[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
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]

 
             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S


Vol. 140


WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1994

No. 144--Part II


House of Representatives

     LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNITED STATES-LED FORCE IN HAITI

                              (Continued)

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I opposed the invasion of Haiti. I believe that the 
Congress should assert its constitutional responsibility and authority 
to declare war whenever the United States is in a situation where it is 
considering offensive military action. I am sorry that my President, 
this President of the United States, did not make it clear that he 
would seek that approval. I think he and every other President should, 
and is required to, under the Constitution.
  I do understand how it is in our best interests to see stability and 
progress in Haiti. Peace in our region is good for all nations. 
Democracy in Haiti and the surrounding nations not only sets a good 
example, but is what America has always been about.
  Finally, the illegal immigration from Haiti was creating problems 
which even my Republican colleagues would have to concede were 
unbearable, not only for the State of Florida but for many other 
States. As long as the political and economic instability continued in 
Haiti, more illegal immigrants would risk their lives to come to our 
shores. It is part of the national interest of the United States to 
make certain that illegal immigration is at least diminished if not 
stopped.
  Finally, I doubt our long-term mission in Haiti, if we contemplate 
being there until we have economic and political stability. I worry 
that the United States can never achieve that goal by itself. Democracy 
is really new to Haiti. They have not seen it. They have to come to 
understand democratic institutions and how they will work. It will take 
some time.
  Economic stability is an even greater challenge in a nation where the 
average annual income if $250 a year.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have criticized President Jean-
Bertrand Aristide. He is not to their liking. The fact is he received 
70 percent of the vote in a closely monitored election, the first 
democratic election in the history of Haiti. The fact is if we refuse 
to accept Aristide's leadership, we refuse to accept the verdict of 
democracy, and quite honestly, it really calls in question our 
commitment to it.
  I would like to see a different leader, but the fact is the Haitians 
have spoken through a democratic process, and we must stand by their 
choice.

                              {time}  1610

  Today the people of this Nation, through their elected 
Representatives, will make a policy choice on Haiti. There are three 
choices in the House: the Republican approach says ``immediately 
withdrawal''; one of the Democratic approaches says ``as soon as 
possible''; and the final one says ``March 1, 1995'' giving the 
President some latitude to extend it with explanations and concurrence 
by Congress.
  I am about to make my decision on those choices, but I will tell you 
there is one that is totally unacceptable. The Republican alternative 
calling for immediate withdrawal has been characterized by military 
leaders as one which would jeopardize the 20,000 men and women in 
uniform serving in Haiti today. I will not, I cannot, in good 
conscience support a Republican alternative which would endanger the 
life of one of our soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen in Haiti.
  It is far better for us to take the military advice, to make sure our 
kids and our fellow citizens are protected in Haiti, and that we have 
an orderly withdrawal at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I thought about bringing a pail full of 
water into the Chamber. If I had it with me, I would stir it up and 
splash it around and then I would stop for a few seconds.
  And you know what? After a few seconds, that pail of water would look 
just the same as it did when I first brought it in--despite all of the 
stirring and splashing.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I sadly fear that Haiti is much the same as that 
pail of water. We can send in 15,000 troops, 20,000 troops, 25,000 
troops--you pick a number. But the moment those troops leave--probably 
even before they leave--Haiti is more than likely to go right back to 
what it was always been.
  It is very sad, indeed tragic, but Haiti's problems have defied 
rational solution for two centuries.
  Throughout its 190 year long history as an independent nation, Haiti 
has never really known democracy, and it has rarely known stability.
  Even now, Haiti does not face a single problem that lends itself to 
solution by outside military intervention and occupation.
  Chronic underdevelopment and poverty.
  Ecological disintegration.
  Massive social and economic inequities.
  No judicial system.
  No police force.
  Very little economic infrastructure.
  No sustained history or experience with democratic rule.
  Madam Speaker, I say this--not to sit in judgment of the Haitian 
people, but merely to illustrate the dimensions of the problem our 
forces are now up against.
  The issue in Haiti is not a matter of restoring democracy and 
rebuilding the country--it is a matter of starting from scratch.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this century our troops occupied Haiti for 19 
long years. At that time, Haiti was practically the 49th State. But did 
anything really change? We all know the answer to that.
  Nothing has ever been settled in Haiti with any degree of finality. 
Not in the past. And it is not likely to get settled now.
  If the President honestly thinks he has discovered the solution to 
Haiti's problems after 190 years of tragedy, why does he not share that 
information with the Congress? Why does he not share that information 
with the Organization of American States?
  And, most importantly of all, why does he not seek congressional 
support and authorization for this intervention in Haiti?
  Madam Speaker, America is always most effective abroad when we are 
united at home. But the President simply has not been able to persuade 
either the Congress or the American people concerning the wisdom or 
value of this policy toward Haiti.
  Madam Speaker, I realize that Members of Congress rarely have the 
luxury of casting a comfortable vote. We usually have to decide between 
various policy alternatives that differ from each other only to the 
degree of their respective shades of ambiguity.
  That is certainly the case with Haiti today. The situation there is 
fraught with dilemmas, and we do not face an easy vote here in the 
House.
  But I have decided that one plausible course of action is clear: We 
should commence immediately and safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. 
forces from Haiti.
  That is the only policy option I can support wholeheartedly, in the 
absence of any compelling and comprehensive plan to incorporate Haiti 
into the sphere of America's vital interests.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums], the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generosity.
  First, let me say that I rise in support of the rule, and I 
appreciate the fact that the Committee on Rules saw fit to allow this 
gentleman and others to offer an alternative that will be discussed on 
the floor of these chambers momentarily.
  Let me with the remainder of my time offer this thought: During the 
course of the debate, Madam Speaker, the issue of what is and is not in 
the interest of the United States will be discussed on a repeated 
basis. What is in the national security interest of this country will 
be raised on numerous occasions during the course of this debate.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider these thoughts, some of which I 
have repeated before: I would suggest to you in no uncertain terms that 
the day the Berlin Wall crumbled down, the day that the cold war ended, 
the day that the Soviet Union dissipated, the day that the Warsaw Pact 
disappeared, all of us began to step forward into uncharted waters, 
into a period of tremendous transition, into a period of change. And 
so, Madam Speaker, there are no post-cold-war experts.
  We had brilliant Ph.D.'s and thinkers who could talk about the 
calculations of the cold war add infinitum, but there is no one human 
being on this planet, not one human being in these Chambers who is an 
expert in the post-cold-war world.
  This moment is evolving, and I would suggest to all of you that none 
of us at this moment are precise about what we believe to be in the 
national interest of this country. At a minimum it ought to be 
something open for discussion and open for debate, and all of us ought 
to be willing to take off old labels, old stripes, remove old thinking 
and old paradigms and come to this moment intellectually honest enough 
to say that is, indeed, in the national interest of this country. What 
is, indeed, Madam Speaker, in the national security interest of this 
country ought to at minimum be something that is open for debate, new 
definitions, new ideas. The world is new.
  I do not know about any of you in these Chambers, but just a few 
hours ago when President Mandela stood there to address us, my heart 
soared, because many of us in these Chambers stood arm in arm and 
fought to bring about the reality of freedom and democracy in South 
Africa. When Nelson Mandela stood there and said, ``I am an African,'' 
chills went up this gentleman's spine, as he illuminated on a 
magnificent vision of the world, expansive and brilliant, that talked 
about the fact of the oneness of our human experience and the 
interrelatedness and interdependence of all of our struggles and the 
fact that it is, indeed, in the interests of the United States that the 
world be free, be peaceful, couched in the principles of justice and 
democracy and self-determination and rule by the people and no 
violation of human rights.

