Transcript - Senate Floor: FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995 | Factba.se

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg].

Frank R. Lautenberg

Mr. President, some time ago, I offered an amendment that I understood was accepted by both sides on this bill.

Mitch McConnell

Will the Senator yield?

Frank R. Lautenberg

I will be happy to yield.

Mitch McConnell

I specifically said it had not yet been cleared on the Republican side.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I thought in fairness to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee that that was kind of an afterthought and that it had been cleared because it was my understanding through the staffs that the amendment -- --

Mitch McConnell

I say to my friend from New Jersey, it has not yet been cleared. We are working on that and hope to get back to him shortly.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Then I stand corrected.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Mr. President, I ask what the pending business is, please?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey to the first committee amendment.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.

Frank R. Lautenberg

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote, when taken, will be by the yeas and nays.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Mr. President, in deference to the bill managers, I will wait now and relinquish the floor. I relinquish the floor at the moment to come back to perhaps a vote a while later.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy].

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, just so everybody will understand my position on this amendment, I raised some points that I may raise again either in conference or later in working with the administration. I support the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, and I will vote for the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey. I share his frustration and the frustration of the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], at the enormous cost being borne by many of our States, and by the Federal Government in some instances, for people who are in this country illegally, who have been prosecuted, convicted, sent to jail for violent crimes, who should be sent back to their countries, and we are unable to get the countries to take them back. So the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. If I recall the debate earlier today, the Senator from New Jersey said about 45,000.

Frank R. Lautenberg

Patrick J. Leahy

Fifty-eight thousand.

Patrick J. Leahy

Fifty-eight thousand people is larger than all but one county in my State, just to put it in perspective. These are foreign citizens. We know it can mean tens of thousands of dollars for one person incarcerated. So we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars or more being paid for by the State of New Jersey and the State of California, and, I suspect, the States of many other Senators represented here are paying this bill.

Patrick J. Leahy

So I hope that we will vote on it soon, and I will vote for it.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler].

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I have three amendments that have been agreed to. I could do them very quickly if we could lay aside the pending amendment and do these three amendments, and I do not plan to take more than a minute or two on each one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not expect I will, but I am not sure I know which are the amendments the Senator from -- --

Larry Pressler

If the Senator will talk with staff, he has all three of them. I will explain what they are.

Patrick J. Leahy

If the Senator will withhold just a minute and let me finish.

Larry Pressler

The Senator's staff has all of them, and they have been cleared. I will send them over.

Patrick J. Leahy

If the Senator will just let me finish my sentence. I know he wants to be helpful. Could he just tell me briefly what the three amendments are he is talking about because we are going to have to ask the Senator from New Jersey if he will be willing to set aside his amendment to do this.

Larry Pressler

I have two amendments actually.

Patrick J. Leahy

I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought the Senator said three.

Larry Pressler

Patrick J. Leahy

And what are they about?

Larry Pressler

The first of the two amendments is a Buy America amendment. It declares a U.S. firm should be given equal opportunity to bid for U.N. acquisition needs, both peacekeeping and other acquisitions.

Larry Pressler

Additionally, this amendment says no funds appropriated by the foreign operations appropriations bill should be obligated or expended to pay U.S. voluntary contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities unless the Secretary of State can certify that U.S. companies are being given a fair shake.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, as you know, the United States currently pays 30.4 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. U.S. manufacturers need to be assured of the same opportunities to provide equipment, services and material that foreign manufacturers have.

Larry Pressler

My second amendment specifically addresses procurement problems associated with the telecommunications industry. This sense-of-the- Congress amendment calls on the administration -- it does not require it -- to use a reciprocal standard when considering awarding telecommunications contracts or when buying products from primary foreign telecommunications firms.

Larry Pressler

Additionally, if a foreign-owned firm discriminates against U.S. firms in awarding contracts or making Government-financed purchases, the amendment says that the administration should review critically such contracts and purchases.

Larry Pressler

This amendment expresses the sentiment that the United States should expect other countries to allow U.S. firms equal access to telecommunications contracts and procurement if foreign firms are expected to be able to participate in projects financed by U.S. foreign aid.

Larry Pressler

I urge my colleagues to support these two probusiness amendments.

Patrick J. Leahy

The Senator's staff has given us three amendments. He has given us two amendments.

Larry Pressler

Yes, there is a third amendment. It relates to the -- --

Patrick J. Leahy

Is the Senator speaking of three amendments or two amendments?

Larry Pressler

Three amendments.

Patrick J. Leahy

We are back to three.

Larry Pressler

Patrick J. Leahy

We started at three, went to two, and are back to three.

Larry Pressler

That is right. That is exactly correct. And there was no sleight of hand.

Larry Pressler

My third amendment is a sense-of-the-Congress amendment. It would allow U.S. payments in kind for U.N. peacekeeping assessments.

Larry Pressler

In other words, this amendment would encourage the contribution of U.S. goods and services in payment of our U.N. peacekeeping assessed costs. The United States could contribute excess defense equipment or other articles to peacekeeping operations and these contributions would be credited to the U.S. assessed costs. With the lion's share of the peacekeeping assessments -- 30.4 percent -- the United States should be able to count goods and services against overall peacekeeping assessed costs.

Patrick J. Leahy

Now that I understand what the amendments are, I will object to going forward with those because I think we are about to dispose of the Lautenberg amendment. And while the Senator from New Jersey is still in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays be withdrawn on the Lautenberg amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Patrick J. Leahy

I ask, Mr. President, for the adoption of the Lautenberg amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate then on amendment No. 2104 offered by the Senator from New Jersey?

Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

So the amendment (No. 2104) was agreed to.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mitch McConnell

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mitch McConnell

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy].

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, it is now, of course, open for the Senator from South Dakota to send forward the amendments that he wishes. I would note, though, on discussions he had on Buy America, I would not object to that because I have already been advised that we are getting a fairly significant share of the peacekeeping equipment in America anyway. In fact, considering how much in arrears we are in a lot of our payments, as much in arrears as the United States is in its payments to the peacekeeping funds, we should probably be happy that other countries have not argued that they buy only the amount of American goods as we are in our payments because I suspect that, if other nations took that attitude, we would find the U.N. buying a lot less American equipment.

Patrick J. Leahy

I am not going to object to that particular amendment. I just hope that it does not become of high profile to other countries because they might start calling up and asking just how much in arrears we are and start suggesting they buy a lot less.

