[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H7251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        NO END IN SIGHT IN HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, another week has gone by and by all accounts 
there are still more questions, more uncertainties regarding the 
situation in Haiti. I am happy to report, however, that Ambassador 
Dobbins of the State Department Haiti working group has removed one 
uncertainty. In hearings last week he took the time to clarify the 
amount of money the United States taxpayers paid for the intervention 
in Haiti. As you know, we have been using a rough figure frequently 
cited in the press--something in the neighborhood of $2 billion. In 
fact, Ambassador Dobbins told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
that for just the period between the occupation of Haiti in September 
1994 and the March 1995 takeover by the United Nations mission in 
Haiti, the Clinton administration only spent $1.2 billion. That is a 
load off of my mind. Of course, my constituents will still be 
interested to know what progress has been achieved toward a more 
democratic and stable Haiti for the sum of $1.2 billion of their tax 
dollars.
  How, for example, is the elections process going? This week, the
   long-awaited OAS assessment of the June 25 Haitian elections was 
finally released. The conclusion? According to OAS Secretary-General 
Cesar Geviria: ``It is difficult for us to say that this was free and 
fair. Everybody knows there were a lot of flaws.'' Given the abuse that 
credible observer organizations like the International Republican 
Institute took when they offered the same conclusion, I am surprised at 
the resounding lack of interest in Mr. Geviria's statement in both the 
Clinton administration and the media. Secretary General Geviria also 
went on to say he hopes Haitian officials will ``find a way to get 
these results accepted'' and ``solve some of these problems in the 
three elections we have ahead.'' We hope so too, but there are signs 
that the process may already be seriously damaged. The first of those 
upcoming elections, originally slated for this weekend, are supposed to 
be a makeup day for areas where gross irregularities, administrative 
snafus, or ballot-burning meant Haitians could not exercise their right 
to vote. As of Tuesday these elections have been indefinitely 
postponed.

  Added to this is the fact that
   23 of the 27 parties participating in the June election continue to 
reject the process, and therefore the results. They have vowed to 
boycott both the makeup elections and the runoffs set for some time in 
August. There is also a growing list of disturbing events to consider. 
The shooting of a mayoral candidate during the elections and a deputy 
candidate 2 days later were disturbing enough. This week Deputy Mayor 
Elect Johnny Charles was attacked by knife-wielding thugs. If the 
security environment deteriorates, it will simply add another 
disincentive for Haitians who might otherwise participate in the 
political process as either voters or candidates.

  Time is passing and each day brings us closer to the February date 
envisioned for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the end of the U.N. 
mission. But the lack of progress on elections and growing questions 
regarding security point to a possible continuation of the mission well 
into the new year. Mr. Speaker, each day that passes means more bills 
added to the $1.2 billion tab that the American taxpayers have already 
paid in Haiti. My constituents and I would like to know: Is the end in 
sight?


                          ____________________