after
Mr. Aideed and others, and the whole policy in Somalia changed.
Look at the flip-flop on the People's Republic of China where Mr.
Clinton as a candidate accused Mr. Bush of coddling dictators in
Beijing.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Would the gentleman comment on the peace initiative in
the Middle East that our President is leading right now? Would the
gentleman say that is an unsuccessful policy?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am glad to comment, then I will go back to
my comments.
First, I am very happy with what has been happening in the Middle
East. I think it also should be noted that there are many, many others
involved, including foreign ministers from other nations, and we all
support the progress. But, there have been some very notable foreign
policy debacles, including Somalia and Bosnia. As ranking member of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have seen that Mr.
Clinton has had many policies on Bosnia. Unfortunately, that lack of a
steady hand has led to a lack of trust in our policy.
I led a delegation to China in January when it was the
administration's position that human rights were inextricably wed to
our trading policy and the most-favored-nation status. I was told by
Chinese leaders that the administration in Washington would not live up
to their threats. I could not believe my ears. Things had actually
gotten worse in China, and this administration's bluff was being
called. Sure enough, when the record was clear and the decision day
came, this administration completely decoupled human rights from most-
favored-nation status.
Again, people can have differences as to what is the best means to
promote human rights. I happen to believe linkage is important. Mr.
Clinton had issued an executive order clearly articulating the linkage
of trade and human rights, only to completely trash that executive
order when the time for decisions came. He completely decoupled the
issues. We must be wary of this because that provides the backdrop for
the administration's Haitian policy.
Who can forget Mr. Clinton on May 27, 1992, proclaiming, ``I am
appalled by the decision of the Bush administration to pick up fleeing
Haitians on the high seas and forcibly return them to Haiti before
considering their claim to political asylum.'' He said, ``This is
another sad example of the administration's callous response to a
terrible human tragedy.'' Then he went on to say that if he were
President, he would give them temporary asylum. That would be fine, I
guess, if he meant it.
By January 14, 1993, President-elect Clinton had reversed his
campaign policy and announced, ``The practice of returning those who
fled Haiti by boat will continue, for the time being, after I become
President. Those who do leave Haiti by boat will be stopped and
directly returned by the United States Coast Guard.'' Hopes were
raised, Mr. Chairman, and then hopes were dashed.
In July 1993, the President's policy on Haiti was based on the
Governor's Island Accord, and we all had high hopes for that accord.
The lack of foreplanning and resolve, however, displayed by the
retreat of the U.S.S. Harlan County in early October 1993, only served
to embolden General Cedras, the Haitian military thugs and the
paramilitary groups. A tightened fuel embargo was implemented and the
Haitian economy gasped. President Aristide initially agreed to pursue a
coalition government, at the encouragement of his Prime Minister Robert
Malval, but Aristide backed off and Malval resigned by December, as
planned.
A new effort to seek a political solution was undertaken between
President Aristide and members of Parliament. Former opponents in the
Parliament as well as leaders in the business community and labor
unions joined the consensus, but these considered initiatives fell
victim to domestic politics in the United States.
Mr. Chairman the noose of sanctions was again tightened. At the
insistence of the United States, in May 1994, the United Nations voted
for a commercial embargo on Haiti, imposed a worldwide visa ban on
supporters of the military regime and urged freeze of all assets held
by the regime's supporters.
The United States made changes in its refugee processing policy, in
accord with hunger-strike politics. The flood of refugees was
unrestrained--the television images of thousands--more than 16,000
refugees--led to the President's changing his refugee policy yet again
on July 5. Refugees had to demonstrate a ``well-founded fear of
persecution.'' Within a day, on July 6, safe haven would be available
to refugees who simply said they feared persecution at home. The ever-
changing policy sent mixed messages of hope, despair, and irresolute
threats. The President failed to maintain any policy he set. In fact,
all indicators pointed to the fact that the President had resigned
himself to the use of troops to restore the democratically-elected
government of Haiti. As our friend in the Senate [Mr. Dole] reminded
us, it was `an invasion in search of a rationale.''
In closing, I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] who
raised some very serious questions about President Aristide's past. At
a meeting last week with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I asked Mr.
Aristide if he had ever embraced violence in general, or necklacing in
particular. He said he had not, but the record clearly shows otherwise.
I saw actual footage of his speech on Front Line, and I do not think
they were playing games with the translation. President Aristide spoke
about the smell, and the graceful and dazzling sight of the heinous
practice of necklacing.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. First it is important I think for Members to
understand that while we would have welcomed it, indeed the
administration is not supporting this resolution at the moment. This is
a resolution that is brought from our committee. Indeed, with the
unanimous vote of Democrats on the committee and some Republicans on
the committee.
I would also like the gentleman to note that in Section 6 of our
resolution, there is an expedited procedure for the House to be able to
vote after February 1 on the removal of United States forces from
Haiti. We would have that available to us as we would in your own
resolution.
I say that because the gentleman correctly notes that unfortunately,
and in my judgment arrogantly, Assistant Secretary Wendy Sherman did
note the administration might not comply with our request. However, we
have put this in in that instance.
I further want to note that while she testified to that extent, I
believe it would be extraordinary and I would find it highly unlikely
that after a vote of this Congress in that regard, the President would
not comply with our wishes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, so the
record is very correct on this, the vote was unanimous on the
Republican side against the resolution. Not one Republican voted in
favor of it.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I stand corrected. I though there were 2 who voted
the other way.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. And, I agree with the sense as conveyed to
us by Assistant Secretary Wendy Sherman that the deadline might have
political force, but the March 1 deadline would not have a legally
binding force. I think many people are under the mistaken view that
somehow March 1 is etched in stone and the troops are out as per this
resolution and that needs to be clarified.
Mr. TORRICELLI. If the gentleman would yield further, the gentleman
is correct in his account of Wendy Sherman's testimony, but again I
want to say that I cannot believe that indeed she was speaking for the
President, that if this vote were held, that the President would not
comply. But furthermore again after February 1 a member can come to
this floor under expedited procedure to force a withdrawal under our
resolution.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I would like to ask the gentleman if I may, if he has
ever read the speech, or the translation of the speech to which he
refers for the necklacing allegedly stated by President Aristide.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I have the speech. More importantly, I have
seen the translation. I do not speak Mr. Aristide's language, but the
translation I saw I believe is accurate. Let me say again, I first saw
the actual visual depiction aired by Front Line.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. In reading the speech, does the word ``necklacing''
appear anywhere in that speech?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The actual word does not, but everyone
considers it to be that.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
{time} 2300
Mr. OWENS. The gentleman, along with other speakers, has indicated
that President Aristide's regime was a murderous regime or his
followers were murderers. There is no documentation of this anywhere in
the observations of the United States, in the observations of the OAS
or in the observations of Amnesty International. All three groups,
Amnesty International, the OAS observers, the U.N. observers, all agree
that the criminal regime which overthrew President Aristide is
responsible for at least 3,000 killings, at least 3,000 killings during
the time that they have been in power.
What body does the gentleman cite that can document murders committed
by the followers of President Aristide? What credible body can the
gentleman cite as documentation?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me say first of all that no one
countenances what the Haitian military thugs have done. Everyone I
think is agreed, and the President was right in depicting those
individuals for the kind of atrocities they have committed.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The State Department's Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices cites instances, and I will put this entire
quote in the Record. The charge has been repeated that he incites mob
violence. The speech at the palace is only one example where people are
drawn by his speeches, and encouraged by his comments to do those kinds
of things.
Mr. OWENS. The charge the gentleman makes, the charge other people
have made, and we have heard it many times, there is no documentation
of any people being killed by Aristide followers on the magnitude of
those being killed by the people that overthrew him. You know we cite
him as a murderous regime. Cedras's regime is the murderous regime.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me read:
President Aristide, however, appeared less concerned about
prosecuting members of the military accused of human rights
abuses if they were supporters or appointees of his
Government. The police on July 26 tortured and murdered five
young men who were in police custody, following an
investigation, the Army recommended to President Aristide
that a lieutenant and the enlisted men under his command at
the time be brought to trial for the killings. The President
attempted publicly to exonerate the officer, believed to be a
militant Aristide supporter. President Aristide also failed
to condemn categorically all recourse to popular justice
through mob violence. The Aristide Government made no effort
to identify and bring to justice those responsible for the
wholesale killing, looting, and burning that occurred after
the failed Lafontant coup in January. The only response to
three official requests to the Aristide Government for
information on the status of the investigation into the death
of an American citizen, Richard Andre Emmanuel, who was
killed by mob violence in late February, was that the
investigation ``was still in progress.''
This is credible evidence from our own State Department.
Mr. OWENS. The police over there threw out Aristide.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let us not forget my friend, that General
Cedras was put into his position by President Aristide.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, this administration's policy to return
President Aristide to power is a right one. This is one of the few
times that the United States has proposed the use of troops not for the
purpose of installing a puppet regime, not for the purpose of
installing a dictatorship, but for the purpose of reinstating a
government fairly-elected by the people. We have been decisive and
tireless in our efforts to ensure that democracy prevails in this
hemisphere and elsewhere.
The administration should be commended for its dogged commitment to
sustain peace, protect human rights, and end the atrocities in Haiti.
The fruitful negotiations with the Haitian military leaders demonstrate
our resolve to return Haiti to the path of democracy.
It is pivotal that Haiti emerge from the turmoil that has ensued
since the forced departure of President Aristide 34 months ago. Our
President's diplomacy has achieved this--thus ending the illegal
control of Haiti from military dictators.
There always has been a link between Haiti's history and ours. The
successful accords reached at the 11th hour on September 18 brought us
from the brink of an invasion to the brink of peace and the orderly
transfer of power. The 15th of October, when the military leaders step
down, will be a hallmark day in the history of both Haiti and the
United States. Most of all, however, October 15 will be a hallmark day
for democracy and those who believe and live by its principles.
Peacekeeping and peacemaking always are the preferred solution to any
conflict. The United States should never sit back and allow democracy
to be hijacked.
Because of President Clinton, the transfer of power and the
restoration of democracy in Haiti has begun.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe] a member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs and the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on
International Operations.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution because while
our troops are in Haiti, America's interests are not. I oppose this
resolution because it does give retroactive congressional approval to a
mission we should not be leading and gives approval to the use of
American troops in a nation we should not be occupying, and it gives
approval to a mission whose objectives the administration is not
defining.
What we should be debating today, in fact, we should have been
debating weeks ago, is a resolution seeking Congress' and the American
people's approval of the use of American troops in Haiti. It is
important to point out the President is prepared to invade Haiti
without the authorization of Congress or the approval of the American
people. We know he would never have gotten such authorization at the
time because he never clearly defined the goals or the national
security interests that were at stake.