Patrick J. Leahy

Now, I would object very much to taking money out of our appropriations and our allocation, as the Senator from South Dakota does in another one of his amendments, to pay for the allocations and the appropriations in another appropriation, that is, State-Justice- Commerce, which it appears to be.

Patrick J. Leahy

But I mention this, and, of course, the Senator can send any one of his amendments to the desk and we can debate them and decide where to go with them.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair inquires of the Senator from South Dakota whether the Senator intends to amend the pending first committee amendment or whether the Senator wishes to set aside that amendment and introduce this amendment.

Larry Pressler

Parliamentary inquiry. Would it be simpler -- I think I will offer two of my amendments en bloc. We have two of them agreed on for sure.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, I do not want to be difficult on this, but we started with three amendments, came to two amendments, went back to three amendments. And before I start agreeing to anything, I would want to know which amendment we are talking about.

Patrick J. Leahy

I think maybe it would be a lot quicker just to send the amendments one by one, debate them, and dispose of them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending committee amendments will be set aside, and the clerk will report the first amendment sent to the desk by the Senator from South Dakota.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I have already explained this amendment.

Patrick J. Leahy

To make life easier, Mr. President, for the Senator from South Dakota, we are willing to accept this. In fact, I would hope we might do as little fanfare as possible. Other countries that are concerned about us being in arrears in our payments know what we are doing. They will not be losing sales to America, not the other way around.

Larry Pressler

I urge adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the table is agreed to.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, this amendment calls on the administration -- it does not require them -- to use a reciprocal standard in considering awarding telecommunications contracts when buying products from primary foreign-owned telecommunications firms. If a foreign owned firm discriminates against U.S. firms in awarding contracts or making Government-financed purchases, the administration should review critically such contract purchases.

Larry Pressler

This amendment expresses the sentiment that the U.S. should expect other countries to allow U.S. firms equal access to telecommunications products and procurement if foreign firms are expected to be able to participate in projects financed by U.S. foreign aid.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

Larry Pressler

I urge adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota.

Larry Pressler

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the table is agreed to.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, I would suggest that, regarding the third amendment of the Senator from South Dakota which he is considering to offer, payments in kind, insofar as that is not something within the jurisdiction of this appropriations bill or this subcommittee, at least for the time being he may want to withhold that, and find out whether there is any way within the jurisdiction of it. Because I do not want to have other chairmen and ranking members down here, as well as the chairman, and the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, who is on the floor, getting involved in this debate. This does not appear, at least at first blush, to be within the jurisdiction of our committee of appropriations.

Patrick J. Leahy

I would suggest to the Senator from South Dakota that he may want to withhold this one while we at least check out the jurisdictional issue.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

Patrick J. Leahy

I do not think it has been sent to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has apparently decided to withhold sending the amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield].

Mark Hatfield

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mark Hatfield

Mr. President, I would like to offer an amendment to this bill. I understand under the procedure we are in that this would be ruled as out of order. But I would like to make a few comments about the amendment and the content of that amendment.

Mark Hatfield

I know that a number on this floor share my concern about the proliferation of conventional weaponry in the world today. The United States has the dubious title of being the largest arms merchant, arms peddler, in the world today, now that the Soviet Union has shifted its structure.

Mark Hatfield

Let me indicate that this bill that we have before us today appropriates over $3 billion in security assistance to U.S. allies. As many of you know, I am a longtime critic of our military assistance program because I believe that it undermines our development efforts in poorer countries. Our policy of encouraging nations to become militarized all too often encourages them to become aggressive, repressive, and impoverished.

Mark Hatfield

I appreciate the committee's notations in the report accompanying this bill which calls upon the administration to show some leadership in curbing the global flow of weapons. Unfortunately, it is not enough.

Mark Hatfield

It is time for reform of our weapons transfer policy. Let me remind us that since the end of World War II, 40 million men, women, and children have lost their lives in wars fought with conventional weapons.

Mark Hatfield

These wars are fueled by weapons transfers and the United States is the world's arms dealer.

Mark Hatfield

Our so-called nonproliferation policy has a gaping hole created by our desire to peddle arms worldwide. I would track that back to our own addiction for arms development in this country. Nevertheless, we have spread the virus all over the world.

Mark Hatfield

The United States now sells over one-half of all weapons transferred to the Third World. Let us focus on the Third World. During fiscal year 1993 we set a record, with the United States entering into agreements for the sale of over 31 billion dollars' worth of conventional arms to 140 nations. It is almost a characteristic of wanting to somehow fuel our own budget by the sale of arms to the rest of the world.

Mark Hatfield

This role as the leading arms peddler is a dangerous one: Promoting the sale of arms abroad weakens our own national security, undermines our non-proliferation efforts and sends a message of false hope to workers who are employed in the declining defense industry in this Nation.

Mark Hatfield

Arms sales especially threaten stability in the Third World, as governments acquire U.S.-built weapons while at the same time failing to meet the basic needs of their people.

Mark Hatfield

In their eagerness to acquire the latest conventional technology poorer countries ignore the human needs of their people and expend, on average, 38 percent of their scarce resources on their military weapons. Their choice to arm themselves leaves men, women, and children without adequate health care, education and employment opportunities all of which sow the seeds of war. At a cost of less than half their military expenditures, developing countries could have health care services which could save as many as 10 million lives a year, according to some studies.

Mark Hatfield

The administration pledged to review conventional weapons transfers but has not delivered on its promise. Instead, it has adopted an aggressive promotion strategy which shops U.S. arms abroad. it is clear to me that only Congress can curb the war trade.

Mark Hatfield

(Mr. MATHEWS assumed the chair.)

Mark Hatfield

I believe that Congress should not only review the kind of weapons allowed to be sold abroad, but also to whom those weapons are provided. The American public does not believe that U.S. arms should be provided to dictators. Current law in this country prohibits the transfer of weapons to gross violators of human rights. Yet, we ignore this law routinely in the administrative branch of Government, and in the legislative branch of Government we continue to fund and subsidize arms transfer.

Mark Hatfield

It is time for a new policy and the code of conduct on arms transfers, which I have offered as freestanding legislation. I believe it is time for this to be approved by Congress. I was prepared today to offer this bill as an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill, and I have the support of over 100 grassroots organizations, including human rights, arms control, religious, and development groups that have already endorsed the code of conduct. These people have rejected the flimsy arguments that arms sales are relatively inexpensive and low-risk and that selling U.S. weapons abroad is good economic policy.