  We sat here, and our hearts soared, and I thought if good enough for 
America, if good enough for South Africa, why not the people of Haiti? 
They are not on this planet?
  If we could cheer Mandela's speech of how interrelated we are, some 
came away who were prepared to set Haiti free as an island unto itself.
  I would submit to all of you here that it is, indeed, in the interest 
of the United States that democracy flourish, that freedom reign, that 
peace be the reality, and I am prepared, Madam Speaker, to challenge 
any Member in this Chamber that would, indeed, suggest that it is not 
in the interest of a great Nation, the United States, ostensibly the 
greatest democracy on the face of the Earth, that is not prepared to 
stand in defense of freedom and democracy a few miles off the shore of 
this Nation.

                              {time}  1620

  Madam Speaker, every time I turn on the television set and see black 
faces in Haiti smiling and cheering, being able to speak freely about 
the brutality and the oppression that has been visited upon them, 
freely now because America stands there holding back the forces of 
brutality and pain and oppression, my heart soars. I feel proud for a 
moment, Madam Speaker, to be on the side of justice, just as I felt 
proud with the United States when it found itself on the right side of 
history and we attempted to bring South Africa not to its knees but to 
wisdom.
  I feel good today that American people are in Haiti not by virtue of 
an invasion. Madam Speaker, all of you know I came to these Chambers in 
1971 as an advocate of peace. I have never once stood here to raise my 
voice in the name of force. With all the anger and the pain that was 
inside me when I looked at oppression in South Africa, many of you 
remember I stood here and said, ``But I do not ask you to use force, 
because I am a man of peace.''
  And if President Clinton had invaded Haiti, I would have challenged 
our President because I continue to believe that peace and nonviolence 
is a superior way of engaging in conflict resolution.
  So I am happy that our forces did not hit the beach killing Haitians 
with Haitians killing Americans. But now they are there, and it would 
seem to me that we ought to allow them to be there to create the kind 
of stability that would allow the triumph of the human spirit, that 
would allow people to rise above the pain and oppression that has been 
their reality.
  This is not some primitive country. Maybe they live in some poverty-
stricken conditions, but these are human beings with magnificent 
spirits, no less magnificent than South Africans, no less magnificent 
than Americans.
  So, Madam Speaker, as we go forward, I ask all of my colleagues let 
us not be cavalier about what is in the interest of the United States 
in the context of the post-cold war world that at a bare minimum ought 
to be subject to debate.
  I hope that at the end of this discussion America stands as cleanly 
and as firmly at the end of the debate as it did at the end of debate 
on apartheid in South Africa, we stand up for the freedom of people in 
Haiti.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Speaker, may I have the attention of my good friend from 
California? And I do mean my friend. We have not crossed intellectual 
swords in a long time. The gentleman is such a great orator I will have 
to play off some of his best lines.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the gentleman. I like to think that I think a 
little bit, too.
  Mr. DORNAN. I am not setting the gentleman up as an Irishman, the 
gentleman knows I am sincere.
  No. 1, we were on the right side of history all during the cold war. 
When I walked the streets of Haiti and saw City Soleil, as I said last 
night, I thought what I thought when I walked the streets of Saigon, 
Danang, cities all through Africa and Asia: These are God's people. 
Mothers nurse their babies, coo back at them. Fathers want to take 
their boys to do a little fishing, something I saw going down a road 
near the Pearl River in Vietnam. But I do not recall the same level of 
eloquence or passion when the subject was Nicaragua or Cambodia or Laos 
or Vietnam. Bosnia, maybe; Rwanda, yes. But these are all God's 
children, but we cannot be everywhere at once.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman, my friend.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the gentleman. I would simply like to ask my 
colleague, is he questioning this gentleman's integrity with respect to 
my feelings about democracy and freedom?
  Mr. DORNAN. Of course not. I would never accuse the gentleman of 
selective passion. Never. But do we all have different areas where we 
focus sometimes a little more love and attention and where we might be 
more willing to send American troops? You bet.
  I was activated in my Air Force captain's uniform to fly, not a 
fighter, not a bomber, but a rescue seaplane around the island of 
Hispaniola and Cuba in the summer of 1965. We lost 27 men to bring 
peace to the city of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. There 
were 172 wounded.
  Look how close that is to what happened in Somalia. There we had 30 
dead in action, 27 in 1965 in Santo Domingo, 204 wounded in Somalia, 
172 wounded in Santo Domingo. You know how long we were there? 17 
months. How long are we going to be in Haiti? God only knows.
  Do I want a precipitous withdrawal, does Henry Hyde, does Porter or 
Ben or Jerry? No, we do not want to leave tomorrow if it is going to 
cause a riot or put our men at risk. And we all know that the poorest 
of the poor--and that country is 80 percent illiterate--those most 
hungry will be the soonest to die in a conflict there. But what makes 
me so concerned is that Haiti is likely to explode in civil violence 
whenever we leave, whether now or a year from now. We should never have 
pulled the Harlan County out of that harbor on Columbus Day a year ago 
next week. Never should we have turned tail and run. But the gentleman, 
an ex-marine, had better listen to this ex-Air Force guy when I tell 
you that what makes this policy even more rotten is that the architects 
of this policy all took student deferments, some literally avoided the 
draft at every turn and some dodged the draft and had their induction 
notices politically suppressed through connections in the State of 
Arkansas. S.Sgt. Donald Holsted, with a wound in his gut, lies in 
Walbrook Hospital down in Fort Bragg right now. Has Aristide sent him 
flowers, a card of condolence? Can Holsted show something from Aristide 
to his wife and two small children? No.
  We have Americans in harm's way big time now. I will try to go down 
and have Thanksgiving with them. I will try to go down next week. Here 
is the information I want to learn--there is no time. I will put that 
in the Record.
  I will tell you this, there is no military mission, no military 
objective other than what we both share, to stop people from 
brutalizing one another. But that is a job for a police force, not the 
10th Mountain.
  I heard the term police action used to describe Korea by Harry 
Truman, I heard it from the Secretary of State and from Lyndon Johnson 
when we first went into Vietnam. This is not a police action.
  Our young men and women are wearing body armor, they are in danger. 
There are rumors that both sides want them killed. One side thinks this 
is another Somalia and a few dead Americans will cause us to pull out. 
The other side thinks dead Americans will keep us there so that our 
10th Mountain Division can become personal bodyguards for Aristide. It 
is an insecure environment.
  And defense funding--the gentleman is an expert, I am supposed to be 
an expert--where is this money coming from? We are not supposed to 
refer to the gallery, but how many people up there want to cough up 50 
bucks to buy back rusty old weapons from Haitians who have been killing 
one another for years. We may be stuck there a long time.
  My opinion changes from day to day on what I believe will be the 
level of bloodshed, but I will tell you this: Aristide better call Sgt. 
John Holsted because we do not know if his wound has changed his eating 
habits for life, or if he will only live to 60 instead of 80. A gut 
shot is a terrible thing. In the Civil War it meant certain death, no 
matter what side you were on.

