[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD HAITI

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 p.m. having arrived, under the 
previous order the Senate will now proceed to consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 229, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 229) regarding United States 
     policy toward Haiti.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] is 
recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am designated for the moment to manage the 
time, and I have a statement I want to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I travelled to Haiti this weekend on a 
bipartisan delegation exceedingly well-led by Senator Dodd. The trip 
helped me make some important judgments about the situation in Haiti as 
the Senate considers this resolution on the Haiti operation. During the 
visit, the danger of setting a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. 
troops was brought home to me in my discussions with our military 
commanders, our troops, business leaders, and Government officials. 
Accordingly, I am particularly pleased the pending resolution does not 
fix an end-date. General Shelton told us in no uncertain terms that 
setting a date certain at this time would jeopardize the lives of our 
troops and their mission.
  I believe the United States mission in Haiti has been very successful 
thus far, and I believe our troops, under the exceptional leadership of 
General Shelton, are doing a tremendous job. Morale was high among the 
troops and the Haitian population warmly welcomed their presence. Our 
troops have accomplished a great deal in just 2 weeks: Parliament has 
reconvened; the mayor of Port-au-Prince with whom we met was 
reinstalled this week after 3 years in hiding; the de jure government 
has regained control of TV and radio; widespread repression and 
political killings have ceased, and the paramilitary groups are being 
disarmed.
  There have been scattered incidences of violence in recent days, but 
based on what I saw and heard, I believe press coverage greatly 
exaggerates the situation giving the public the impression of 
widespread chaos and violence. As we drove through Port-au-Prince, I 
did not see looting or shooting, but rather Haitians going about their 
normal business.
  Many naysayers--eager to criticize--have begun to warn against 
mission creep. I would remind my colleagues that the goal of the U.S. 
operation is to establish a stable and secure environment for the 
return of the democratically elected Government. Disarming the 
paramilitary groups is, of course, critical for providing security for 
the transition of power and for creating an environment in which 
democracy can flourish. More importantly for the United States, we have 
a great stake in disarming the paramilitary groups to ensure the 
continued safety of our troops.
  Since our visit, there have been some new developments which bode 
well for the success of the mission. Col. Michel Francois, the Haitian 
police chief and one of the three coup leaders who must step down under 
the United States-negotiated settlement, has fled to the Dominican 
Republic and United States troops have arrested dozens of members of 
the paramilitary groups and disarmed numerous others. Moreover, the 
leader of the paramilitary group FRAPH that has been responsible for 
much of the recent violence, called for peace yesterday and endorsed 
the return of President Aristide. And, police monitors from other 
countries are arriving in Haiti this week, easing the task of the 
United States troops.
  Like many of my colleagues, I had been opposed to the use of military 
force in Haiti and so advised the President. Fortunately, an invasion 
was averted thanks to President Clinton's decision to make one last 
effort at reaching a diplomatic solution. We now have more than 20,0000 
troops on the ground, however, and our full support is key to ensuring 
both their safety and the success of the mission.
  While this issue has stirred much discussion in Congress, I hope 
today's debate will not be divisive or partisan. Division at home will 
only jeopardize the lives and safety of U.S. troops. The anti-Aristide 
forces are astute observers of Washington and they are hoping that 
opposition in Congress will force an early withdrawal of U.S. troops. 
If they believe Congress is trying to pull the plug on the mission, 
they will try to incite disorder in Haiti--perhaps by attacking some of 
our soldiers in order to force an early withdrawal. If the anti-
Aristide forces understand that the United States is committed to the 
mission and will not be frightened off by a gang of thugs, the risks to 
our troops will be enormously reduced. I would ask my colleagues, why 
should be breathe new life into the opposition movement as it is 
crumbling?
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the pending 
resolution. Incidentally, I would like to thank Senator Feingold for 
his contributions to its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand the unanimous consent 
agreement, we have 1\1/2\ hours allocated to a side. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority designee has 1\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume of that period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss again the 
issue of Haiti, and we have before us a joint resolution which has been 
worked out after considerable negotiation between both sides, and I 
wish to add my name.
  I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor of that 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this resolution outlines some of the 
concerns which we as a Congress have relative to the activities in 
Haiti and what we believe and hope the administration will do in order 
to address the issue of Haiti.