Perhaps what is more shocking, Mr. Chairman, is that the President
decided to seek the opinion and the permission not of the American
people and their elected representatives but rather the permission of
the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations. Somewhere this
administration missed the boat on setting priorities with respect to
consultation. In fact, this marks the first time a President sought
permission from the United Nations for intervention in our hemisphere.
We are being asked to endorse a mission in which the administration
has violated its very own criteria for the use of American military
forces, criteria outlined last year by Secretary Christopher himself.
He said the goal of the operation has to be clearly stated to the
American people. He said the likelihood of success has to be very
important, and that an exit strategy has to be clearly articulated, and
lastly, the action has to have the sustained support of the American
people.
When in fact we know that none of these objectives and criteria have
been met, and while this resolution seeks to endorse the President's
mission in Haiti, the reality is that the objectives of this mission
are as vague today as the moment when our troops landed in Haiti. And
as the rules for engagement of our troops are continually being
improvised, their task and responsibilities are being expanded daily.
But more importantly, when we commit men and women to risky situations
we must clearly define and articulate our mission.
Have we so soon forgotten the horrible lessons of Somalia? I for one
have not, because there were two brave men from my district who were
killed in that exercise in the back alleys of Mogadishu.
We would hope that we would understand what our missions and
responsibilities are in Haiti, unlike Somalia. We should not forget
what happened in Somalia when we know that the mission changed. In
fact, the President said he did not realize the mission had changed
from a humanitarian mission to one of capturing Aideed. And then of
course our troops were uninformed with respect to that, that it was a
humanitarian mission and then it was a mission to capture Aideed. Then
of course it changed back to more of a diplomatic solution, except that
information did not reach our rangers, and we know what happened.
As Larry Joyce, father of one of the men who was killed in that
ambush said, Haiti is Somalia with a Caribbean address. He said that,
in fact, when we do not have clearly defined objectives, an end goal,
it can end badly.
How can we let ourselves be trapped in the same situation in Haiti
all over again? With each passing day when we see the ambiguity and the
vagueness of the responsibilities and that they are changing with each
passing day, the similarities become unfortunately much more evident. I
think that it is important that we defeat this resolution and accept
the substitute that will be offered tomorrow.
I think that we ought to be clear when we vote against this
resolution what it is not. It is not a vote against the admirable goal
of someday achieving a democratic Haiti. It is not a vote against using
military force where it is necessary and when it is necessary. It is
most certainly not a vote of no confidence in the ability of our
American forces to get the job done quickly and well. But this is a
vote to ensure that our men and women in uniform are never ever put at
risk in a region where our vital national security interests are not at
stake, and perhaps more critically, when our President has failed to
define what our national security interests are and what is at stake
for this country.
{time} 2310
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I, too, am
wanting to commend our President, President Clinton, for taking a bold
stand to say that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the Statue
of Liberty, those things this Nation was founded on, once again, are
alive and well in this country.
I am just amazed at the speeches that I hear about we should never
ever do things when our national security is not at risk. I do not
understand what we mean by our national security. I think that anytime
this great country has a goal that our national security is at stake,
because the manner in which we live up to our word has a lot to do with
the way we are perceived in the future; I have seen us talk to North
Korean dictators where we are willing to send hundreds of thousands of
troops, and perhaps so, because we feel that democracy must be
preserved. We have seen us for 45 years fight the evil empire of the
Soviet Union, spending billions and billions of dollars in that
defense. As a matter of fact, in the 10-year period we spent $3.5
trillion to defend Western Europe against the Soviet threat, and we all
are proud that we won the cold war.
Now here in our hemisphere we have a challenge to democracy. We have
a country where we have been tied to ever since our revolution. As you
know, the Battalion of Colored fought in the Battle of Savannah. Many
Haitians died for our independence in the Revolutionary War. As a
matter of fact, several of those men went back, and in 1804 Haiti
became an independent nation. They fought for our independence. That
was a long time ago, and you say, ``Well, so be it.''
There were many people who have been involved in the whole question
of our growth and development. As a matter of fact, because the Haitian
military defeated Napoleon's army, France was broke. They had the
Louisiana Territory, and in fact, had to sell Louisiana Territory to
the United States of America, therefore relieving the United States of
the threat of France on its western borders.
There are so many incidents that we can cite as relates to Haiti's
intervention and its history of being involved with our history.
In World War II, the President of the United States, President
Roosevelt, asked, ``How could this small country be of assistance to
the United States?'' Roosevelt replied that ``The United States has
suffered a loss of rubber supplies through the Japanese invasion of
Southeast Asia,'' and suggested Haiti convert its agricultural economy
to the production of rubber trees. Agreeing to the challenge, the
mahogany trees and other plants indigenous to the island were cut down
to make way for the Firestone plantations. New plants to produce latex
were planted. None of this was successful, leading to soil erosion,
leaving Haiti, the most densely populated country in the world in
relationship to acres of arable land; yes, once again, our Marines in
1915 went into Haiti, but for the wrong reasons, to protect the
interests of the United States sugar and fruit growers. We left in
1934.
But we have seen when people say why should we have any kind of
intervention in Haiti, why do we have any involvement there, there are
many reasons why we should.
When we talk about how mean and evil Aristide was, the number of
people who left Haiti during his reign by boat was less than 300. In
1993 alone, 42,576 Haitians were picked up by the Coast Guard. Close to
80,000 Haitians have left that country since that time, and so what I
am saying is that we have an interest. I think that we have a national
interest.
I am very pleased that Lt. Col. Michel Francois has decided to leave.
I hope Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras, who Aristide put into that office at the
insistence of our Ambassador, who said, ``Let us expand your
government,'' and he was not Aristide's choice, but in order to comply
and to have this institution of the military involved in the new
government, he agreed to do that. Brig. Gen. Philippe Biambi ought to
also leave.
I was very pleased to hear Emanuel Constant, the Front for
Advancement and Progress of Haiti, the FRAPH group, said we no longer
should have violence in our country, and I think that this would be a
victory for the United States and our policy to keep this Nation and
this world free.
A world without laws is a world of chaos.
Our interests, our national interests, are at stake when we have a
world where there are no laws.
And so once again, I congratulate President Clinton for stating the
case, for doing the right thing, and I am very pleased that things are
working out well, and I would hope that my colleagues would listen to
what General Shelton has said, ``Please, do not tie our hands. Please,
do not tell us how to run our military operation. Please, let us
complete the job like we know it should be done.''
Let us not let politics and reelections put our men and women in
harm's way, and so once again, I commend the President.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, we are about to adjourn the 103d Congress
here in a couple of days, hours, and I find myself finally listening to
a debate on an area of the world where American men, and now women, are
in harm's way.
This is not under a bill that we are discussing this tonight, merely
a unanimous-consent, like one big giant multihour special order. But
that is great.
Tomorrow we will have a rule, a bill, and continued debate, and I
hope that the average audience of the 1,200,000 Americans who are
serious enough about their government, civic affairs, and world affairs
who track the proceedings of this House, Mr. Chairman, are staying with
us, particularly on the east coast where it is already 11:18 at night,
and that they will follow the debate tomorrow, because this is
important.
One of the worst killers in this hemisphere is the former chief of
police, Michel Francois, who left his native land in disgrace, along
with some thugs in a four-wheel vehicle. But he did not leave the
island of Hispaniola. He merely crossed the border into the other two-
thirds of the island, that is, the Dominican Republic. He is close. His
evil presence is close, and now we find that maybe we are hoping
General Biambi and General Cedras will follow him. Follow him where? To
the Riviera, where somebody leaked our plan to give these people
several million dollars, as we flew Jean-Claude Duvalier, ``Baby Doc,''
out of that country in a big Air Force airplane to the Riviera where he
lived off the stolen money of the dirt-poor people of Haiti for years,
where his wife went on $50,000-a-day shopping sprees, outdoing even
Imelda Marcos, has now left ``Baby Doc'' because he has run out of
money in the French Riviera?
That plan was blown up. Somebody leaked it, a secret operation to try
to save American lives and get a new start and get these people out of
the country.
Now, if Cedras and Biambi do leave, they will undoubtedly just cross
the border into Santo Domingo, and their evil presence will be hovering
around.
Here is the problem we have: This self-excommunicated former priest,
and I am a stumbling practicing Catholic. I know by the laws and rites
of Melchizedek, once a priest, a priest forever, even if you are on
death row, even if you are in prison for molesting altar boys where you
should have been horsewhipped publicly, you are still a priest in
prison.
{time} 2320
But no powers of the priesthood, no saying mass, no hearing
confessions, no burying the dead.
When Pat Buchanan calls him Father Aristide, he is wrong. When Rush
Limbaugh calls him Father Aristide, he is wrong. And when Bill Clinton
calls him Father Aristide, he is wrong. He is not a practicing Catholic
priest.
As Chris Cox said earlier, he was thrown out of the Selesians of Don
Bosca with prejudice. I repeat what Chris said is accurate. I called
Rome. I got the word. It is accurate.
For inciting mobs to violence and killing.
Yes, there are human rights groups that attribute the death of a
former presidential candidate, pastor, Baptist minister Silvio Claude.
They could not find any tires, so they did not get to necklace him. So
they merely beat him to death, lynched his corpse, and then burned him.
They did have gasoline available. I saw human rights groups ladies
spokesmen from Haiti say the other night on the evening news, ``Oh,
yes, we attribute that human rights death directly to Jean-Bertrand
Aristide.''
Now let us get this speech. This will be a first on the House floor
or the Senate floor. I did go to the Library of Congress, and I tried
to get the speech, Tom, in Creole. Well, it was not in French, it was
in Creole. And I did get from the Foreign Broadcast Information
Service--and they are going to get me the exact Creole--the full
translation. It is a long, fulsome speech. The buildup to the very
clever references to the necklacing without using the word necklacing
are blatantly apparent. I will give them to you. Any reasonable
person--I do not think you have seen this.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. Yes, I yield.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman also refer to the part of that
speech where he starts to talk about the Constitution and then tries to
draw an analogy between the Constitution and the air that is breathed?
Mr. DORNAN. I will be fair. I will not rebuff the pleas of the
gentleman in whose district resides the Liberty Bell, of course not.
This address was about 3:30 in the afternoon. They give it as
Greenwich mean time. It was all FEBIS statements put into this document
available to all Members of the House and Senate. It was 3:30 in the
afternoon. He had just returned from the United Nations. In New York,
September 27, 1991. He had been in office since February 7. He said--
there are some excerpts missing here, some words that are indistinct,
but it is pretty carefully translated.