  We have one man with a gut shot, and I will say what I have said 
every day here for a week, it is a miracle that no American has died 
other than two suicides. We had a suicide in Somalia, we had a shark 
death, we had a car crash, and we had a drowning in a pool in Mombasa 
on R&R. I am talking about combat deaths.
  One wounded, no deaths yet; I am praying, I am holding my breath.
  We had better defeat this rule. We had better vote for Michel-Gilman 
in this House today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Let me say as briefly as I can, with as much enthusiasm and without 
the passion that we have just been treated to, that I am moderate or 
conservative Democrat and make no apologies to anybody for it.

                              {time}  1630

  I felt that the President should not have become involved and should 
not have committed the Armed Forces of the United States in Haiti. I 
wrote him to that effect. I shared the opinion of many who were here. 
However, the President did not agree with me, and it was his right not 
to agree. We can argue this constitutional question all we want to, 
but, as my colleagues know, about Panama, and about Grenada, and about 
Lebanon, and on, and on, and on, they do not need Congress.
  Well, the fact is, my colleagues, that the Armed Forces of the United 
States are committed there, and they deserve to have the support of 
this Congress without all this bickering and whining.
  Do we want to say to those who wish us ill that those troops that are 
dug in at some place, that company commander with his lieutenants, and 
his private soldiers, and others, that at a certain time the enemy 
knows that their time runs out, pack up the stuff, put the bullets back 
in the bags, get on the bus, and get on the boat, and come home. It is 
ridiculous.
  I suggest we give the President an opportunity to work this matter 
out. I did not agree with him, but he deserves our support to try to 
bring this matter to a conclusion at the earliest possible time. He 
does not deserve, nor do our troops who are in harm's way deserve, the 
bickering of this body on this occasion. We should say to them, the 
President has made the decision; we support him. If he made the wrong 
decisions, the voters will deal with him.
  But do the best you can, Mr. President, to bring this to a conclusion 
at the quickest possible time. We support you. You are the President of 
all of us, and we support the troops. Bring them home soon, if you can.
  If that has not happened in a year or in 6 months, we revisit it, but 
not now.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the portion of the 
rule which provides a king-of-the-hill procedure in consideration of 
legislation regarding President Clinton's decision to intervene 
militarily in Haiti.
  While I do not want to delay our debate and vote on the military 
intervention, I am troubled by the self-executing nature of this rule.
  In my view, no rule should be allowed to dictate the will of the 
House. Yet the provisions in part 1 of this rule effectively negates 
the decision of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to set a nonbinding 
target date of March 1, 1995, for ending the current U.S.-led phase of 
the military occupation.
  Part 1 of this rule automatically inserts into the provision 
establishing the March 1 target date a mechanism by which the President 
can extend the target date indefinitely. If the President exercises 
this authority--and he certainly will if he wants to keep United States 
forces in Haiti past March 1--Mr. Torricelli's House Joint Resolution 
416 is converted from an attempted limitation on United States 
involvement in Haiti into an unlimited, permanent authorization for 
that involvement.
  An amendment such as this, which turns the will of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee upside down, should be decided on the House floor 
after a full and fair debate and not behind the closed doors of the 
Rules Committee.
  The king-of-the-hill procedure provided in this rule is blatantly 
unfair. This procedure is clearly designed to favor one of the three 
competing resolutions on Haiti--Mr. Torricelli's resolution--and to the 
disadvantage of the other two amendments.
  I would urge my colleagues not to be confused or misled by the 
parliamentary sleight of hand in this resolution.
  This is a debate between resolutions offering stark choices on Haiti: 
Choices between a call for immediate commencement of the withdrawal of 
United States troops from Haiti, with an enforcement mechanism, between 
such a call without an enforcement mechanism, and between these and 
what amounts to a permanent authorization for an open-ended United 
States military presence in that country.
  Only the Michel-Gilman resolution states that United States forces 
initially should not have been sent to Haiti and that their withdrawal 
should be commenced immediately. It further provides for an expedited 
congressional vote on whether to mandate the withdrawal of our troops 
if they are not out of Haiti by January 21 of next year.
  Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
prolonging the occupation of Haiti by our troops in our current policy 
toward Haiti by voting for the Michel-Gilman resolution and against the 
Dellums and Torricelli substitutes. Our troops have effectively opened 
the door in Haiti for the U.N. peacekeepers. I say, ``Let them out now. 
Come in and take the place of our Armed Forces.''
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  Mr. DERRICK. Madam Speaker, the United States is currently involved 
in a military operation in Haiti. We are there because it is in our 
national interest to maintain regional stability in our hemisphere. The 
situation in Haiti prior to the United States intervention--that of 
wide-spread human rights abuses and tens of thousands of Haitian 
citizens fleeing for United States shores--had continued for too long 
with no end in sight.
  I was pleased to see that an aggressive military invasion of Haiti 
was averted last month. For that we must give thanks for the efforts of 
President Clinton and the negotiation team led by former President 
Carter, Senator Nunn and General Powell. Their leadership in this 
crisis, along with the hard work and determination of our men and women 
in the Armed Forces, has been invaluable.
  There are many who say that what we have done in Haiti is too much, 
and we must get our troops out of there as quickly as we can. I tell 
you, though: if we pull out of Haiti too soon--leaving the country and 
its people before a stable and democratic government is in place--all 
our efforts will have been wasted. In deed, we will have made the 
situation worse.
  Without a governing structure, the civil situation would deteriorate 
to the point where any sort of order would be impossible. Even the 
abusive Cedras regime will look good compared to the situation we would 
leave behind. We have gone into Haiti to rid it of a corrupt and 
abusive military government, and we are succeeding in this mission.
  However, until they have established a strong, democratic structure 
to replace it, we must continue to present a stabilizing force.
  This morning, most of us sat in this room and listened to President 
Mandela of South Africa. He thanked us and all the American people for 
our commitment of energy and resources in the cause of democracy in 
South Africa.
  We applauded him when he told of how, for the first time in the 
history of his country, ``the people had the possibility to elect a 
government of their choice, without let or hindrance.''
  Democracy--the right to choose one's own government--has been denied 
to the people of Haiti. Should we value their future any less than that 
of the courageous leaders of the new Government of South Africa.
  If anything, Haiti's future stability is as important and 
interrelated to the United States than South Africa's. We must continue 
our strong presence in Haiti until stability and democracy are 
returned.
  I am concerned for the safety of our men and women involved in 
Operation Uphold Democracy. I am concerned for their families and all 
the people who care about them.
  And I want them to come home as quickly as possible. However, they 
have a job to do, and any arbitrary deadline for removing our troops 
from Haiti is short-sighted nit-picking of the worst kind. Our troops 
must leave when the job is finished and not before.
  The United States cannot pay lip-service to the ideals of freedom and 
democracy without the courage and the determination--and, indeed, the 
responsibility--to act in their name as well. We have done that in 
Haiti, and we must follow through with our mission there. When that 
mission is complete, then--and only then--should we bring our troops 
home.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], a senior member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I just feel put upon by this rule, because in voting 
for the rule, which is the only way we can get a debate on this issue 
and express the will of Congress, we have to accept the passage of an 
amendment that is constitutional nonsense. That is the amendment that 
says under the circumstances existing prior to concluding the Port-au-
Prince agreement, the Constitution would have required the President to 
obtain the approval of Congress before ordering United States Armed 
Forces to invade Haiti.
  Now, that just is not so. That was not the law when Reagan went into 
Grenada, it was not the law when we went into Panama, it was not the 
law in the gulf. We Republicans have always asserted the President's 
constitutional right as Commander in Chief under the Constitution to 
put the troops in, but the ultimate power, the power of the purse, 
rests with Congress. If we do not like it, we can cut that off. But to 
have to accept this misstatement of constitutional law to pass the 
resolution is wrong, and it is unfair.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It will incorporate 
into House Joint Resolution 416 a provision I authored stating the 
sense of Congress that, under the circumstances prior to the agreement 
negotiated by the negotiating team led by President Carter, the 
Constitution would have required the President to obtain the approval 
of Congress before ordering Unites States forces into Haiti to remove 
the de facto regime.
  On September 18 we had a close call. An armed invasion of Haiti was 
launched with no authority from Congress, and then fortunately 
recalled. Had the invasion continued it would have been a 
constitutional tragedy.
  It is important that Congress go on record clearly on this point: the 
invasion the administration started lacked the constitutionally 
required approval of Congress. For us now to remain silent about this 
would only encourage some future President again to ignore the 
constitutional requirement for Congress to act before the country goes 
to war.
  Let me make it clear what my provision does not do. It does not 
attempt to limit in any way the inherent authority of the President, 
the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, to respond as necessary to 
any national emergency involving an attack on or imminent danger to the 
citizens, territory, or Armed Forces of the United States.
  My provision does assert the clear constitutional authority of the 
Congress to grant its explicit prior approval before the United States 
launches a planned invasion of another country. The records of the 
Constitutional Convention show that when the drafters vested in 
Congress the power ``to declare War,'' they meant not only a formal 
declaration or war, but also the general category of decisions about 
initiating offensive military operations against another country. James 
Wilson, an author of the Constitution, put the rationale this way: ``It 
will not be in the power of a single man or a single body of men, to 
involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war 
is vested in the legislature at large.''
  The assertion of congressional authority is not some vain struggle 
for turf or prerogative with the executive branch. The requirement for 
a debate and vote in Congress is not an end in itself, but a means to a 
greater end; it provides an effective measure of the understanding and 
support of the American people for such a grave undertaking as war. The 
Founders appreciated the need for such understanding and support, and 
they saw the Congress, as the proxy of the people, as best able to make 
the decision.

