[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4112-S4114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE PRESENT SITUATION IN HAITI

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last Friday, the majority leader, Senator 
Dole, took to the floor and made a rather critical speech of our 
present policy in Haiti. He introduced at that time a report which was 
prepared by a Republican staff delegation that had gone down to Haiti 
during the Easter recess. I think the report probably could have been 
written a week or two in advance of the trip and the trip might not 
have even been necessary since there was not any real effort to examine 
the issues in Haiti and what has happened there over the past 18 months 
or so.
  This morning I wish to take a few minutes to apprise my colleagues of 
how I see the present situation in Haiti. Where we have come over the 
past number of months in making real progress there. The good news is, 
of course, that Haiti is not in the headlines on a daily basis but 
there has been significant progress.
  I think it is important that my colleagues and others who have heard 
Senator Dole's remarks have an opportunity to hear another point of 
view, and that is what I would like to do this morning.
  I am no stranger to Haiti. I have visited the country many times over 
the years. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer 30 years ago, I lived 
very close to the Haitian border in the Dominican Republic. I visited 
Haiti often in those days and still have many close friends in the 
country of Haiti.
  Most recently, I visited Haiti this past January to make my own 
firsthand assessment of the political situation. Based upon that visit, 
and the many others that I have made over the years, one thing is 
crystal clear. President Clinton's decision in September 1994 to 
support democracy in Haiti was the right thing to do. Whatever else one 
might say about United States policy, Haiti is a far, far better place 
today than it was 19 months ago.
  Remember what those days were like. The reign of terror was the order 
of the day. Murder, rape, and kidnaping were daily occurrences in 
Haiti, all in an effort to intimidate the Haitian people. Those days 
are gone now. And, despite the fact that Haiti is a long way, a long 
way from becoming a Jeffersonian democracy, we are not going to rewrite 
almost 200 years of Haitian history in less than 2 years--I believe 
that today the Haitian people are one step closer to fulfilling their 
aspirations of living in freedom and dignity without fear of their 
Government.
  An important phase of our Haiti policy came to a close just a month 
or so ago. U.S. forces are no longer participants in the United Nations 
mandated mission. In fact, last week the final contingent of United 
States forces left Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
  When President Clinton dispatched United States forces to Haiti in 
the fall of 1994, he set a deadline of February 29, 1996, as the date 
when United States military participation in the mandated mission of 
the United Nations would terminate. He has stood by that situation and 
it has been fulfilled.
  The goals of the United States policy have been clear from the 
outset, that is, to restore the democratically elected President of 
Haiti to office, to provide a secure and stable environment within 
which Democratic elections could be conducted, to protect international 
personnel and installations, and to facilitate the creation of a 
Haitian national police force.
  Despite what some might have you believe, we have made tremendous 
strides toward fulfilling those goals. The duly elected president was 
restored to office. Municipal, congressional and presidential elections 
were successfully conducted. A civilian national police force has been 
established. The army no longer exists. The dreaded Haitian military 
has been dissolved.
  During my January visit to Port-au-Prince, Mr. President, it became 
very apparent to me that there was a shared consensus across the 
broadest segment of Haitian society for a continued United Nations 
presence after February 29. President Aristide, then President-elect 
Preval, members of the Haitian Congress, the business community, the 
United States Embassy, U.N. officials, virtually everyone with whom I 
met, expressed the strong view that a follow-on presence by the United 
Nations was vital to solidifying the very real gains that have been 
made in Haiti over the last many months. Fortunately, the United 
Nations Security Council concurred with the prevailing wisdom in Haiti 
and extended the U.N. mission for an additional 4 months until June 1 
of this year. The Canadian Government, not the United States 
Government, has assumed the leadership role in the extended, albeit 
smaller, United Nations mission. I for one have expressed my 
appreciation to Canadian authorities for their willingness to do so.
  No one is saying that the job is complete in Haiti. Far from it. Much 
remains to be done on the economic front, on the judicial front, on the 
human rights front, and on the migration front.
  Public security, for example, continues to be a major challenge to 
the current Haitian administration, as it was to its predecessor. In 
that regard, some critics of Haiti have singled out the performance of 
the newly formed Haitian national police as an example of how United 
States policy has failed. That was included in the majority leader's 
remarks last Friday.
  Mr. President, I could not disagree more. It does a great injustice 
to the real progress that has been made in this area in less than a 
year's time. Let us remember that until last June a civilian police 
force did not exist in Haiti. It had to be built from scratch while 
dissolving the army, the dreaded military.
  In less than 8 months, a force of 5,000 freshly recruited and trained 
Haitians has been deployed throughout the country. Yes, they are green. 
They have made mistakes. But it is really quite a remarkable feat, when 
you think of it. Can you imagine establishing something like a 5,000-
person force from the ground up, going through all the training, in a 
major city in this country overnight?
  Haiti is not the only place we have endeavored to support the 
creation of a new professional civilian force to replace corrupt and 
brutal militarily justice. In Panama and in El Salvador, we joined with 
their government leaders to do something similar. In those cases, we 
had bipartisan support. Unfortunately, bipartisanship seems to be 
absent in the case of Haiti.
  Some of the same problems in Haiti did, in fact, existed in these 
countries as well, Panama and El Salvador, and continue, I point out, 
to confront us to today.
  Continued international assistance and support at this juncture is 
terribly important for this little country. These are critical to 
ensuring the strengthening and permanency of still fragile democratic 
institutions in Haiti. I believe the United States must remain engaged 
in Haiti.
  U.S. humanitarian and democracy-building programs will continue to be 
important to future progress in a wide array of areas: the national 
police, the judicial and legislative branches, economic reforms, human 
rights and migration. If we do not remain engaged, I predict the 
previous problems that confronted both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations with respect to Haiti will