  First and foremost, it commends our troops in Haiti for the superb 
job they have done in what amounts to an extraordinary difficult, if 
not impossible, situation.
  We have put on the ground in Haiti 20,000 American soldiers, and we 
have asked them to pursue a mission for which they have not 
sufficiently been trained. Our soldiers, who are the best in the world, 
are trained to fight a designated enemy. They have not traditionally 
been trained to occupy a country and police and run that country. That 
is what we are being asked to do today in Haiti right down to the issue 
of when the electricity gets turned on, when people are told to go out 
and when they go out and how they can walk the streets. Those are the 
rules that our soldiers are being asked to enforce.
  So it is a difficult task for them, but they are doing it 
extraordinarily well, and we congratulate them in this resolution and 
appropriately so.
  The resolution also points out that it is appropriate that the 
leadership of Haiti over the last 3 years leave, that Mr. Cedras and 
his group give up power and turn the power over to the elected 
government.
  The resolution also calls for the lifting of unilateral economic 
sanctions, which only makes sense. Of course, if we are going to 
militarily occupy a country, it makes no sense that we should have 
sanctions against that country.
  Equally important, and I would read this section specifically, 
section (e) of the resolution says:

       Congress supports a prompt and orderly withdrawal of all 
     United States Armed Forces from Haiti as soon as possible.

  That is a key element of this agreement. In addition, the agreement 
calls for a full accounting of the cost of this undertaking, of the 
number of American military, and other individuals who will be involved 
on the ground there, and of the various commitments which this country 
has made in order to pursue this undertaking, including arrangements 
which were made with other nations in order to obtain the votes in the 
United Nations in order to effect the authority to pursue this policy 
in Haiti so that we will find out what the agreements were behind the 
understandings which were reached.
  Why is all this important? It is obviously important because up until 
this time, in my opinion, this administration has not defined a 
national interest which justifies us being in Haiti in the first place. 
It has not defined a national security interest and has not been able 
to define a mission which justifies the huge expenditure of cost and 
the risk to which our troops are being put.
  Therefore, this resolution is an attempt to encourage the 
administration to give us such a definition.
  I am not sure that they can, having seen the situation on the ground 
and having observed it now for a considerable amount of time. But at 
least they should attempt to do so in a manner which makes it clear to 
the American people why they are being asked and why our soldiers are 
being asked to take this risk.
  This is important because the mission appears to be evolving daily. 
In fact, it appears to be in the process of almost a minute-to-minute 
change in its definition of what is being asked to be done.
  For example, on October 2, we heard the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
on a national news show saying, ``The mission has not changed one bit. 
We have had a consistent policy.''
  I am not sure he said that with a straight face, but at least he said 
that. But then he added, ``We are not going to provide a police 
function.''
  And today we read in the Washington Post, 4 days later, a statement 
by a U.S. official:

       Clearly, the United States has been drawn into doing more 
     traditional police work than originally intended. There was a 
     real assumption the Haitians would carry out this function. 
     We were naive? I guess to some degree.

  The fact is that we are not only doing a police job down there, we 
are actually in a military occupation of the nation of Haiti, much the 
same as we militarily occupied Germany or Japan after World War II. And 
as part of that military occupation, we are, in a de facto manner, 
running the government in the day-to-day operation of that country, 
including the police function. And we are being drawn by different 
factions within the Haitian population to do things to benefit this 
faction versus that faction.
  Granted, there are a lot of black hats in Haiti who need to be dealt 
with aggressively. But there are also a lot of gray hats and, in my 
opinion, there are virtually no white hats. What we are seeing is that 
this element and that element drawing us this way and that way. One 
element wants us to disarm their enemies, another element wants us to 
disarm their enemies, and it just happens that the two elements 
conflict with each other and our soldiers are being put in the 
impossible situation of almost being asked to take weapons away from 
the people.
  And they are saying, ``If we give you our weapons, then our families 
will be at risk of mob violence,'' because that is the way this nation 
has worked in the past. They are saying, ``We do not want to put our 
families at risk.'' And if they risk mob violence, then we are putting 
our troops at risk in a domestic conflict, such as if you had a fight 
within a family. And they are not trained to do that. They are trained 
to fight an enemy, a clear, definable enemy. And in Haiti it is hard 
for them to find such an enemy or define such an enemy. So they are in 
a very, very precarious situation.