  The last time our Government faced this situation was before the 
Persian Gulf war. After resisting a vote in Congress for some time, 
President Bush eventually recognized that it was necessary. The public 
debate and vote in Congress worked as the Founders intended when they 
vested the war power in Congress--increasing public understanding, 
confirming public support, and giving the President and our military 
forces the political legitimacy and moral support that was crucial to 
their success. If, on the other hand, the American people through 
Congress had registered opposition to the proposed war, the country 
would not have been put in the dreadful position of fighting a war that 
did not have support at home.
  I was pleased that President Clinton was able to achieve an agreement 
to remove Haiti's military leaders without an invasion and without 
American bloodshed. At the same time I remain deeply troubled that the 
President was willing--up until the very moment that an agreement was 
signed with the de facto authorities in Haiti--to launch an invasion 
without congressional approval.
  In the case of the Haiti crisis, there was not even a ``fig leaf'' 
claim of some emergency requiring unilateral presidential action. No 
one was claiming that we faced such a sudden threat that there was no 
time for Congress to act. And no one was claiming that there were 
American citizens in danger who needed to be rescued.
  The country would not be as divided and confused as it currently is 
about our presence in Haiti if the President had sought the 
congressional authority he needed for an invasion. A congressional 
debate and a vote would have forced the President to make a clear case 
to the American people to support his claim that serious national 
interests were at stake in the Haiti crisis. The administration would 
have been forced to provide a clear plan, to discuss the objectives for 
a military operation and eventual transfer to United Nations authority, 
in other words, to make its case.
  Passage of House Joint Resolution 416 with the ``prior 
authorization'' provision will demonstrate to future Presidents that 
this Congress was not willing to roll over when its constitutional 
prerogative on war powers was disregarded. It will encourage future 
Presidents to come to the Congress and make their case before making 
the grave decision to take the country to war. By voting for the 
provision and the resolution, we will make an unequivocal statement, 
establishing that we will follow the Constitution.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I simply respond to my dear friend from 
Colorado that I would just suggest to you that recent history shows 
that a state of war is a legal state. Congress has the only power and 
authority to declare war. But those declarations are anachronistic. 
They are not used anymore, because in Vietnam, had we declared war, 
trading with the enemy laws would have kicked in. Russia and China 
would have felt obliged to support their ally by declaring war on us, 
and that starts a very serious train of events.
  So wars are just not declared. States of belligerency, those things 
occur, police actions, but nobody declares war. So Congress is really 
out of the loop as far as a formal declaration of war is concerned.
  However, Congress controls the purse strings. In the snap of a 
finger, Congress can stop it if they want to. A President is foolish if 
he does not consult with at least the leaders. That is what his 
obligation is to do. It is one of the prudence, not of law.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Madam Speaker, I would just like to continue the 
discussion with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] on this. I think 
it is relatively clear, although its obviously not clear to all of us, 
that the history attending the adoption of this particular language in 
the Constitution suggests that it was not intended to be read narrowly, 
to deal with a mere formality, with a liberal declaration of war only, 
but rather included in its ambit those acts of this Government that 
initiated offensive military action, especially invasions from a 
standing start, as we almost had going into Haiti; as we did have going 
into the Persian Gulf. It does not merely contemplate the formal act of 
declaration. In fact, the elaboration on the word ``declare'' in the 
minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and in other attending 
documents, was that it should be read much more broadly in an offensive 
military context and in contradistinction to the powers of the Chief 
Executive to act in defense of the country.
  That is the point we are trying to make. To wait until we are left 
with only the remedy of the power of the purse--as the gentleman from 
Illinois suggests--still gives one man the power to take this country 
to war. That is not what the Founders intended.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, we are going to use up our time trying to 
get the last word.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to say if the gentleman will read the 
history of the Barbary pirates and Jefferson sending our ships over 
there, you would understand when all this started.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to my 
colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], who 
knows something about this problem firsthand.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, the past two weeks have been awfully 
expensive for the American taxpayer. First, we had Mr. Yeltsin here 
asking for trade, and we promised him aid, aid to the tune of $1 
billion. Then this administration told Russia to lower its taxes and 
cut redtape to attract business.
  Several years ago during a trade mission to the Baltics, everyone 
there told me they wanted to trade with the United States. As I 
returned home, our cargo planes were delivering humanitarian aid to 
Russia, while the Japanese were opening the largest trade and business 
fair Moscow had ever seen.
  Today we had Mr. Mandela here, and once again the American taxpayer 
got zapped. Think of what great economic progress we have made in South 
Africa.
  Several years ago the United States was doing $4 billion worth of 
trade with South Africa and the Japanese had a $1 billion market there. 
Last year Japan had a $4 billion market in that country, and we dropped 
to $1 billion.
  But do not worry, American taxpayers. President Clinton has now 
pledged $100 million of your money to South Africa.
  Last year, Mr. and Mrs. America were presented with a $2 billion 
price tag for a failed military mission in Somalia. Somalia also got a 
bargain basement humanitarian aid package of another $500 million. Here 
we are now, my colleagues, with another chance to take the American 
taxpayers to the cleaners.