[[Page S4113]]

be right back in the laps of some future administration, and much more 
so.
  Last Friday, in the course of his remarks, Senator Dole stated it 
would be wrong to make Haiti a political football. Mr. President, I 
could not agree more. In that regard, the endless congressional holds 
that have been placed on purely humanitarian assistance--we have had 
holds, now, in some cases that have been in place since late last year, 
on proposed humanitarian assistance to Haiti. These holds in my view 
threaten to make Haiti the political football that the Majority leader 
has warned about. These United States assistance programs for 
vaccinations, for AIDS prevention, for textbooks, for primary schools, 
are targeted at the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of Haitian 
society. It is deplorable that we have held up these funds that were 
voted and appropriated by this Congress.
  In my view, the administration has more than adequately addressed the 
questions about specifics of most of these programs--in briefings of 
congressional staff and written responses to questions submitted from 
the Congress. If the Republican majority mean what they say about not 
making Haiti a political football, then the time has come for these 
congressional holds to be lifted so the continuity of these programs 
can be maintained.
  Again, I do not mean to suggest that all of the questions and 
concerns raised about the implementation of certain U.N. and U.S.--
sponsored programs have not been without merit. There is merit to those 
questions. But let us remember that when the President and the 
international community decided to restore democracy to Haiti, they 
were navigating in unchartered waters. After all, this was the very 
first time in our history that international action would be utilized 
in an effort to restore a democratically elected government to power 
following a military coup.
  United States officials, United Nations officials, and most 
especially Haitian officials had to learn on the job. So, not 
surprisingly, mistakes were made. But I would also say that 
administration, United Nations and Haitian officials have bent over 
backwards to answer questions and to make adjustments in programs as 
necessary.
  Despite those efforts, criticism continues and the holds persist. As 
I mentioned earlier, these Republican holds placed on United States aid 
programs are jeopardizing some terribly important programs. One wonders 
if these aid programs have been put on hold, not so much because 
answers are wanted, but in the hope that policy successes that have 
occurred to date will be undermined. If so, this is very cynical and 
shortsighted and most certainly contrary to United States interests.