  This resolution attempts to define more clearly what their role is, 
how long they will be there, and what it is going to cost. And that is 
appropriate and important.
  And we also have to ask: Why have we risked so much in the way of 
American lives and American dollars in order to reinstitute the 
government of Mr. Aristide? Because that appears to be the underlying 
action.
  Once again a bit independent of this resolution, but I must raise 
that question, because we continue to see issues which are raised 
around the operation and the activities of this gentleman which call 
into question what his motives are and what his intentions are.
  We now find from our DEA that he may have been involved in bribery 
activity with the Columbia drug cartel. That is one representation made 
in the news media.
  Second, we find that he has refused, or his people have refused, his 
lawyers have refused to sign a status-of-force agreement, which would 
allow our troops to know a little bit better what we are doing down 
there, a traditional agreement you reach when you put troops down on 
the ground in some other country. Yet the lawyers say they will not 
sign the status-of-force agreement until they get an agreement from us 
that we will go out and protect Aristide and his people first, 
hopefully with our troops, and, secondly, disarm the Aristide opponents 
as they are picked and chosen by the Aristide faction. And thus they 
are negotiating with us for this status-of-force agreement.
  We find, in taking over this country with our troops and putting at 
risk our military people in order to put him back in power and get rid 
of this thug Cedras, that Mr. Aristide was angry with our action, angry 
with the agreement. ``Angry and disappointed'' is the term used in the 
reports by Mr. Carter, and he reflected that anger by refusing to 
acknowledge the action and thank the American people for what has been 
done for a period of time. And we find that is a major question as to 
just what this administration has been saying to Mr. Aristide we will 
do.
  In fact, it appears that, under this most recent report in the 
Washington Post yesterday by Mr. Graham, that ``U.S. officials have 
shared with Aristide's representatives a number of papers outlining 
American plans and intentions in Haiti.''
  And what I hope is that, using this resolution, the administration 
will also be inclined to share those papers and intentions with the 
Congress and with the American people, for it would be nice for us to 
know what the intentions are here.
  We know that there is a plan floating around out there somewhere that 
says we are going to get into infrastructure rebuilding, that we are 
going to maybe go as far as hire 60,000 Haitians in a make-work 
program, that we are going to rebuild the police force, rebuild the 
court system. All of this is going to be very expensive and involve a 
fair amount of American military personnel and then private support 
personnel through our AID development program. We need to know how long 
we are going to be there, how many people are going to be involved and 
how much the cost is. And that is what the goal of this resolution is.
  The purpose, therefore, of the resolution is really to get some 
definition from the administration as to what it has cost us to date, 
what the plans are for the future, and to also encourage the 
administration to move as quickly as possible to remove all American 
troops from Haiti.
  What the resolution does not do is set a specific date. And that, I 
think, is an appropriate decision. Setting a specific date, according 
to our commanders on the ground, would, in their opinion, put at risk 
our military personnel, and that is the last thing we want to do. So we 
have not asked for a specific date.
  Obviously, many of us feel that as soon as Mr. Aristide returns to 
power--and we hope that he will go back to Haiti sooner rather than 
later--that at that point we can see our troops begin to be drawn down 
and drawn down quickly. But I do not know that that is going to be the 
attitude that this administration takes.
  In fact, my sense is that the commitment that they are making is for 
a fairly long haul, with a lot of dollars and a lot of people involved; 
maybe not military people, but at some level AID-types involved.
  And so if that is their decision, if they are going to be involved 
there for a long time, if that is the intentions and plans as outlined 
and given to Mr. Aristide, then the American people need to know that.
  What this resolution essentially calls for is not a disclosure to Mr. 
Aristide what we plan to do down there, but to the American people of 
what we plan to do down there.
  So I think it is an appropriate decision to go forward with this 
resolution at this time. I think it is obviously good that it has 
received bipartisan support, and I am certainly hopeful that the 
administration will follow the terms of it and by doing that inform the 
American people more fully of what is happening in this very 
significant foreign policy area.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I hope today that we can bring to a close, at least 
temporarily, this extensive debate on Haiti. I think we have now had 
some eight different proposals that have come before this body in the 
last several months regarding Haiti and our involvement in it.
  Let me say at the outset how much I happen to support what President 
Clinton has done. I realize, Mr. President, that I may be in a minority 
in this body making that statement, but I think the facts and the 
events of the last almost 3 weeks prove that statement to be accurate.
