{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE240", "1994-10-08", 103, 2, null, null, "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)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n\n                       U.S. POLICY TOWARDS HAITI\n\n                                 ______\n\n                               speech of\n\n                      HON. WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR.\n\n                            of pennsylvania\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                       Thursday, October 6, 1994\n\n       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of\n     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.J. Res. 416)\n     providing limited authorization for the participation of\n     United States Armed Forces in the multinational force in\n     Haiti and providing for the prompt withdrawal of United\n     States Armed Forces from Haiti:\n  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my views on the current\nU.S. military occupation of Haiti.\n  My position on U.S. policy toward Haiti is clear and simple. I\nneither supported President Clinton's initial deployment of U.S. troops\nto Haiti nor do I support the current U.S. military occupation of the\ntroubled nation. No compelling U.S. interests were at stake in Haiti.\nNo American lives were at risk, and the United States had no vital\nstrategic or economic concerns there. While the United States should\nalways be committed to democracy and support democratically elected\nleaders, I question whether placing U.S. service men and women in Haiti\nto restore President Aristide is an appropriate use of our military\nforces.\n  Furthermore, it is my belief that, as commander-in-chief, President\nClinton had an obligation to build public support for his policy before\nplacing one American service member in harm's way. He should have\nclearly articulated our national interests and security objectives in\nHaiti, and allowed Congress to fully and publicly debate and vote on\nthe merits of his policy. President Clinton's decision not to seek\npublic or congressional support prior to the invasion and occupation of\nHaiti was a serious failure on his part, because if he had, the United\nStates might not be in the troublesome position we are in today.\n  Although I feel U.S. military intervention in Haiti is a mistake, and\nU.S. troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible, I strongly oppose\nany congressional action to set a deadline for withdrawal or any\nattempt to cut off funds for military operations in Haiti.\n  Under the two previous administrations, I consistently joined my\nRepublican colleagues in fending off Democratic attempts to tie the\nhands of the President in executing U.S. foreign policy. I argued that\nCongress must give the President latitude to properly carry out his\nresponsibilities as our commander-in-chief, especially when U.S. troops\nare in a hostile environment. It would be contrary to my beliefs and\nhypocritical for me now to support any resolution that severely\nrestricts the President's authority over foreign policy and military\naffairs by mandating the withdrawal of U.S. troops.\n  Having stated by views, I must admit I am not thrilled by any of the\nthree alternative before us today. While none represent flawless public\npolicy, some are clearly better than others.\n  I am vehemently opposed to the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution which\nprovides an implicit endorsement of the President's policy and\nretroactive authorization for his actions. I cannot support\nauthorization for continued United States presence in Haiti to carry\nout a poorly defined mission I do not support, and urge my colleagues\nto vote ``no'' on Torricelli-Hamilton.\n  Although I have misgivings about the Michel-Gilman substitute, I will\nvote for it because it is clearly the best of the three choices. It\nstates that President Clinton should not have sent troops to Haiti, and\nurges an immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal. Although I am\nconcerned about the fixed timetable for a congressional vote on pulling\nU.S. troops out of Haiti, I view this provision more as a reservation\nof Congress's right to revisit the issue than as a congressional\ndeadline for troop withdrawal.\n  If the Michel-Gilman substitute fails, which I expect it will, I will\nlend my qualified support to the Dellums-Murtha substitute. Although\nthe language is anemic and does not go far enough in expressing\ndisapproval of President Clinton's decision to dispatch troops to\nHaiti, I prefer the Dellums-Murtha substitute over the base text of the\nresolution which endorses and authorizes the President's actions.\nPresident Clinton should not interpret this Member's vote in support of\nthe Dellums-Murtha substitute as a vote of confidence, but instead as a\ndenial of congressional authorization for his Haiti military operation\nand a forceful repudiation of his mishandling of this sorry affair.\n  Mr. Speaker, no matter what the outcome of the Michel-Gilman or\nDellums-Murtha votes, in my mind, the only vote that truly matters, and\nthe vote the President should be closely watching, is the vote on the\nTorricelli-Hamilton resolution. This is the only amendment that\nprovides authorization for continued U.S. presence in Haiti, and\ntherefore, the only one that endorses the President's actions. If\nCongress fails to adopt the Torricelli-Hamilton resolution, it will be\na clear, unmistakable rejection of the President's Haitian policy, and\nPresident Clinton should recognize and understand this.\n  Once again, I strongly urge members to vote ``no'' on the Torricelli-\nHamilton resolution.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1994-10-08-pt1-PgE240"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.6415361315011978, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}