Mark Hatfield

We sent our Secretary of Commerce to the Paris air show to peddle our arms, as one example of a policy of promoting the arms sales as an economic advantage to ourselves. Conventional arms transfers are none of the above. Arms transfers are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of this country. Millions in taxpayer money are spent underwriting the cost of U.S. participation of arms trade fairs. The total Federal taxpayer cost of conventional arms transfers is estimated at $7 billion per year.

Mark Hatfield

Even more disturbing are the security implications arms sales create for ourselves. As research has shown, American arms transfers fuel regional arms races, which in turn increase our own security requirements. Most startling, though, is the realization that our arms financing and transfer policy has resulted in United States soldiers in Panama, Somalia, and Iraq, facing weapons provided by their own Government. One researcher found that of the 48 conflicts underway as of 8 months ago, more than 36 of them involve parties which receive some U.S. weapons and training during the period leading up to the war. Our Nation is in the business of selling death and selling and promoting war with this kind of policy of arms transfer.

Mark Hatfield

Since the toppling of the Soviet Union, we have been in a state of weapons sales free-for-all, with Cabinet Secretaries of the previous and the present administrations leading the way. Even as the administration claims concern, our bureaucracy is being streamlined in order to make arms transfer easier. I recall the change a few years ago wherein the Office of Munitions Control was renamed to a friendly name -- the Center for Defense Trade. That tells me that our emphasis is no longer the restraint of arms trade, but rather the promotion of arms transfer.

Mark Hatfield

By adopting the code of conduct on arms transfers, the Congress can turn this around. The United States would lead by example a worldwide ban on arms transfers to governments. My proposal would prohibit the transfer of any weapons to a nation which abuses the rights of its own people, which denies democratic rights to its people, which attacks its neighbor or its own people, and which fails to prohibit in the U.N. registry of arms their signing and registry.

Mark Hatfield

My proposal does allow the President to ask Congress for a national security waiver if there is a compelling reason to provide military supplies to a country which does not meet all of the criteria of the code. In other words, we have to face the world as it is, and this is reality. There might be a special circumstance, and we have that kind of flexibility in this code.

Mark Hatfield

Having spoken with many about my proposal, I know many Americans consider the code of conduct on arms transfers to be common sense. It is time for Congress to turn aside the short-term economic gains created by arms sales -- economic gains which are lost to taxpayer subsidies and increased defense spending, as well as offsets in which U.S. arms suppliers agree to promote foreign domestic products as a trade for the weapons sales.

Mark Hatfield

Mr. President, if we are going to debate again that issue that confronted this Congress on a number of occasions, whether to send arms to Bosnia because of the attack by the Serbs, have we ever thought or considered the possibility about cutting off arms, choking off the supply of arms that flow to the Danube freely by our allies and friends, as well as our own infusion of arms into all parts of the world? No. The profit -- the almighty dollar -- is of much higher value than human life under this policy. What is the difference if we kill a few people in some war somewhere else as long as we are making a buck on it? That is at the heart of this kind of addiction we have for arms selling all over the world.

Mark Hatfield

There is only one supply of arms in the Yugoslavia area, and that is the Serbs that have an old arms equipment manufacturer. But they still need oil to move their instruments of war. At one time, West Germany, Greece, and other countries, such as France and Italy, were supplying arms in there, which are now being utilized to create these atrocities. Let us go back to the source of these atrocities. By sending more arms or by bombing other people, in that sense we do not solve the issue.

Mark Hatfield

The amendment I planned to offer to this bill deals comprehensively with the crisis of the global arms glut, and I realize that it is therefore not in order procedurally. But this issue is too important to ignore. I believe that as we consider the pending legislation -- which is the backbone of our arms transfer policy -- the Senate should spend at least a few minutes discussing the critical need for change in our conventional weapons promotion policy.

Mark Hatfield

Mr. President, this is not the first and only speech, and it will not be the last one. We must pursue this and persevere until we can get the attention of enough people in this body and in the administration to bring a halt to this merchant-of-death role that we have played all too effectively, all too efficiently, and all too profitably, in the world today, particularly in the Third World.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. President, let me follow up on something Senator Hatfield said that is enormously important. I have joined Senator Hatfield in support of a bill, S. 1677, the code of conduct for arms transfers. He was going to offer it as an amendment to this bill, but there is a point of order against the amendment, so he did not.

Byron Dorgan

However, I want to stress the importance of the issue that he raises. There is $3 billion in this bill for arms transfers to other nations. Not many people realize that the United States is the arms exporter of the world. The cause for concern is summarized in a recent newspaper headline: "Arms Control? U.S. Is The Worst Offender." We have become conventional arms merchant to the world. We sell more conventional arms to more countries all over the world than anybody else by far. We continue to do this even though the last three times that American fighting forces faced hostile fire, they faced either American weapons or American-made technology.

Byron Dorgan

In Iraq, for example, our forces faced U.S.-designed howitzers, cluster bombs, and ballistic missiles. Our own technology was used against us. American technology had found its way to Saddam Hussein's army.

Byron Dorgan

Somalia? The soldiers that we sent to Somalia faced American-made recoilless rifles and landmines.

Byron Dorgan

I understand it is difficult for the leading arms merchant in the world to shut off these transfers. This trade is done in the name of profit. But this trade isn't even levelling off -- it's increasing. It is not just that we are leading the world, it is that these arms transfers are going up and up and up after the cold war is over. I am not talking about nuclear arms. I am talking about fighter planes and rifles and mines and flamethrowers and tanks that we sell throughout the world.

Byron Dorgan

I full well understand, as does Senator Hatfield, that it is difficult to put a stop to this because this is done in the name of profit. And if we don't supply these weapons, some other nation probably will. But these transfers are wrong for all of us.

Byron Dorgan

The proposal that Senator Hatfield discussed is the code of conduct on arms transfers. It provides that this country could not transfer arms to foreign governments that one, are undemocratic; two, abuse human rights; three, engage in armed aggression; or four, fail to register their own arms trades with the United Nations registry of conventional arms.

Byron Dorgan

This is not a very sexy issue. Not many people are interested, partly because a lot of commercial interests in this country want to keep selling arms. I understand that.

Byron Dorgan

But the United States has an obligation to lead the world. Our country should lead. We must work to make our allies and the rest of the world understand that selling more and more arms all around the world to various forms of governments to be used in all sorts of regional conflicts produces a less stable world, not a more stable world. These transfers cause regional tensions and instability, and make regional conflicts more deadly.

Byron Dorgan

But these arms transfers don't just cause instability. They also suck up money from higher priorities. Literally hundreds of millions of people in some of the poorest countries of the world watch their governments use growing shares of their budgets to buy arms, often from us.