It starts out saying that the middle class must acknowledge, they
must say, ``I made this money, my money, through malpractice, and from
now on watching the national pride dancing like a flag, I will
cooperate by using the money,'' word indistinct, bracket, unbracket,
``to create work opportunities and to invest in economic activities so
more people can get jobs. If you,'' referring again to the middle
class, ``do not do so, I feel sorry for you, I really do.'' Laughter
from the crowd. ``It will not be my fault because this money you have
is not really yours. You acquired it through criminal activity. You
made it by plundering and embezzling, you got it through negative
choices you made. You got it under repressive regime. ``You acquired it
under a corrupt system. You made this money through means that you know
was--were wrong.''
Today, 7 months after February 7, in a day ending in 7--September
27--I give you one last chance. I ask you to take this chance because
you will not have 2 or 3 more chances, only 1. Otherwise it would not
be good for you.'' Applause from the audience.
Now he goes on to talk about God's justice is slow. Did all of the
middle class make their money through ill practices? His word is the
French Creole, bourgeoisie. And the crowd shouts ``no.'' But they are
in the minority. Keep in mind that--you have been to Haiti and I have
been to Haiti twice down there; I wandered through the poverty areas. I
had a nun in City Soleil recognize my Montagnard bracelet from the
central highlands of Vietnam. ``Where were you?'' This came from
Khartoum. ``Oh, we build hospital in Khartoum. North Vietnamese took me
prisoner after the Americans left, very brutal, marched me down to
Hanoi, 9 months I was a prisoner. Walked me all around there, showed me
the contamination, the babies, the short lifespan.'' That poor City
Soleil, the translation for us in Sun City. Not like Sun City in
California or anywhere else in this hemisphere. City Soleil is the
poorest place in the world.
But I got to walk, a little moped, and went through all the richer
neighborhoods. All those people up in the hills. That tiny little upper
class, the bourgeoisie middle class are listening on radio and watching
them on television. I have seen the color clips of these. So he says,
``Okay, some of you are honest, but not much. We are going to work with
you.'' He calls the other false patriots. The French word is patripoch,
patripoch, false patriots. Then he comes to this. However, if I catch a
thief, a robber, a plunderer, or an embezzler, if I catch a fake
lavalas, his political groups, and he changes his thought and he
switches from ``I'' to ``you.'' If you catch someone who does not
deserve to be where he is, do not fail to give him what he deserves.
The first time he uses that expression. Crowd cheers. Do not fail to
give him what he deserves. He is talking about necklacing, my
colleagues, there is no doubt about it. The crowd cheers. Do not fail
to give him what he deserves.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. Yes.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman talks about necklacing. Where does he get that from?
Mr. DORNAN. Well, if the gentleman will watch, he builds up to it, he
uses code works in Creole, he uses a code word going back all the way
to Toussaint L'Ouverture and where there had been amnesty before and
where they killed 200 men that surrendered their arms in past Haitian
history, the early 19th century. So when he says I will give them the
amnesty, talking about expatriates that were all slaughtered, everybody
knows what he means. So now comes the fourth time. This is--I am going
to use rough words here--this is Mussolini-style. I have never heard a
Member in this Chamber or the other or in my whole political life ever
repeat himself more than once. You will see it in this well, I may have
done it where you say this Member is not going to do that, that Member
is not going to do that, I repeat.
But now he continues, a fourth time, do not fail to give him what he
deserves. Fifth time, do not fail to give him what he deserves. All
this time whipping up the crowd. This is why he is defrocked as a
priest.
Then he says your tool is in your hands. Here comes the necklacing.
Your instrument is in your hands, your constitution is in your hands.
Do not fail to give him what he deserves. Louder cheers from the crowd.
That device is in your hands. Your trowel is in your hands. The bugle
is in your hands. The constitution is in your hands. Do not fail to
give him what he deserves, sixth time.
I thought we had hours left. Does anybody know the name of the staff
sergeant from the Green Berets back in Fort Bragg who was shot in the
stomach? Anybody know that? I did not think so. I did not see a single
hand go up there. His name is Don Holsted. Don Holsted took a bullet in
his guts. And the triple draft dodger literally dodged that bullet
because if Don Holsted was up at Dover tonight instead of arriving at
Fort Bragg tonight at 5:00, married, two kids, I would have been on
their floor burning his name into your brain. This self-excommunicated
Catholic priest was not worth the death of a 25-year-old staff sergeant
named Don Holsted. Every night I literally like a school boy get down
on my knees and say ``God help Bill Clinton. Do not let one American
die in this policy. Give us a miracle.'' I believe it is a miracle
because I got activated for the Santo Domingo crisis as a seaplane
pilot. I went down there in 1965. We lost over 50--I will have the
exact figure--men fighting in the streets when we went three on April
28. Do you know how long we were in Santo Domingo on April 28 of '65, a
month after LBJ put the Marines on the beach at Danang on the other
side of the world? Seventeen months, over 50 deaths. We left with
somewhat of a civil situation there, but Santo Domingo has had a much
higher standard of living. Let me finish this speech. Now he is talking
about Macoutes here. Tonton Macoute thug killers. He says article 291
of the Constitution, our Constitution, which is symbolized--here is
where he gets a little bizarre--which is symbolized by the center of my
head. He has a little pattern baldness, like a tonsure. It symbolizes
by the center of my head where there is no more hair, provides that
Macoutes are excluded from the political game.
{time} 2330
Macoutes are excluded from the political game. Macoutes are excluded
from the political game. This guy loves repetition. Macoutes are
excluded from the political games.
See the Mussolini style there?
Do not fail to give them what they deserve, seven times. Do not fail
to give them what they deserve, eight times. You spent three sleepless
nights in front of the national penitentiary. If one escapes, do not
fail to give him what he deserves, No. 9. You all watch him all
Macoutes activity throughout the country, we are watching and praying,
we are watching and praying. If we catch one, do not fail to give him
what he deserves. There is No. 10.
And then he goes into the direct description of smelling burning
flesh.
I say to the gentleman, ``Tom, this ain't no Catholic priest that you
and I ever encountered in our lives.''
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Does the fact that I am standing here with the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Payne], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], and myself, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta], have anything to do with
your combining the black priest with Mussolini?
Mr. DORNAN. I do not even look at it as black. Since I marched with
Martin Luther King, I am colorblind. How does the gentleman like that?
I do not look at this as black.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has expired.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I will pick that up tomorrow. I say to the
gentleman that in my heart and brain he is looking at a colorblind
Congressman. I never think of it that way.
Cedras is black.
[From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 16, 1994]
Aristide in His Own Words
(By Lawrence T. Di Rita, Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Defense
Studies)
President Clinton intends to invade Haiti to ``restore
democracy'' in a country which has known no democracy in
nearly 200 years of independence. Clinton Administration
officials believe that Haitian democracy today is embodied in
the person of Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide. While it is true
that he was elected in 1990 as Haiti's president, Aristide's
controversial career, which led to his ouster in 1991, raises
serious questions about whether the United States should be
betting the lives of Americans and its international
credibility on him.
A Roman Catholic priest, Aristide was dismissed from the
Church's Salesian Order in 1988 for ``incitement to hatred
and violence * * * and profanation of the liturgy.''\1\
Aristide turned to politics in the fall of 1990. He was
elected in December of that year. Although elected
democratically, Aristide governed quite un-democratically. He
established a reputation, in the words of New York Times
correspondent Howard French, as ``an insular and menacing
leader who saw his own raw popularity as a substitute for the
give and take of politics.'' The litany of anti-democratic
actions he took to place in power members of his Lavalas
movement--the loosely organized following he had developed as
a parish priest--is long and has been well-documented.\2\ He
named Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice,
without seeking the approval of the democratically elected
Senate. He also replaced democratically elected mayors in key
Haitian cities with Lavalas members. By the time of the coup
on September 30, 1991, the New York Times' correspondent in
Haiti observed that ``Lavalas [was] perceived as both
gatekeeper and ideological rudder of the administration,
guiding everything from personnel decisions to the
Government's increasingly disputatious relations in
Parliament.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans have a right to know more about the man for whom
young Americans may soon have to die. What follows is a
collection of statements that Aristide has made over the
course of his professional life. They come from sermons,
presidential speeches, and his two published autobiographies.
As they will show, the true measure of Aristide is written in
his own words.
In his own words: the musings of jean-bertrand aristide
Aristide on Democracy: ``Revolution, not elections!''--1990
Campaign Slogan Cited in The Washington Post December 14,
1990, p. A1.\4\
Aristide's Anti-Americanism: ``* * * [T]he U.S. Government
has no right to stick its nose into Haitian elections * *
*.''
``* * * [T]he U.S. Government is responsible for the
criminal acts of the * * * National Government Council--
because the U.S. Government tolerates it, giving it money and
weapons * * *.''
``* * * [Y]our [the U.S.] government is responsible for
this discouragingly miserable, holy mess and the
inappropriate, schizophrenic policy from which we have never
been able to free ourselves * * *.''
``* * * [T]he [U.S.] government is blameworthy because it
supports an Army which inspires fear and terror and which
murders people both at night and in broad daylight * * *.''
``* * * if your government is the cause of our death, the
generations which will blossom on our corpses will not
tolerate the U.S. imperialists' coming to sunbathe in the
Haitian sun in order to corrupt us * * *.''--Open Letter to
Peter Whaley, Second Secretary, U.S. Embassy, October 17,
1987, Cited in Foreign Broadcast Information Service-LAT-87-
203, October 21, 1987, pp. 2-3.\5\
``Now, what are the Americans' aims regarding Haiti? * * *
America for Americans; the Caribbean, the Antilles for
Americans too. They want to continue the exploitation through
the assembly industry * * *.''
``A government installed without American help might have
the force of the people and could thus possibly resist
possible future U.S. pressures. Thus, a government that does
not have the people's support must be installed. There you
have it. They [Americans] can thus obtain slaves who work in
their factories for a mere song. They [Americans] also have
Haiti as an example of people who are * * * incapable of
leading themselves. One catches a glimpse of a superiority
complex in this North American policy * * *.''
``They [the Americans] want to hold our guts always in
their hands. Thus, we will be economically, politically, and
culturally dependent. For our part, we reject this * * *.''
``Thus, after Nicaragua, they [the Americans] want to put
an end to Cuba's policy. Thus their policy in the mid-term
[is to] utterly spoil Castro's policy * * *.''--Interview
with Nancy Roc Radio Metropole, Port-au-Prince, April 3, 1990
Cited in FBIS-LAT-90-066, April 5, 1990, p. 21.\6\
``Haiti had to prove it was `moving toward democracy.' Only
if we elected a government would the cold country to the
north [the U.S.], and its allies--other former colonizers--
send us more money and food. Of course, that money and that
food corrupt our society: The money helps to maintain an
armed force against the people; the food helps to ruin our
national economy; and both money and food keep Haiti in a
situation of dependence on the former colonizers.''--In the
Parish of the Poor: Writings From Haiti, 1990, p. 47.
