[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]

 
    LIMITED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNITED STATES-LED FORCE IN HAITI 
                               RESOLUTION

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the 
presence of United States troops in Haiti.
  While we in Congress must recognize the President's constitutional 
position and duties as Commander in Chief, we must also not forget the 
Constitution's provisions regarding declarations of war. All of my 
colleagues, each one of us, is required by the Constitution of the 
United States to decide whether or not it is in our Nation's best 
interests to engage in hostilities. If we do declare war, it is then 
and only then that the President must fulfill his duties in prosecuting 
the authorized conflict. The vagaries and subtle distinctions of the 
modern world have blurred the lines between peace and war, but the less 
distinct the divisions become, the more crucial it is that the 
President take special care to comply with constitutional procedures 
and intentions.
  In this case, the President chose to not only ignore, but actively 
reject, his responsibility to seek congressional authorization. However 
one chooses to define ``war'' or ``peacekeeping,'' few could argue that 
when it comes to constitutional duties, the President and other 
government officials would do well to err on the side of caution. 
Instead, the Clinton administration made what I believe was a political 
decision. Put simply, they knew the American people did not support an 
invasion and that if the issue was put before the American people 
through their representatives in Congress, the operation would almost 
certainly have been voted down. So this administration chose to avoid a 
vote. While they may have avoided a short-term political embarrassment, 
I believe the American people can and will hold the Clinton 
administration responsible for their extra-constitutional actions.
  Instead of following the process outlined in the Constitution, 
President Clinton chose to deploy troops without authorization and 
without a clear mission. While I am a strong supporter of our Armed 
Forces, the best trained, best disciplined, best equipped fighting 
force the world has ever seen, I recognize that they cannot accomplish 
goals which are not made clear. They cannot perform tasks which are 
indefinite and which have no clear conclusion. As in Somalia, we have 
used troops that are trained for war as a police force to maintain an 
indefinite and unstable peace.
  President Clinton has inserted American men and women into an 
uncertain situation which might very easily deteriorate into guerilla 
violence or even open warfare. Even in the few short days that American 
troops have been in Haiti, we have seen signs that violence amongst 
Haitians and against American troops is close to boiling over. It maybe 
only a matter of time before the flag waving and high-fives turn into 
ambushes and fire-fights. I wish to echo the refrain of so many of my 
constituents: Haiti is not worth one American life. We have so little 
to gain in Haiti, and so very much to lose. I believe we must take 
action to remove American troops as soon as is tactically feasible.

  As we consider this resolution on Haiti and the various substitutes, 
I have a number of concerns. Most importantly, I fear that passage of 
any of these resolutions is an ex post facto authorization of the 
occupation of Haiti. I wish to remind my colleagues and make it clear 
to the American people that no resolution or law passed in October can 
justify improper or illegal operations from September. I find it 
hypocritical that Congress, after Americans have risked their lives in 
Haiti, would now seek to find political cover for themselves or for the 
President by implicitly agreeing to even a limited occupation of Haiti 
while at the same time expressing the sense of Congress that the 
President should have sought authorization. Unfortunately, this is 
little more than business as usual.
  Frankly, I am in disagreement with all of these resolutions, but I 
hope the President will understand that my vote and those of my 
colleagues are votes to support the Constitution and votes to bring our 
men and women home. Many have warned of mission creep in Haiti, but for 
there to be a creep, there must first be a mission. We have not given 
our troops a clear mission, we have not justified their presence, and 
we have not authorized this operation. I hope the administration will 
recognize the jeopardy faced by American men and women and the lack of 
any identifiable benefits from their presence there. I hope the 
administration will end this ill-advised operation and bring our brave 
men and women back, reuniting husbands and wives, parents and children. 
Their families deserve no less.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the 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. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the day we were treated to an 
instructive recitation of some remarks made by we Republicans during 
the Reagan and Bush administrations concerning Grenada, Panama, and the 
Gulf.
  I should like to return the favor by reading a couple of quotes from 
some very famous Democrats.
  If I may make my small contribution to the historical record, one of 
the most famous Senators of this century, who is still serving with 
great distinction in the other body, is quoted as saying,

       Certainly, the United States does not have the right under 
     international law or any other law that I know of to roam the 
     hemisphere, bringing dictators to justice or installing new 
     government by force on other nations. Surely, it is a 
     contradiction in terms and a violation of America's best 
     ideals to impose democracy by the barrel of a gun on Panama 
     or any other nation.

  Moving from the other body to this body, one of the great chairman of 
this body, still serving in this distinguished Chamber, said:

       It is patently ludicrous to think that any nation has the 
     sacred right to invade another independent nation because we 
     do not like its leader or the actions of its government.