                              {time}  1650

  In Haiti look what the administration has accomplished:
  In 1 short year our economic embargo has turned the poorest nation in 
this hemisphere into a basket case.
  We've destroyed every manufacturing job and, since our occupation, 
finished off any surviving Haitian or American business interest.
  We've put the entire island nation on a Clinton-style U.S. taxpayer 
financed welfare plan.
  Now, with this rule we are being asked to justify one of the greatest 
foreign policy disasters of our time.
  Madam Speaker, my constituents already pay for U.N. peacekeeping 
forces.
  Today we must not ask the American taxpayers to pay again to keep 20 
thousand troops on a misguided mission. I cannot in good conscious vote 
for or condone this folly.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], who 
has great knowledge about this subject.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Michel 
resolution to bring American troops home from Haiti.
  The vast majority of the Members of this House--both Democrats and 
Republicans--know that the United States has no genuine national 
interest at stake in Haiti. The American occupation of Haiti was the 
last stop-gap measure in a long line of nonpolicies that has proceeded 
without any semblance of rationality of strategic planning.
  Today, America's young men and women serving in Haiti are in the 
untenable position of policing a civil war, without coherent missions, 
goals or rules of engagement. As we have seen too many times in the 
past, this is a recipe for disaster. Only the professionalism of our 
forces on the ground and the good judgment they have shown, have 
allowed us to avoid tragedy thus far.
  It is the responsibility of this Congress to remember the lessons 
learned in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. We should not commit our 
troops to a military engagement that does not have the support of 
Congress or the American people. We should not put them in the middle 
of a civil war. And we should not risk their lives on a matter not 
directly related to our national security.
  We have before us today, three resolutions. The resolution in the 
dominant position under the so-called king-of-the-hill rule--or, as I 
like to call it the crime-on-the-hill rule--should be a nonstarter for 
most Members. It fails to state the fundamental principle that the 
President should have come to Congress for an authorization of the 
Haiti operation. It also relies on the President to include Congress in 
decisionmaking on this policy--something he has repeatedly failed to 
do.
  On the other hand, I commend the authors of the other two 
alternatives before us. The distinguished Republican leader, Mr. 
Michel, has offered a resolution that provides for the immediate and 
orderly withdrawal of American forces from Haiti, prohibits American 
troops from being placed under foreign commands and restores 
congressional authority and accountability.
  I would also like to commend Mr. Dellums, Murtha, Dicks, and my 
colleague from Florida, Mr. Hastings on this resolution. The 
consistency of principle on these matters is admirable. Unfortunately, 
that resolution is nonbinding, does not provide for the immediate 
departure of American forces, allows our forces to serve under foreign 
commands and does not reaffirm Congress' role in this process strongly 
enough. Some Members who support the principles of the Michel 
resolution might be tempted to also vote for the Dellums-Murtha 
resolution also.
  However, because of the way this rule has been structured, a Member 
cannot vote for the Dellums resolution without effectively voting 
against the Michel resolution.
  A member cannot vote for this resolution without removing provisions 
for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and a firm reassertion 
of congressional authority over the commitment of our troops overseas.
  There is only one way to ensure that those vital conditions are met: 
vote ``yes'' on Michel, ``no'' on Dellums-Murtha and ``no'' on 
Torricelli-Hamilton.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, it is about time that we are debating 
Haiti here in the Congress. When you consider the rule that we are 
discussing here and how we are going to debate Haiti, all I have got to 
say is, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You are gaming the 
system. You are loading the dice. Or as my friend, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Nussle], says, you are stacking the deck in favor of your 
resolution.
  Why can we not have an honest debate? Why cannot Members come to the 
floor of this House, the people's House, and debate a resolution where 
they can offer amendments, where we can change language and where the 
people's will can be discussed and the people's will can be presented 
back to the people and to the President?
  That is not what is going to happen here today. We have got a system 
that says, we are going to have three resolutions. It is not which one 
gets the most votes. It is not which one is in which place. We get to 
vote for one and, if it passes, does not mean anything. Because we are 
going to vote for two more. And if they pass, that does not make any 
difference on the second one. It is only the last one that comes here 
that passes that actually becomes the resolution, expressing the 
people's will.
  We wonder why the American people are disgusted with this institution 
when we bring rules like this to the floor and game the system.
  What we are doing is we are tying to fool the American people and 
they are not being fooled. The fact is, we ought to have an open and 
fair process here today, when we discuss this very important issue that 
the American people want discussed. And it is not open and it is not 
fair. And after 40 years of one-party control, it is no wonder the 
American people are saying goodbye.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Mink of Hawaii). The gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, we have heard a good deal as we have gone 
along. What we have is a bad rule here, but we have a necessary debate. 
We have got three choices.
  The first choice, the Michel-Gilman choice, is going to say the 
President should not have ordered the troops in. That is the sense of 
Congress. We should start an immediate withdrawal. We should have 
reports on it. We should set up a congressional commission and have 
some accountability. That is a pretty clear choice. Since we do not 
like it, we are going to control it and we are going to find out what 
happened.
  The second choice is Dellums, Murtha, Hastings, and Dicks. This is a 
sense of Congress that talks about a prompt and orderly, that is not 
quite as urgent as an immediate, withdrawal. It is a sense of Congress. 
It calls for some reporting, but it is absolutely meticulously neutral 
on the subject of whether we should or should not have put troops in 
Haiti.
  It seems to me part of our job in Congress is to stand up and make 
the tough choices. If we have got 20,000-plus troops standing down 
there where tough choices mean something to them in terms of life or 
death, seems like we ought to render a little stronger opinion than we 
have no opinion on whether they are there. I do not think much of that 
choice.
  Then the last choice is the choice that is offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton], that says what the President does is terrific. We all want 
to get behind that and say that was great policy.
  I point out that was not such great policy, because the President 
said the only thing we could do was invade. But the President was 
wrong. Former President Carter, Colin Powell, Sam Nunn came along and 
said, ``Mr. President, if you negotiate this, we do not have to go in 
there shooting.''