Byron Dorgan

Lots of governments around the world have badly misplaced priorities. Some of the examples are absolutely astounding. Ethiopia, in 1990, spent 15 percent of its national output on its military. Ethiopia -- a country with a tragic record of drought, disease, and famine.

Byron Dorgan

Angola is even worse. How would you like to live in a country that devotes one-fifth of its annual output to military spending?

Byron Dorgan

As I said, it is nice, for some, to be able to sell arms for profit. But we ought to provide leadership. The United States ought to be a country that leads. We ought to tell countries around the world: "Let us try to put a stop to the arms race in conventional weapons, let us stop saturating this world with arms." Hungry people need food. Sick people need medicine. All too often their governments are off in the arms bazaar and we are the merchants. And -- most strikingly -- when American fighting men and women go into harm's way, they usually face weapons that were manufactured or developed here at home.

Byron Dorgan

We ought to learn from that. Senator Hatfield is absolutely correct. I respect enormously his leadership on this issue and I am very pleased to speak in support of what he is trying to do.

Byron Dorgan

I hope one day soon the Senate will debate this bill and pass it and make some progress in limiting the arms sales that so destabilize our world.

Byron Dorgan

I yield the floor.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] is recognized.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate relative to the situation in Haiti. I believe the matter in Haiti is clearly on the front burner of the agenda of this country right now relative to foreign policy, and it would be inappropriate to pass a bill of this nature without Congress in a sense specifically expressing its views as to how the matter in Haiti should be managed.

Judd Gregg

We are seeing, obviously, a significant human tragedy in Haiti, which has been going on and expanding for the last few years.

Judd Gregg

But in the last few days, it has even become more significant in its relationship to the United States in the rather large increase in people fleeing that country and seeking the high seas and the American Coast Guard vessels having been put in the position of having to pick these people up and evaluate their opportunities to seek political asylum in this country.

Judd Gregg

But the issue goes well beyond those individuals who are fleeing Haiti. It goes to the matter of how this country relates to another nation, especially a nation which has been our neighbor in this hemisphere and whether or not our Nation is going to define our role in a coherent and precise manner or whether we are simply going to evolve in a hopscotch and herky-jerky pattern into a policy.

Judd Gregg

The purpose of the sense-of-the Senate resolution is to make it clear that before the President can take military action in Haiti, and there has been a tremendous amount of discussion of that being an option which this Presidency is considering, that before the President pursues military action in Haiti he must come to this Congress and explain why and receive the approval of this Congress, we would hope, but at the minimum explain why he has pursued that course.

Judd Gregg

There is, of course, talk specifically that this administration is considering invading the nation of Haiti. That is a rather dramatic act for any nation to take vis-a-vis another nation.

Judd Gregg

And we recognize that the problems of Haiti are dramatic and significant and that the Government of Haiti hardly qualifies for that term. But still a decision to invade that country demands an open and honest debate on the floor of this Senate before it is pursued if it is a premeditated act and something that is done for the purposes purely of executing public policy rather than for the purposes of protecting American lives or addressing an imminent disaster.

Judd Gregg

So this sense of the Senate makes it clear that we as a body expect the President, pursuant to the terms of the Constitution and the War Powers Act, to come to us in advance and explain whether or not and why that is the decision he wishes to pursue military operations in Haiti.

Judd Gregg

Why is this important? Well, it is, first, important for constitutional reasons and very significant constitutional reasons. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief and as the Commander in Chief he should have considerable latitude in his role to execute military operations around the globe. But as Commander in Chief he also has, under the Constitution, the responsibility to come to the Congress if he decides to pursue an act of war, and under the War Powers Act equally has an obligation to come to the Congress should he decide to pursue an action that involves an act of war, and clearly the invasion of Haiti is an act of war if that is a decision that is made and if that action is taken for political purposes or to accomplish a foreign policy goal.

Judd Gregg

Therefore, from a constitutional standpoint, it is very important that this Senate make it clear that we have a role on a decision of that magnitude as it impacts a sister nation in our hemisphere.

Judd Gregg

Equally important is the fact that before an invasion is to occur, if that is the decision and the policy this administration moves to, and it appears to be the decision unfortunately that they are pursuing, that before an invasion occurs of a neighboring nation, we, the Congress, and more importantly, the American people need an explanation of why and need to have a public debate as to why we would take such an act, why we would we put American lives at risk, why would we use American power to possibly take the lives of our fellow citizens in this hemisphere.

Judd Gregg

And this administration to date has not given us a definition of policy on the issue of Haiti. In fact, it has not given us a definition of policy on a number of international issues. But clearly on the issue of Haiti it has not defined its policy.

Judd Gregg

I would submit to you there are three tests which must be addressed and passed before we pursue military action in another part of the world, before we put American lives at risk, and those tests involve the following:

Judd Gregg

First, we have to have an explanation from the administration as to what the nature of the conflict is. Is it a conflict that is resolvable through military force? Or is it a conflict that has been going on for a great deal of time and which has generational roots and ethnic roots and religious roots and, therefore, may well not be resolvable.

Judd Gregg

Second, we need to know what our national interests are, and they have to be defined very clearly. When you ask an American soldier to put his or her life on the line, you need to be able to tell that American soldier why, you need to be able to tell the loved one of that American soldier why, you especially need to be able to explain that should the unfortunate occur and that soldier loses his or her life.

Judd Gregg

And third, there must be an explanation as to once American force is used how it will be disengaged, what is the plan for ending the use of the American force, for bringing the soldiers home.

Judd Gregg

On all three of those counts, this administration has been incoherent relative to the issue of Haiti. We do not have an explanation of the terms of the political situation in Haiti that makes any sense to anyone. One day we hear that we are supporting Mr. Aristide because he was elected. The next day we hear that, well, maybe he is not such a nice fellow and, therefore, we really should not be supporting him. And the next day we hear we are supporting the Governor's Island agreement. Then we hear maybe the Governor's Island agreement has been abrogated and no longer effective and, therefore, we do not want to pursue that either. It has been a back-and-forth manner of discussion, unfortunately.

Judd Gregg

In the public arena that has no definition to it at all as to the terms of what this conflict involves -- should we engage in it and what do we expect the political consequences to be for the nation of Haiti and whether or not we can settle it?

Judd Gregg

We do know from history, however, that the last time we said we were going to go into Haiti with military force and try to resolve the Haitian political situation through the use of a military action and we expected to spend a few months doing it we ended up there for 19 years, and the overtones from that invasion and that occupation are still fairly significant in not only the Caribbean but throughout South America and especially Central America.