  It is miraculous indeed--and there is no other word to use to 
describe it than miraculous--that we have not lost a single service man 
or woman in Haiti in almost 3 weeks through violence on the ground in 
Haiti. There have been, I gather, two of our men in uniform who have 
taken their own lives, but those were circumstances, obviously, that 
did not relate to their duties or presence in Haiti.
  It is, I think, evidence of the fact that the overwhelming majority 
of people in Haiti have welcomed, in fact have embraced warmly, to put 
it mildly, the presence of these United States forces. Without them I 
do not think there was much hope that we would have seen the demise and 
the disarming of the paramilitary forces that have terrorized that 
nation--not just over the past 3 years since the coup ousted the 
democratically elected President of that country but, frankly, this is 
the second and third generation of terrorists in Haiti who have 
deprived that nation of even an ounce of decency in the conduct of 
their normal daily activities.
  Just to listen to some of the stories and to now bear witness to some 
of the places where Haitians have been held and tortured is horrifying. 
These are a people who have been gripped with fear because of the 
malicious and violent conduct of a handful of people who for their own 
self-interests have decided to terrorize their people.
  I have heard it said on this floor there is no mission for the United 
States in Haiti. I could not disagree more, nor could General Shelton 
and the other senior military people who are there on the ground, going 
through the daily exercise of disarming the elements who have 
terrorized that nation. This is a country that does not exist thousands 
of miles from our shores. It is within a couple of hundred miles of our 
shores. Some 150,000 people in that nation of 7 million, over the past 
number of months, have fled Haiti seeking asylum and freedom. Many have 
gone to the Dominican Republic because that is the easiest route of 
departure, since the two countries share the island of Hispaniola. But 
we also know that some 14,000 Haitians departed in the flimsiest, 
ricketiest, if you will, of craft, jeopardizing their lives trying to 
make it to the shores of our own country in ships and boats you would 
not want to trust on the calmest of lakes in this Nation. They knew 
full well their lives were in jeopardy, but faced with a choice of 
staying where they were and the horrors they faced there, they were 
willing to take that risk of their own lives and the lives of their 
families in order to seek freedom.
  It is not an exaggeration to say that it would probably be likely, 
had action not been taken, that 200,000 to 400,000 people in that 
nation would have done what any normal-thinking person would have done 
and that is to seek freedom and asylum and to leave Haiti, given the 
repression that existed.
  Unfortunately--or fortunately--these refugees were not going to go to 
Colombia or to Venezuela or to Brazil or Spain or Cuba. They were going 
to try to come to the United States of America. And there is a 
significant cost associated with that.
  I point out, just with the refugee population that exists in 
Guantanamo, the estimates are of a price tag exceeding $200 million a 
year to handle that refugee population. If I am correct in my estimate 
that those numbers would have exploded beyond the present level over 
the next year or more, then the cost to the American taxpayer of trying 
to handle these people faced with the problems they had, the decision 
to try to remove the dreaded FRAPH and attaches and military elements 
that were engaged in this behavior was in the interests of our own 
country.
  I argue as well it was in the interest of Haiti and its neighbors, as 
reflected by the unanimous vote at the U.N. Security Council, the 
unanimous support of the Organization of American States.
  This is not the United States acting alone. At times we have done 
that in the past. We did that in Grenada. We did that in Panama. I 
stood in this very Chamber and supported the Reagan and Bush 
administrations when they took those actions, even though we acted 
alone, because I thought there was a justification. Others disagreed. I 
did not. I thought there was a good cause.
  I also happen to believe in this case there is a good cause, the 
immediate threat of a wave of humanity coming to our shores, seeking 
refuge here. And we, because of our tradition and because of our 
history, do not sit idly by while people are suffering. We try to reach 
out with a hand to make a difference. I suspect that is what we would 
continue to do.
  So, deciding to step in here to eliminate the cause for these 
thousands of people seeking a safe harbor, I think was justified.