``The evildoers have always used the Army against the
people, as did the cold country to the north [the U.S.] when
it occupied Haiti from 1915-1934. They set up the Haitian
Army, they trained it to work against the people. I say this
in order to force Haitian soldiers of my time to face up to
this truth; I say this so that in the midst of the Army
itself, the men will recognize that they, the sons of the
people, are being positioned against themselves, who are the
issue of the people's womb.''--Ibid., p. 59.
``Let the truth of the Lord be a purgative that cleans out
all the old ways of the bourgeoisie, all the old ways of the
Army that flatters and does the bidding of the Americans. We
are tired of hearing the bourgeois leaders whispering in our
ears with their little voices saying, `Come on with us, come
on,' trying to make us their accomplices. This old corrupt
class is bathed in corruption. It has endured for two
centuries and should not last any longer. Enough.''--Ibid.,
p. 88.
``The U.S. government, along with its lackeys among the
Haitian elite, has already begun to conspire to infiltrate
Macoutes into the Army, to buy off soldiers, to sow
corruption, to plant divisions, and to multiply spies.''--
Ibid, p. 97.\7\
``* * * [T]he Americans claimed that an outbreak of swine
fever required the slaughtering of all the pigs in Haiti.
This was not true, but those animals played a major role in
the rural economy. An alimentary equilibrium that was already
precarious was thereby destroyed, and a peasantry was
assassinated without appeal * * *.''
``The elimination of the pigs amounted * * * to burning the
savings book. Its purpose was to draw into the cities the
abundant and cheap labor force necessary for the [American]
assembly plants.''--Jean-Bertrand Aristide: An Autobiography,
1992, pp. 76-77.
``Uncle Sam wanted elections that looked like elections--
like Canada Dry: the smell, the taste, but not the reality.
Namphy did better--or worse--than Reagan demanded * * *. They
wanted a responsible democracy led by people whom they could
control * * *.''--Ibid., p 87.\8\
Aristide on Justice: ``Look at their machetes. The blades
are rusted, the handles dirty. The peasants let the knives
hang at their sides except then they are working in the
field. But don't be fooled. A machete is useful in almost any
situation. Those rusty blades are long and sharp. They remind
me of Bolivar's sword.''--In the Parish of the Poor, p.
15.\9\
Editor's Note: In the following passages, Aristide was
speaking to supporters a week after a political opponent was
sentenced to life in prison because of an attempted coup.
``Pere lebrun'' [Father Lebrun] is the name of a popular
Haitian tire dealer. The reference is a euphemism for the
practice of ``necklacing,'' a widespread method of political
assassination in Haiti. The victim is bound, his arms hacked
off, a gasoline-filled tire placed around his neck and
ignited.
``When the people heard: life in prison, the people forgot
their little gas and little pere lebrun. Was pere lebrun used
on that day? [The audience yells no.] If it had not gone
well, would the people have used pere lebrun? [The audience
yells yes.] Therefore, when through education one learns how
to write pere lebrun and think pere lebrun, one does not use
it when it is unnecessary. One learns how not to use it;
where not to use it.''--Address to Youth Rally, Radio
Metropole, Port-au-Prince, August 5, 1991, Cited in FBIS-LAT-
91-153, August 8, 1991, p. 5.
``The people had their little matches in their hands. They
had gas nearby. Did they use it? [The audience yells no.]
That means that the people respect [The audience yells the
Constitution] Does the Constitution tell the people to forget
little pere lebrun? [The audience yells no] * * * The people
are the law, meaning what they do is constitutional.''--Ibid.
Editor's Note: The following statement came from Aristide's
speech to Lavalas supporters at the National Palace after
returning from a visit to the United States. Coup rumors were
widespread. The references to ``a nice tool; a nice
instrument'' were interpreted at the time as another
reference to ``pere lebrun,'' or assassination by necklacing.
The coup which deposed Aristide took place three days later.
``I ask you to take this chance, because you will not have
two or three more chances, only one. Otherwise, it will not
be good for you [the bourgeoisie] * * *'' [applause].
``If I speak to you this way, it does not mean that I am
unaware of my power to unleash public vindication * * *.''
``If you catch someone who does not deserve to be where he
is, do not fail to give him what he deserves. [The crowd
cheers.] Do not fail to give him what he deserves * * *.''
[He repeats phrase 2 more times.]
``What a nice tool! [Necklacing] What a nice instrument!
[Loud cheers from crowd.] What a nice device! [The crowd
cheers.] It is a pretty one. It is elegant, attractive,
splendorous, graceful, and dazzling. It smells good. Wherever
you go, you feel like smelling it. [The crowd cheers.] It is
provided for by the Constitution, which bans macoutes from
the political scene * * *.''
``Whatever happens to them is their problem * * * we will
receive due respect--the type of respect I share with you--
and fulfill common aspiration for justice. Words will thus
cease to be just words and will instead be translated into
action.''--Address at National Palace, Radio Nationale, Port-
au-Prince, September 27, 1991, Cited in FBIS-LAT-91-194,
October 7, 1991, pp. 17-19.
Aristide on the Catholic Church and its Teachings: ``We are
reflecting on Jesus' situation * * *. He said: those who have
food, take it. Those who have money, take it. Those who have
no weapon must sell their garments and buy one. What does
this mean to you, my friends * * *?''
``Further on they say to Jesus: Behold here two swords.
That is like saying: Behold here two weapons * * * That is
verse 38. If they handed Jesus two weapons saying: Here are
two weapons--in your opinion, did he throw the weapons away
or did he take them? * * * He took them. He took them * *
*.''
``Therefore, you yourselves who are in the church, for
example, you yourselves inside Haiti * * * Would it be a
crime for us to have weapons at home * * *.--Lecture in Cap-
Haitien, Port-au-Prince Domestic Service, August 17, 1987,
Cited in FBIS-LAT, August 19, 1987, p. B4.\10\
``Ah, my little lamp. Its light of solidarity illuminates
the darkest corners of all difficult questions. Just a man
doing a job. Now I can see him more clearly. What is the
paradigm for the pope in the secular world today? I ask
myself. Why, it's all too clear. Of course. All the shadows
around him, the smoke and mirrors, fall away. Who is this
man? He is the chief executive officer of a multinational
corporation * * *.''
``His job is to ensure efficiency, continuity, and profit,
while maintaining the status quo within the company * * *.
United Fruit never had this weapon, nor did Gulf + Western or
the National City Bank. That weapon is belief, the long-
established belief of the people--the final consumer--the
word of the Church. The man in Rome and his colleagues are
able to wrap company policy up in the proud yellow and white
of the Church. They can pronounce and prettify efficiency
actions using the beautiful words of the Bible. They can
dress up their officers and parade them around the Church as
men of God.''--In the Parish of the Poor, pp. 20-21.
``The Catholic church cooperated totally with slavery and
exploitation * * * The priests were the real colonialists.
Their guilt and complicity extends into the twentieth century
* * * The church suffers because of its past.''--An
Autobiography, pp. 180-181.
``* * * [T]he Vatican should stand in the front rank among
those countries that have made every effort to retard our
return to democratic processes.''--Ibid., p. 181.
``[The Haitian presidency] really is like a priesthood.
Like the pastor, I accompany the sheep. I share the people's
sufferings. Their claims are mine.''--Ibid., p. 183.
Aristide on Economics: ``Socialism in Haiti is not a new
thing: its practice is rooted in the period of our first
independence.''--An Autobiography, p. 135.
``Europe owes us a debt * * * Sugar, coffee, and indigo
enriched the merchants of Nantes or Rouen while the black
people lived like beasts of burden * * * Once we had acquired
our independence, we not only had to dress our wounds, but we
were required to pay the old country, which simultaneously
quarantined and exploited us. The colonial powers, including
the United States, must make amends for the wrong inflicted
on the on the colony or protectorate in those days. The debt
experts, when they speak of our liabilities, need to add up
the second column of their own accountability.''--Ibid., p.
143.
``Economic efficiency is not compatible with justice,
except at the price of a permanent struggle against all the
seeds of corruption.''
``The few large enterprises in the country were often found
to be suffering from waste and mismanagement, and from a poor
use of their resources; the most profitable had often been
the prey or milk cows of social parasites who had little
interest in development or reinvestment. Our move to put them
in order did not always make the government highly popular.
Stringency is sometimes a long term investment from those who
want to escape from beggary: simplicity or clarity of
administration are also good for public enterprises that are
too often putrefying as a result of speculation or the
squandering of their resources.''--Ibid., p. 149.
``The ecological tragedy in Haiti is the consequence of
anarchy, of laissez-faire.''--Ibid., p. 151.
``Economic liberalism, which democrats and technocrats have
made a panacea, I find intolerable.''--Ibid., p. 178.
``Wealth, financial superiority, and arrogance all end in
making one certain that one possesses the truth, and they
generally predispose people to use repression or to
compromise with dictatorial regimes. The wealthy have often
become what they are by virtue of exploiting others * * *.''
``Above all, the international rules are made to prevent
those who are under the table from some day taking their
place at the common feast. They can be made to wait for
centuries. They need to shake the table, even to overturn it
with all the risks that action implies.''--Ibid., p. 179.
Aristide on Karl Marx, Che Guevara, and Christopher
Columbus: ``I did not invent class struggle, no more than
Karl Marx did * * *. But who can avoid encountering class
struggle in the heart of Port-au-Prince?''--An Autobiography,
p. 106.
``* * * I welcome those ideas that rest on the values of
beauty, dignity, respect, and love. Che Guevara, a bourgeois,
a doctor, an internationalist, certainly incorporated some of
those values, as did Allende. They were sincere men, like so
many others; they made mistakes, just as I will do. Why
should I deny it? I feel more affection and sympathy for them
than I do for many others.''--Ibid., p. 126\11\
``I see a big white man, a colonial; the man who, by
`discovering' America, stole it from those who were living
there and exploited it * * * What comes to mind when I think
of Christopher Columbus is the mutilation of many peoples and
the beginning of a long chain of injustices * * *.''
``But Christopher Columbus was only the first. The
conquistadors * * * of the American occupiers at the
beginning of the twentieth [century] yielded nothing at all
to him in the realm of contempt and brutality * * * The year
1992 marks five hundred years of robbery and five hundred
years of resistance''--Ibid., p. 180.