Judd Gregg

The second issue, of course, is what is our national interest in Haiti. In the arguments made I guess most often our national interest in Haiti and the one that has the most legitimacy is to keep Haitian refugees from coming to the United States. In addition, of course, we have the national interest of seeing the horrible situation Haitian people are confronting resolved in some manner so that they can go on with reasonably organized or orderly lifestyles and not be subject to a government that is basically one of violence and vigilante law.

Judd Gregg

Those are the two arguments that are made for our national interest, but I think we need to look at them in some depth because they have not been made substantively to the American people in the way the American people can say, yes, that legitimizes our putting an American life at risk.

Judd Gregg

On the first issue, the issue of immigration, that to a large degree has been created by ourselves through our use of sanctions. We are the ones who have put sanctions on this nation to a point where the only people benefiting from the sanctions are the political thugs who are running the country and the people on the streets are the ones who are suffering those sanctions to the degree where their only option appears to be to sail in small boats and hope wherever they come ashore will be better than where they left. And that was our doing in large part by the use of sanctions which may have been put on with good intention but clearly have not worked and have had, in fact, unintended consequences that have significantly deteriorated the situation and generated, in fact, the immigration, the outpouring of people from Haiti.

Judd Gregg

And so I do not think we have many excuses in the area of the excessive outflow of people, the immigration into the United States of Haitians. We do not need to look much farther than ourselves to find a cause for that action that presently is occurring, and it is occurring in this case because we changed our policy relative to dealing with the people once we met them on the high seas. At least for a while we were saying to these people, "I'm sorry. You are simply not going to be allowed into the United States. Therefore, turn back and go home." Now we are saying to those people, we are holding out that light of hope that says: Some of you we are going to be let in; some of you we are going to be send back. We are going to put you on a ship, this hostile ship, to evaluate you. Maybe we will send a few back, maybe we will keep some of you here.

Judd Gregg

Obviously, we have held out hope that, if you get in a boat and you take off from the coast of Haiti, you have an opportunity to maybe get into the United States and get political asylum. It was a foolish and stupid decision which has been totally counterproductive, as has the tightening down of the sanctions on Haiti, leading to basically the only people benefiting from that being the hoodlums who are running the country who are now able to earn more profits from the black market which they control.

Judd Gregg

The administration has fostered, for all intents and purposes, because of this policy, because of the sanctions policy and because of its policy of holding out hope of political asylum to a few, has fostered, in large degree, the outpouring of people in boats from Haiti.

Judd Gregg

Had we, and we should have, actually, in my opinion, taken the position which we were taking, which was to say, "I'm sorry; we will not accept you; you must go back," then you would not have had people setting sail in such large numbers as they have been over the last few days.

Judd Gregg

And so I do not think that you can justify, and I do not think this administration can justify, invading Haiti because of a problem of people leaving Haiti which was created by this administration's policy, unless, of course, that was the intention. And I shall not attribute such cynicism to this administration, because I do not think it is there. But clearly that appears to be the primary reason for justifying invasion -- the outpouring of people from Haiti who may end up in the United States.

Judd Gregg

I can understand the concerns of States along the gulf, especially Florida, which are having to bear the great burden of this foolish policy. But I do not think that we should further aggravate an already poor policy with a dramatically worse policy of putting American lives at risk and invading a neighboring country in order to try to correct the initiatives which have been taken by this administration which have failed.

Judd Gregg

And, second, there is the issue of, well, we should go into Haiti to restore the elected government of Aristide and replace the recognized thugs who are running the country.

Judd Gregg

Well, I do not know about you, and I do not know about other Senators in this Chamber, but I would find it extremely difficult to go to a wife or to a mother or to a father of an American service person who might die in such an invasion should the administration pursue it and say that they died to put in power Mr. Aristide.

Judd Gregg

There are too many questions about this gentleman. Yes, he was elected, we recognize that, and we wish to support democracy. But we do not support all people who have been elected to all offices around this globe. And when the type of questions which have been raised about Mr. Aristide exist, I find it very difficult to say that we are going to use American force to support his reinstitution into position.

Judd Gregg

But if the administration feels that way, if they feel that their failed policy relative to immigration, with the Haiti nation people leaving as boat people, needs military response, and if they feel that they must use a military response in order to put Mr. Aristide back in power, then that is the right of the President of the United States to make that decision.

Judd Gregg

But it is also his obligation, before he uses American troops to do that, to come to this Congress and this Senate and tell us he is going to do it, so that we may raise that issue to the proper level of debate that a democracy requires and especially so that the American people will have a chance to hear the debate in an open and viable forum and be able to make their own decision.

Judd Gregg

Because I think what we learned in the Desert Storm experience -- as I recall, at the beginning of Desert Storm, there was not a whole lot of public support for that -- but what we learned in the Desert Storm experience was that the American people, when educated on an issue of American military force, will act responsibly and that this Congress will act responsibly and that decisions will be made that are consistent with our constitutional framework, and that will actually enhance the power of the President to use military force if that is his decision.

Judd Gregg

That is true in a democracy. If you tell the people and you get their support, the power of the leadership on the issue becomes much stronger.

Judd Gregg

And so this sense of the Senate is a follow-on to a sense-of-the- Senate that was passed by this legislative body last year. It says that before a military operation can occur in Haiti, such operation should be authorized in advance by the Congress, unless the military operation is for the purpose of, one, saving American lives, or, two, confronting a catastrophe that is of a military nature that requires immediate response.

Judd Gregg

That is the purpose of this amendment, this sense of the Senate.

Judd Gregg

I do feel, considering the time and the nature of the present events that are occurring and the way that the movement now appears to be going within our foreign policy, that it is very important that this body reaffirm its right to that type of advanced authorization and warning from the President. Because it appears to be fairly clear that this administration, as a result of the failure of its policies on Haiti, is moving up to a higher level of action and maybe moving towards an invasion. Before that occurs, I think this Congress has a right to address the issue.

Judd Gregg

I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Judd Gregg

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, on general principle, I feel very strongly that we should have congressional votes before we move our troops into any type of an invasion, absent the kind of emergency situation that has been discussed on the floor.

Patrick J. Leahy

I know that a somewhat similar amendment or similar resolution to the one proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire passed this body, I believe, 98 to 2 here within the past year.

Patrick J. Leahy

At the time of Desert Storm, I had urged President Bush and the congressional leadership, because of the deep divisions on that issue in the Congress, that there should be a vote. With some misgiving, I believe, the President and others tended to finally agree. We had a vote. It was a closely divided vote in this body.