  But on another level I think there is a justification as well. We 
just heard, a few moments ago, Nelson Mandela speak in the Chamber of 
the House of Representatives as the President of the Republic of South 
Africa. I sat in this Chamber and participated in the debates on South 
Africa. Much of the language that is today being used to describe 
President Aristide was used to describe Nelson Mandela in this very 
Chamber. Some of the same language that has been used to describe this 
democratically elected President of Haiti was used to describe Nelson 
Mandela and his efforts. Today we applaud him with a standing ovation 
in our own Chambers of Congress because of the success of democracy. We 
were ridiculed, we were criticized, we were told we were unrealistic, 
that we ought to be thinking in stark economic terms and not be overly 
concerned, to allow our economic interests to be overcome by human 
rights.
  Yet we heard Nelson Mandela in the Chamber of the House of 
Representatives, as did those who were present just a few moments ago 
in Statuary Hall, deeply thank the U.S. Congress because in his darkest 
hour a majority of the American Congress stood up and fought for the 
human rights and decency and freedom of all South Africans. That ought 
to be a badge of honor, a moment in which all of us can take collective 
pride. Of all the free nations in the world, we stood most firm in 
trying to support the freedom of all South Africans.
  Today, in a nation 200 miles from our shore, another people are 
seeking their freedom, their justice, their opportunity. I do not think 
anyone in this Chamber ought to be embarrassed, or feel somehow it is 
not a justifiable cause, for us to try to stand up for another people 
who were seeking their freedom. That more than anything else is what 
this is about.
  I fully understand there are conflicts raging all across the globe 
and in every instance you do not necessarily send military forces. We 
did not in the case of South Africa. We took strong action. And when 
the Congress of the United States speaks, people listen all over the 
globe. The moral authority and the weight of our words and our actions 
has significance. We should not underestimate that.
  My strong hope would be we would pass a resolution that would not shy 
away from fighting for democracy, fighting for those who were duly 
elected in their country, fighting for those who have been terrorized 
and worse over the last 36 months by dreaded military elements and 
their paramilitary supporters in the island nation of Haiti. In the 
next few days we will witness the return of the duly elected President 
of that country. Never before that I know of in modern history has a 
duly elected President of his country been returned to that nation when 
that President has been subjected to a coup.
  People will say we should not be engaging in unprecedented actions. 
But we have witnessed over the past several years, unprecedented 
actions. We watched the collapse of the Soviet Union. We watched a 
leader of Israel and a leader of the Arab world speak just a few weeks 
ago in the very Chamber from which Nelson Mandela spoke a few moments 
ago, a sight I do not think many of us ever thought we would see in our 
lifetime. And we heard just a few moments ago, Nelson Mandela, who 
spent 27 years in jail, incarcerated in his own nation without the 
privilege of even seeing, except on rare occasions, his own children 
and family. His photograph could not be used. Anyone who associated 
with him was a banned person.
  Yet we have witnessed through, in part, our own actions here, not 
only the liberation of that individual but democracy and freedom at 
last being given a chance in South Africa.
  I believe, while the return of President Aristide may be 
unprecedented, it is something we ought to take great pride in, take 
great pleasure in seeing occur, because in no small measure it will 
have occurred because this country stood up. In this case, military 
forces have made a difference. It is the proper exercise of the use of 
force counterbalanced with diplomacy.
  Listen to the words, if you will, of Evans Paul, the mayor of Port-
au-Prince--who has been in hiding for the last 3\1/2\ or 4 years 
because he was a marked man, marked by the very elements we are 
disarming today--as he stood on the steps of city hall in Port-au-
Prince the other day, returning to his post as duly elected mayor of 
that city. Never before, he said, in recorded history has the greatest 
power on Earth reached down to help one of the weakest nations on Earth 
to achieve democracy and freedom.
  That is not a U.S. Congressman talking. This is not a mayor in one of 
our own cities. This is the mayor of Port-au-Prince describing the 
actions of this Nation. And yet, to listen to some of the debate over 
these past several weeks, there is almost this sense that we are 
somehow doing something terribly wrong in Haiti and, yet, overwhelming 
voices are applauding our action, not only in that Nation but across 
the globe.
  Why is there this sense of shame? Why is there this sense of 
disappointment that somehow we are not doing something right, and 
because it is this President who took the action. The rest of us, 
during other crises, whatever disagreements we may have had, once the 
decision was made, we rallied behind, with rare exception, whether it 
was the Persian Gulf, Panama, Grenada, to cite most recent events where 
United States military forces have been used.