  What a difference a change in administrations can make.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, this debate should have occurred months ago, before our 
troops were committed. We have been accused of, I have written it down, 
``whining, bickering, undercutting the President,'' simply because we 
disagree, we dissent from what has happened here.
  Do not confront us with an accomplished fact, go get U.N. approval, 
bypass, ignore Congress, and expect us to join the hallelujah chorus. 
What is done is done, but our message is, do not do it again.
  What signal do we send in foreign policy by objecting to what is 
going on? What signal did former President James Carter send when he 
went down to Haiti with two very distinguished Americans and came back 
with the message that Mr. Aristide was a man of rectitude and honor; 
when the former President, ambassador extraordinaire for our present 
President, went down and said he was ashamed of our policy? That is 
kind of a shaky signal to send to the world, as far as I am concerned.
  I do not know who we are supposed to believe.
  The focus is on Haiti tonight, but this debate is long overdue over 
the foreign policy of this administration. Yes, we Republicans 
supported Reagan and we supported Bush when Grenada was the issue, when 
Panama was the issue, and Kuwait was the issue. However, always we know 
and we affirm the fact that it is Congress who controls the purse 
strings and has the ultimate power.
  Mr. Chairman, I would think that those who have been criticizing the 
Republicans for our strident support of the President in Grenada and 
Panama and the Gulf would have a more nuanced grasp of modern history, 
because there were significant differences between Haiti and Grenada 
and Panama.
  In Grenada, there were 1,000 American citizens in a state of terror, 
600 of them medical students. There was a coup. The Prime Minister was 
murdered, Maurice Bishop. We had the Cubans building an airstrip, with 
all kinds of weapons, to permit the Soviet Union to have another 
foothold in this hemisphere. Secrecy and speed was necessary. The 
President did that. Yes, we supported him because he is the Commander 
in Chief. Contrast that with Haiti, totally dissimilar.
  Then we go to Panama. Panama has the great ditch called the canal. 
Over half of the world's shipping passes through that canal. It was at 
risk because the country was run by a wholly owned subsidiary of the 
Medellin cartel named Noriega.
  There were 35,000 Americans in a state of siege. There was one Marine 
officer killed, another officer and his wife brutalized. The Chamber of 
Deputies had cited acts of war they said we had committed against them. 
Speed, again, and secrecy was necessary.
  I might point out, talk about undercutting the President, seven 
members of this body, all from this side of the aisle, filed a bill of 
impeachment about Grenada, a bill of impeachment against the President. 
That is supporting the President, is it not?
  Then, of course, bipartisan committee of Members of this House went 
down there and came back. Michael Barnes, of all people, said as a 
member of that committee that a spirit of terror gripped everybody in 
Grenada, and they ratified what we did.
  Talk about the Gulf, the Persian Gulf, if the Iraqis had controlled 
that, the economies of the world would have been destroyed. The oil, 
most of the oil reserves in the world, are located over there. To have 
Iraqis dominate that area would have been a disaster.
  When George Bush organized 26 countries, including some Moslem 
countries, to resist the domination of the Persian Gulf, believe me, 
that was in our national interest. However, this Chamber was an aviary 
full of Democratic doves. They walked around billing and cooing. It was 
absolutely something to behold. I can only say it was marvelous.
  The current President's Chief of Staff joined in a lawsuit, talk 
about undercutting the President, how soon we forget, how soon we 
forget, joined in a lawsuit. We did have a vote, January 11, 1991. I 
have the roll call. I carry it with me in my wallet. The entire 
Democratic leadership voted against our excursion into the Persian 
Gulf, which, was to prevent a domination of the world's petroleum by 
Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, with Haiti, we have had a magical, mystical 
metamorphosis, where now people who have been quiet, placid doves have 
become screeching hawks with their talons bared. It is amazing, as I 
say, what a change in administration can do.
  What about the policy in Haiti? No congressional concurrence, we vote 
today after the fact; after the United Nations has said OK, then we, 
the potted plants, are asked to ratify an accomplished fact.
  Now, if your rationale is to establish democracy where it is lacking, 
I just suggest to you as far as Haiti is concerned, one election does 
not a democracy make.
  If we are to become the world's policeman, the world's nation 
builder, the world's dispenser of democracy, let us be consistent. Let 
us first stop deconstructing the military. We are going to need a 
bigger military if we are going to take that job on.
  In the true Wilsonian tradition of fighting to make the world safe 
for democracy, do not forget, the world is our theater. Let us plan to 
democratize Cuba. After all, it is on the way down to Haiti. Let us 
just stop off there and democratize Cuba. They are producing refugees, 
just like Haiti.
  Let us go to China, the greatest slave state in history. Instead of 
bestowing Most Favored Nation on them, let us teach them about 
democracy. Let us flood Tiananmen Square with dispensers of democracy. 
And do not forget Saudi Arabia, do not forget the Sudan. There are 55 
countries in the world who need lessons in democracy. Indeed, stop 
deconstructing the military.
  No foreign policy can succeed without the support of the American 
people. We ought to have learned that from recent times. I suggest the 
absence of public support for this policy. Instead, we have an 
eccentric, bizarre, improvised, ad hoc policy made subservient to the 
United Nations, and not to Congress. So I say, potted plants of the 
Congress, arise. Cast off your chains, and go for the Michel 
resolution, which says ``Get us out of there and get us home 
immediately.''
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the majority 
whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, it was 3 years ago last week that the 
democratically elected Government in Haiti was overthrown by a military 
coup.
  And in the past 3 years, under that military dictatorship:
  Children were executed.
  Tens of thousands of teenage girls were raped.
  And over 3,000 civilians were found murdered or mutilated.
  In a country just 600 miles from our shores:
  Last February, the military beat an old man to death--and then 
attacked mourners who attended his funeral.
  Last August, the police assassinated a priest just because he refused 
to give up his ministry.
  And in the most unconscionable act of all--earlier this year, 
military police opened fire on an orphanage--because the children were 
suspected of having pro-Aristide leanings.
  Mr. Chairman, think about the Haiti that existed just 2 weeks ago--
before our troops arrived.
  Think about the 100,000 panicked and persecuted people forced to flee 
their homes--many to our shores.
  Think about the thousands of frightened mothers--and about that 
scared and defenseless Haitian child who told one visitor, ``I don't 
care if the police kill me * * * because it will bring an end to my 
suffering.''
  Those are the people our soldiers are providing hope for in Haiti 
today.
  It is in our national interest to do so.
  It is a fundamental cornerstone of our beliefs as a great nation--
that we cannot turn our backs on such butchery.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with many of my colleagues who believe that 
Congress should have been consulted before our troops went in. But that 
is not what we are here to debate today.
  Our troops are already in the field.
  They are doing the job.
  And we need to let them know here today that America is proud of 
them, that we support them, that we stand with them, and we will let 
them complete the mission they have set out to do.
  It is a difficult mission.
  A mission not of war, but of peace.
  A mission that recalls our highest aspirations for freedom and human 
dignity.
  Our troops are in Haiti today to restore a democratically elected 
Government that is supported by 70 percent of the Haitian people.
  They have responded brilliantly to the call of duty, and they have 
been welcomed as a symbol of freedom.
  In just 2 weeks' time, they have helped curb the violence in Haiti, 
given hundreds of refugees the confidence to return home, permitted the 
Haitian Parliament to resume its work, supplied food and medicine to 
those in need, and confiscated over 4,000 weapons.
  In the past week alone: A major airport reopened. International 
police monitors continue to arrive.
  And 3 days ago, Police Chief Michel Francois the man who planned the 
original coup was forced to flee the country.
  In less than 10 days, the other two coup leaders are scheduled to 
step down.
  And in less than 2 weeks, the democratically elected President is 
scheduled to return.
  That is real progress. And that progress must continue so our troops 
can come home as soon as possible. Yet today, there are some who say 
that we should cut this mission short.
  Many of them are the same people who argued, when there was a 
Republican in the White House, that the President should be free to act 
unconstrained, who applauded every military exercise that came along, 
and who ridiculed anybody who dared question them.
  Yet today they have made an about-face that would make a drill 
sergeant proud.
  Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for partisanship.
  Now is not the time for election-year politics.
  The Senate voted 91 to 8 and the vast majority of Republicans voted 
against the approach embodied in their substitute.
  Our troops deserve to know that we are proud of them, and proud of 
the mission they have been called to serve.
  And today, we as a nation need to speak with one clear and confident 
voice: We will stand with our troops for the cause of freedom. And we 
will not leave our ideals behind. Vote no on this substitute.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], our distinguished minority 
leader.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Farr of California). The gentleman 
from Illinois is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, it should come as no surprise that I rise 
in support of the amendment I have co-sponsored with the distinguished 
ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Gilman.
  Let me get directly to the point:
  I have never felt that American troops should have been sent to 
Haiti.
  I think the best thing would be to get them out as quickly and safely 
as possible.
  Before we began debate under the rule, we had already had four full 
hours of discussion on this issue.
  Every conceivable aspect of the issue has been discussed, dissected, 
analyzed and scrutinized, so I'm not going to give a geo-political tour 
of the horizon.
  Just a few simple thoughts.
  First, it seems to me that in any credible resolution of this nature, 
we have to get on the record our belief that the administration's Haiti 
policy made no sense two months ago, makes no sense now, and cannot 
conceivably make any sense in the future.
  I have heard some supporters of the President say we should ``stand 
behind our troops.''
  I agree.
  But there is a big difference between standing behind our troops and 
hiding behind our troops to shield us from the results of an ill-
conceived policy.
  We cannot use the fact that our troops are in Haiti as retroactive 
justification for the bad policy that sent them there in the first 
place.
  For those comments I heard earlier in an emotional way likening this 
situation to the Persian Gulf resolution, that is nonsense, totally 
nonsense. There is no similarity between that instance when I admit the 
House was in its finest hour, the debate on both sides, the emotion and 
all the rest, and to have to make up your mind whether or not you were 
going to authorize the President to use force. This is not that kind of 
a situation, believe me.
  Second, we say in our resolution that the President should 
immediately commence the safe and orderly withdrawal of our forces in 
Haiti in a manner consistent with the safety of our troops.
  There is no ``date certain'' embodied in our amendment.
  I have always fought that, feeling any President ought to have the 
flexibility to move as the Commander in Chief.
  Third, if the President refuses to agree to a safe and orderly 
withdrawal as we recommend then, in January of next year, there should 
be a vote on a resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed 
Forces from Haiti no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
the resolution.
  If the Congress, after another debate, believes it to be a good move, 
at that time the resolution will pass. If the Congress feels otherwise, 
it will be defeated. Just as simple as that. The point is you revisit 
the issue, you debate it fully, and you come to a resolution on a yea 
and nay vote in this House.
  Again, there is no ``date certain'' but in January, the Congress will 
debate the issue and have a vote, which is as it should be--and should 
have been all along.
  There are other parts of our amendment dealing with UN command of our 
troops, reporting requirements, and the formation of a Congressional 
Commission on Haiti which the distinguished gentleman from New York 
pointed out so well during the course of his remarks.
  But the three points I have outlined are the essential ones.
  We are, as usual, caught in a dilemma.
  We firmly believe our troops should not be in Haiti, but now that 
they are there, we don't want to do anything that might undermine their 
morale or place them in jeopardy.
  I do not believe the three major points of our amendment will 
undermine the morale of even one soldier or Marine, and it won't place 
any of them in jeopardy.
  The fact that our troops have been carrying out their orders so well 
only makes the situation more exasperating.
  There we are, using all that dedication, training, and patriotism on 
a mission whose already ambiguous goal recedes faster and faster from 
our view with each passing day.
  The administration has never made the case of our national security 
interests in Haiti, except to offer some rhetoric about high 
principles.
  Thus far, we have been spared any major tragedy. But so long as we 
are there, the potential for such tragedy exists.
  There is no perfect solution or resolution to this sorry mess, but I 
truly believe our amendment is the best of all the proposed resolution 
on the table.
  I therefore urge a yes vote on the Gilman amendment.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished majority 
leader.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat 
the Michel substitute. And let us be very clear about what this 
substitute would do--
  For the first time in America's history, it would renounce a military 
operation that is already underway.
  For the first time in America's history, it would say to our 
courageous young troops:
  When your safety is on line--when you are laying the foundation for 
peace and democracy in America's backyard--we are going to pull the rug 
out from under you.
  Is that the message we sent to send to our brave young soldiers? That 
we will stand with them--but only when it is easy for us? That we will 
defend democracy--but only in the absence of a political opportunity?
  My colleagues, for more than 200 years, America has had a tradition 
of unity of standing behind our President in matters of the military, 
once our resources and resolve are on the line. That is what we did in 
Grenada. And Panama. And the Persian Gulf. And now is no time for a 
double standard.
  I believe the President should have come to Congress before 
committing American troops.
  But whether we agree with that choice--whether or not we agree with 
the policy itself--the decision has been made.
  Our children are there. And they are making a profound difference to 
the Haitian people.
  In a handful of days, they have dismantled military weapons. They 
have ended the reign of torture and abuse that had showered down on the 
people of Haiti. People who had clung to leaky rafts are now clinging 
to a hope that springs from their own soil.
  Maybe it is hard for some of us to appreciate what that means to the 
people of Haiti. Maybe it is hard for some of us to understand why the 
politically easy thing is not always the right thing for America
  But rest assured, when it comes to the principles that are the 
bedrock of our own constitution--when it comes to the basic rights and 
justice--yes, we are doing the right thing.
  In recent days, as Americans have disarmed Haiti's military thugs, 
crowds have surged toward our troops, to hug them and cry: ``thank 
you.''
  One young woman tried to kiss every American she saw, and shouted 
``We are free, liberty, liberty.'' Another shouted ``You have done 
God's work.'' and she was right.
  According to one Marine colonel, and I quote, the liberation ``was 
like a scene from `Gandhi' * * * It was like the yoke of oppression was 
lifted from the people * * * I've never seen anything like that in my 
life.''
  This mission is working. And if we give up, or give in, or turn back 
now, the reign of terror could return.
  I say to my colleagues that democracy and human rights are the most 
powerful ideas in human history. And they know no national boundaries.
  That is why Nelson Mandela stood in this very chamber, only a few 
short hours ago, and told us: ``As the possibility of nations to become 
islands diminishes and vanishes forever, so will it be that the 
suffering of the one shall inflict pain upon the other.''
  I am proud that, eight years ago, the United States led the world by 
enacting the toughest, strictest, sanctions on South Africa--pushing 
for the democracy and freedom that have now overtaken Apartheid.
  We stood with Nelson Mandela and the people of South Africa because 
sometimes, America has to lead, and not follow. Sometimes, we have to 
strive for a higher service. Sometimes, we have to realize that our 
best interests are our fundamental human interests.
  That is why we must fight for democracy--especially in Haiti, 
especially in our own backyard.
  I urge you--do not trade America's convictions for convenience.
  Reject this substitute--support our troops who are on the line 
tonight, and let democracy rule in our hemisphere.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, today we face a tough series of votes on 
the United States presence in Haiti.
  In deciding what to do, I have weighed the options against a three-
fold set of considerations.
  First and foremost in my mind is guaranteeing the safety of U.S. 
troops in Haiti. As the mother of two draft-age children, my heart goes 
out to other parents whose sons and daughters may be at risk. I pledge 
to do all in my power as a member of the House Armed Services Committee 
to protect your loved ones.
  A second major consideration is the appropriateness of unilateral 
U.S. military presence. I was not in favor of committing troops to 
Haiti--and the great majority of my constituents opposed it. I jointed 
117 of my colleagues in signing a resolution calling for a debate on 
our Haitian policy. I did not and do not feel that a military option 
was necessary to achieve the restoration of democracy. Rather, I would 
have tried longer to use and enforce economic sanctions. Of course, I 
am relieved that President Clinton and the delegation led by former 
President Carter reached an agreement on the peaceful departure of 
Haiti's leaders, but I would have wished that result to occur without 
the imminent arrival and then subsequent presence of U.S. Troops. In 
time, I feel the force of world moral and economic pressure would have 
won the day.
  Third, I have great sympathy for the plight of the Haitian people who 
have suffered under a brutal military regime. It is important to 
nurture democracy in our hemisphere and to oppose its overthrow. But, 
again, I believe our tools should be economic and moral--not military. 
I watched the peaceful restoration of democracy in Chile as a member of 
two international legal delegations, and know that non-military suasion 
can work.
  Applying these criteria to the votes at hand, I am supporting the 
Michel amendment because it declares that the President should not have 
ordered U.S. forces into Haiti. But it also sets a timetable for 
orderly withdrawal ``in a manner consistent with the safety of [U.S.] 
troops.'' If the President does not withdraw the troops by January 3, 
1995, Congress will then vote on withdrawal. This procedure offers 
Congress the chance to reconsider should we be confronted by changed 
circumstances. To me, the Michel amendment is consistent with sound 
policy.
  I plan to oppose the Dellums-Murtha Amendment because it does not set 
a deadline for withdrawal and draws no conclusions about U.S. military 
presence in Haiti. It is tough to oppose my Armed Serves Committee 
chairman, Mr. Dellums, a man of high moral principle, and it is also 
difficult to oppose the able Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
chairman, Mr. Murtha, but I feel I must.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier today South African President Nelson Mandela 
made an extraordinary address to a joint session of Congress. He 
personifies his country's painful transition to democracy--a transition 
aided by the moral and economic force of the U.S. and many other 
outraged nations--but achieved without the presence on South African 
soil of U.S. troops. The lesson is instructive, and I wish we could 
have applied it to a desperately poor but hopeful neighbor named Haiti.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member supported the Michel Gilman 
amendment which expressed the view that Congress supports a prompt and 
orderly withdrawal of all United States Forces from Haiti as soon as 
possible. My colleagues remember when you vote that the Torricelli 
amendment is a retroactive authorization of an ill-advised incursion 
into Haiti to reinstall a President who will embarrass the United 
States. It will surely result in casualties to our forces.
  The Dellums amendment is itself something of a weaker authorization 
of the Clinton administration's ill-advised incursion into Haiti for it 
expresses the non-binding sense of Congress language that our forces 
should be withdrawn ``as soon as possible.''
  Yet in that same section the Dellums amendment seemingly offers 
support for the use of troops in Haiti for the objectives cited by the 
Clinton administration. The Dellums amendment also permits the 
administration to proceed with its plan to put 2,000 to 3,000 U.S. 
troops under United Nations command.
  The Torricelli amendment authorization is set to expire on March 1, 
1995 with a presidential waiver.
  Setting a date certain for withdrawal potentially sets in motion a 
whole series of undesirable events. The withdrawal date becomes a 
timetable that each faction in Haiti will seek to exploit. Both 
supporters and opponents of Aristide will tailor provocations to either 
speed or delay U.S. departure, or harm our forces when we are least 
likely to retaliate. The unintended consequence is that the date 
certain--not the safety of the troops--becomes the driving 
consideration.
  All our military commanders have argued against setting a date 
certain. Although it is clear the military strongly opposed the Haiti 
operation, they also have expressed the view that setting a date 
certain would create potentially serious hazards.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman states it is this body's 
responsibility to authorize the use of our armed forces in Haiti. 
Indeed, the President has acted without the support of the Congress or 
the American people. But the Congress has a higher duty and that is to 
serve as a check on the President when he is wrong--to say ``No, bring 
the troops home.'' Vote against the Torricelli amendment.
  Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the authorization 
of the presence of U.S. military forces in Haiti and in support of the 
Michel substitute, calling on the President to commence the complete 
and orderly withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Haiti as soon as possible.
  Since President Clinton's speech to the Nation outlining the reasons 
for his decision to intervene in Haiti, I have received more than 200 
letters and phone calls from my constituents, indicating overwhelming 
opposition to the U.S. mission in Haiti. By more than 10 to 1, the 
residents of one of our Nation's most highly educated congressional 
districts find no rationale for the President's suggestion that Haiti 
poses a national security threat to the United States.
  I agree with my constituents. The notion that the U.S. has a national 
security interest in Haiti strains credibility. Nor am I convinced that 
restoration of Haiti's legitimate government, even if it results in the 
quick revival of Haiti's economy to its already abysmal pre-coup state, 
will stem the tide of boat people fleeing to our shores.
  While I was relieved by the Carter Agreement allowing for the 
peaceful entry of U.S. Forces into Haiti, it is ironic that the accord, 
by allowing for a continued role for the Haitian military in running 
the country, actually makes it more difficult to achieve the mission's 
objectives. Moreover, now that the U.S. operation in Haiti seems to be 
moving away from its agreement to coordinate its actions with the 
Haitian military and police, our troops are vulnerable to attacks by 
disgruntled soldiers and attaches. Our troops also incur the risk of 
possible attack from militant Aristide supporters and of being caught 
in the crossfire of intra-Haitian violence.
  The Michel resolution expresses the sense of Congress that U.S. 
Forces should not have been sent to occupy Haiti and calls for 
commencement of the immediate withdrawal of those forces as soon as 
possible, to be replaced by a multinational peacekeeping force. I urge 
Members to join me in support of the Michel resolution.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Torricelli-
Hamilton substitute and in support of the Michel-Gilman substitute to 
withdraw our troops from Haiti now. The President failed to listen to 
the American people when he sent our troops to Haiti. He must listen to 
our voices now.
  We have no clear military objectives in Haiti. Our troops should 
never have stepped on the beaches of Haiti in the first place. What are 
we doing policing another Nation when we don't have enough manpower and 
resources to police our own country, or to control our borders?
  I fail to see any compelling reason why American Military Forces are 
being used to police a country which is of no strategic interest to the 
U.S. or threat to U.S. security. We must act to rectify the President's 
military blunder before we lose American lives.
  The American Forces in Haiti are serving as pawns in the President's 
game of international credibility. Foreign policy decisions must be 
made on the basis of national interests and security, not on personal 
image. There is absolutely no excuse for putting American lives at risk 
in an effort to save the Clinton Administration from international 
embarrassment. The President should not use troops as a substitute for 
sound foreign policy.
  While I support the restoration of democracy in Haiti, that does not 
necessarily mean the restoration of Jean Bertrand Aristide to power. 
Aristide is not an ally of the U.S. He has long expressed Anti-American 
sentiment. it is an outrage that the lives of our military forces be 
jeopardized in an effort to restore Aristide to power.
  Our troops are the best trained and most respected military force in 
the world. It is a mockery that their indispensable resources are 
wasted in Haiti. There exists no clear military objective in Haiti. The 
American people know it and Congress knows it. Let's do the right thing 
and bring our troops home now.
  We must act now before the situation in Haiti becomes catastrophic 
and American lives are lost. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Michel-Gilman substitute. If you oppose the occupation of 
Haiti, the only way to express your opposition is to support the 
Michel-Gilman substitute. No other resolution before you today 
expressly opposes the Occupation of Haiti--stand up and be counted as 
opposed to President Clinton's occupation of Haiti. Vote for the 
Michel-Gilman substitute and against the Torricelli-Hamilton 
substitute.