``There is no question that there are common denominators
between us and the makers of the French Revolution: 1789 is
an essential reference point, as is 1793. The memory of the
heroes of the rights of humanity should always be in our
minds, as their texts are in our hands. Robespierre himself
denounced the `patripockets.' From Saint Just to Abbe
Gregoire, how much I owe to the makers of the French
Revolution! Most of them had a global vision of human
liberation.''--Ibid., p. 184\12\
footnotes
\1\Aristide quotes from his dismissal order in his book,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide: An Autobiography (Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1992), p. 105.
\2\The best pieces in English are Raymond Alcide Joseph,
``Father Aristide and Other Myths,'' Forbes MediaCritic,
Spring 1994, and Christopher Caldwell, ``Aristide
Development,'' The American Spectator, July 1994. Unless
otherwise indicated, incidents occurring during Aristide's
brief tenure have been drawn from these two sources.
\3\Howard W. French, ``Ex-Backers of Ousted Haitian Say He
Alienated His Allies,'' The New York Times, October 22, 1991,
p. A11.
\4\The interview in which this comment is mentioned was
conducted just four days before the Haitian presidential
elections.
\5\Aristide was blaming the U.S. for its support of the
provisional government (National Government Council) in the
aftermath of Jean-Claude (``Baby Doc'') Duvalier's departure
from Haiti. This period was marked by exceptional turmoil,
with one military leader after another assuming duties as the
Haitian Head of State. Duvalier had fled after the Reagan
Administration pressured him to leave and allow for a
democratic transition. Haiti, along with the Philippines and
Chile, was a target of President Reagan's second-term policy
of withdrawing U.S. support for dictators of the right.
\6\At the time of this interview, Aristide was not a
political candidate. Nicaragua had just held free and fair
elections in which the Castro-supported Sandinista government
was soundly defeated by Violeta Chamorro, a clear victory for
U.S. policy in Central America. Elections in Haiti, strongly
supported by the Bush Administration, were to be held at the
end of the same year.
\7\``Macoutes'' refers to the Ton-Ton Macoutes, the private
security force established by long-time Haitian dictator
Francois (``Papa Doc'') Duvalier. Aristide's book ``In the
Parish of the Poor'' is based in large part on sermons he
gave while still a parish priest at St. Jean Bosco in the La
Saline slum of Port-au-Prince.
\8\General Henri Namphy was head of the provisional
government after the Reagan Administration convinced ``Baby
Doc'' Duvalier to leave Haiti in 1986. Aristide's
autobiography was written after the September 1991 coup
against him. In it, he provides examples such as the swine
fever epidemic to prove that the U.S. had a mercantilistic
relationship with Haiti, by which it required urban, light
manufacturing rather than agricultural production. This is
evidently an oblique reference to Reagan's ``Caribbean Basin
Initiative,'' which offered incentives for U.S. business to
establish production facilities in poor countries of the
region.
\9\Aristide is writing about the Haitian peasants, whom he
consistently held were being exploited by ``imperialist''
businesses from the U.S. and elsewhere. He is referring to
their dormant defiance and alluding to the means they have to
take control of their own futures, as had the Latin American
revolutionary Simon Bolivar.
\10\These statements are excerpted from a lecture to the
faithful by Aristide in Cap-Haitien. He is purportedly
quoting from St. Luke's Gospel, Chapter 22, Verses 35-38. The
actual citation, from the Saint Joseph Edition of the New
American Bible, reads: ``When I sent you on a mission without
purse or traveling bag or sandals, were you in need of
anything? ``Not a thing,'' they replied. He said to them:
``Now, however, the man who has a purse must carry it; the
same with the traveling bag. And the man without a sword must
sell his coat and buy one. It is written in Scripture, `He
was counted among the wicked,' and this, I tell you, must
come to be fulfilled in me. All that has to do with me
approaches its climax.'' They said, ``Lord, here are two
swords!'' He answers, ``Enough.''
\11\Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara was Fidel Castro's closest
confidant during the Cuban Revolution. His book ``Guerrilla
Warfare'' became a primer for Latin American communist
guerrilla movements in the 1960s and 1970s. He became a
martyr for Latin American communism when he was killed by the
Bolivian military while trying to incite a revolution in that
country in 1967. Salvador Allende was the Marxist president
of Chile who was killed in a military coup in 1973.
\12\Robespierre and St. Just were responsible for the worst
abuses of the ``Great Terror'' of the French Revolution.
Hundreds of people, including the French King and Queen, were
guillotined at the order of Robespierre. He, too, was
guillotined in the backlash that followed.
[From the Heritage Foundation, Sept. 20, 1994]
Executive Memorandum
Now Comes the Hard Part: The U.S. Occupation of Haiti
(By Lawrence T. DiRite)
Everyone can draw a sigh of relief now that U.S. forces
will not be invading Haiti. The loss of American lives that
would have resulted from an invasion has been avoided.
Nonetheless, for the first time in 80 years, large numbers of
American troops are landing in Haiti. Within several weeks,
as many as 15,000 U.S. forces are expected to be dispatched
to that poor, chaotic nation. Thus, while an invasion of
Haiti has been avoided, an occupation has not.
And this is precisely Bill Clinton's--and America's--new
problem. The actual invasion of Haiti to reinstall Father
Jan-Bertrand Aristide to power was never the main reason for
opposition to Clinton's Haiti policy. Secretary of Defense
William Perry recently acknowledged that even an invasion
that encountered resistance would have taken no more than ``a
few hours.'' Rather, people were against the invasion because
of what would come afterward--a U.S. occupation of Haiti that
they felt was unwise and unnecessary. Therefore, the original
cause of opposition to Clinton's policy remains. With U.S.
troops heading for Haiti, the easy part is over. Now the
difficult task of pacifying and ``restoring'' democracy
begins.
Public Wary About Clinton Policy. Having assumed
responsibility for Haiti's future, the Clinton administration
still has not convinced the American people that intervention
in Haiti was necessary. Even after a speech to the nation on
September 15, in which the President outlined his reasons for
military action, more than 60 percent of Americans polled
were against the use of U.S. force. In fact, as the hour of
invasion drew closer, the more opposition to an invasion
mounted. New reports reveal that Clinton was desperate for
Jimmy Carter's peace mission to succeed. In the hours before
the invasion was to begin, the President apparently began to
realize that military action would be a big political
mistake.
But the President may face an even bigger political
headache in the future: managing the occupation of an
extremely poor and divided Third World country. Clinton has
yet to outline a convincing ``exit strategy'' for the U.S. --
to define clearly the conditions that must be met in order to
get the troops back home. Despite the President's assurances
that U.S. troops will return soon, the Clinton Administration
is underestimating the troubles U.S. forces will face in
Haiti. Bringing Aristide back to Port-au-Prince will be easy.
Keeping him there in power will not be.
Many Unanswered Questions. The precise terms of the
agreement the Untied States and the Haitian military junta
are unclear. According to the deal brokered by Jimmy Carter,
by October 15, unless the Haitian parliament has acted sooner
to offer them political reprieve, the junta must relinquish
power to the elected government of Aristide. This poses a
number of intriguing questions, including:
(1) To whom will the military and police forces owe their
allegiance once their leaders have abdicated? Many of them
were opponents of Aristide and his supporters. American
peacekeepers may be left to contend with general lawlessness
among thousands of armed forces whose leaders no longer
control them. The U.S. troops will have to disarm these
troops if they are to avoid becoming targets themselves. But
the policy of disarming belligerents in Somalia failed, at
the cost of more than three dozen American lives.
(2) What if General Raoul Cedras or other members of the
junta refuse to leave Haiti they step down from power? In the
press conference after the deal was announced, Secretary of
State Warren Christopher said that ``there will be no
incentive for [the generals] to stay in Haiti'' after October
15. But nothing in the agreement prevents them from staying
in Haiti. Moreover, Cedras and his allies represent the most
well-organized and determined opposition to Aristide. If
Cedras stays and decides to run for parliament this year or
for president next year, U.S. forces may find themselves
caught between two diametrically opposed political factions.
It is not inconceivable that Aristide, emboldened by the U.S.
presence, might incite his followers to the same type of mob
tactics he used as president to intimidate political
opponents. In August 1991, he encouraged his supporters to
surround the parliament building to prevent members from
voting a motion of no-confidence against his government.
(3) How long before Aristide turns on his American mentors?
The Clinton Administration has been able to extract promises
of good behavior from Aristide as long as he has been living
comfortably in Washington, D.C. Once he is back in Port-au-
Prince, however, he could revert to the anti-Americanism that
had been the hallmark of his political career. For example,
in an April 1990 radio interview regarding U.S. support for
the upcoming Haitian elections, Aristide claimed that ``they
[the Americans] want to hold our guts always in their hands.
Thus, we will be economically, politically, and culturally
dependent. For our part, we reject this . . .'' If Aristide
becomes unhappy with the United States--if aid is not enough
or if he thinks the U.S. is equivocating in its support for
him personally--this anti-Americanism is bound to resurface.
(4) What happens if Aristide decides not to step down a the
end of his presidential term? In his September 15 address to
the nation, President Clinton declared that ``Aristide has
pledged to step down when his term ends . . . [in 1996].''
But that is a rather dramatic concession that may come as a
surprise to Aristide's supporters in Haiti. Until now,
Aristide has held firm to the belief that the period of his
exile does not count as part of his five-year term in office.
Will the U.S. blockade Haiti and impose economic sanctions if
Aristide remains in office past 1996, in violation of the
1987 Haitian constitution?
(5) What happens when ``democracy'' fails to take root with
Aristide's return? With the occupation of Haiti, the U.S.
assumes responsibility for building ``democracy'' in a
country where three-quarters of its presidents in nearly two
centuries of independence have not completed their terms. The
U.S. will soon be sending judicial, law enforcement,
military, economic, and political advisers to help establish
civil order there. Despite Clinton's claims to the contrary
in his September 15 speech, this is nation-building pure and
simple; it is a policy that failed miserably in Somalia last
year with the unnecessary loss of some 40 American lives.
America's new venture into liberal colonialism has begun.
The U.S. is about to occupy a country to install in power a
left-wing priest who made a career out of denouncing America
and everything it stands for. Meanwhile, a few hundred miles
closer to U.S. shores, another Caribbean dictator abuses
human rights, and rules undemocratically. Yet Fidel Castro is
spared the fate of the Haitian generals. The reasons for this
double standards are as mysterious as the reasons for
occupying Haiti in the first place.