Patrick J. Leahy

But, having had the vote, we then gave strong support to the munition and manpower needs and financing and even some foreign aid issues necessary to support Desert Storm. Those who had opposed the action, like myself, and those who supported the action joined together after a congressional vote in favor of it to give President Bush and our allies the tools they needed.

Patrick J. Leahy

I would note just one thing, while the Senator from New Hampshire is on the floor, because much of what he says I agree with. But there is one area where I would express some concern. When you say that, albeit the fact that President Aristide was elected, we are not about to support every elected official, he was elected rather overwhelmingly in Haiti. If we are going to stand up for the idea of Democratic elections, we do not have quite that luxury to pick and choose.

Patrick J. Leahy

I would contrast this with our administration's strong support of the Emir of Kuwait. The Emir of Kuwait, if one can believe the independent news stories about him, has a lifestyle that would bring about an indictment in any one of our 50 States on everything from morals to drug usage. The Emir of Kuwait did not have enough concern about his own country, that -- I mean, not only at the first sign of invasion he was out of there, living in great luxury in Saudi Arabia, but even after his country had been liberated it was beneath his dignity to return to his own country until the American taxpayers had footed the bill for the Corps of Engineers to outfit a palace for him, if news stories are to be understood or to be believed -- and they were not disputed -- with gold plated bathroom and toilet fixtures. Then, when that was set up, and only then, and only after many of his own people died, and only after Americans had died, and only after allies had died to protect this kingdom, then he finally saw fit to come back.

Patrick J. Leahy

This is a man who leads a lifestyle that would make Nero blush with shame, even though he is one generation away from living in a tent in the desert, keeping warm by fires from whatever might be available. He was not elected by anybody. We were willing to add tens of billions of dollars to our deficit, put in harm's way hundreds of thousands of Americans, spend down our munitions and so forth, to go to save him and his country.

Patrick J. Leahy

There are a couple of differences. He was not elected, as I said. In fact he did not even care enough for his country to come back until all his creature comforts were restored. I am trying to think what other difference.

Patrick J. Leahy

One does occur. One does occur. Haiti is the poorest country in the hemisphere. Kuwait has huge oil reserves. I suspect somewhere, somewhere that might have allowed us to overlook the immorality of the Emir of Kuwait, drug usage by him, what appeared at least on the surface to be less than any bravery and attachment to his country, huge human rights violations within his own regime, an antipathy toward the United States demonstrated in vote after vote in the United Nations, risk to our own people, huge cost to our Treasury, deaths of so many brave Americans and our allies, veterans who still suffer from that combat. But there was that little matter of oil. I just mention that for what it is worth.

Patrick J. Leahy

I know the Senator from North Dakota was seeking recognition. I apologize but I did want to make that point.

Patrick J. Leahy

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I will be happy to relinquish the floor with the understanding I be recognized at the end of the time the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is about to use.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for their courtesy.

Byron Dorgan

Let me say in comment that Haiti is an extraordinarily complicated problem. I have been in Haiti. I have stood in the neonatal clinic there and held in my arms babies who are dying. This is a desperate, desperate situation in Haiti. I do not know the answer to it, but I hope we have a long and productive debate on what our Haiti policy ought to be.

Byron Dorgan

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

It is my understanding the Senator from New Hampshire would like to have the floor just very briefly. So I will yield the floor.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment is so modified.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, let me quickly explain. My modification makes this, rather than a sense-of-the-Senate, a rule of law, making it a condition of funding that the President first contact and advise us in advance before he uses military force in an invasion of Haiti.

Judd Gregg

So rather than being a sense-of-the-Senate, this makes it a statement of law. I yield the floor.

Judd Gregg

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his amendment, particularly as now modified. And I also want to make some observations about the use of American force.

Mitch McConnell

My good friend and colleague from Vermont was discussing a moment ago the morality of the royal family in Kuwait and what their human rights record might be as somehow relevant to the Persian Gulf war. I submit, Mr. President, the Persian Gulf war did not have anything to do with human rights in Kuwait, did not have anything to do with the morality of the royal family. It had to do with American national security interests. That is what the Persian Gulf war was all about.

Mitch McConnell

Certainly, the fact that Saddam Hussein, if he had been allowed to go into Saudi Arabia, would have controlled 50 percent of the world's oil supply was a very relevant issue. I do not think we should make any apologies about that. Why should we feel in any way embarrassed about the fact that control of 50 percent of the world's oil supply was a major factor in the fighting of the Persian Gulf war?

Mitch McConnell

So the morality of the royal family or the human rights record of Kuwait was largely irrelevant. It had nothing to do with why the Persian Gulf war was fought. We fight wars when it is in our national security interests to fight wars.

Mitch McConnell

The point the Senator from New Hampshire is making is there is a very legitimate concern among many of us as to whether or not an invasion of Haiti is a good idea or in our national security interest. Maybe the President can make that case and, as I understand the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, what he is saying is come to us and make the case in advance. Make the case.

Mitch McConnell

The reason this is an appropriate amendment is because of the waffling of this administration on the Haiti issue. I will just cite for my colleagues some examples.

Mitch McConnell

First, with regard to the sanctions issue. In November 1993, the President said:

Mitch McConnell

In November 1993, the President said:

Mitch McConnell

In February 1994, the administration encouraged Aristide to compromise with Haiti's military and ignored Aristide's calls for sanctions.

Mitch McConnell

In April 1994, the President called for a global embargo and changed his mind about compromising with the military. One position in November, a different position in February, a different position in April.

Mitch McConnell

In May 1994, the embargo is enforced. Clinton shows he is not as concerned about the embargo's effect on innocent Haitians at that point. Then in June 1994, the administration forms new, tougher sanctions that, in effect, hurt Haiti's rich and spare the poor, because now we are not allowing flights to the United States. Of course, that is only going to impact the people in Haiti who have the money for an airline ticket.

Mitch McConnell

So the reason for the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire is that we cannot seem to get a steady hand here at the tiller when it comes to Haitian policy.

Mitch McConnell

Look at the issue of military use. Before May, the President apparently did not consider using military force -- before May.

Mitch McConnell

May 3, the administration said it was reconsidering using force.

Mitch McConnell

May 20, the administration lists reasons to use the military.

Mitch McConnell

And on June 9, the administration shifts emphasis to sanctions because of criticism of potential military use.

Mitch McConnell

So one issue 1 week, another position 2 weeks later, and another position 3 weeks later.