                              {time}  2120

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 225, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 497]

                               AYES--205

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

                               NOES--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     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
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Barrett (NE)
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Applegate
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Mfume
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2143

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, due to the official state visit of South 
African President Nelson Mandela, I was unavoidably detained during the 
last two hours.
  Specifically, I was unable to record my presence for rollcall vote 
No. 496, a quorum call, and rollcall vote No. 497, the Gilman 
substitute to House Joint Resolution 416.
  Mr. Chairman, let the Record show that I would have voted ``no'' on 
rollcall vote No. 497, and I ask unanimous consent that this statement 
be placed in the Congressional Record just after the vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. McDermott). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 2, printed in House Report 103-830.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. dellums

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Dellums: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES ARMED 
                   FORCES OPERATIONS IN HAITI.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (a) the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in 
     Haiti who are performing with professional excellence and 
     dedicated patriotism are to be commended;
       (b) the President should have sought and welcomed 
     Congressional approval before deploying United States Armed 
     Forces to Haiti;
       (c) the departure from power of the de facto authorities in 
     Haiti, and Haitian efforts to achieve national 
     reconciliation, democracy and the rule of law are in the best 
     interests of the Haitian people:
       (d) the President's lifting of the unilateral economic 
     sanctions on Haiti, and his efforts to bring about the 
     lifting of economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations 
     are appropriate; and
       (e) Congress supports a prompt and orderly withdrawal of 
     all United States Armed Forces from Haiti as soon as 
     possible.

     SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY 
                   OBJECTIVES.

       The President shall prepare and submit to the President Pro 
     Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives (hereafter, ``Congress'') not later than 
     seven days after enactment of this resolution a statement of 
     the national security objectives to be achieved by Operation 
     Uphold Democracy, and a detailed description of United States 
     policy, the military mission and the general rules of 
     engagement under which operations of United States Armed 
     Forces are conducted in and around Haiti, including the role 
     of United States Armed Forces regarding Haitian on Haitian 
     violence, and efforts to disarm Haitian military or police 
     forces, or civilians. Changes or modifications to such 
     objectives, policy, military mission, or general rules of 
     engagement shall be submitted to Congress within forty-eight 
     hours of approval.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON THE SITUATION IN HAITI.

       Not later than November 1, 1994, and monthly thereafter 
     until the cessation of Operation Uphold Democracy, the 
     President shall submit a report to Congress on the situation 
     in Haiti, including:
       (a) a listing of the units of the United States Armed 
     Forces and of the police and military units of other nations 
     participating in operations in and around Haiti;
       (b) the estimated duration of Operation Uphold Democracy 
     and progress toward the withdrawal of all United States Armed 
     Forces from Haiti consistent with the goal of section 1(c) of 
     this resolution;
       (c) armed incidents or the use of force in or around Haiti 
     involving United States Armed Forces or Coast Guard personnel 
     in the time period covered by the report;
       (d) the estimated cumulative incremental cost of all U.S. 
     activities subsequent to September 30, 1993 in and around 
     Haiti, including but not limited to:
       (1) the cost of all deployments of United States Armed 
     Forces and Coast Guard personnel, training, exercises, 
     mobilization, and preparation activities, including the 
     preparation of police and military units of the other nations 
     of the multinational force involved in enforcement of 
     sanctions, limits on migration, establishment and maintenance 
     of migrant facilities at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and 
     all other activities relating to operations in and around 
     Haiti; and
       (2) the costs of all other activities relating to United 
     States policy toward Haiti, including humanitarian 
     assistance, reconstruction, aid and other financial 
     assistance, and all other costs to the United States 
     Government;
       (e) a detailed accounting of the source of funds obligated 
     or expended to meet the costs described in subparagraph (d), 
     including:
       (1) in the case of funds expended from the Department of 
     Defense budget, a breakdown by military service or defense 
     agency, line item and program, and
       (2) in the case of funds expended from the budgets of 
     departments and agencies other than the Department of 
     Defense, by department or agency and program;
       (f) the Administration plan for financing the costs of the 
     operations and the impact on readiness without supplemental 
     funding;
       (g) a description of the situation in Haiti, including:
       (1) the security situation;
       (2) the progress made in transferring the functions of 
     government to the democratically elected government of Haiti; 
     and
       (3) progress toward holding free and fair parliamentary 
     elections.
       (h) a description of issues relating to the United Nations 
     Mission in Haiti (UNMIH), including:
       (1) the preparedness of the United Nations Mission in Haiti 
     (UNMIH) to deploy to Haiti to assume its functions;
       (2) troop commitments by other nations to UNMIH;
       (3) the anticipated cost to the United States of 
     participation in UNMIH, including payments to the United 
     Nations and financial, material and other assistance to 
     UNMIH;
       (4) proposed or actual participation of United States Armed 
     Forces in UNMIH;
       (5) proposed command arrangements for UNMIH, including 
     proposed or actual placement of United States Armed Forces 
     under foreign command; and
       (6) the anticipated duration of UNMIH.

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

       Not later than January 1, 1995, the Secretary of State 
     shall report to Congress on the participation or involvement 
     of any member of the de jure or de facto Haitian government 
     in violations of internationally-recognized human rights from 
     December 15, 1990 to December 15, 1994.

     SEC. 5. REPORT ON U.S. AGREEMENTS.

       Not later than November 15, 1994, the Secretary of State 
     shall provide a comprehensive report to Congress on all 
     agreements the United States has entered into with other 
     nations, including any assistance pledged or provided, in 
     connection with United States efforts in Haiti. Such report 
     shall also include information on any agreements or 
     commitments relating to United Nations Security Council 
     actions concerning Haiti since 1992.

     SEC. 6. TRANSITION TO UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN HAITI.

       Nothing in this resolution should be construed or 
     interpreted to constitute Congressional approval or 
     disapproval of the participation of United States Armed 
     Forces in the United Nations Mission in Haiti.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore Pursuant to the rule, the gentlemen from 
California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us has been designated as 
the Dellums-Murtha-Dixon-Hastings amendment. That is simply because of 
the respect for seniority. But all of these Members have worked very 
diligently to bring this amendment forward. One of them is my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], a 
freshman Member of the Congress, who, by virtue of his diligence, his 
very hard work, has assisted in bringing this amendment to this 
Chamber.
  With those remarks, I would respectfully and honorably yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services for yielding this time to me.
  I further thank Chairman Murtha and Congressman Dicks for 
participating in cosponsoring this substitute to House Joint Resolution 
416.
  You know, ladies and gentlemen, when I came to this institution, I 
did not know that I would have the privileges that I have had in 
working with the people of this institution. On both sides of the 
aisle, men and women have been diligent about the business of the 
United States of America.
  Working with this particular resolution gave me the very first time 
to work with the leadership of the Democratic Party, and that includes 
the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, and all of their 
staffs in putting together a substantial portion of the business in 
dealing with Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering, along with Chairman Dellums, Chairman 
Murtha and Congressman Dicks, a substitute to House Joint Resolution 
416. Our substitute does not set a date by which United States forces 
msut exit Haiti, but does state that the President should have 
consulted Congress prior to our intervention. It is identical to 
legislation just passed in the Senate 91-8.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this substitute not because I am a war-mongerer 
who places the interests of other countries before the safety of our 
own children. I offer this amendment because I am a supporter of 
Democracy, a humanitarian, a resident of South Florida, and a believer 
in the ability of our own military commanders.
  I have said from day one that if Haiti is not hospitable to its own 
people those same people will flock to South Florida, an area whose 
emergency health and human services budgets have already splintered 
from the weight of illegal immigration. If my constituents tell me that 
they cannot handle another wave of immigrants at this time, then I will 
support any plan to keep those immigrants out of South Florida. And if 
that plan includes invading Haiti to remove the illegal military 
occupation whose minions were terrorizing the populace, and assisting 
in the return of the democratically-elected president, then I will 
support the invasion.
  Many of my colleagues in this body have criticized President Clinton 
for sending troops to Haiti. Some argue that it is not our problem to 
solve, while others are infuriated that the President did not seek 
prior congressional authorization for the invasion. I found it 
fascinating that many Members who opposed this limited authorization 
supported, during the 101st Congress, sending $20 million to Haiti. In 
the report to H.R. 4636 many of these same members said: This aid will 
send a signal that the United States supports the effort to establish 
civilian authority over the military and encourages further movement 
toward democratic government. The $20 million authorized in this 
legislation for Haiti is an appropriate indication of the United States 
commitment to civilian, democratic rule in that country.

  There are those who will oppose our current policy because they 
loathe the person who is directing it. But some are truly opposed to 
our involvement in a situation which does not warrant our action. To 
refute this statement one must ask, for what reasons has the United 
States intervened in foreign crises?
  The United States has, since the inception of the Union, used our 
armed forces abroad 234 times in situations of conflict or potential 
conflict. Our justification was that our national existence was 
threatened; specific treaty requirements were abrogated; freedom of the 
seas was threatened; we opposed aggression by one state against 
another; we were protecting U.S. citizens abroad; countering terrorism; 
protecting the sanctity of the Western Hemisphere from outside powers; 
lending support to our allies in trouble; and certain situations which 
require intervention for humanitarian reasons.
  So what are our interests in Haiti and do they fit into the pro-
involvement puzzle? The people of Haiti elected a President, Jean-
Bertrand Aristide. That President was overthrown by the head of the 
military, Raoul Cedras. Aristide and Cedras signed an accord, the 
Governor's Island Accord, to facilitate the return of the President. 
That accord was virtually ignored by the Haitian military leaders for 
almost 2 years until, virtually days before an invasion by the United 
States, President Clinton dispatched to Haiti a delegation led by 
former President Jimmy Carter. President Carter worked out an agreement 
with the acting President of Haiti which set a deadline for the 
military leaders to retire and the democratically-elected president 
Jean-Bertrand Aristide to return to Haiti. Our forces are now in Haiti 
assisting with this transition.

  By virtue of the fact that there was a coup by the military which 
overthrew a democratically-elected president, U.S. intervention is 
justifiable. Couple this coup with a humanitarian tragedy, food and 
energy shortages, regular politically-motivated rapes against Aristide 
supporters and their family members, and an unmanageable tide of 
refugees to our shores. Each of these factors alone may justify our 
intervention. All of these factors combined demand it.
  Why allow the President and the military commanders to decide when 
the troops should return? Because I believe in the judgment of our 
military commanders. Only last week General Shalikashvili, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff said,

       For the operation to succeed * * * with minimum risk to 
     U.S. personnel, our military forces need to proceed with 
     achieving objectives, not meeting fixed deadlines * * * The 
     bottom line is that the dynamic created by a mandated date 
     withdrawal could make the situation more dangerous to our 
     troops.

  Do not forget why we are voting today. Do not think that setting an 
early withdrawal date will show the voters that you oppose our 
intervention in Haiti. That point is moot. This vote is about whether 
or not we have enough faith in their abilities to let them do their job 
without our interference.
  One of the more outrageous sights that I can remember is seeing 
United States armed forces land on the beaches during the Somalia 
intervention and being greeted by American reporters. We were the 
laughing-stock of the world. Whoever heard of any army announcing their 
arrival date?