  Can we not in this Chamber today come together, whatever 
disagreements there may have been--and legitimate they were, to express 
concern about injecting U.S. forces in a hostile situation. Today, 
those forces are doing a magnificent job. We are about to see the 
unprecedented action of the return of a democratically elected 
president in that nation. Can we not applaud that now? Can we not say, 
despite our legitimate worries, our legitimate concerns, in fact it has 
worked; it is doing the job? And that this small nation, while it has 
not achieved pure democracy and is a long way from it, has one thing, 
Mr. President, it did not have 3 weeks ago? It has a chance. It has a 
chance for a better future for its Government and, more important, its 
people.
  We cannot guarantee freedom. We cannot guarantee justice. We cannot 
guarantee that there will be no violence. But we are, at least, through 
our actions, diplomatically, politically, and militarily creating the 
opportunity for that freedom, creating the opportunity for that 
justice, creating the opportunity that these people may just have a 
chance to live without the threat and fear of violence and torture and 
murder of innocent civilians that was the case in Haiti for these past 
3 years.
  Mr. President, I applaud what President Clinton has done. I think 
history will judge him well for the decision he took. It is a tough 
decision. It was a decision not without its problems and risks, and we 
all know that. But instead of now decrying that, I think we ought to 
express some support for his action and a willingness to get behind it 
and see if we cannot even make it work better.
  So, Mr. President, we will have an opportunity later this afternoon 
to vote on a resolution. It is not a resolution that, frankly, I am 
overly enthusiastic about because it was crafted to try to accommodate 
a lot of different opinions around here that existed 3 weeks ago.
  There is a new day in Haiti. The new day is upon us. Whatever the 
criticisms may have been over previous actions, as I said a moment ago, 
the policy is working, working far beyond the expectations of anyone, 
even those like myself who supported it. But we ought to get behind it 
and express our determination to do what we can to try to make it work. 
That is what we did in South Africa, and today we bore witness to the 
fruits of that effort.
  I believe just as truly, Mr. President, that in time, we will also 
look back on this decision, this decision of this President, as a 
proper, a correct, and a courageous one that has served not only our 
own interests but the interest of a people in our neighborhood, in our 
hemisphere, who are seeking freedom and justice and democracy.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just want to yield myself a minute to 
respond, and I will not respond to the entire argument set forth by the 
Senator from Connecticut. But I think one point needs to be addressed, 
and that is this attempt to wrap Mr. Aristide in the cloak of Mr. 
Mandela. I believe that to be most inappropriate.
  Nelson Mandela is truly one of the great men of this century. Mr. 
Aristide has some serious problems. By our own representations of our 
own Drug Enforcement Agency, he has been named, or alleged to have been 
named, as taking a bribe from the Colombian drug cartel. He refused to 
thank the American people for a period of 4 days for the action we took 
out of peace. That is not the sign of a great leader. He has refused to 
sign the status of force agreement, and he continues to pursue a policy 
or has pursued a policy over the years of using mob violence to 
suppress his opponents.
  To compare Mr. Mandela with Mr. Aristide is to compare George 
Washington with Huey Long. There is no comparison. I do think it is 
inappropriate to attempt to do that.
  I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I did not support the invasion and expressed that many 
times on the floor of the Senate. Nor did I support what I guess we 
could best characterize as a military occupation of Haiti. I have great 
respect for my colleague from Connecticut, but I think he has made an 
argument in many ways in his remarks that he just gave that raised the 
very central theme of our grave concern, those of us who are concerned 
in the Congress, when he compared South Africa and the human crisis 
that was occurring in South Africa to a human crisis, indeed, that is 
happening in Haiti, the two very distinct precedents and statements 
made by this Nation about how to manage this dilemma.
  Obviously, there is nobody in the Chamber that takes any heart from 
the suffering that was occurring in Haiti or any other place in our 
world, whether it is Somalia, Rwanda, or South Africa, and many other 
countries. In fact, about 75 of the 200-some-odd nations are having 
circumstances not unlike Haiti.
  It is absolutely appropriate for the Congress of the United States to 
be engaged, as we are, in the precedents that we set as a nation about 
how we are going to manage these kinds of issues. I would say that the 
precedent that we set in South Africa comes very close to the kind of 
proper exercise of power of a nation such as the United States. It was 
diplomatic, it was forceful, and it was economic. But I do not believe 
it ever crossed anyone's mind that we would park the U.S.S. Eisenhower 
off the shores of South Africa and land thousands of highly armed 
military personnel to determine the outcome of that crisis.