Mitch McConnell

With regard to refugees, during the election we all recall -- I see the Senator from Georgia on the floor, the Senator from New Hampshire of course offered the amendment. They were running in 1992. We remember candidate Clinton criticized the Bush policy for taking fleeing Haitians back to Haiti. That was candidate Clinton in 1992. After the election, the new administration adopted the policy of the old administration, a 180-degree flip.

Mitch McConnell

Then on May 7, 1994, with regard to the refugee issue, the President rethinks the U.S. position on refugees.

Mitch McConnell

May 9, he shifts his positionmaking processing available for refugees on ships.

Mitch McConnell

May 17, Haitians are still being sent back.

Mitch McConnell

I just cite these as examples of constant shifting of position by this administration on Haiti, leading the Senate not to have a whole lot of confidence in the administration's policy, thus, the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire suggesting, now in binding form, that the President come here and make his case in advance as President Bush made his case in advance with regard to the Persian Gulf war, that that same approach ought to be used with regard to any kind of military invasion of Haiti.

Mitch McConnell

There has been some concern around here that as soon as the Senate and the House left town, the invasion would occur. I hope that is not what the administration has in mind. But I think we want to send a message here that we would like to know something about it in advance. We are here this week. We are debating foreign policy. There are a number of Senators on the floor concerned about it.

Mitch McConnell

I see the Senator from Georgia who has been extremely interested in this issue and will speak momentarily. We need to have this debate now in advance.

Mitch McConnell

So, Mr. President, I see the Senator from Georgia is here, and I know he is anxious to speak on this. I yield the floor at this point and will resume the debate later.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Paul Coverdell

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, and others. We had an opportunity to hear from former Congressman Gray, special adviser to the President, on the question of Haiti yesterday. I advised Mr. Gray that I could be counted among those who very much opposed the concept of an invasion of Haiti. I pointed out at that time that I would not want to be the messenger to any American family of the death of their son or daughter engaged in the resolution of a significant domestic crisis in Haiti.

Paul Coverdell

Everything we do now is definitional as we approach a new century. Are we saying or contemplating saying to this hemisphere that every time there is a significant domestic internal crisis that the U.S. Marines are going to show up? Is that what we are contemplating saying, because certainly that would be what the hemisphere would see.

Paul Coverdell

We would be saying, because there is an interruption in democracy in a country in our hemisphere, that that is grounds for invasion. My heavens, in the last 15 years, we have had similar incidents in Ecuador, Honduras, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Grenada, and Suriname.

Paul Coverdell

Are we saying that the message to the hemisphere is going to be that each and every time there is an interruption of this sort that the United States will be the resolver, will pick the solution? This sounds an awful lot like nation-building, a new term that we talk about often. It reminds me of Somalia where the outside force is dictating what the internal resolution should be.

Paul Coverdell

My remarks in no way suggest that I am not sympathetic with the grave concerns that are occurring there. It is a most serious problem. There is great human suffering. Clearly, the junta has no moral standing. But I suggest that we should consider very, very seriously whether or not we want to say to the hemisphere, the United States is the resolver of every democratic interruption in our hemisphere; that American lives are going to impose the outcome of domestic crisis in every country in our hemisphere.

Paul Coverdell

The Senator from Vermont was a moment ago talking about distinction. There are distinctions, very pragmatic ones, indeed.

Paul Coverdell

Are there any Americans being held hostage in Haiti? Not to my knowledge. Are there Americans under immediate threat of harm in Haiti? Not to my knowledge. The United States has asked all Americans to leave, and the only ones remaining there have chosen to do so, wisely or unwisely.

Paul Coverdell

Are there any strategic interests in Haiti that threaten the vital national security of the United States? Is there a passageway? Are there oil or strategic materials produced there in this poorest country in the hemisphere? No, no, and no.

Paul Coverdell

That leaves us with only the theory that it is the responsibility of the United States to resolve internal domestic crises. For me, that answer is also no. We should be engaged in international pressure. We can debate the degree of these sanctions and who is affected or not. We can encourage other member states of the hemisphere to exact pressure. We can engage in international negotiation. We can involve the United Nations. But I cannot, for the life of me, see how we could turn to one family, one parent and say we decided to put your son or daughter at the threat of death or bodily harm over this domestic crisis. Nor do I believe we can say to this hemisphere, in good faith, that we are establishing a doctrine by which the United States is the ultimate resolver and judge over every domestic crisis.

Paul Coverdell

So an amendment such as offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, which says there must be grave consultations on a matter of this nature, is absolutely correct. We are not only talking about Haiti; we are talking about American policy in our hemisphere and beyond. He does not deny the President his options. He ensures America an open dialog on the question that affects her sons and her daughters.

Paul Coverdell

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Paul Coverdell

Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Don Nickles

Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Gregg, from New Hampshire for this amendment.

Don Nickles

I wish that this amendment was not necessary, but I think, unfortunately, it probably is. We keep reading things, we keep hearing things; that the administration is tightening down on the economic embargo in Haiti. And now we see more and more refugees leaving Haiti, creating somewhat of a crisis atmosphere, and more and more people talking about military intervention as a real possibility, reports in papers that the military is preparing for such an event.

Don Nickles

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from New Hampshire. The Clinton administration's policy on Haiti has been one of one failure after another. To cap off this failure, this administration, by all accounts, is seriously considering an invasion and occupation of that country for the purpose of returning the deposed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. I think such a move would be a terrible mistake.

Don Nickles

I would like to draw to my colleagues' attention a series of editorials that appeared on the Wall Street Journal editorial pages on June 16, 1994. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that these all be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Don Nickles

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Clinton administration's plan to invade Haiti is an open secret up at the United Nations in New York. On May 24, there was a high-level meeting of nervous U.N. officials who fear they may get stuck with the baby after a United States invasion of Haiti. Another article, "From Port- au-Prince to Gucci Gulch," by Christopher Caldwell, is an abridgement of a much longer article that appeared in the July 1994 issue of the American Spectator. Mr. Caldwell chronicles the behind-the-scenes political machinations in Washington that are closely tied to the administration's determination to put the highly unstable, violence- prone, and anti-American Mr. Aristide, back in power no matter what.

Don Nickles

It appears the Clinton administration is planning to return Aristide to power with American military force. The administration is itself creating the very conditions it points to as justification of an invasion, with its sanctions policies and stepped-up processing of asylum claims. Both of these policies, working together, encourage more and more Haitians to risk their lives trying to get to the United States.