  Well, as far as I am concerned, House Joint Resolution 416 is equally 
ridiculous. Not only did President Clinton practically send to Haiti a 
press release announcing our arrival, we are now about to tell them 
when we plan to leave. What kind of military are we operating?
  This is not about Members of Congress having a say in foreign policy 
operations. We are not military strategists. We are politicians. And we 
should leave the planning to those who know how to do it.
  If the military commanders say that announcing an exit date will 
endanger our troops then we should listen to them. They are the 
experts. We are perhaps experts in running political campaigns, 
analyzing legislation, and setting a national agenda. But we are not 
military planners. What we are is the laughing-stock of the world for 
ordering our military into a situation and then tying their hands so 
they cannot accomplish the goals that we have set for them.
  If we cut and run before we have accomplished our goals we will have 
lost as much as the people of Haiti. We will have lost our credibility 
as a superpower, we will have lost the ability to tell other countries 
how they ought run their country--which we do all of the time as 
evidenced by the annual China-MFN vote and which we did for years to 
the former-communist countries, we will have lost the ability to call 
ourselves humanitarians, and we will have lost the ability to intervene 
in any conflict. For even if we say we will take action, who will ever 
believe us again?
  So please show your support for a strong United States and your 
confidence in the U.S. Armed Forces by supporting the Dellums, Murtha, 
Hastings, Dicks substitute.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, this debate, eloquent as it has been, is 
absolutely useless. The White House is laughing at us, is scoffing at 
us, is ridiculing the whole idea of allowing the Congress to even talk 
about the conduct of foreign policy, just as it was on September 18, as 
we, many of us, were preparing to come back to the Congress on that 
Sunday for the new week of deliberations so that we could have an 
opportunity to debate the question of Haiti. The war planes were 
already on the way to Haiti.
  What does that mean? That means that the President, knowing full well 
that for 2 weeks we have been haranguing to be given an opportunity to 
debate this issue, nevertheless sent the war planes toward Haiti 
without waiting to talk to the Congress, and then he ordered them back 
because of the Carter, Nunn, and Powell mission, but too late for the 
Congress to have anything to say about the issue at all.
  My people in central Pennsylvania, like most of the districts in all 
of the country, did not see and will not see a national security issue 
in the question of Haiti. Our people do not determine that there is a 
national security issue on the question of Haiti. Human rights 
violations, horrible as they are, remediable as they must be, are not 
in the eyes of our people, and truly so, a national security issue. Nor 
is the restoration of democracy per se a question already determined to 
be a matter of national security.
  So Haiti then becomes an isolated issue, fomented at the White House, 
supported by many of our citizens in different capacities, but does not 
go to the core of American public opinion or sentiment as to whether 
American troops should be sent to such a place for such limited duties 
and such indescribable missions as have been foisted upon them.
  So we now have to vote. How should we vote?
  I am tempted to support the Dellums, Murtha, X, Y, and Z amendment. I 
am tempted to do so because that is the only ballgame, and even though 
there is no language in here that would prohibit the placing of 
American troops under foreign domination or under international 
control, which worries me a little bit, outside of that particular 
portion that is lacking in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, this is 
perhaps the best way to approach this issue that has been thrust upon 
us.
  I hope that if we do support it, and I believe I am going to support 
the Dellums amendment, and it succeeds, that this will be a precedent 
for the White House no longer to laugh at us, not to scoff at us, but 
to talk with us before emerging and doing such an excursion of battle.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may within consume 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  (Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Dellums 
amendment. I support the strong stance President Clinton has taken with 
the illegal military rulers of Haiti. President Clinton and President 
Jimmy Carter, Senator Nunn and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Colin Powell must be commended, not pilloried, for doing what is 
right rather than what is politically popular.
  That said, our troops should certainly be brought home as soon as it 
is possible to do so. But only when it is possible to do so without 
jeopardizing the mission! That is why I urge support for the Dellum-
Murtha-Hastings-Dicks substitute to H.J. Res. 416. The Dellums 
substitute directs the President to clearly define our mission but does 
not impose a potentially destructive time limit.
  Imposing a drop-dead date on this administration is ill-advised. Why 
pretend that we can predict the future when we are involved in a 
extremely unpredictable situation? Rarely in our long history of 
intervention in the Americans have we imposed an artificial deadline. 
Neither Presidents Coolidge, Hoover nor Harding operated under a drop-
dead date during our first occupation of Haiti. In Nicaragua, in Panama 
and the Dominican Republic--no date certain. The list goes on. Even in 
Vietnam where more Americans died during the Nixon administration than 
during the Johnson and Kennedy administrations combined, there was no 
such mandate.
  After 14 months in Somalia, after saving over 400,000 lives there, I 
strongly opposed a date-certain. In Rwanda, where we had 4,500 troops 
for approximately 2 months, there were thankfully no casualties, and 
also no date-certain.
  We should not tie the hands of the those in charge of this operation 
to score political points. Ill-conceived attempts by some Members to 
pull us out of Haiti immediately are not in the best interests of 
anyone but those Members themselves. An expiration date brings our 
commitment into question and is therefore dangerous to our troops and 
to our goals for democracy in Haiti.
  The Dellums substitute responds to the concerns of Congress, and the 
American people. We need to understand our mission in Haiti and we want 
reassurances that this is not a long-term commitment. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Dellums-Hastings-Murtha-Dick substitute so we 
can get the reports, monitor the situation, evaluate our presence 
there, and bring our troops home as soon as possible without 
jeopardizing our mission. After all, it is a mission to which our 
troops, and we as a country, have committed.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Dellums 
amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
  (Ms. McKINNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I 
yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], one of the foremost shapers of the amendment 
before the body at this time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple points. I just 
came back from Haiti, and I feel very strongly about a number of 
things.
  One is we have troops on the ground and we must support them. Those 
troops are doing a magnificent job. Things are getting better. The new 
media has emphasized isolated incidents of violence going on in Haiti, 
which has lead some to believe the place is in disarray. This is not an 
accurate picture.
  The Parliament is back, the lights are turned on, they are even 
painting the curbs. The people are welcoming us with open arms. This is 
different than Somalia. In Somalia you had factions which were well 
armed with a wide variety of military equipment. There were 50 thousand 
troops, in various clans and we got caught in between.
  In Haiti you have a situation where people want us to restore order, 
and if we go too far with some of the things that we try to do here, we 
could disrupt the ability of our military to carry out its mission.
  I remember standing here and listening to the debate on Kuwait, and I 
remember they said that this was one of the finest hours of the House. 
There was no rancor, there were only people in this House talking about 
the pros can cons of going to war and the possibility of putting 
Americans in harm's way.
  They say that Saddam Hussein listened to part of that debate. And 
even though there were disagreements, there was no question at the end 
of the debate were that America was united in its resolve to protect 
its national interests.
  I believe we must present a unified front. In Baghdad, in the Middle 
East, in North Korea, they listen to what we say, and we should be 
united.
  This resolution sets the stage. This resolution, passed by the other 
body, 91 to 8 was sponsored by the majority leader, Senator Mitchell 
and the minority leader Senator Dole, as well as by Senator McCain, and 
a number of other Senators. It is a bipartisan resolution. I feel this 
is a truly bipartisan resolution, a resolution, that sets the stage for 
getting our troops out as quickly as possible.
  We will have one-third of our troops out by the end of the month. We 
were at 21,000, we will be at around 15,000 by October 31. We will not 
leave one troop there any longer than necessary. And they will be under 
American, U.S. command, there is no question about it, the whole time 
they are in Haiti.

  I would hope that this body would send a clear signal to the people 
around the world that we are united when our troops are in the field, 
that the Congress is united behind the troops in the field. We are 
sending a signal to the American people, the people that are home 
listening to this debate, the people whose families and sons and 
daughters are in Haiti, that we support those troops in the field.
  Yes, we want them out as soon as possible. We want the President to 
come to us beforehand. But they are there, and this joint resolution is 
the only resolution that can be signed into law. Anything else that 
passes would not be signed into law. So we have a joint resolution that 
has passed the Senate, an identical resolution will pass the house 
tonight, and we will have a law that makes clear the guidelines, in a 
united resolution which says get our troops out as quickly as you can, 
but we support those troops who are out in the field in harm's way.
  So I would urge everyone in this House to support the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings-Dicks resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the original 
Torricelli resolution and in support of the pending Dellums-Murtha 
substitute to authorize United States forces in Haiti. The original 
resolution would provide a retroactive congressional authorization for 
the unilateral decision of the President to deploy American forces in 
Haiti, thus giving him political cover for any mishaps.
  This resolution also does not contain any means to force the 
President to withdrawal from Haiti.
  Finally, it speaks of a transition to a United Nations-led force, 
which will contain up to 3,000 American troops. It is not clear whether 
or not this authorizes American troops to serve under foreign command 
or rather authorizes the President to keep an American force in Haiti 
for indefinite duration, both prospects that I strongly oppose.
  As far as I am concerned, American troops have no business in Haiti. 
I do not understand how Haiti ever posed a threat to United States 
national interests. As current events are demonstrating, our forces in 
Haiti are facing a deeper, Somalia-like quagmire each day they remain.
  Intervening was the easy part, it is getting out that will be 
difficult.
  There is every indication that American troops will have to remain in 
Haiti for years to come, tying up resources that could be much more 
effectively used elsewhere. I am disturbed to hear reports that some 
Navy Reserve units have run out of money for training, yet we can spend 
over a billion dollars on a dubious operation in Haiti. Quite simply, 
Haiti is not worth putting thousands of American lives at risk and the 
billions of dollars the operation will ultimately cost.
  The Haitian situation is yet another example of this administration's 
indecisiveness when faced with serious foreign crises. The 
administration's vacillation toward aggressors in Somalia, Bosnia, 
North Korea, and Haiti has seriously eroded United States credibility 
abroad and has created doubts among our allies about our reliability. 
To make matters worse, the President's severe defense spending cuts in 
recent years have diminished our ability to defend our vital national 
security interests.
  At a crucial time of international transition created by the end of 
the cold war, the administration's timid and erratic approach to 
foreign policy is exactly what we do not need.
  Unfortunately, the House just voted to reject the Michel substitute, 
which would have immediately brought our troops home. Although I much 
prefer the Michel language, the Dellums substitute now before us is 
certainly an improvement over the original Torricelli resolution. Thus, 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on Dellums and a ``no'' vote on Torricelli.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 5 
minutes to the fourth coauthor of the amendment, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman and also my 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jack Murtha, who has 
again gone out into the field to see how our young men and women are 
doing when they are deployed by the President of the United States. I 
am pleased to be an author of this resolution, along with my 
colleagues. We will make it very clear that we want to bring our troops 
home as quickly as possible.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Murtha], has said, about 
one-third of them are going to be coming home within a month. In my 
judgment, we can have our military forces basically out of there by the 
end of the year. But I do not think we should set a fixed date in this 
resolution, and I would tell you that John Shalikashvili and Bill 
Perry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, 
have written us and asked us not to set a fixed date for the withdrawal 
of our troops, because they believe it would be dangerous to our 
troops.
  Now, there is one other thing I would like to say about the 
Torricelli amendment. I believe we would be making a fundamental 
mistake if, after the President has decided to use force and to put 
troops into Haiti, for us to then retroactively authorize that action. 
I think that will become a precedent for future Presidents.