                              {time}  1700

  The President was wrong. It is absolutely amazing that we are being 
asked to endorse something that is blatantly wrong and has been proven 
so. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the Michel 
substitute.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 182, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 495]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--182

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Applegate
     Bentley
     Gallo
     Quillen
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  1720

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Slattery for, with Mrs. Bentley against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Mr. SKEEN and Mr. GOODLING changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BROWDER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Mink of Hawaii). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 570 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 416.

                              {time}  1722


                     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 further 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. Derrick, Chairman pro 
tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, all time for general debate pursuant to the order of the 
House of Wednesday, October 5, 1994, had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 570, there will now be a further period 
of general debate.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] will be recognized for 
1 hour and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] will be recognized 
for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  (Mr. DELLUMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his generosity in 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops, in support of our 
President, in support of Operation Uphold Democracy, and in opposition 
to a date-certain withdrawal for United States troops from Haiti.
  The United States taking a leadership role in Operation Uphold 
Democracy underscores the fact that the end of the cold war has 
resulted in a redefinition of America's security interests. No longer 
is the defeat of communism the raison d'etre of U.S. foreign policy. 
Instead, new and creative thinking must be applied to the myriad, 
multifaceted challenges that confront us in this rapidly changing 
world. As I stated in the context of the debate on South Africa the 
cold war doctrine allows the world to understand what we stand against, 
but do we stand for what is in our national interest? That is open to 
debate and exploration.
  The days of cookie-cutter foreign policy formulation are over. All of 
us in this Chamber must now meet with courage and clarity of thought 
the new challenges that are being thrust upon us in this rapidly 
changing post-cold-war world.
  In the period that Operation Uphold Democracy has been in existence, 
United States troops have managed to provide hope where there was once 
only desolation, installed restraint where brutality had long held 
sway, and conveyed to all Haitians the importance of forbearance and 
self-control during this very sensitive period of transition towards 
the restoration of democracy in Haiti.
  It is now up to the Congress to ensure that the United States stays 
the course long enough to ensure that our participation in the 
multinational force and the U.N.-led mission yields lasting results.
  I commend General Shelton and the thousands of men and women in the 
U.S. armed services currently serving with compassion and 
professionalism in Haiti. And I commend President Clinton and the many 
analysts, advisors, and practitioners throughout our Government who 
found a way to enable the United States to face this post-cold-war 
challenge.
  During the cold war, American power and global pre-eminence were 
measured in terms of our capacity to confront the then-mighty Soviet 
Union either directly or through surrogate wars in Third World nations. 
Multibillion-dollar weapons systems and the world's best trained 
fighting men and women set our Nation apart from the world's other 
military establishments. It is my hope, however, that the end of the 
cold war will heighten our awareness that America's greatness can also 
be demonstrated in ways other than we grew used to during decades of 
cold war rivalry. Our readiness to work with the world community to 
devise strategies to undergird democracy, promote individual liberty, 
and halt macabre and sustained brutalization of peoples beyond our 
shores are also worthy of our consideration and support.
  The use of U.S. troops in such actions raises many difficult, but 
important, questions:
  Do we have the means to accomplish the mission?
  Are the political, economic and humanitarian consequences of inaction 
considered unacceptable by the the United States and the international 
community?
  Are our Nation's interest in promoting democracy and economic 
stability abroad advanced in the process?
  What is the required level of consultation between the legislative 
and executive branches of our Government?
  For which types of operations is congressional authorization 
required?
  These are important questions with which we are now forced to grapple 
now that the cold war is over.
  With regard to the operations aspects of Operation Uphold Democracy, 
I must commend the flexibility that our troops have exhibited under the 
leadership of General Shelton. This has facilitated the correction of 
operational weaknesses as soon as they have become obvious and, as 
result, the operation has proceeded thus far without any major 
setbacks.
  Nonetheless, there will be moments of crisis.
  This operation is not free of danger.
  There will be casualties.
  And so, it is incumbent upon us all to prepare the American people, 
and ourselves, for these difficult moments--if moments of crisis and 
setback are not to give way to despair and defeat. The important point 
to remember, Mr. Chairman, is that Operation Uphold Democracy 
represents a new global commitment in the post-cold-war world to uphold 
and defend democracy. And this is an effort in which the United States 
of America and every person in this Chamber should be proud to be a 
part.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never heard any of my colleagues, from either 
side of the aisle, even suggest that the United States become involved 
in every or even most of the low-intensity conflict that will continue 
to emerge around the world. Nonetheless, we must be prepared to 
recognize that there will be those occasions when the suffering of 
defenseless human beings may be so grave, the repercussions of that 
crisis within our own borders so great, and our ability to make a 
difference so clear, that the use of troops in a nontraditional, post-
cold-war context may indeed be appropriate.
  For my part, I am very pleased that this intervention occurred 
permissively. I would have had great difficulty accepting an invasion 
as our only means of supporting the democratic aspirations of the 
Haitian people. Now that our troops are on the ground in Haiti, having 
entered without the use of force, we must seize the opportunity to 
ensure that our mission--to facilitate the restoration of democracy--is 
executed effectively. We must not Mr. Chairman, jeopardize the safety 
of our troops by signaling to those who do not want democracy the exact 
date by which our troops will leave--regardless of what does or does 
not develop on the ground. Instead we should do all we can to ensure 
that our mission is executed as quickly and as effectively as possible.
  Haiti does not have a long-standing history of democracy. That is a 
point that has been made repeatedly and it is true. It is also true, 
however, that Haitian people have risked life and limb over many years 
to free themselves of dictatorship via the electoral process, a goal 
they managed to achieve--against great odds--in December 1990. 
Undergirding their determination to re-enter the world community of 
democratic nations, despite years of extreme oppression, is indeed 
worthy of U.S. support.
  We must allow United States troops in Haiti to stay long enough to 
complete the task at hand, free of congressionally mandated withdrawal 
dates. I am not advocating a multiyear presence but I am urging that we 
allow our President and the U.S. troops now on the ground the time 
needed to ensure that Operation Uphold Democracy will succeed.
  This would not only in the best interest of the People of Haiti, it 
would also be in the best interest of our own country.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Torricelli 
resolution, House Joint Resolution 416. My opposition is based on two 
issues.
  The first is that if we mean to call for a withdrawal, then we should 
say so. The second is that if we mean for our troops in Haiti to remain 
under United States control then we should say so.
  Instead this resolution would in effect allow for 6,000 United States 
troops to be under U.N. control and then left down there in Haiti as 
long as the President deems it necessary--simply by his certification 
that its somehow in the national interest. We would not be guaranteed 
another vote on his decision. That is both disingenuous and 
unacceptable.
  Operational control of American troops, and thus the responsibility 
for their safety and ultimately, their lives, must remain strictly 
American, not U.N., not Haitian, not foreign. Period.
  When I pressed the author, and the Assistant Secretary of State in 
hearings, it became clear that both the intention and the effect is to 
maintain U.S. control only in the first phase of the operation, next 
week for example, but in the next phase, the so-called U.N.-led 
multinational force phase, the resolution's prohibitory language would 
not apply.
  The American people are in no mood to have the wool pulled over their 
eyes like this.
  Neither the majority of the American people, nor the majority of 
Members of Congress, approved of this operation beforehand, nor do they 
today.
  The President acknowledged as much when he stated to the American 
people that the mission would be short-lived, would not involve nation-
building or peace-keeping, and would not involve the use of United 
States troops to rebuild the Haitian economy.
  The President did not say our troops would be needlessly at risk 
serving as riot police and bodyguards.
  Clearly the American people and the Congress remain skeptical about 
the mission, its purpose, and the likelihood of a successful outcome--
successful not as defined by ``Restoring Aristide,'' but by the more 
immediate and tangible definition of the minimum loss of American 
lives.
  Given the highly controversial and uncertain path by which the 
present situation of United States troops in Haiti evolved, the 
additional uncertainty of foreign command is simply too much. Anything 
short of a solid date for ending this experiment is both meaningless 
and careless.
  There is no compelling national security case for handing over 
operational control over United States troops in Haiti. There has been 
no dialog between the administration and this body, or the American 
people, resulting in a consensus for doing so. Common sense shows there 
won't be, and clearly that is why this language is trying to cover it 
up.
  On this week's anniversary of the tragic death in Somalia of 18 U.S. 
servicemen, the wounding of 78, and the capture of another, it is 
abundantly clear that United States troops in Haiti will always be in 
imminent danger of combat and casualties.
  We owe it to our soldiers and their families to ensure that their 
safety will be the subject of focused and committed leadership, from 
the Commander in Chief through to the entire Pentagon chain of command; 
not Boutros-Boutros Ghali or some unknown general of his choosing.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings amendment.
  On this very day, on this very floor, His Excellency, President 
Nelson Mandela, spoke to us about many things. He spoke to us about the 
prison gates of Robben Island. He spoke to us about the triumph of the 
oppressed. He invoked the name of Martin Luther King, Jr., and he spoke 
to us of freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity. And finally, he 
thanked us from walking down that road with him together.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the President's determination to walk down 
the road of freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity with the people 
of Haiti.
  Before our eyes we have seen one of the coup leaders leave the 
country, we have seen the armed thugs and rapists turned in by the 
Haitian people, and we have seen the marginalization of the once-mighty 
paramilitary types who could roam the streets and act with impunity.
  Mr. Chairman, democracy is about electing a person to govern. When 
the Haitian people elected President Aristide, they demonstrated to the 
world their commitment to peace, democracy, prosperity, and 
reconciliation. We know that despite the facts, the CIA tried to 
discredit the choice of the Haitian people through false reports of 
mental illness. We know also, Mr. Chairman, the CIA reports claiming 
that President Aristide is not a man of peace are also false.
  What is true, Mr. Chairman, is that President Aristide has 
consistently demonstrated that nation-building, peace, and unity are 
his platform. President Aristide has never supported necklacing and 
during his 8 months in office there was not one single incident. 
Neither the CIA nor the State Department has been able to support any 
accusation that President Aristide advocates necklacing. So, Mr. 
Chairman, why are my colleagues on the other side still singing this 
same old song?
  The entire international community holds Nelson Mandela up as 
democracy's symbol. However, Mr. Chairman, only 6 short years ago, Mr. 
Mandela was reviled by even some people in this Chamber. Mr. Mandela 
publicly described President Aristide as a man exactly like he--a man 
of democracy doing his utmost to ensure a better life for his people. 
These two democratic leaders will meet today. These two democratic 
leaders will discuss nation-building and reconciliation. And quite 
frankly, Mr. Chairman, these two leaders represent democracy, peace, 
and goodwill.
  We all love oldies but goodies, but the record being played by the 
gridlock gang is scratched. Thank goodness Nelson Mandela helped set 
the record straight.
  Nelson Mandela stands as a beacon of hope for peace and justice 
throughout the world. He is a man of peace because he has forgiven the 
guards, the police, the military that imprisoned him. He has retained 
the Ambassador that defended the apartheid regime. He has included 
South Africans of every political party in his Cabinet. We applaud his 
courage and his ability to forgive his enemies and the enemies of 
democracy in South Africa.
  Somehow we believe antidemocratic white South Africans can be 
reformed and that democracy can take root in South Africa. In contrast, 
members of the opposition would have us write-off Haiti. They would 
have us abandon the Haitians who risked their lives to vote for 
President Aristide.
  When we listen to these people we end up on the wrong side. They were 
on the wrong side in South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Zaire, and 
Mozambique. They are on the wrong side in Haiti.