  Nor do I believe we should set that precedent in our own hemisphere. 
Each time there is an internal crisis that we do not agree with, the 
resolution will be the use of military armed power to resolve either 
the human crisis or the philosophical crisis. To be honest, the U.S. 
Treasury--setting aside the philosophy--the U.S. Treasury cannot nor 
should it be asked to resolve all these types of crises--economic, 
diplomatic, perseverance, pressure, regional, international--yes. Armed 
intervention where there is not an immediate national threat is the 
improper use of a highly trained, sophisticated military apparatus.
  I join my colleague from Connecticut in commending the execution. I 
know I stand with all my colleagues in support of those troops while 
they are on the ground, but I think it is entirely appropriate that we 
are engaged in the process to remove that kind of force from this 
process in the appropriate way.
  Should we set a date? I do not believe so, as yet. We are too early 
in the process, and it affects the security of our own personnel.
  Mr. President, this situation is one of decades of suspicion and 
insecurity and disagreement. This is a nation without infrastructure 
and resources and leadership. You can only conclude, therefore, that 
only a long haul can come to terms with this. There is no short-term 
solution. And now you have 20,000 military on the ground, and you can 
only be confronted with the muddling question about what happens when 
they are removed, because there is no short-term answer. And so this 
Congress, as the eloquent Senator from West Virginia has alluded to, 
and I suspect he may again, will come to terms as it must with the 
limits on its resources. It is entirely appropriate for us to do so. 
Nor should that be contrived to mean that somehow we are politicizing 
the issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added to the resolution 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], is 
recognized for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut.
  I thank him for his leadership on this resolution and this important 
subject.
  I rise today in support of the joint resolution on Haiti, of which I 
am a cosponsor, having worked on it with others, particularly with the 
leadership.
  I wish to express my appreciation to the majority and minority 
leaders and a number of other Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
worked hard to work out this bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. President, I believe that the resolution is self-explanatory. I 
do want to make a view brief observations, however, and I will also 
make a few remarks about the situation in Haiti as we find it today.
  First of all, the resolution ensures that the Congress is formally 
notified by the President of our strategic objectives, of U.S. policy, 
the military mission, and the rules of engagement.
  The resolution also ensures that we are kept informed on at least a 
monthly basis of the situation in Haiti. Many of us on the Armed 
Services Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Intelligence 
Committee will be following it, of course, on a daily basis.
  Second, the resolution may be most notable for what it does not 
include. It does not include a fixed date for the withdrawal of United 
States forces from Haiti. It also does not attempt to narrowly and 
rigidly limit the mission of our forces there. In my view this is a 
welcome result as it gives our military commanders the flexibility to 
do what they have to do in a dynamic, complex, unpredictable, and still 
very dangerous environment.
  Mr. President, as to the situation on the ground in Haiti, first and 
foremost, I commend the men and women of our Armed Forces for the skill 
and professionalism with which they are carrying out their duties. 
Their efforts in Haiti merit the support of all Americans, whether one 
supports our Government's policies relating to that unfortunate country 
or not. And I am confident the people of America in overwhelming 
proportions do support our military men and women in Haiti, and I am 
also confident that is true of an overwhelming number of Members of the 
Senate and the House.
  I encourage the administration and the leaders of these nations that 
are cooperating with us to accelerate their efforts to bring relief to 
the people of Haiti. If the lot of the Haitian people is not improved 
and improved very soon, in terms of both food and security, the mission 
of our forces will be increasingly more difficult.
  I was disappointed that the U.N. Security Council did not immediately 
lift the economic sanctions on Haiti rather than delaying the lifting 
until President Aristide returns to Haiti, despite the fact that 
President Aristide himself called for the immediate lifting of most of 
the embargo.
  Mr. President, I must say that I have been informed that our own 
organization, AID, is not moving boldly in the direction of bringing 
relief, waiting instead for the return of President Aristide. I am also 
disappointed in that. I think it is a mistake, and I think it makes our 
military mission there more difficult. I believe it is essential that 
we do what we can each and every day before October 15 and after 
October 15 to alleviate the suffering of the Haitian people. Without 
that alleviation of suffering, the troops in Haiti will be in more 
danger and their mission will be more difficult.

                          ____________________