                              {time}  2210

  And I happen to believe that the President has a responsibility to 
come to this Congress and seek our approval before he puts the troops 
into the field. Now, I want to tell Members, I was impressed in Haiti 
by the fact that our soldiers have got the situation under control. 
Yes, there will be random acts of violence. That is why we need to 
strengthen the Haitian military and their police force so that Haitians 
can deal with Haitians on these issues.
  In my judgment, the situation here is very different from Somalia. 
There is not a force here that can do any real damage to the U.S. 
military. So there is no reason to rush out of Haiti.
  What we need to do is handle this in a professional way, leave it up 
to our commanders.
  We talked to General Shelton, the commander of our forces in Haiti. 
We asked him, Do you favor a fixed date? He said, No, it would be 
dangerous to our troops.
  So I again reiterate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Murtha] has said, if we want to get something done, if we want to pass 
a resolution tonight that can be signed into law and one that enjoyed 
bipartisan support in the other body with a vote of 91 to 8, then vote 
for the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks amendment and reject, as we have 
done already, we rejected Michel, but I think we should also reject the 
Hamilton-Torricelli amendment because it retroactively authorizes this. 
I think that is a mistake. It sets a fixed date, which I think is a 
second mistake.
  This is the right resolution for the House to adopt. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I think it is more than time that we have begun to evaluate what it 
is that we are really debating and have under discussion tonight. I 
find it amazing in this debate that most of it has seemed to focus upon 
whether or not we should support our troops who have been deployed to 
Haiti. We do not need to debate that issue. There is no Member of this 
body who is more proud than I of what they have done and how well they 
have done it. That is not the issue.
  Nor is it to me understandable that no Member has come to this well 
and suggested that the troops who were deployed there would have been 
deployed there if the President of the United States had come to the 
Congress or had convinced the American people that they should have 
been deployed there. The unspoken refrain of all of this debate is that 
they should not have been deployed.
  Now they have been deployed. So we heap praise upon our forces for 
how well they have conducted themselves, having been deployed. But how 
long, how long can we ignore the fact that they should not have been 
deployed, that there is no national security interest of the United 
States of America that dictates that they should be there?
  The President having done it, and I am not one of those who challenge 
his constitutional authority to have done it, but I do indeed challenge 
his good judgment in having done it, especially having done it in the 
face of what appeared to be strong opposition of the American people 
and of this Congress to the extent that it is an unspoken but almost 
unanimously-consented point of view that he would not come to the 
Congress because he could not get the authorization if he had asked for 
it.
  What position does this put this body, which has the ultimate 
authority? I think in a very untenable position, if we are going 
forward with the Torricelli language which after the fact gives an 
authorization that we would never have given in advance.
  I am going to vote for the Dellums-Murtha, et al., Resolution. I do 
so not because I really approve it. I do so because it is the only 
thing left that is acceptable to a Congress of the United States that 
has any degree of pride in its responsibility and, indeed, its 
obligation to those fine American soldiers who are in Haiti against the 
wishes of the American people and of this Congress.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that one of the worst judgments the 
commander-in-chief can make is to deploy his forces, his volunteer 
forces in a combat situation of which their fellow citizens do not 
approve and their Congress as their elected representatives do not 
approve.
  The pick of the litter has been discarded. We cannot vote for a 
resolution that in a prudent manner makes it clear this is not an 
exercise we authorized or would choose to authorize and that we want 
our troops home as soon as possible and if by a certain date it does 
not happen and the President cannot come to us and persuade us to 
authorize and continue to fund it, then it should be discontinued. That 
is the path I think we should have chosen.
  Not having chosen it, reluctantly, I do rise in support of the 
Dellums-Murtha amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do that. But I 
would urge my colleagues to bear in mind that we are coming back here 
and at some point in time this Congress is going to have to face 
squarely how long, how long will we permit our forces to be deployed in 
an exercise that the American people do not approve of and which we 
have never authorized, and yet we sit here complacently saying, oh, 
well, it is a fait accompli. We must not let it continue to be a 
continuing, nagging fait accompli. We must make sure that we bring our 
forces home from an exercise in which they should never have been sent.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHAIRMAN, I rise today disappointed with the three Haiti 
resolutions that are before this chamber.
  Since the first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand 
Aristide, was ousted from power in Haiti, thousands of Haitians have 
fled the brutal and repressive government of Lieutenant General Raoul 
Cedras. This steady flow of refugees headed for U.S. shores and the 
continuous human rights atrocities committed by the Haitian military 
are of great concern.
  However, I was not in favor of a United States invasion of Haiti. As 
sad as the situation is in Haiti, there was no compelling United States 
national interest justifying the presence of U.S. troops. Furthermore, 
I was opposed to the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti because the 
president failed to seek congressional authorization for such use of 
force.
  Despite my strong opposition to the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, 
I cannot support the Michel substitute. Now that the president has sent 
U.S. troops, it is imperative that we support these troops. Military 
experts, including Lieutenant General Henry Hugh Shelton and Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Chairman General John Shalikashvili, indicate that a 
mandated immediate withdrawal could endanger the lives of our U.S. 
soldiers.
  Similarly, I cannot support the Torricelli-Hamilton alternative. 
Although this option affirms Congress' role in authorizing troop 
deployment, it specifically provides congressional authorization for 
the presence of U.S. troops in Haiti, an action which I have opposed.
  Although the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings--Dicks substitute makes it clear 
that there is neither congressional approval or disapproval of the 
participation of United States Armed Forces in Haiti, I regret that the 
Dellums alternative is not stronger in affirming Congress' 
constitutional responsibility regarding troop deployment. We must 
support our American troops when they are in harm's way, but it's 
important that Congress stands firm and insist that a president, any 
president, come to it for support before we undertake non-emergency 
military measures.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the weak language on congressional 
authorization, I reluctantly vote for the Dellums substitute, for it 
most closely represent my views.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the Dellums 
substitute.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez.]
  (Ms. Velazquez asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks substitute. It is the only approach that 
would allow a just resolution of the Haitian Crisis.
  I initially spoke out against an invasion because of this nation's 
ugly history of armed intervention in the Americas. Since the Monroe 
doctrine, we have claimed for ourselves a near divine right to send in 
the Marines whenever we liked and for as long as we liked. Shamefully, 
our troops were often sent in to bolster local bullies and dictators 
who had little regard for the working men and women of their nations: 
Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Batista in Cuba. It is no 
wonder that the refrain ``Yankees go home'' is so familiar.
  Nevertheless, I rise today in support of the Dellums substitute 
because for perhaps the first time in memory American GI's are on Latin 
American soil for a noble cause, and not as an occupying force. We have 
an opportunity to help ensure that the conditions for democracy can 
take root there.
  As we all know, the agreement that was negotiated by former President 
Carter had no provision for the departure of the terrorists who preyed 
upon the Haitian people. If we leave now, one thing is certain. The 
terror will return, and the opportunity for democracy will have been 
lost.
  It is not enough to say we are for democracy in Haiti. We must also 
commit ourselves to a democracy that can be sustained once we pull the 
troops out.
  Some of my colleagues would place a deadline on our military 
presence. Is democracy so predictable that we can pick a date out of a 
hat, and decide that by then democracy will have had a chance? Is there 
some magic to March 1?
  Mr. Speaker, a stable and democratic Haiti is clearly in our national 
interest. By turning a blind eye to political conditions there, we 
encourage thousands of additional refugees to take to the sea in flight 
from oppression. Preventing another refugee crisis is imperative for 
this country.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Dellums 
substitute. Not only will it serve the national interest--it will serve 
the interests of justice and democracy in the hemisphere as well.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen.].
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings-Dicks substitue amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and rise in strong 
support of the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks substitute motion.
  Last weekend, I joined my colleagues on the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee in making a one-day trip to Haiti.
  I was impressed--and I always am--by the professionalism and 
dedication of our U.S. troops. They are as confused about our mission 
there as most Americans are, but they are working to restore order in 
Haiti. It is prime example of poor administration policy--rescued by 
super tactical deployment of the U.S. military.
  I was opposed to this mission from the start. But now that our troops 
are stationed in Haiti, we must do all we can to ensure their safety, 
guarantee the effectiveness of our mission there, and then, get out.
  I oppose any efforts by Congress to set a date certain for our troops 
to withdraw from Haiti. That is like imposing term limits on our 
soldiers. Thy would be lame ducks between now and that congressionally 
imposed deadline--a situation, but also the effectiveness of our 
mission in Haiti.
  If we set an arbitrary deadline and there is some act of violence or 
if U.S. troops are taken hostage just before that deadline, we wouldn't 
want to be in a position of pulling our troops out at that specific 
moment.
  This resolution reiterates that the President should have sought and 
welcomed congressional approval before deploying American forces to 
Haiti.
  This substitute motion provides additional accountability safeguards 
to Congress and the American people by requiring the President and his 
administration to provide a statement of national security objectives 
for this mission. This substitute also requires monthly reports, 
including updates on important items such as: The duration of our 
presence in Haiti; the progress made toward establishing democracy in 
Haiti; and the cost estimates to all United States operation and 
activities in Haiti.
  In addition, this amendment does not endorse or constitute 
congressional approval of the participation of United States forces in 
a U.N. operation in Haiti. I strongly oppose the placement of United 
States Troops under any Foreign command, under any circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Dellums-
Murtha-Hastings-Dicks substitute.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I favored the Michel Amendment. 
If contained a means of pressuring the President to remove the troops 
immediately.
  I believe that to be appropriate since the President failed to 
consult with the Congress.
  The Dellums substitute is better than the remaining choice.
  I believe we should not be in Haiti. I don't believe there is a 
defined National interest there. We must avoid a prolonged occupation--
Nation Building is a never-ending task.
  We should not allow ourselves to go into an open-ended committment to 
do a job that our troops are not designed to do.
  I shall not endorse the Haiti occupation.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Dellums-Murtha 
substitute in opposition to the Hamilton resolution. It is unfortunate 
that the opponents of President Clinton policy are not facing the real 
issues here and hiding behind the bluster of a well-organized 
propaganda campaign against Father Aristide.
  We can debate from today to the day of the next election in Haiti 
about President Aristide's character. Is he a good guy? Or a bad guy? 
Did he urge crowds to necklace their enemies? Or was he talking about 
the constitution?
  The bottom line is that he was elected by 67 percent of the Haitian 
people in a free and honest democratic election, an election where more 
Haitians voted than vote in most elections here in the United States.
  The Haitian people should have the right to make their democracy 
work. And in Father Aristide's own words, the true test of democracy 
will take place during next year's election when he steps down.
  Do we have a national interest in preserving that democracy? Yes. 
Haiti is 700 miles from our border. Port au Prince is closer to Miami 
than we are to Chicago. Every day that the military dictators continued 
their reign of terror in Haiti was an embarrassment to the United 
States, the sole, remaining world power.
  We have a national interest in returning democracy to Haiti because 
the consequences of the Cedras/Biamby/Francois dictatorship was a flood 
of Haitian immigration into our country.
  We also have a national interest in removing this dictatorship 
because it was part of the Caribbean drug running ring that is killing 
off a generation of American young people.
  We must return democracy to the Haiti people, and, everyday, our 
troops are making progress in attaining that goal.
  The imposition of an artificial deadline for their departure would be 
wrong. It will endanger the lives of these American soldiers who are 
succeeding in this right and honorable mission. And these are not just 
the views of civilians, Marine General John Sheehan said the exact 
thing to our Foreign Affairs Committee.
  So, what is going on here? Even through we reach another milestone 
towards success everyday, the President's opponents are putting an 
obstacle in the way of ultimate victory. This militarily unsound 
deadline says to the enemy in Haiti, We're here today, but we'll be 
gone on March 1. This is wrong. This is dangerous. And this is unfair 
to the men and women in uniform meeting a difficult challenge in Haiti. 
Support our troops and support democracy in America.
  Vote yes on the Murtha/Dellus substitute.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I promised our leader on this side that I 
would vote for his amendment and only his amendment. I have no problem 
with people voting for the Dellums-Murtha-Dicks amendment. But I would 
like to clear the air here about what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Michel] called hiding behind our troops under the guise of supporting 
our troops.
  As he said those words, I thought, there is also a position where 
people who have no familiarity with the military are pushing our troops 
up front for their own political purposes, and putting them, no matter 
how noble, in harm's way.
  There are a handful of people in this House, and I am proud to 
include myself in that number, who can travel to any military service 
of the United States, any base in this country, and be recognized. We 
do not ever have to give our bona fides in any legislation here about 
supporting the troops.
  Mr. Chairman, I can name them all: The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Murtha], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Wilson], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], hands down. My friends 
from California, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Cunningham, my friend from Texas, 
Mr. Johnson, and my friend from Indiana, Mr. Burton. Also my colleague 
from Virginia, Mr. Sisisky.
  When we get on an airplane or go on a submarine or on a carrier or 
down to shoot at Benning, or out with the paratroopers, anywhere in the 
field, they come up to us with respect. Go ask our liaison downstairs.
  They told me they had never seen young GIs, male or female, ask for 
autographs until they traveled with the aforementioned Members. So I do 
not ever have to stand here and say I am backing up our troops with 
this or that vote. They know when we do things like sign certificates 
to the wounded and fly the flags on the Capitol ourselves, that our 
hearts are with them. So let us forget that silly stuff.
  Mr. Chairman, when I first got here I found out that there are a lot 
of people in both parties who beg to get on the Committee on Armed 
Services or the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, because they think it 
fulfills the military obligation that they somehow avoided in their 
youth.
  But, it does not work that way. Castro's lawyer, Castro's lawyer, 
Ira, let us get the spelling right here, Curzban, C U R Z B A N, his 
wife ran against Ileana in the last election, in 1992, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, was flown with the title proconsul into Haiti on a U.S. Air 
Force aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, I find that offensive. As the gentleman from Illinois 
Henry Hyde, said, you have got to go by Cuba to get down to the island 
of Hispaniola, the western third of which is called Haiti.
  Here is that article I put in earlier by the best military writer 
extant today, Harry Summers, Junior, retired army colonel: ``if you 
like Mogadishu, you are going to love Port-au-Prince. Just as Smith 
Hempstone, then U.S. ambassador to Kenya, warned all too correctly in 
1992, Mogadishu was likely to be a repeat of the 1983 Beirut disaster, 
during Ronald Reagan's presidency, where 241 U.S. servicemen were 
killed in the bombing of the barracks, so Port-au-Prince is all too 
likely to turn into another Mogadishu.
  Here is his close. He says ``Instead of getting our men out of harm's 
way, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta has said `We are going to 
increase patrols.' This is unwittingly setting the stage for a 
Mogadishu-like disaster, where American casualties would force a 
premature U.S. withdrawal.
  Instead of increasing their vulnerability, now is the time to 
withdraw our forces from the streets, gather them in defensible 
enclaves, ready if need be to underwrite with force the transition of 
power from Cedras to Aristide, and the clock is ticking. We only have a 
few more days to go.

