[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       U.S. POLICY TOWARDS HAITI

                                 ______


                               speech of

                      HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 6, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.J. Res. 416) 
     providing limited authorization for the participation of 
     United States Armed Forces in the multinational force in 
     Haiti and providing for the prompt withdrawal of United 
     States Armed Forces from Haiti:
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my views on the current 
U.S. military occupation of Haiti.
  My position on U.S. policy toward Haiti is clear and simple. I 
neither supported President Clinton's initial deployment of U.S. troops 
to Haiti nor do I support the current U.S. military occupation of the 
troubled nation. No compelling U.S. interests were at stake in Haiti. 
No American lives were at risk, and the United States had no vital 
strategic or economic concerns there. While the United States should 
always be committed to democracy and support democratically elected 
leaders, I question whether placing U.S. service men and women in Haiti 
to restore President Aristide is an appropriate use of our military 
forces.
  Furthermore, it is my belief that, as commander-in-chief, President 
Clinton had an obligation to build public support for his policy before 
placing one American service member in harm's way. He should have 
clearly articulated our national interests and security objectives in 
Haiti, and allowed Congress to fully and publicly debate and vote on 
the merits of his policy. President Clinton's decision not to seek 
public or congressional support prior to the invasion and occupation of 
Haiti was a serious failure on his part, because if he had, the United 
States might not be in the troublesome position we are in today.
  Although I feel U.S. military intervention in Haiti is a mistake, and 
U.S. troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible, I strongly oppose 
any congressional action to set a deadline for withdrawal or any 
attempt to cut off funds for military operations in Haiti.
  Under the two previous administrations, I consistently joined my 
Republican colleagues in fending off Democratic attempts to tie the 
hands of the President in executing U.S. foreign policy. I argued that 
Congress must give the President latitude to properly carry out his 
responsibilities as our commander-in-chief, especially when U.S. troops 
are in a hostile environment. It would be contrary to my beliefs and 
hypocritical for me now to support any resolution that severely 
restricts the President's authority over foreign policy and military 
affairs by mandating the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
  Having stated by views, I must admit I am not thrilled by any of the 
three alternative before us today. While none represent flawless public 
policy, some are clearly better than others.
  I am vehemently opposed to the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution which 
provides an implicit endorsement of the President's policy and 
retroactive authorization for his actions. I cannot support 
authorization for continued United States presence in Haiti to carry 
out a poorly defined mission I do not support, and urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on Torricelli-Hamilton.
  Although I have misgivings about the Michel-Gilman substitute, I will 
vote for it because it is clearly the best of the three choices. It 
states that President Clinton should not have sent troops to Haiti, and 
urges an immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal. Although I am 
concerned about the fixed timetable for a congressional vote on pulling 
U.S. troops out of Haiti, I view this provision more as a reservation 
of Congress's right to revisit the issue than as a congressional 
deadline for troop withdrawal.
  If the Michel-Gilman substitute fails, which I expect it will, I will 
lend my qualified support to the Dellums-Murtha substitute. Although 
the language is anemic and does not go far enough in expressing 
disapproval of President Clinton's decision to dispatch troops to 
Haiti, I prefer the Dellums-Murtha substitute over the base text of the 
resolution which endorses and authorizes the President's actions. 
President Clinton should not interpret this Member's vote in support of 
the Dellums-Murtha substitute as a vote of confidence, but instead as a 
denial of congressional authorization for his Haiti military operation 
and a forceful repudiation of his mishandling of this sorry affair.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter what the outcome of the Michel-Gilman or 
Dellums-Murtha votes, in my mind, the only vote that truly matters, and 
the vote the President should be closely watching, is the vote on the 
Torricelli-Hamilton resolution. This is the only amendment that 
provides authorization for continued U.S. presence in Haiti, and 
therefore, the only one that endorses the President's actions. If 
Congress fails to adopt the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution, it will be 
a clear, unmistakable rejection of the President's Haitian policy, and 
President Clinton should recognize and understand this.
  Once again, I strongly urge members to vote ``no'' on the Torricelli-
Hamilton resolution.

                          ____________________