  We can actually define the new world order that is dawning before us. 
This new order must be a world of democracy, peace, and prosperity for 
all humanity.
  We must support President Clinton, our troops, and our policy to 
restore true and lasting peace in Haiti. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Hastings-Dellums-Murtha amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, if we learned anything from our experience as 
a nation in Vietnam and later Somalia, it was that while we can argue 
all day whether the President may commit troops before going to 
Congress--there are three important questions that must be answered 
before the sons and daughters of America are put in harms way:
  First, is there a specific definable national interest at stake?
  Second, can that national interest be advanced by military action--
which includes specifically when and on what terms the action will be 
concluded?
  And the third and most important lesson we learned from Vietnam, does 
the military action have the support of the American people?
  The occupation of Haiti fails on all three grounds.
  We are elected to serve the interests for our constituents and to 
support the Constitution, not a caucus, not a President, but the 
American people.
  The people of this country overwhelmingly do not want our troops in 
Haiti. The Michel-Gilman substitute ends the occupation and brings our 
troops home that is what is important, please support this amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose any attempt to set a 
specific, arbitrary date for the withdrawal of our troops now committed 
to Haiti.
  I do so as one who opposed our original policy to commit troops to 
that country. I clearly stated my opposition to our policy then, but 
made clear that should our troops ultimately be committed--I pledged my 
total support for the troops, their safety, and their mission.
  I come to this debate with some knowledge of military action, having 
served in Vietnam for over 6 years in direct contact with the enemy. I 
saw first hand the damage done when politicians make military 
decisions.
  Let us be sure we all understand what today's debate is all about. 
This debate is no longer about our policy toward Haiti as it regards 
the commitment of troops to that country. That debate ended when the 
President sent in over 20,000 troops into Haiti a couple of weeks ago. 
This debate is now 100 percent about whether or not this Congress will 
make an articulate statement that clearly supports our troops now 
committed and that acknowledges our confidence in the United States 
military commanders in Haiti to carry out their mission quickly, safely 
and in the best interests of the Nation.
  I personally have total confidence in our commanders to do the right 
thing in leading our troops in Haiti to accomplish their mission. There 
is simply no question of their professional ability, their commitment, 
or their desire to leave Haiti as soon as possible.
  Let us not make the mistakes of Vietnam here today. Don't you 
remember how the Vietnam war was micromanaged in Washington? Don't you 
remember how we tied the hands of our field commanders? Don't you 
remember how we left the troops in the field to suffer the 
psychological burden of serving their Nation in a foreign land without 
political or public support?
  Well I do remember. I remember with great pain the fact that our 
troops serving at great risk in Vietnam became political punching bags 
for those who may not have agreed with the policy of multiple 
administrations. That circumstance ultimately cost us American lives in 
Vietnam.
  Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us send a clear 
message to our troops that we have the utmost respect for their 
bravery, their sacrifices, and for their willingness to serve this 
great Nation. At the same time, let us not tie the hands of our troop 
commanders as they carry out their mission. Above all, don't set an 
artificial time certain when troops must be now removed from Haiti. The 
lives of our troops may very well depend on our military commanders' 
ability to determine when the troops can be removed safely.
  Yes, we all want to bring our troops home as soon as possible. No, we 
will not tolerate mission creep. Yes, we all want to successfully bring 
stability to Haiti and restore democracy there. But, I submit that no 
one in this body is better qualified to determine precisely the proper 
time for troop withdrawal than are our commanders in the field.
  Let us do the right thing here today--support the Murtha/Dellums/
Hastings/Dicks resolution. It is the right message, at the right time, 
and directed to the right people.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, before I begin let me be clear about one 
thing: The President of the United States has now deployed over 25,000 
of our military personnel to a duty in and around Haiti.
  Whether I agree with their assignment or not, I support our men and 
women in uniform.
  They are the best in the world and any criticism of their presence in 
Haiti is not criticism of them. But rather, a critique of the 
decisionmaking process that sent them there.