  For about the 8th night in a row, I would point out this is day 18 of 
a miracle, where only one handsome, brave young staff sargeant named 
Don Holsted is lying in a hospital at Fort Bragg, shot in his abdomen; 
no one killed, two suicides, no other wounded in action. It is a 
miracle. However, Mr. Clinton is interpreting Ron Dellums' ``as soon as 
possible'' to be a year, maybe a Dominican Republic, 17 months. I do 
not buy that.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following document:

  Subject: Funding Aristide Transition Team Needs: Request for Legal 
                                Opinion

       REF: (A) Horning memo of 10/02/94, (B) Meighan E Mail of 
     10/03/94
       1. On October 1, Aristide transition team leader Beliotte 
     (Constitutional Minister of Defense) and GOH Legal Advisor 
     Ira Kurzbaum approached USAID Director Crandall regarding the 
     need for logistical support and funding for costs associated 
     with the transition prior to and following President 
     Aristide's return to Haiti.
       2. Though general budget support is planned under the USD 
     15 million balance of payments program signed Sept. 30, it 
     will be at least mid-November before local currencies 
     generated by the dollar funds become available. The PL 480 
     and ESF accounts at the central bank remain blocked and 
     inaccessible until the legitimate GOH returns, takes control 
     of all government functions and audits its accounts. Again, 
     that process could take until mid-November, and probably 
     longer.
       FYI: While August 31 de facto records indicate blocked 
     funds are still in central bank accounts, this cannot be 
     verified until all auditing checks are completed. End FYI.
       3. We propose to support the transition by using U.S.-owned 
     local currency proceeds generated by PL 480 title III flour 
     sales subsequent to the blocking of the above accounts. These 
     currencies were placed in a separate USDO account at 
     Citibank, where approximately USD 2.58 million are 
     immediately available for use. USAID requires an immediate 
     legal opinion as to whether these unclassified funds can be 
     used for the following purposes, as identified by Ira 
     Kurzbaum in a meeting with Crandall on October 3:
       A. Temporary office space: For transition team use until 
     government offices are secured, a prime minister and cabinet 
     are nominated, ratified and installed in office.
       B. Communications: Satellite communications system for 
     secure, reliable international communications; radio system 
     for emergency communications.
       C. Temporary guard services and non-lethal security 
     equipment, such as alarm system, cameras, etc.: to guard 
     temporary offices and residences of transition team members.
       D. Residence to office transportation: due to the 
     continuing high cost and scarcity of fuel, and the fact that 
     many transition team members will not have personal vehicles 
     in Haiti, transportation services will be required, via 
     minivan or other rented vehicles. It is thought that de facto 
     authorities will have ``requisitioned'' official GOH vehicles 
     for other uses, leaving constitutional authorities on foot.
       E. Office equipment and supplies: At a minimum, FAX 
     machines, copiers and limited computer equipment must be 
     leased or purchased for the temporary offices. In addition, 
     it is anticipated that when the transition does take place, 
     the 14 new ministers will find many offices stripped of 
     equipment and devoid of the most basic office supplies, thus 
     a basic package will be developed for donation to each 
     ministry.
       4. USAID plans to provide the same type of support to both 
     Houses of the Parliament, in response to a similar request 
     from the legitimate President of the Senate for logistical 
     assistance to enable the parliament to complete the 
     legislation required for the transition, i.e., amnesty law 
     and separation of police from the military.
       5. USAID would use these funds to support the Democratic 
     transition in association with our just-arrived RONCO 
     logistics management unit, which: (1) Has management 
     responsibility for these title III funds, under the terms of 
     the contract, and (2) will provide logistical support for the 
     transition.
       6. Please send an immediate cable in response.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums amendment. Today we as 
a country find ourselves in a very tough situation in Haiti It is a 
situation of our own creation, but the first rule to follow when we 
find ourselves in a bad, tough situation is not to make it worse.
  The Dellums amendment, in my view, is at this time the best option 
before Congress to making this tough situation better. I support a 
prompt and orderly withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Haiti as soon as 
possible, and in such a manner that does not destroy the progress that 
we have made so far.

                              {time}  2230

  Giving a date certain for withdrawal is tactically self-defeating. It 
provides aid and comfort to the very people that will bring our troops 
into harm's way. Many of us opposed a military invasion of Haiti. But 
all of us were glad when the hostile invasion was avoided. The mission 
is now under way. Let us carry it out to its quick, swift completion. 
Let us support our troops. Support the Dellums amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all that I hesitate 
to rise tonight in opposition to the substitute of my good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] because I think today has been 
truly a historic day and I know how many years he worked and how lonely 
the fight sometimes was. I think I have some small feeling for just how 
strongly he felt in his heart today, and I want to congratulate him on 
what I think has been a lifetime of hard work that has in fact helped 
improve the human condition. I think today listening to President 
Mandela was an extraordinary experience for all of us and I 
congratulate the gentleman for his leadership on that.
  I want to say to all my colleagues, I have wavered. I have concluded 
that the wisest vote is a no vote but I do not think this is an easy 
decision. Let me tell you why. This resolution does correctly say that 
the President should have sought congressional approval. I believe in a 
strong Commander in Chief role. I think there are a lot of 
circumstances for immediate action without consultation. But I do think 
we are getting into a dangerous habit in this administration of saying 
that the United Nations Security Council matters but congressional 
approval does not. So what we do in the Balkans is a function of the 
U.N. Security Council but not the Congress. What we can do in Haiti is 
a function of the U.N. Security Council.