____
[From Port-au-Prince Radio Nationale, Sept. 27, 1991]
Aristide Address 27 Sep After Visit to UN
[Address by President Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the
National Palace in Port-au-Prince on 27 September, on his
return from the United Nations--live or recorded]
[Excerpts] [passage omitted including indistinct portions]
to repent and say: I acknowledge that I made this money
through malpractice and, from now on, watching the national
pride dancing like a flag, I will cooperate by using the
money [word indistinct] to create work opportunities, and to
invest in economic activity so more people can get jobs.
If you [referring to bourgeoisie] do not do so, I feel
sorry for you. Really I do. [laughter from crowd] It will not
be my fault because this money you have is not really yours.
You acquired it through criminal activity. You made it by
plundering, by embezzling. You got it through the negative
choices you made. You made it under oppressive regimes. You
acquired it under a corrupt system. You made this money
through means that you know were wrong. Today, seven months
after 7 February, on a day ending in seven, I give you one
last chance. I ask you to take this chance, because you will
not have two or three more chances, only one. Otherwise, it
will not be good for you. [applause]
If I speak to you this way, it is because I gave you a
seven-month deadline for making amends. The seven-month
deadline expires today. [applause] If I speak to you this
way, it does not mean that I am unaware of my power to
unleash public vindication, in the name of justice, against
all these thieves, in an attempt to recover from them what is
not theirs. A word to the wise is enough. You understand me
because you and I speak Creole. [applause]
The saying goes: God's justice is slow. It appears that
justice is going too slow. It is, however, a reasonable
justice because seven months--during which people have been
hungry and unemployed, while you had the power to reduce
unemployment and hunger--have passed. As I told you, the
deadline expires today. The ball is in your court. The 7
February ball is at your feet. If you want to shoot, go
ahead. [applause]
Did all of the bourgeoisie make their money through ill
practices? [crowd shouts ``no''] [repeats sentence twice]
Congratulations, intelligent people! [repeats sentence three
times] [applause] We call the bourgeoisie who made their
money through foul practices, and who refuse to invest in the
country, false patriots [patripoch]. We call the bourgeoisie
who earned their money through honest work, and who are
cooperative, patriots. [applause] Congratulations to the
patriotic bourgeoisie. Congratulations to the bourgeois
patriots. They are few. Unfortunately, they are not the
majority. Nevertheless they do exist. [passage omitted]
I want to use this very occasion to also address political
parties. I want to hail and encourage them to walk on in
unity--unity among them and with the entire population--to
consolidate themselves so that, in accordance with the
Constitution, we will build together a strong opposition on
the basis of the law. We will thus foster democracy, unity in
political pluralism, unity in political diversity.
Therefore, political leaders, I am passing to you the ball
of understanding with great love as usual. If you do not
catch the ball, dribble, and score goals, do not later accuse
me because you will have failed to live up to expectations in
order to gain in popularity that you [word indistinct].
[crowd cheers] I wish you all good luck, good luck to all the
[words indistinct] parties.
I hope that deputies and senators will continue to work
together with the people in order to personally feel the joy
of working to satisfy the aspirations of the masses, because
we prefer to fail with the masses than succeed without them,
but with the masses, we cannot fail. [crowd cheers] I am
encouraging all the ministers; [crowd cheers] I know, I
know, all right! For those of you who are outside the
palace, the brother here said that the deputies cannot do
me any harm. I told them I know that. [loud cheers from
crowd]
I am encouraging every minister to continue with the purge
that we have already started. I am also encouraging each
state employee [words indistinct] because you are the ones
pressing on the economic pedal now, so that the economic car
can run twice as fast. I am encouraging each state employee--
please, I encourage you to realize that, as a state employee,
you must work twice as much so that the job can be done well
and fast. You will thus increase, if not double, the output
of public administration. We will all benefit from the
increased effort that you all make. I encourage you to do so
in the provinces and in the capital, wherever state employees
work. If you feel that your work goes slowly, speed it up.
You do not need anyone to supervise you. Be you own
superviser. This is because contrary to the past, when people
used to say that embezzling state money is not stealing,
today we know very well that diverting state money is
stealing, and thieves do not deserve to stay in public
administration. [crowd cheers] [passage indistinct]
You must greet visitors in the same warm way that Haitians
are greeted--with the type of welcome we received abroad.
Greet people with a small in state offices. Give people the
information that they need with a welcoming smile of
understanding. You too, address the state employee with great
courtesy so that we will make double economic effort.
[passage omitted]
However if I catch a thief, a robber, a swindler, or an
embezzler, if I catch a fake lavalas, if I catch a fake . . .
[changes thought] If you catch someone who does not deserve
to be where he is, do not fail to give him what he deserves.
[crowd cheers] Do not fail to give him what he deserves! Do
not fail to give him what he deserves! Do not fail to give
him what he deserves!
Your tool is in your hands. Your instrument is in your
hands. Your Constitution is in your hand. Do not fail to give
him what he deserves. [loud cheers from crowd] That device is
in your hands. Your trowel is in your hands. The bugle is in
your hands. The Constitution is in your hands. Do not fail to
give him what he deserves.
Article 291 of the Constitution, which is symbolized by the
center of my head where there is no more hair, provides that
macoutes are excluded from the political game. Macoutes are
excluded from the political game. Macoutes are excluded from
the political game. Do not fail to give them what they
deserves. Do not fail to give them what they deserve. You
spent three sleepless nights in front of the National
Penitentiary. If one escapes, do not fail to give him what he
deserves. [loud cheers crowd]
You are watching all macoute activities throughout the
country. we are watching and praying. we are watching and
praying. If we catch one, do not fail to give him what he
deserves. What a nice tool! What a nice instrument! [loud
cheers from crowd] What a nice device! [crowd cheers] It is a
pretty one. It is elegant, attractive, splendorous, graceful,
and dazzling. It smells good. Wherever you go, you feel like
smelling it. [crowd cheer] It is provided for by the
Constitution, which bans macoutes from the political scene.
Whatever happens to them is their problem. They should not
look for it. [crowd cheers] As such, under the same flag of
pride, dignity, and solidarity, and hand in hand, we will
encourage one another, so that starting today, we will all
receive due respect--the type of respect I share with you--
and fulfill common aspiration for justice. Words will thus
cease to be just words and will instead be translated into
action.
Action on the economic front required me to get the ball
and pass it over to you. You should dribble and kick hard at
the ball once you are in front of the goal, and make sure to
score a goal because if the people do not see the ball in the
nest, as I told you, it would not be my fault if you are
given what you deserve, as provided for in the Constitution.
Alone we are weak, together we are strong, tightly united we
are an avalanche. Are you feeling proud? Are you feeling
proud? Go home now as your hearts are full of happiness,
energy, and joy and show that you are working for the
progress of the country, and to make elegant, graceful, and
dazzling, show that you want to restore it former image.
[loud cheers from crowd]
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Torricelli] as the author of this resolution, and our Chairman of
the House Committee on Foreign Affair, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] who is the chief cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the lives and welfare of some 20,000 of our men and
women in the armed services are at stake. I have no doubt that
President Clinton and his top military advisers, and even the Members
of this body, are very concerned as the situation is volatile and
things can turn for the worse or even better at any given day.
Mr. Chairman, the President has made a very important decision to
commit our military forces for the purpose of stabilizing the
Government of Haiti and to return President Aristide as the duly
elected leader of that country. But this does not mean that the
President has the absolute authority to commit our forces anytime he
feels like it.
Under the Constitution, Mr. Chairman, the Congress must also do its
part as a co-partner in this matter now before us. The resolution, I
believe, before us should address the concerns of the Congress relative
to the President's actions on Haiti. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
although the resolution does not address every issue, or every problem,
or any solution that could be conceivably thought of, I do believe the
resolution at least gives notice to the President that he cannot
unilaterally put our military forces in harm's way without close
consultations with the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the arguments for or against the
President's Haiti policy and I believe Members of both sides of the
aisle have been quite eloquent in advocating their points of view on
this matter. I will say, Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion that
without question President Clinton's current policy on Haiti, its
success or failure, rests entirely now upon the lives of our soldiers
and sailors who are currently in Haiti as a consequence of his policy
in that country.
I believe the resolution of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Torricelli] is a reasonable solution to the current crisis in Haiti,
and let us never forget the lessons that we have learned from Vietnam
and Somalia. Let us support House Resolution 416.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to our final speaker,
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I take to the floor again
to speak on the issue of our failed policy in Haiti. Having been
involved in Haiti prior to the fall of the Aristide government in an
economic development project, I am familiar with some of the problems
of that nation, and I think it is important tonight that we reflect on
the history of the Clinton policy which, in fact, is a history of
failure.
Mr. Chairman, it was a mistake when President-elect Clinton promised
to reverse the Bush Haitian immigration policy.
It was a mistake when my State of Florida was left with 12,000
Haitians after 40,000 left that impoverished nation as a result of the
change in the Clinton policy.
It was a mistake when President Clinton failed to hear the pleas of
myself and 41 other House Members who asked him to appeal a court
decision that would allow HIV-infected Haitians into the United States,
and most of those people ended up in my State of Florida.
It was a mistake to ignore the Governors Island accord and
international agreements.
It was a mistake to sail into Port-au-Prince harbor and then cut and
run.
Mr. Chairman, it was a mistake to impose economic sanctions on a
country with 53 cents per day per capita income.
Again it was a mistake, Mr. Chairman, to impose an economic embargo
on the most impoverished nation in the Western Hemisphere, a policy
that would kill thousands of Haitian babies, elderly and infirm.
Mr. Chairman, it was a mistake to destroy 60,000 manufacturing jobs
in Haiti that fed nearly a third of the island's population.
Again, Mr. Chairman, it was a mistake to send our forces into Haiti
and not consult with the United Nations and not consult with the United
States Congress.
It was a mistake to have our troops stand by just recently while the
balance of Haitian business was destroyed and decimated.
It is a mistake to think that by confiscating weapons and driving the
military underground that all will be well in Haiti's future.
Mr. Chairman, it is a mistake to think that after October 15, when we
have that great glorious parade when Aristide returns, all will be well
in Haiti.
Mr. Chairman, it is a mistake that the U.S. taxpayers pay twice. They
pay once for the United Nations peacekeeping force, and now we will end
up paying billions to continue another mistake.
Mr. Chairman, it is a mistake not to have learned from the lessons of
Somalia.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, you know there is a movie
called ``The Groundhog Day.'' I don't know if you have ever seen that
movie, my colleagues, but it's an interesting movie, and I recommend it
to each of you. The movie ``The Groundhog Day'' is a movie about an
individual who keeps repeating over and over the same day.
Now I have only been in this Congress for about 20 months, but
sometimes I feel like I am part of that movie, ``The Groundhog Day.''
