congressional_record: CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE240
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE240 | 1994-10-08 | 103 | 2 | U.S. POLICY TOWARDS HAITI | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | FRONTMATTER | E | E | [{"name": "William F. Clinger Jr.", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "103", "type": "HJRES", "number": "416"}] | 140 Cong. Rec. E | Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994) [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. ____________________ |