  I was recently campaigning in Indiana and a local sheriff picked me 
up to take me to an event--I was not speeding, he was meeting me at the 
airport--and on the way, he said, ``I'm confused. How come you and my 
candidate are not running for U.N. ambassador?'' I said, ``What are you 
talking about?'' He said, ``I was watching at home the other night and 
I listened to the Secretary of State's explanation for why we were 
allowed to do some things and not allowed to do the others and in every 
case he cited the U.N. Security Council and he never once cited 
Congress.'' So in that sense, this resolution is exactly right.
  Where I have a problem, I think, is 2 places, and I would like to 
vote yes but I simply cannot. The first is that the Michel-Gilman 
substitute said the President should immediately commence the safe and 
orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces. I feel that very strongly. He did 
not ask our advice getting there. We are now basically offering him 
advice, because the truth is he can veto one of these. This is an 
expression of the will of the people but it is not going to end up 
being legally binding because he will just veto it if he does not like 
it. I do not want to vote for anything which implies that I approve of 
anything that might happen after tonight.
  I want to make it clear. I do not think we should have gone, I do not 
think we should be there, and I do not think we should stay. This 
document which I respect greatly has two lines that make me concerned:
  One is it says under item E, ``Congress supports a prompt and orderly 
withdrawal as soon as possible,'' which is very different from ``the 
President should immediately commence the safe and orderly 
withdrawal.'' It implies that ``as soon as possible'' if you read the 
previous item C is related to Haitian domestic political activities and 
to when the President makes the judgment based on political, not 
military, reasons.
  Lastly, it suggests, and I think this is legitimate in the context of 
the way the amendment is offered, ``not later than November 1 and 
monthly thereafter, the President shall submit a report.'' That clearly 
implies that November 1, December 1, January 1, February 1, 
the President said in his address to the Nation he expected American 
troops to be there until February of 1996. I cannot support getting a 
monthly report until February of 1996 and saying, ``Well, at least he 
listened to us.''
  So with reluctance, I say to my good friend, who I really do respect 
deeply and for whom I think this has been a historic day, I urge my 
colleagues to vote no because I think that the Michel-Gilman substitute 
was the correct signal. It said we do not agree, we should not be 
there, and let us withdraw before young Americans start getting killed. 
But I do say so reluctantly and with the greatest respect for my 
friend.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my distinguished 
colleague for his generosity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Dellums/Hastings amendment. I also rise to commend President Clinton 
for all he has done to restore democracy in Haiti. He has taken the 
high road. President Clinton, and our young men and women on the ground 
in Haiti, have done something we should all be proud of. We are helping 
a struggling democracy make the transition to a peaceful and prosperous 
democracy, which as President Mandela said just a few hours ago in this 
very Chamber, is in our national interest in this new world order.
  Nowhere else in the world would the prolonged torture, rapes, and 
murders have been tolerated as they have in Haiti. My colleagues have 
said that they do not see any vital American interest in Haiti. What 
does it take to constitute a vital interest--someone else's oil halfway 
around the world. I am sad to say that our foreign policy has not been 
colorblind. I have to wonder if the problem is not that Haitians are 
people of color.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a Member of this House of 
Representatives (the people's House), but history has taught me that 
the President of the United States does not have to come to Congress to 
direct U.S. Troops. Setting a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. 
Troops will only endanger the lives of American soldiers.
  We in this House are not military experts and military decisions 
should not be made by us. We must not prevent our military forces from 
completing their mission in a safe and orderly fashion.
  One thing I can say, that the Members on the other side of the aisle 
talk a good talk but they do not walk that walk.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dellums/Murtha/Hastings 
Amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Bentley].
  Mrs. BENTLEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the events that have led us to this day are shameful.
  Three weeks ago President Clinton sent General Colin Powell, Senator 
Sam Nunn and former President Carter to Haiti to negotiate a deal with 
Haitian strongman Raoul Cedras.
  According to press reports, Haitian General Philippe Biamby ran into 
the negotiating room and announced that the planes had left Fort Bragg 
and the attack was about to begin.
  All this while our team, including a Senatorial colleague and a 
former President, was negotiating in good faith.
  Now we are being asked retroactively to approve the actions of the 
President. In other words, we are being asked to provide him with 
political cover in case anything goes wrong in Haiti, such as our 
troops being ambushed on a dark night. We are being asked to support 
our troops. I do. I always have and always will. That is why I say we 
must bring our troops home and as soon as possible.
  We should have passed the Michel-Gilman substitute which covered all 
the basic points that we feel are vital, but we did not.
  I do not think the Dellums-Murtha amendment goes far enough, but 
because of the crazy way king-of-the-hill rules work, I will vote for 
this amendment and vote against final passage.
  As he was being led to the gallows, Nathan Hale said, ``I regret I 
have but one life to give to my country.''
  I wish some Haitians would say that and would sacrifice for their 
country the way Americans did, Afghans did and the French Underground 
did.
  However, I did not see an armed rebellion in Haiti.The military had 
replaced the elected President as they have in several other Latin 
American countries.
  Americans should not be used as pawns for other nations' policies or 
their internal problems. America should not become involved in foreign 
entanglements unless there is an identifiable American national 
security interest.
  There is none in Haiti. Not a single one of our brave young soldiers 
should lose his or her life to bolster the approval rating of a 
President. Let us bring them home now.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  (Mr. KLEIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-Murtha 
resolution.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding the time and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  I have listened to the debate very carefully today and I have heard a 
lot of bashing of the President. I have heard Members saying that he is 
doing the wrong thing. I have heard Members trying to accuse the 
President of scoring brownie points. Frankly, I think it is the other 
way around. I think that any time you have the President trying to do 
anything you always have a certain number of people on the other side 
of the aisle who are going to say it is the wrong thing.
  I am here to say, as I said last night, that foreign policy ought to 
be bipartisan, the way some of us supported the President, President 
Bush, in the Persian Gulf war. And I was one of those Democrats that 
did. We ought to have bipartisan support for our forces in Haiti. We 
ought to give credit where credit is due.
  Our forces entered Haiti. They did not enter Haiti as an occupying 
force having to shoot their way in. They were welcomed by cheering 
Haitians in an attempt to restore democracy. I cannot understand 
Members who say that we have no vital interests in Haiti. Certainly, 
when the boat people come to our shores trying to get into this country 
we know that it affects the United States.
  This is not something that is going on on the other side of the 
world. This is right here in the Western Hemisphere. If it was good 
enough for Panama and good enough for Grenada, it certainly is good 
enough for Haiti.
  Let me tell my colleagues, this resolution is infinitely reasonable 
and responsible. It says that the President should have sought 
congressional approval. I think most of us agree. I said that last 
night.
  It says that Congress supports a prompt and orderly withdrawal of all 
forces as soon as possible. No one can disagree with that.
  It says the departure from power of the Haitian military and 
restoration of democracy is in the best interest of the Haitian people, 
and in the best interest of the American people I might add. We should 
not argue with that.
  We should not revert to some kind of isolationism here and pretend 
that what goes on in Haiti does not affect the United States. It does. 
Let us not tie our troops. We all know that we are better off not 
having a date certain.
  Although there is much in the other resolutions I support, this is 
the best resolution, and I think we should vote for it in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago I answered the 
President in his radio message to the country and said that an invasion 
of Haiti could have been one of the most foolish acts of foreign policy 
of this century. Fortunately, the invasion was made unnecessary by 
President Carter.
  But our troops have instead taken to nation-building under the guise 
of intervention on behalf of an unstable Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Yes, 
we are in Haiti today and our troops have done well and peace is 
restored temporarily, at least for the most part. And Aristide is 
returning on October 15.
  But before then, and for the last couple of years, he has been living 
on Haitian money, a great deal of Haitian money while living off the 
fat of the land in the United States. I suggest that he take that 
Haitian money and that he buy himself a security force so that we can 
pull our troops out the very next day after he arrives.
  Haiti is not in our national interest, and certainly far less so than 
is Cuba. Let us not endorse this policy. Let us not debate the 
unnecessary nuances of what has turned into a major blunder from which 
we cannot extract ourselves. Let us put our troops out. Let us vote 
``no'' and ``no'' and avoid all pretense of support for this failed 
policy.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, Before our troops went into Haiti, I 
joined with my colleagues who believed the President should have sought 
and welcomed congressional approval before deploying United States 
Armed Forces to Haiti. That is a responsibility that should be honored 
by any President--not just this President, but all Presidents 
regardless of party.
  But that is not the issue before us today. Today American troops are 
on the ground in Haiti.
  There is no rule of the House requiring consistency among Members. 
But I wish there were a bell that would ring when an inconsistency 
becomes so obviously contradictory and so obviously partisan--as the 
objections of many Republicans over United States policy in Haiti.
  Where were these protesting Republicans when United States troops 
went into Grenada and Panama? Some of them were standing on this very 
floor. And what were they saying? They were praising Republican 
administrations for sending in the troops. And they were chastising 
Democrats for raising questions.
  Now, today, the were saying that we should demand that our troops be 
pulled from Haiti immediately. Never mind that U.S. military commanders 
on the ground say that such congressional vote would endanger the lives 
of our troops. Never mind that the words of the Republican leadership 
today are 180 degrees opposite what they have said about U.S. troop 
involvements in the past.
  A few years ago this body was faced with the choice of whether to 
support the use of force against Iraq. Many Democrats, and I was one of 
them voted against the use of force. We wanted to allow sanctions more 
time. We wanted every possible step to be taken to avoid the 
unnecessary deaths of young Americans. Many of those same Democrats 
also expressed concerns about a use of force in Grenada, in Panama, and 
yes, in Haiti.
  But the moment our troops were on the ground, we recognized that it 
would be wrong to do anything other than to give them our absolute 
support. We recognized that irresponsible resolutions, fostered by a 
partisan spirit and pushed for partisan purposes, would be 
unconscionable. We rallied round as Americans always have. We kept 
first and foremost in our minds that when U.S. troops are in harm's 
way, we would do nothing and say nothing that might endanger them.
  If there is meaning to the flying of our flag. There is meaning to 
the Government over which that flag flies and there is meaning to that 
Government standing together under Old Glory to support our military 
commanders when they are leading our Armed Forces, our troops, our men 
and women on foreign soil.
  Now is not the time for this fractious Congress to micromanage 
military operations. Now is the time for us to show our patriotism and 
stand up for our troops.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Dellums, Murtha, Dicks, and 
Hastings substitute. It will make it clear the consent of Congress 
should have been attained before our troops were sent into Haiti. It 
will make it clear Congress wants our troops to leave Haiti as soon as 
possible. Above all, it keeps foremost the concern for the safety of 
these young Americans.
  This body has been wracked by partisanship for too long. All of us 
should be willing to draw the line here. I implore my colleagues not to 
continue to play politics with the lives of our troops.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but be reminded again of the 
words of George Santayana who said those who fail to learn the lessons 
of history are condemned to repeat it.
  Haiti is a terrible troubled, tragic land. From 1847 to 1915 it had 
20 Presidents, not a remarkable number, but 16 of those 20 Presidents 
were either assassinated or left as a result of being deposed as a 
result of violent revolution.
  In 1915 we sent the U.S. marines in there. We can argue the reasons. 
They sounded very familiar. The idea was humanitarian purposes and the 
enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. It took us 19 years to get out.
  Just recently we heard a President use and exploit the policies of 
what I call emotional manipulation more than anybody I ever heard on a 
Thursday afternoon regarding a particular leader, military leader who 
has become our partner at least until October 15.
  We have the problem with respect to not even having been asked 
permission in this body and from the people, and apparently it was more 
important to get permission of the United Nations. It is clear that the 
only important case which needs to be made with respect to military 
intervention in Haiti has never been made. The President failed to make 
it. That is the question and the case for national security.
  Having said all of that, what we are really talking about tonight are 
these three different resolutions. Does anybody really believe that our 
passing or not passing any of these three, except to the extent that we 
try, perhaps with some great futility to express the will of the 
American people, will make any difference whatsoever in the way that 
this is carried out? Clearly the President did not think enough to ask 
us going in. Does it really matter to him what we say now? I do not 
think so.
  Nonetheless, we will go on record. I voted for the first resolution. 
I am going to vote for this second resolution. I will tell Members why. 
I am going to vote for it because I am going to interpret, and I am 
going on record right now as interpreting section (e), ``Congress 
supports a prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States forces 
from Haiti as soon as possible,'' I interpret those words ``as soon as 
possible'' as meaning that we will get out of Haiti just as quickly as 
we got into Haiti. It does not mean next month, it does not mean next 
year. It means as soon as possible, and in the same sense as when you 
give a directive to one of your staff members it means as soon as 
possible.
  That is what this means. That is why I am voting for it.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support 
for the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings-Dicks substitute to House Joint Resolution 416. This 
substitute expresses the sense of the Congress that U.S. Armed Forces 
should be withdrawn in a timely and orderly fashion, but does not set a 
deadline for withdrawal. It is a responsible amendment sponsored by 
both the chairman of the Armed Services and the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Committee.
  As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know the road to recovery must 
begin with securing stability in Haiti. I do not believe 20,000 U.S. 
soldiers can create a democracy, in Haiti. The solution rests with the 
hemisphere responsibility for economic recovery.
  This substitute amendment is limiting, it does not specify the role 
U.S. forces should play when the U.N. Peacekeeping operation takes over 
in the next phase. I strongly believe that the Congress must not remain 
silent on this issue. For this reason, I am introducing a concurrent 
resolution today which expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
United States' troop commitment to peacekeeping operations in Haiti 
should not exceed the level which the United States is assessed by the 
United Nations for worldwide peacekeeping operations. We must work our 
way out of Haiti, and I believe my resolution sets the framework for 
the peacekeeping phase recognizing that international leadership is 
essential to help bring a lasting democracy that Haiti desperately 
needs.
  I thank the authors of this substitute for their leadership, I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dellums-Hastings-
Murtha-Dicks resolution. I rise in support because it is time for us to 
say where we stand on democracy and human rights.
  I have been appalled and a little bit pained as I have heard some of 
my colleagues make certain remarks about Haiti and the people of Haiti. 
Over and over again I have heard a few Members say Haiti is not worth 
anything, it is not worth losing one soldier, it is a worthless 
country. It is difficult for me to understand those kinds of remarks 
when this country cries out for freedom, when they have been undermined 
by a military coup. But they tried hard to have democracy. They elected 
a president. They elected President Aristide. But they have been 
violated. This coup has killed, they have maimed, they have raped, but 
they continue.