                              bad options

  Mr. Chairman, we have a bit of a mess on our hands. The resolutions 
we have before us attempts to put the best face on a series of bad 
options.
  On one hand, we are told that we cannot allow the President of the 
United States to have an open-ended authorization to keep our military 
forces on the ground in Haiti. On the other hand, we are told that 
establishing a date certain for withdrawal would be extremely dangerous 
for our personnel and diminish the chances that the President's mission 
will succeed.
  And still further, there are those of us who feel very strongly that 
our servicemen and servicewomen should never have been sent to Haiti in 
the first place.
  I count myself in this group and will vote ``no'' on the Torricelli 
resolution and give only qualified support to the Republican 
substitute. Our withdrawal from Haiti should be immediate and complete.


                          no national interest

  Let me state this clearly: President Clinton's decision to occupy 
Haiti is wrong. Of course America condemns the military coup led by 
General Cedras in 1991 and the resulting years of human rights 
violations. But when did we become the police force for the world?
  We have no direct vital national economic or strategic interest at 
stake in Haiti and yet the President is risking the unnecessary loss of 
American lives for a cause that does not enjoy the support of the 
American people.
  The President has set about restoring democracy in a land that has 
never known democracy.
  This is nation-building in the wake of failure of the Somali effort 
at a time when we have our own nation-fixing to do here at home.


            and there are dollars cost to the United States

  This military action, no matter how limited, will require a costly, 
long-term United States presence in Haiti. And tragically, I believe 
the cost will be tallied in both U.S. taxpayer dollars and in the lives 
of U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen.
  On the first count, we have already spent over $200 million in costs 
associated with the refugee and sanctions enforcement operations of the 
Coast Guard and the Navy. We are still waiting to see what the final 
pricetag will be for Operation Restore Democracy which started on 
September 19. There are preliminary estimates that this total will far 
exceed $1 billion.
  And that's not counting what the Office of Management and Budget has 
euphemistically labeled reconstruction assistance--humanitarian 
programs, tearing down and then rebuilding the Haitian military, 
reconstructing the Haitian police force. And there will be costs 
associated with building a new Haitian economy--establishing a economic 
and a physical infrastructure where it does not exist now.


                   united states casualties will come

  From where we sit today, these fiscal costs are staggering. But so 
will be the cost to our national spirit when our military men and women 
start being pawns in the coming Haitian civil war. And it will happen, 
my colleagues. We all know it.

                              {time}  1750

  Supporters of Cedras and the military junta have a clear motive to 
attack Americans so they will leave. On the other hand, supporters of 
President Aristide have been accused of plotting to attack Americans 
and blame the violence on the junta so that Americans will stay. In 
this violent equation the only losers are wearing U.S. uniforms. The 
President has pushed our military into Haiti, and those of us who 
believe it was wrong not to seek congressional approval should stand up 
now. The Congress should bring them home now. The plan offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] fails that objective. The 
Michel plan is marginally better. But under my plan I would say the 
motto should be, ``You'll be home for Christmas.'' That is when our 
people should be coming home. Under the Clinton plan, and other plans, 
it will only be in their dreams. Home for Christmas should be our goal.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the debate that has 
gone on for many hours it is difficult to express many new thoughts, so 
let me just point out with whom I agree and with whom I disagree. The 
gentlewoman who spoke before me was quite right in saying that we have 
a mess on our hands and that many of us here today find ourselves 
having been opposed to this mission in the first place, but trying to 
sort through what is best now that we have the situation on the ground, 
and like many others, including the gentlewoman and the gentleman who 
offers the resolution today, I start my analysis by asking what is in 
the best interests of our troops, what is in the best interest of the 
young men and women who our Commander in chief has sent to Haiti, but 
what I have heard disturbingly often on this floor today is, ``I 
support the troops, but.''
  ``I support the troops, but I don't want to sanction the mission,'' 
or, ``I support the troops, but I must vote for a date certain to tell 
my constituents when they are coming,'' or, ``I support the troops, but 
I have to express my opposition to this mission, and this is the way to 
express my opposition to the mission.''
  The fact is, if we support the troops, there should be no buts. Every 
military leader I have talked to, every individual experienced in 
military matters that I have talked to, including a constituent who I 
spoke to just recently who is a Marine himself, whose son was in 
Somalia, and I spoke to his son after he came home from Somalia, says 
the same thing:
  ``Don't tip your hand. Don't tell your enemy what you will or won't 
do. Let them think you will do anything. Keep them guessing.'' I was 
not even happy, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli], when the gentleman from the Defense Department spoke 
before our committee and answered questions about what they would and 
would not do. That, I thought, gave too much information away.
  The option before us that comes closest to supporting the military 
leaders on the ground is the Dellums-Murtha amendment. It requires 
careful reporting, it keeps the administration on a short leash, it 
gives us the information we need, it does not prevent us from moving to 
remove them immediately if this Congress decides that it needs to do 
it, but it does not tie the military's hands, it does support our 
troops, and I will be supporting that option in today's debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will rise informally in order 
that the House may receive a message.

                          ____________________