The character there keeps repeating that day over and over, and that is
what we are doing here, and that is what we did with Somalia.
I ask my colleagues, don't we remember the cost in American lives?
Don't we remember the cost in dollars?
Mr. Chairman, when we cannot afford to provide economic assistance to
our citizens, to our veterans, to our cities, we are spending hundreds
of millions, billions, of dollars, and we have not learned this lesson.
We are participating in another Groundhog Day. We are repeating that
day over and over again.
As my colleagues know, what is sad is we will leave Haiti, and I can
predict it, and it will be part of this Congressional Record without
changing the deep social and civil differences that lie embedded in
that country. I have seen this firsthand. It is a country in which
there is a very small, rich population, and they have a very large poor
population.
{time} 1140
We can send all the troops and we can spend all of our money; we can
go again and destroy that country and pound it further into the ground;
and then we can spend more American taxpayer dollars to try to raise it
up.
Mr. Chairman, we will not solve that country's problems. We did not
solve them in Somalia. We just left there, and we left the country in
chaos.
So we do not have a defined mission. So we can set March 1, and March
1, my colleagues, I am afraid will be too late. We can set March 1,
1995, or 1996. It still may be too late. We are now being asked here in
this Congress to legislate and authorize another mistake.
Mr. Chairman, again, I feel like I am part of that movie, ``Groundhog
Day,'' where we do not learn, where we keep repeating the same day over
and over, where we keep making the same mistake, where we keep dragging
the American taxpayer to pay for each and every one of these mistakes.
Somehow I wish, Mr. Chairman, that we would learn from the lessons of
the past. Somehow I would hope that this body would learn that we
cannot solve all the problems of the world, nor can the American
taxpayer finance all of these mistakes.
So with these words, Mr. Chairman, for the Record, and I am sure
these halls have heard all the different words and sermons, I caution
my colleagues to think twice before they vote for this resolution,
before they continue this legacy of mistakes, before they make another
mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has
49 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Torricelli] has 1 hour and 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, President Clinton sent 20,000 American soldiers to
defend Haitian democracy. Tonight I rise in the interest of another
democracy, that of the United States.
In any Democratic society, no one man can be vested with the power to
send thousands of men and women in risk of their own lives, in pursuit
of a policy that potentially consumes not simply millions, but indeed
hundreds of millions of dollars. By definition in any Democratic
society, that power must be shared and balanced with other Democratic
institutions. In the constitutional framework that is the United States
of America, this institution, the U.S. Congress, is designed to provide
that balance.
This Nation has painfully learned on other occasions the cost of
entering into foreign commitments, sending our sons and daughters to
fight, when the Nation is divided and this Congress is not consulted in
the exercise of our powers. Indeed, it is the principal lesson of this
generation, from the painful experiences of Vietnam, that if in our
constitutional framework there is one principal imperfection, it has
been the Founding Fathers inability, indeed, their failure, to more
precisely define the respective roles of the institutions of
government.
House Resolution 416, which I offer with the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Hamilton] is an attempt in this instance to avoid the division and
provide the balance that was not provided for by exercising good
judgment by the administration in seeking the consent of this Congress,
and perhaps with not too sufficient clarity previously provided for in
the law.
We do so because it is not simply good law, not simply consistent
with the intentions of the framers of our Constitution, no matter how
vaguely that intention may have been expressed, but because it is also
good policy.
No foreign foe, no less the Haitian military, should ever believe
that this country is divided. No one should ever face our forces in
combat believing a President stands alone. This resolution is an
opportunity to demonstrate not division or lack of resolve, but simply
to provide President Clinton with a degree of support for our forces
that he, unfortunately, did not seek, and therefore did not receive.
It is an opportunity to speak with a loud voice, in providing a
Congressional vote for unity of purpose. It is particularly critical,
however, not simply because of Haiti, but because Haiti is not the
last, and, indeed, may be the first of a long series of post-cold-war
involvements, in which the United States will be called upon to defend
democracy, advance our interests, further the resolutions of the United
Nations, and serve other peacekeeping purposes and vital interests.
A model therefore must be established, and that model cannot be
consistent with the best interests of this country and the operation of
our Democratic system, a formula by which the President of the United
States simply orders the expenditure of such enormous sums of money and
places the lives of so many people in jeopardy in pursuit of his own
policy, without the collective actions of the U.S. Government.
I seek to define these missions not because I want the United States
to play less of a role in the world, but because I want us to play more
of a role in the world, with credibility, with force, but recognizing
that the United States can provide no example of democracy, ironically,
indeed, tragically, cannot give meaning to the Democratic institutions
of other nations, if we defy the Democratic meaning of our own
Constitution and ignore our own Democratic institutions.
This resolution is an opportunity to avoid what is certainly before
us, an opportunity of division, and replace it with a common voice. The
Armed Forces of the United States today, indeed the President himself,
have in the last days provided an example of effective intervention
militarily. But I think we all recognize that there are difficult days
ahead, days that will test unity of purpose, days that may well divide
the American people. Without this resolution, we will be on this floor
again and again. The Haitian military will doubt our intentions or our
resolve. With it, we will appear as united in difficult days as we are
in those days when the mission is succeeding.
The framework that is provided therefore in House Resolution 416
attempts to do each of these things.
{time} 2350
First, it defines our mission precisely, that American forces that
are in Haiti to assist the transition to the legitimately elected
government, to provide for the distribution of humanitarian assistance
and security for those purposes. By providing this definition, we avoid
the difficulty of an ever-expanding obligation, where each day or each
week, with each new crisis taking on new obligations that have not been
made clear to the American people, their elected representatives or
even our forces in the field.
Second, the length of this commitment, exclusively under American
auspices and leadership, is defined by a limit of time. By March 1, the
President of the United States must either come to this Congress and
seek an extension of authorization or he must remove U.S. forces and
transfer our obligations to a U.N. command. He must provide reports on
four different occasions explaining the financial costs, precise
obligations and what our forces are undertaking in their objectives.
Every Member of this institution, after February 1, having received
these reports, will have the opportunity to come to this floor on an
expedited basis and, by resolution, seek the removal of American forces
if they deem it to be the interest of this country.
But in fairness to the President, this opportunity is not accorded to
Members until February 1 and withdrawal is not ordered until March 1,
because to do so at an earlier date has been suggested by a resolution
offered by the minority. Neither gives our military forces a reasonable
amount of time to complete their mission or this Congress an
opportunity to produce such a resolution. Congress simply will not be
in session in November or December or much of January.
But after February 1, the Committee on Foreign Affairs will be
organized. The Congress will be in session. And we can produce such a
resolution of withdrawal if we deem it to be in our interest.
Finally, the resolution provides that at all times, until the U.N.
command assumes responsibility, our forces will be under the exclusive
command of a commander in the U.S. Armed Forces.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that many Members of this institution,
indeed many of the American people, do not believe in our mission in
Haiti. They are sensitive to the support of democracy, sympathetic to
the plight of the Haitian people, and angered by the actions of the
Haitian military. I share each and every one of those sentiments. But
there are doubts in this institution whether the vital interests of the
United States were so threatened in such a manner that it was necessary
or wise to engage the Armed Forces of the United States at the risk of
the lives of young men and women who have gone into the service of our
country for the defense of this Nation to pursue these objectives.
While I am sympathetic with some of those beliefs, I also believe it
is necessary, whether we supported those objectives, interpreted events
in this fashion or not, that we deal responsibly with the reality that
20,000 young Americans are in Haiti. The mission has been undertaken.
We are not being asked whether it should be pursued but now, simply,
how it should be achieved successfully, given the reality of their
deployment.
Resolution 416 is an attempt to deal with that reality for those who
believe that the mission was necessary, for those who question it, but
nevertheless want it to succeed and who believe now a premature
withdrawal before the U.S. military is given that chance is to simply
compromise any opportunity to do justice to their mission or fairness
to our forces.
Others are arguing that the resolution is ill-advised because it
might compromise the safety of our forces to set a date of withdrawal.
I would argue strenuously, on the contrary. Each and every day that
American forces remain in Haiti without any deadline for their removal,
any date of departure, is an invitation for terrorists and assassins,
for the brutal thugs in the Haitian military and their accomplices to
attempt to take the lives of our young soldiers, to break the will of
our people and to seek a date of withdrawal.
I believe that if our opponents recognize that our presence in Haiti
is to restore the Aristide government, to provide for its security and
then, on a date certain, to transfer authority to the United Nations,
they recognize that there is no advantage in bringing harm to our
forces, because it will not change the reality of our presence or
adjust the date or our departure.
I want, finally, Mr. Chairman, to express again the admiration that I
know every Member of this institution feels, whether they would have
initially supported this mission or not, whether they want to set a
deadline for departure or not, the admiration that is felt for every
man and woman and every branch of our Armed Forces, for the
extraordinary skill and courage that is being exemplified by each and
every member of our Armed Forces.
Never in my memory have they performed more professionally, more
selflessly, when called upon by the President of the United States.
Tomorrow this institution, while expressing that admiration, will
have before it three alternatives. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton] and I have provided Resolution 416, adopted by the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, to provide for the March 1 withdrawal
providing for a post-February 1st vote to force withdrawal by the
House, if it deems it so necessary, limiting the mission.
An alternate resolution will be provided by the minority, defined by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for at some point after
January 3d, without having provided any authorization for the mission
prospectively or retroactively, a resolution will come in order for
immediate withdrawal. And a final resolution offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Murtha] to provide for an authorization without a specific date of
withdrawal.
{time} 2400
Those three alternatives provide this Congress with a real choice,
and the chance for a meaningful debate.
Mr. Chairman, my own position is clear. However, beyond the crisis in
Haiti, in each of these resolutions, I trust when the debate ends we
will have established one point, a point we believed was clear after
Vietnam, certainly after Lebanon, without question after Panama and
Grenada, and we had reason to believe after the Persian Gulf and
Somalia; that in this democratic society, this Nation will not take
lives, will not engage in foreign commitments, and will not wage war
while operating within the confines of our own Constitution with
respect for the judgments of our own people and the operations of our
own institutions of government.
Mr. Chairman, democracy is a fragile instrument. The United States of
America has been blessed with this form of government for 200 years,
but at its inception, we were advised that the greatest threat to our
freedoms existed in no foreign nation, in no despot or king or invading
army, but by the very excesses of executive power.
Mr. Chairman, through these two centuries we have been blessed by men
in the Presidency who have respected democracy and did not exceed their
authority, but with each and every precedent we establish for the
concentration of executive power in the Presidency, the decline of
balance of powers in this institution, we risk not simply the freedom
of those we would violate abroad, but more critically, our own.