                              {time}  2250

  Our President, in the most compassionate way, tried everything that 
could be done to have peace talks. We had a Governors Island accord, we 
worked at sanctions, we stiffened the sanctions, but Cedras continued.
  He and Francois continued because Members of this House got on the 
floor and encouraged them. They told them we would never intervene, 
that Haiti did not deserve our support, that even this evening we had 
one Member get up quoting Cedras, talking about support for Cedras.
  There are those who would like to signal to them that we are going to 
get out, and when we are going to get out, so that those who are 
opposed to democracy and freedom will remain on, will remain opposed to 
democracy, and know that we are moving out. Why would we want to send 
that signal? Why would we want to undermine our troops? Why do I not 
hear the cry for support for American soldiers? Why would we put them 
in harm's way by telling them when we are going to get out?
  We need to say where we stand in this country for freedom and 
democracy. I thought we were a country who fought for freedom, who 
fought for democracy, that history demanded that we do that, and yet we 
stand here this evening undermining the President, undermining our 
soldiers.
  It is time for us to vote to stand up for democracy. Vote for the 
Dellums resolution. Vote to support our soldiers.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make certain that we do not kid 
ourselves about what is happening here. The resolution we have before 
us now is essentially the resolution that just passed the U.S. Senate. 
It was voted on overwhelmingly in the U.S. Senate. The people who voted 
for it there probably came from a mixed point of view, but what a large 
portion of those Members believed they were doing was basically 
endorsing the President's policy. This is authorizing the President's 
policy, and so, therefore, if, in fact, what you do is vote for the 
Dellums amendment at the present time, you are voting for essentially 
that proposition which has passed the U.S. Senate and does, in fact, 
contain language which can be interpreted, and I feel will be 
interpreted by this administration, as endorsing his policy in Haiti.
  That is the reason why many on this floor who are adamantly in favor 
of endorsing what the President is doing in Haiti have gotten up and 
spoken for this resolution.
  So just so we understand that when we vote for the Dellums bill, we 
are voting for a specific authorization to go ahead and do what we have 
been doing in Haiti. I believe that to be the wrong policy.
  I believe that the vote we had a few moments ago on the Michel 
substitute was, in fact, the vote which assures that we get out 
immediately. To vote for this proposition now will be to vote 
differently than you voted on that bill and to vote to endorse what is 
now happening in Haiti.
  I believe the papers tomorrow will read, if Republicans and Democrats 
come together on this, that the papers will read that there was a 
bipartisan endorsement of our Haiti policy and so on.
  I know that there are many on that side of the aisle who will welcome 
that bipartisan endorsement of the Haiti policy. I think it is a wrong 
mission. I think it would be a mistake to have that signal come out of 
this Congress. I do not believe that reflects the majority sentiment in 
this Congress.
  And so, therefore, I would urge a no vote. I do not believe this 
Congress should be on record as endorsing the President's policy in 
Haiti.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my time, 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have grave 
reservations about all three of the resolutions before us this evening, 
in no small part because during our trip to Haiti I was most concerned 
about the fact that our people are doing a fantastic job there, and if 
we send any signal that would suggest that America either intends to 
leave or is leaving quickly or otherwise, conceivably you could 
strengthen Cedras' hand and the rest of those people.
  Having said that, the item that is before us now essentially, and 
this is according to the Republican analysis, says that the President 
should withdraw United States forces from Haiti in an orderly fashion 
as soon as possible; the men and women of the United States Armed 
Forces have served with distinction; the President should have sought 
prior congressional approval before deploying United States troops in 
Haiti; the de factor authorities and restoration of democracy and rule 
of law are in the best interests of the Haitian people; and the 
President should continue in his efforts to lift the United Nations and 
United States-imposed sanctions against Haiti.
  The resolution has a lot to be said for it, ladies and gentlemen.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I support the Dellums amendment, You bet 
your life it has a lot to be said.
  It means when the President of the United States and those that have 
a commitment to fragile democracies throughout this world speak and the 
civilized international community hears it, whether it is the United 
Nations or, in this case, the Organization of American States, that the 
word of the United States means something.
  But more than that, what I think it means is that when our young men 
and women enter into the armed services and when their Commander in 
Chief places them in a situation where it is his belief that the 
security of the United States is at risk, it means that this U.S. 
Congress will not second-guess him. It means that we want them to come 
home as soon as possible, but we will not send a message to the enemy 
or those who are the foes of democracy that we know more than the 
President of the United States; or the generals who serve this republic 
so violently in Haiti, that we will not put them at risk. I would say 
you can have your double standard on Haiti, you can have your 
partisanship as relates to Democrats and Republicans, but for God's 
sake do not take it out on our young men and women who are now 
stationed in Haiti.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been referred to as the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings-Dicks amendment. It has been my very high honor and great 
pleasure to control 30 minutes of this debate.
  This is not Ron Dellums' amendment. I am not that arrogant nor that 
egotistical.
  What brings the four of us together from very different vantage 
points? The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I do not have 
the same politics; the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] do not always have the same 
politics; and sometimes, but perhaps more rarely, the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentleman from California do not share the same 
politics.
  But tonight, at this moment in this place, these four people walking 
four radically different paths have come together for one purpose, and 
that is to speak to the magnificence of the human condition and the 
right of people in Haiti to stand on the ground of freedom and dignity, 
self-respect, and democracy.
  And I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this amendment 
offered by this coalition.
  Mr. PASHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to state for the 
record my views concerning Haiti. I am extremely thankful this country 
has such fine men and women who are willing to serve in our Armed 
Forces. As an Army veteran, I have a special appreciation for the 
devotion and dedication they bring to their service. All of us, 
regardless of how we may vote on the resolutions before us tonight, 
send the men and women in uniform our thanks.
  I did not support an invasion of Haiti. While I support the return of 
a democratically elected president, I do not believe it is our place to 
simply install our preference without more substantial cause than what 
has been shown in Haiti. We must face clear national security risks 
before we commit to an invasion which will surely cost American lives.
  I was thankful when the delegation headed by General Powell, Senator 
Nunn and former President Carter was able to negotiate an agreement to 
return exiled President Aristide to a position of authority in Haiti. 
Their work to this point has, thankfully, avoided the loss of life 
which certainly would have resulted from an invasion. But as I listen 
to the debate this evening, I am even more convinced this is what the 
American people deserved before we took any significant military action 
in Haiti. That is why I added my name to legislation to require the 
President to seek Congressional approval prior to taking military 
action.
  It is for that reason that I cannot support the resolution offered by 
my colleague Congressman Michel, nor the proposal offered by 
Congressman Hamilton.
  The Michel resolution calls for the immediate withdrawal of American 
troops, while at the same time stating that the president should not 
have ordered U.S. Forces into Haiti. While I opposed an invasion, to 
order them out now would jeopardize the safety of those soldiers who 
are doing their all to bring some stability to the situation in Haiti. 
I will also vote against the Hamilton resolution, because it 
specifically authorizes the action which the President has taken. 
Because I believe so strongly that the President should have sought 
congressional approval prior to committing troops, I cannot now support 
a resolution which authorizes such action.
  The Murtha resolution calls for a prompt and orderly withdrawal of 
U.S. Forces, while commending the men and women serving their country. 
It requires the administration to report regularly on the progress of 
our efforts in Haiti and to further establish the goals and objectives 
under which we operate. This is parallel to the resolution which the 
Senate will consider under the bipartisan support of Senators Dole and 
Mitchell.
  President Aristide is scheduled to return October 15. I hope the 
multi-national force which will be stationed in Haiti will secure the 
democracy for which the Haitian people hunger. I think the Murtha 
resolution offers us the best opportunity to achieve our goals while 
securing the swift return of our American men and women in uniform, and 
therefore I give it my support.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman I rise today in support of the Dellums-
Murtha-Hastings-Dicks amendment, which urges the withdrawal of United 
States troops from Haiti in a prompt and orderly fashion, as soon as 
possible. President Clinton is to be commended for his leadership in 
pursuing additional diplomatic efforts to avoid bloodshed.
  I join with those who believe that we have a real national interest 
in promoting democracy and human rights in Haiti. Peace and prosperity 
in our hemisphere is a very real national security issue. The 
restoration of a democratically-elected government in our own backyard 
will send a message to despots around the world and help to stop the 
flow of refugees to our shores.
  While it is in our national interest to promote democracy and human 
rights in Haiti, it is in the interest of the lives of our young people 
now serving there that we act responsibly and sensibly in our policy. I 
support the Dellums-Murtha amendment because I believe that we should 
withdraw our troops as soon as possible. I also believe, however, that 
setting a date certain for troop withdrawal with unnecessarily endanger 
both our troops on the ground and our efforts at promoting democracy in 
Haiti.
  As many of my colleagues know, I generally do not support the use of 
force because I truly believe that negotiated solutions lead to a 
stronger and more lasting peace. That is why I opposed an invasion of 
Haiti. I do believe that the presence of United States troops in Haiti 
has made a positive difference. The violence and human rights abuses 
have been curtailed; the Parliament is reestablishing itself; the 
Haitian military and para-military forces are being brought under 
control. If we in Congress demand today that our troops leave Haiti by 
a specific date, it will shift the momentum of change and start another 
waiting-game. Haiti's military leaders will know that all they have to 
do in order to regain control is wait for the United States to leave.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on record with several of my 
reservations regarding the current United States policy toward Haiti. 
First, I believe that President Clinton had a Constitutional obligation 
to seek Congressional approval before deploying United States troops to 
Haiti. Neither the relationship between the Executive and Legislative 
branches nor the President's policy toward Haiti were well-served by 
the manner in which the Administration proceeded.
  Second, however pleased we all were to have avoided an invasion, the 
deal made by the Carter delegation to resolve this conflict should not 
serve as a model for future dealings with brutal dictators. In 
addressing the nation on Haiti, President Clinton characterized the 
Haitian regime as the ``most violent in our hemisphere,'' and cited 
their atrocities, including the execution of children, as justification 
for the invasion of Haiti. President Carter and Colin Powell 
characterized these same men as ``honorable.'' The barbarous junta 
succeeded in being treated with respect and their brutal actions may 
ultimately go unpunished. We must make it clear to all who brutalize 
their people that they will answer for their actions in an 
international court of law.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our young people serving in Haiti and 
for the sake of those who are struggling for democratic reform in 
Haiti, I urge my colleagues to reject attempts to legislate an 
arbitrary deadline for the removal of our troops and to support a 
prompt and orderly withdrawal at the soonest possible time.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the substitute 
offered by my colleagues Messrs. Dellums, Murtha, Hastings, and Dicks.
  I believe that this substitute offers an exemplary balance between 
congressional oversight and management by the executive branch of 
military operations and foreign relations.
  Let me begin by saying that, like many of my colleagues, I had some 
concerns about a military invasion of Haiti.
  Furthermore, like most Americans, I was relieved when the outcome of 
the Carter team's negotiations was announced and the American troops 
were able to enter into Haiti peacefully.
  Since then, American troops have been doing an outstanding job of 
returning peace, freedom, and stability to the island nation.
  Our troops deserve our utmost respect and our most sincere thanks for 
the job they are doing in Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the situation in Haiti is in the 
national interest of the United States.
  If the United States, along with other world powers, had sat back and 
allowed the military leaders to control Haiti with no repercussions, 
other military leaders in other nations may have taken that as a 
positive sign.
  The unfortunate truth is that despite the best of intentions, and in 
many cases strong traditions, a number of nations in the Caribbean have 
strong militaries that may be watching Haiti to see what sort of 
reception they would receive should they stage a similar coup.
  The potential for Haiti to be a destabilizing force in the region is, 
unfortunately, strong. So I believe that the actions taken by the 
President were correct, and I am hopeful that democracy will be 
returned to Haiti soon. Yet some Members here want to tie the 
President's hands; they want to micro-manage the foreign and military 
policies of the nation.
  While I do believe that it was the intention of the Framers of the 
Constitution to have the Congress oversee military and foreign 
operations, I do not believe that they would have wanted 535 
Secretaries of Defense and 535 Secretaries of State.
  As I said earlier, I believe that the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks 
amendment is a good balance, allowing Congress the oversight of the 
mission that it should perform while, at the same time, allowing the 
President and his military advisors the room to make the decisions that 
they feel are best for the mission and for the troops.
  I further support the fact that the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks 
amendment calls for the ``prompt and orderly withdrawal of the United 
States forces from Haiti as soon as possible.''
  Since the possibility of an invasion of Haiti was first discussed, I 
have advocated a prompt withdrawal of United States troops, to be 
replaced by multinational peacekeepers, led by either the United 
Nations or the O.A.S.
  While I support the philosophy that the United States should help 
people, especially our neighbors, pursue their basic rights as human 
beings, I do not believe that this provides the United States a free 
license to impose our strength or our beliefs on other nations.
  Therefore, I hope that the President will withdraw our troops 
quickly, and that multinational, perhaps even regional forces will be 
installed to help the country rebuild.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier I support the Dellums-Murtha-
Hastings-Dicks substitute and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The 
substitute requires that the President report to the Congress, and that 
he stay in contact with us relative to the ongoing mission. It further 
requires that the President answer many of the questions that some in 
the American public, and indeed the Congress, feel have gone 
unanswered, such as the scope of the mission, the general rules of 
engagement for our forces, and the approximate cost.
  The American public has a right to know these answers, and while I 
believe that the President has been as up-front as possible, I hope 
that enactment of the Dellums-Murtha-Hastings-Dicks substitute will 
help those who are not yet satisfied.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the President as I feel he has done an 
admirable job in a tough situation. He has done the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I also support our troops, as I believe that they are 
showing the world that the United States is ready and able to handle 
any assignment.
  Finally, I support the substitute offered by my colleagues, Messrs. 
Dellums, Murtha, Hastings, and Dicks, as I believe it is the best 
policy.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I want to state my strong support for the 
resolution on Haiti offered by Representatives Dellums and Murtha.
  Let me begin by stating that the American people owe a great debt of 
gratitude to the men and women of the U.S. military who serve to defend 
our country. The American service personnel now in Haiti have a right 
to be proud of their role in the effort to restore democracy to Haiti. 
They are fighting to defend and uphold the most sacred values of our 
Nation, including the principle that people have a right to liberty 
under the rule of law.
  I believe strongly that these brave men and women should be brought 
home as soon as possible. The Dellums/Murtha resolution calls for just 
that. All U.S. troops would be withdrawn at the earliest possible date.
  At the same time, this resolution recognizes the need for the 
Commander in Chief to direct the withdrawal of troops in a way that 
protects the safety of United States forces in Haiti. This resolution 
also directs the Administration to issue a report to Congress stating 
the specific security interests of the United States in Haiti. Finally, 
this resolution makes clear the position that Congress should have been 
consulted prior to the commitment of U.S. forces and that approval for 
this action should have been sought.
  I would not, however, support an immediate and ill-planned departure 
of United States troops from Haiti. This could put U.S. military 
personnel at risk and would certainly sacrifice any hope of restoring 
democracy in that country. An immediate withdrawal would, in fact, 
reward the military dictators who doubted America's resolve to defend 
democracy in this hemisphere. An immediate withdrawal would throw away 
all of the advances that are being achieved daily in restoring order 
and bringing about a restoration of democracy in the nation of Haiti.
  The basic facts of the situation in Haiti are undisputed. President 
Artistide was elected in an honest election by the overwhelming 
majority of the Haitian people. This new legitimate government was 
overthrown by a group of military dictators who perpetuated their 
brutal regime by means of murder, physical beatings, kidnapping and 
intimidation. The United States and the international community 
strived for over 3 years to restore the democratically elected 
government of Haiti. This effort was thwarted again and again by a 
military regime of murderers and profiteers.

  President Clinton made every possible effort to achieve the 
restoration of democracy in Haiti through diplomatic means. President 
Clinton and the diplomatic team led by former President Carter deserve 
great credit for securing the peaceful arrival of United States troops 
in Haiti as part of a multinational effort to restore democracy. I was 
very pleased the United States was able to avert a forceful invasion. 
It remains my hope that the multinational coalition led by the United 
States can help to secure respect for democracy and human rights in 
Haiti.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should adopt the Dellums/Murtha resolution 
which supports the brave efforts of our troops who are seeking to 
uphold democracy in Haiti. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, several thousand men and women 
of our Armed Forces were deployed to Haiti, ostensibly to establish law 
and order and to pave the way for the return of the ousted president, 
Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The arrival of our forces in Haiti was made 
much more permissible through the negotiating efforts of former 
President Jimmy Carter, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Colin Powell, and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Sam Nunn. These three patriots, all of whom have long and distinguished 
histories of service to our great country, were dispatched to Haiti by 
President Clinton in one last diplomatic effort to avoid military 
conflict. In this regard, President Clinton deserves credit for 
assembling the Carter delegation.
  Mr. Chairman, now that our forces occupy Haiti, the question being 
asked by my constituents and most Americans is: how long will they 
remain? I urge the administration to take all appropriate steps to 
ensure that our forces are withdrawn from Haiti as expeditiously as 
possible. Yet, I am not prepared at this time to support efforts in 
Congress to set a date certain for the withdrawal of United States 
forces, for I believe that to do so would tie the President's hands and 
provide incentives to those elements in Haitian society who wish to 
skirt the September 18 agreement signed by President Carter and General 
Cedras. It is my heartfelt belief, however, that a United Nations 
peacekeeping force should take control of the Haitian mission and that 
this should be accomplished in as short a time period as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration must be congratulated for its 
success in avoiding an armed military conflict. However, the 
difficulties of rebuilding a nation torn apart by a dictatorial and 
brutal military regime will be manifold and should not be borne by the 
United States alone. The United Nations Security Council passed a 
resolution authorizing actions such as the United States undertook to 
restore President Aristide to power, and it should be a United Nations 
peacekeeping force which rebuilds Haiti's dilapidated infrastructure 
and guarantees the establishment of democracy and democratic 
institutions.
  So tonight, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues of this House, I believe 
that our best and most prudent course of action is to support the 
Dellums-Murtha-Hastings and Dicks substitute.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2300

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 167, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               AYES--258

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--167

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Walker
     Williams
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Owens
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Applegate
     Dornan
     Fish
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Ravenel
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2318

  Messrs. PALLONE, CUNNINGHAM, McINNIS, and GOODLING changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. INSLEE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do not rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  2320

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having 
assumed the chair, Mr. McDermott, Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
having had under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 416) 
providing limited authorization for the participation of United States 
Armed Forces in the multinational force in Haiti an providing for the 
prompt withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Haiti, had come to 
no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________