  While I acknowledge that some criticism about events in Haiti have 
had merit, others have been far off the mark. For example, some have 
charged that last year's Haitian elections have produced a one-party 
state in Port-au-Prince. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can 
tell you from my meetings with leaders of the Haitian Parliament that 
they are no rubber stamp for an executive branch. In fact, during my 
visit in January, the Haitian Senate overwhelmingly rejected President 
Aristide's controversial nominee to head the national police force. 
President Preval subsequently nominated, and the Haitian Senate 
confirmed, a very able individual to head the police force in the 
country. All that to say the political process is working.
  Turning to another area of concern, the possibility of politically 
motivated killings. There has been a great deal of misinformation, I 
would say, Mr. President, about these so-called politically motivated 
murders. The number is much smaller than the 20 to 25 that some have 
alleged. As to the lack of Haitian cooperation, it is my sense that the 
FBI did not make a lot of friends in the manner in which it first went 
about conducting its initial investigations in Port-au-Prince. I was 
amazed to find out the FBI never bothered to meet with the members of 
the U.N./OAS civilian mission, the mission that had been monitoring 
cases since 1993. This is particularly troubling, I would say, since 
representatives from the civilian mission would have been of enormous 
assistance to the FBI's investigation. You will recall that most often 
they were the first ones at the crime scene to gather evidence and 
interview onlookers.
  Nor, apparently, did the FBI seek advice from the U.S. Embassy or 
utilize its expertise and local contacts. Do not misunderstand what I 
am saying. I am not condoning these or other acts of violence in Haiti. 
One politically motivated killing is one too many. But I did not notice 
quite the same level of outrage in some quarters when the military 
dictatorship of Haiti was killing hundreds--hundreds--of Haitians, many 
them prominent political figures, in plain view of international 
journalists and cameras. Certainly, Haitian authorities need to 
confront the problems of impunity head on and to put together a 
credible investigation of the various suspicious murders and bring the 
matter to closure, but this should not become an excuse for walking 
away from Haiti or putting every other initiative in the deep freeze.
  There has been a great deal of focus on the police and the security 
situation in Haiti, and rightfully so. These are important areas of 
concern, but they are not the only ones that will determine Haiti's 
future. Haiti, like many developing countries, suffers from serious 
brain drain, with many of its most talented citizens leaving the 
country. We need to try to redouble our efforts to help them find 
capable people to fill upper and middle management positions throughout 
the government, particularly with respect to the police force. Haitians 
living abroad need to take some responsibility for their country's 
future as well.
  The economy is also pivotal to Haiti's future. In fact, what happens 
with respect to the Haitian economy is perhaps more important than any 
other single issue we could mention. Economic growth and investment 
create jobs. Jobs mean hope and opportunity for the Haitian people. 
That is what gives people a stake in their country and their 
government. The economic policies that the Preval administration 
decides to implement will determine whether the Haitian economy will 
rebound and grow or simply stagnate.
  Privatization of certain key State-owned enterprises--power, 
telecommunications, flour and cement--can play an important role in 
creating a favorable economic climate in Haiti as well, and should 
serve, I would add, to attract badly needed foreign investment in 
critical sectors.
  Last month, the Committee on Foreign Relations had the honor of 
hosting a working coffee for the recently inaugurated President of 
Haiti, His Excellency Rene Preval. We had a very useful and, I think, 
candid discussion about issues of mutual concern to our two countries. 
It was a very helpful session. Surprisingly, many of those who have 
been the harshest critics of Haiti did not bother to attend this 
meeting or to give President Preval an opportunity to address some of 
the concerns that they have raised. I wonder why?
  Among other things, they would have heard President Preval----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator his 15 minutes 
has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Among other things, they would have learned from President 
Preval about his commitment to helping keep Haiti on its course toward 
democracy and about the high priority he accords to implementing 
significant economic reforms.
  President Clinton has fashioned our policy toward Haiti as he has 
because he wants to give the Haitian people a chance, a chance to live 
without intimidation and fear, a chance to make choices and decisions 
about their own destiny. Our policy is making that possible, perhaps 
for the first time in Haitian history.
  As I said earlier, I could not agree more with our distinguished 
majority leader that Haiti should not become a political football. 
Sadly, for most of that country's history, it has been somebody's 
political football. The people of Haiti deserve a lot better.
  Mr. President, President Preval seems determined to do whatever he 
can to ensure the people of Haiti have a brighter future, but he alone 
cannot make that happen.
  He needs and deserves the support of the United States in that 
endeavor, and I hope that he will receive it.

[[Page S4114]]



                        MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am extremely gratified that the Senate 
has unanimously approved the Health Insurance Reform Act, S. 1028, with 
the inclusion of Senator Domenici's amendment relating to mental health 
coverage. Specifically, this amendment prevents insurers from imposing 
limits on benefits for mental illness that are not imposed on benefits 
for physical illness. This bill requires insurers to treat consumers 
fairly. It guarantees that insurers do not drop people's coverage when 
they change jobs or for pre-existing health conditions. It also 
prevents insurers from imposing arbitrary coverage limits on persons 
who need services for mental illness.
  I have long been a strong supporter of nondiscriminatory coverage for 
persons suffering mental illness. In the last Congress, I sponsored, 
with Senators Dole and Simon, a resolution, Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 16, that called on Congress to ensure that persons with 
mental illness receive equitable coverage with that afforded for 
physical illness. Our resolution received strong bipartisan support, 
and the Senate has included nondiscriminatory coverage for mental 
illness in S. 1028.
  Americans with mental illness deserve to have equitable access to 
health coverage. Because these Americans often cannot find adequate 
coverage under private coverage, they are frequently forced to resort 
to coverage in public programs. Without jobs and coverage, many are not 
adequately treated. This legislation will permit many mentally ill 
persons to have the coverage they need to hold down jobs and to lead 
productive and fulfilling lives.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that mental illness can strike at any 
time, to anyone. Many of us know someone who has suffered mental 
illness. This amendment will provide nondiscriminatory coverage for a 
range of mentally ill disorders, including schizophrenia, manic 
depressive disorder, or panic disorder.
  I believe that this amendment will make for a more productive and 
efficient work force. American businesses lose more than $100 billion 
per year due to lost productivity of employees because of substance 
abuse and mental illness. We can reduce this drain on employers by 
permitting employees access to nondiscriminatory mental illness 
coverage.
  I strongly support S. 1028 with inclusion of nondiscriminatory 
coverage for persons with mental illness. Inclusion of this provision 
is not only the right and compassionate thing to do, but it will also 
reduce overall mental health spending and make our health system more 
accessible for persons with mental illness. I urge my fellow Senators 
to support this provision in conference.

                          ____________________