Mr. Chairman, when we debate tomorrow, I trust that it is the
operation of his Government, the balance of these powers, that Members
will bear in mind as we debate House Resolution 416.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for a meaningful debate this
evening and look forward to reviewing it tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Barlow].
(Mr. BARLOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
tribute to romano l. mazzoli on his retirement
Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman, I ask for your own indulgence to speak out
of order as I pay respects to you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, as a new Member from Kentucky in his first term in
Congress, I, along with others in the delegation and others here in
Congress, want to pay our respects to you for your many years of
service as you come to your retirement from our institution here.
You were elected in 1970, and let me say that when I arrived here in
January a year ago, Mr. Chairman, you reached out with friendship and
with understanding at the process that I and every other freshman at
that point was entering into as we come into the hall of reason which
our forefathers consecrated for us as a Nation.
Mr. Chairman, it is an amazing and wonderful institution that has
been created. Every day that I serve here and serve with men of years
of service such as you, men who show humility and dedication and
strength of purpose and principle, I am constantly coming up against
those principles that have served us as a nation so well down through
the years.
When we have votes, I come home to my district, as I do every
weekend, and talk with my constituents back in the distract. Sometimes
I am asked ``Why are the votes so close, the numbers very evenly
divided?'' I often say that that is because, very purposefully, we have
loaded them with very heavy, weighty issues, and the weightiness of
those issues and the fact that we come up on that vote, and it so
evenly divided, and yet, after that, when passions have cooled, we find
that we are a stronger Nation, having stood the test of the heat of
that moment.
You yourself, sir, in the years of your service, have brought your
constituents and brought the House to the same type of weighted,
heavily weighted, decisions of principle, and have come through
elections by small margins.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that that is not a sign of weakness,
that is a sign of pushing yourself and your constituents and the State
of Kentucky to very powerful limits of expansion, of moral purpose, of
principle, and as we come out of those votes, we are stronger for it.
I pay my respects to you, Mr. Chairman, and the record of those votes
will stand proudly the test of time as people look back.
Mr. Chairman, we are also in an institution where no one person is
enabled to rise with ego, to dominate, to domineer. We have a
wonderfully crafted set of rules which very wisely snares egos and
winds them down, and wrings them out, so that reason can come to the
surface.
You, in your years as chairman of the Subcommittee on International
Law, Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary, have
labored hard to bring very difficult work to the force, to bring it in
a progressive way forward. No matter how long any of us work and labor
in this institution, we are always laying foundations for the future.
Mr. Chairman, you have laid very powerful foundations in the
immigration law that you have brought forth in the 1980's and over the
years of oversight for this whole area. It is an area that is going to
be challenged in many powerful ways in coming years, because we as a
nation are admired for our government, for the freedom, for our free
enterprise.
We have triumphed over terror and institutions of terror in the
world, governing structures which were very oppressive. Quite
understandably, people will be wanting to come to the United States. As
a measured process that you have established, we look forward to
perfecting that so that our own institutions will prosper.
Mr. Chairman, my mother, her father was from Louisville, KY, and 40-
some-odd years ago when I was very much a youngster I remember an old
78 record I played in my grandfather's living room. I do not know if
you ever heard it. I am not going to sing the song, but I will recite
it as I can from memory.
That is ``Eight more miles to Louisville, the hometown of my heart.
Eight more miles on this old road, I never more shall part. I knew some
day that I would come back, I knew it from the start. Eight more miles
to Louisville, the hometown of my heart.''
Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would take his prerogative to express thanks
to the gentleman, and to all who have joined in that.
Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my colleague Ron
Mazzoli of Kentucky who will be leaving this body at the conclusion of
the 103d Congress.
As a freshman member of Congress late in 1989, I faced the daunting
prospect of having the major military installation in my district
closed by a unilateral decision of the Department of Defense. Now, base
closure is a fearsome challenge for any Member of Congress, but
especially so for a Member only 9 months into his first term who
succeeded a 21-year veteran who was a legendary senior member of the
Armed Services Committee.
Base closure threw Ron Mazzoli and I into the same pot of trouble in
1990, and we quickly recognized that the 1990 closure list
disproportionately targeted bases in Democratic districts and appeared
to have no basis in military value.
Though not a member of the Armed Services Committee, Ron Mazzoli had
a direct impact on the resulting legislation which established the Base
Closure Commission and the current base-closure process because of his
personal and professional support of me and my efforts on the
Committee. Ron was one of the founding members of the Fairness Network
which we established in the House originally to ensure that the defense
establishment was not withholding funds from targeted bases while they
are being evaluated for closure or realignment.
In his quite, unassuming and statesmanlike manner, Ron Mazzoli has
had a profound impact on this House and on this Member in particular.
His mentoring of my early efforts to slay the base-closure dragon have
left me personally grateful of the contribution he has made to my
career as the Representative to Congress from the State of Alabama and
grateful as a citizen of this Nation for his contributions to what has
become an effective, fair method for reducing military infrastructure.
While the military bases that Ron and I represent have both emerged
winners from the first three rounds of base closures, the House and our
country will be the losers when he leaves this body in January for a
much-deserved respite form the day-to-day political struggle. Mr.
Speaker, I know you join me in thanking Ron Mazzoli for his service to
America and in wishing him only the best in his future endeavors.
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, while it is with much regret that we are
here today saying farewell to one of our host distinguished colleagues,
Congressman Romano Mazzoli, I am pleased to be able to participate in
recognizing him during this special tribute.
I am fortunate enough to be able to say that as a member of the
International Law, Immigration, and Refugees Subcommittee, the
subcommittee that Congressman Mazzoli has so ably chaired for a number
of years, I have worked with him on many issues.
Without pause, I can say that Congressman Mazzoli has been a fair and
fervent advocate in balancing the United States' interest to strengthen
enforcement and illegal immigration, while at the same time recognizing
the need to promote lawful immigration in furtherance of the United
States interests as a heterogeneous and diverse society.
Congressman Mazzoli has made many contributions to our society as a
Member of Congress, and I am sure that I can speak for all of us in
saying that his tenacity and responsiveness will be sorely missed, not
only by his friends here in the U.S. Congress, but also by his
constituents.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join with my
colleagues in recognizing the outstanding service to Congress and our
Nation of my friend and colleague, Romano (Ron) Mazzoli.
For the last 24 years, Ron has distinguished himself as the
representative of Kentucky's 3d District, which includes the city of
Louisville and its suburbs. Without a doubt Ron is one of the hardest
working Members of this body; furthermore Ron is a man of honesty and
integrity. Millions of Americans who watch C-SPAN know Ron as the fair
and impartial member who often moderates contentious House debates from
the Speaker's chair. However, to all of us in the House, we know how
deep Ron's legacy runs.
Ron was one of the authors of perhaps the most sweeping immigration
reform legislation of our time, the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration bill,
which passed the House in 1986. I remember how hard Ron worked over
several years to shepherd this important landmark legislation through
Congress, and know his perseverance is a major reason why this bill has
been made into law. Ron has also been a major force in the drive to
reform campaign finance laws, and Ron certainly backs up his talk with
action--during campaigns he would accept campaign contributions of no
more than $100. His forceful presence on both these issues will be
sorely missed.
Another thing that will be missed not only by his colleagues in the
House but also the people of Kentucky's 3d District is Ron's
independence and dedication to his constituents. One of the reasons Ron
is one of the most respected Members of Congress is his ability to make
difficult choices to help his constituents. He will not shy away from
controversy even if what Ron thinks is the right thing to do is not the
most popular. In this age of ``sound-bite'' politics and constant
opinion polls, this is a refreshing characteristic. This devotion and
sincerity has earned my respect and admiration for Ron, and I know my
opinion is shared by many colleagues as well as individuals in Kentucky
and around the Nation. Ron's leadership and honesty will be missed, and
I am pleased to join today in wishing Ron, his wife Helen, and his
family all the best as he begins his retirement.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join, too, in congratulating you at the
conclusion of a remarkable career in this institution. You have served
the people of Kentucky and the people of the United States with
extraordinary distinction.
while the people of Kentucky had their own reason to be proud, the
people of Louisville had a particular reason to be proud, so do some of
us who have come to know you as a member of the Italian-American caucus
in this institution. We have our own reasons to be very proud of you.
You will be greatly missed, and I want to identify myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow].
I would also like, in the conclusion of this debate, to thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Owens] for beginning this discussion. We look forward to
continuing tomorrow.
{time} 0010
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, before we conclude, I too would like to
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks, to commend you for your
outstanding service in the House. We will sorely miss you and miss your
expertise in so many areas. We congratulate you for a job well done.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to associate myself with
the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow]. When the
gentleman from Kentucky presides, we always have a very firm hand but a
very fair hand. That is a demonstration to those of us who have not
served with you on a committee of what a great contribution you have
made to this body. We are going to certainly miss you.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in
recognition of Congressman Ron Mazzoli.
It has been a high privilege knowing Ron Mazzoli since he first
joined the House in 1971. He has been a good friend and colleague, and
I will certainly miss him.
I have had the good fortune over the years of working with Ron on
numerous issues and projects that affect the greater Louisville area.
Ron, of course, represents the city of Louisville and Jefferson County,
KY; I represent the Indiana counties across the Ohio River. Ron has
been instrumental in promoting stronger ties between our States and
communities and in working jointly to spur economic growth in the
region. His retirement will be a loss not only to the people of his
district and State, but to the Kentuckiana region in general.
I also want to recognize Ron's contributions to this institution.
Congress is not held in particularly high public esteem these days.
Some of the criticisms are fair, some are unfair. It is especially
unfortunate that in the rush to judge the institution, there is a
tendency to overlook the outstanding efforts of individual members.
Ron Mazzoli has been a pillar of integrity in Congress. He is
conscientious and hard-working. He is dedicated to serving his
constituents and the nation. He has taken a leading role on some of the
most important issues facing this country, including immigration reform
and campaign finance reform, and has worked tirelessly to pass
legislation that makes a difference in the lives of Americans. Ron has
been a model legislator, and should be saluted for his accomplishments.
I want to extend my congratulations to Ron and commend him for his
impressive record of service. His work in Congress is certainly a mark
of distinction, and I want to join his friends and family in
recognizing it. He has every right to look back on his service with a
full measure of satisfaction.
I join all of my colleagues in wishing Ron and Helen all the best. I
know he will continue to apply the same dedication and energy to all
his endeavors in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Barlow) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mazzoli, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 416) providing limited authorization for the participant of
United States Armed Forces in the multinational force in Haiti and
providing for the prompt withdrawal of United States Armed Force from
Haiti, has come to no resolution thereon.
____________________