Don Nickles

For ordinary Haitians, it is a carrot-and-stick policy. The tightened sanctions are the stick deepening the misery of what is already the poorest county in the hemisphere. The stepped-up processing of claims -- some one-third of Haitian migrants intercepted on the high seas have been receiving asylum status in recent days, much higher than the usual rates -- are the carrot. And now, because these policies mean more Haitian boat people, we supposedly have no choice but to send in our troops.

Don Nickles

Mr. President, I would like to review for a moment the administration's policy, and look at how we got to this point. As some might remember, candidate Clinton talked big on Haiti in 1992:

Don Nickles

That was May 27, 1992. You did not need a crystal ball to figure out what followed: an unprecedented frenzy of boat-building activity in Haiti, with launch dates set for Inauguration Day, 1993. Most Presidents at least wait until they get into office before they start breaking campaign promises. But on January 14, 1993 -- 1 week before taking the oath of office -- President-elect Clinton reversed himself and reinstated the same Bush policy he had trashed during the campaign.

Don Nickles

This episode pretty much set the tone of the Clinton policy on Haiti. To take another example: in their 1992 campaign manifesto, Putting People First, the Clinton-Gore team pledged to insist that our European allies observe the embargo on Haiti, especially with regard to oil. It then turns out, in April of this year, that the United States has been buying black market oil for our Embassy in Haiti, not only undercutting the sanctions but putting money in the pockets of the government we are trying to get rid of.

Don Nickles

We should also remember the S.S. Harlan County episode of October 11, 1993.

Don Nickles

Keep in mind, this happened not too long after 18 American servicemen were killed and 78 wounded in Somalia, in large part thanks to the refusal by Clinton appointees at the Pentagon to agree to requests from the military to give our troops the right kind of equipment, such as armored personnel carriers, to defend themselves.

Don Nickles

As we all remember, American troops were sent to Haiti as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force to help implement a negotiated settlement that would put Aristide back in power. But the military men now running Haiti watch CNN too. They figured that the United States has been so easily humiliated in Somalia, they could probably get away with the same thing. It turns out they were right. A demonstration by some lightly armed thugs was enough to send us steaming back toward home.

Don Nickles

So now we are faced with the possibility that the administration will seek to vindicate its failed policy with the ultimate folly: sending in U.S. troops. No less than Boutros Boutros-Ghali said at that May 24 meeting in New York described in the Wall Street Journal that the United States will repeat the Somalian experience.

Don Nickles

I think that's right -- this will be Somali all over again. It will be another impossible exercise in nation building, with maybe some warlord-chasing on the side. Except maybe we will not get out of it as easily as we did from Somalia. Last time we were in Haiti it was for 19 years.

Don Nickles

Mr. President, this administration has not explained how, if we go into Haiti, this will further United States national interests. The Clinton administration has failed to set out any reasonable criteria for the use of United States troops in Haiti. The Clinton administration policy toward Haiti is obviously and disproportionately motivated not by a sober assessment of American national interests but by an inappropriate and misguided deference to United States domestic political considerations. It is obvious that the Clinton policy is very closely, and unwisely, tied to the personal political fortunes of Aristide, whose own commitment to democracy and human rights, respect for his political opponents, and propensity to violence has been the subject to controversy. At the same time, no one can claim that the solutions to Haiti's persistent social, economic, and political problems can be successfully resolved by direct military intervention of even the most well-intentioned foreign countries or international organizations.

Don Nickles

In my opinion, there should be no deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti for the purpose of reinstating Jean Bertrand Aristide as president of Haiti.

Don Nickles

Finally, we cannot forget that the Clinton administration has demonstrated a clear lack of strategic vision with regard to not only United States policy toward Haiti but in other trouble spots around the world such as Bosnia, North Korea, and Somalia. In short, Mr. President, military intervention in Haiti is a bad idea.

Don Nickles

I strongly support the amendment of my colleague, and in my opinion there should not be deployment of United States Armed Forces into Haiti for the purpose of reinstating Mr. Aristide as President of Haiti. I am afraid, if we start this venture, the United States will be stuck in nation-building in Haiti for a long, long time.

Don Nickles

Again, I wish to compliment my colleague from New Hampshire.

Don Nickles

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], is recognized.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays be obtained on this amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.

Jesse Helms

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is not a sufficient second.

The Senator from North Carolina.

Jesse Helms

I thank the Chair.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I am amazed at the speculation around this town that the President is preparing to order United States forces to invade Haiti while the Congress is in recess. I cannot believe that. Surely they have not gone out of their minds entirely down on Pennsylvania Avenue, because if the President in fact does do that I suspect it will be a decision he will long regret. The American people will hold him accountable, particularly when and if the first body bag comes back because the American people are opposed to this. The Congress has made clear on a number of occasions that both Houses of Congress, the House and the Senate, are opposed to it.

Jesse Helms

The President, of course, has constitutional authority to order such an invasion. Nobody questions that. But I cannot believe that he will do it without consulting Congress. Consultation will not consist of a last-minute call to the chairmen and the ranking members of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, et cetera. He had better sit down with leaders on both sides of the Capitol, and both sides of the aisle on both sides of the Capitol, and talk this thing out.

Jesse Helms

Furthermore, I have been assured as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by both the White House and the State Department that this is not going to happen.

Jesse Helms

So I am so pleased with my friend's amendment because it will remind the White House and the State Department, if they need reminding, that they had better consult the Congress.

Jesse Helms

On October 21 of last year the Senate voted 98 to 2 in opposition to using United States troops to invade Haiti. Then on May 3 of this year, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott assured the Foreign Relations Committee that an invasion was not imminent. On June 15, the President's special adviser on Haiti, William Gray, gave the same assurance at a House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting.

Jesse Helms

I say again to the President of the United States that Congress is opposed to an invasion and has said so repeatedly. My advice, for whatever it is worth, to the President of the United States is do not do it, Mr. President. Do not do it.

Jesse Helms

Regional experts at the State Department are opposed to the invasion, and I am amazed that they have not put an end to the speculation. The Pentagon is opposed to such an invasion. Most importantly, the mothers and fathers out there of servicemen and women are strongly opposed to an invasion of Haiti. Such an invasion is not an answer to Haiti's problems.

Jesse Helms

So I say again to the President, with all due respect, do not do it. Do not do it. Do not order the United States troops to invade Haiti in July when the Congress is in recess, or at any other time.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Jesse Helms

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Bob Graham

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bob Graham

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the proposition that is before the Senate at the present time, which is an amendment to the Foreign Operations Act, which would establish some conditions prior to the President's ability to commit military force in Haiti.

Bob Graham

Let me first put this in some context. One of the contexts is what the U.S. Senate did last year in considering this same subject. On October 21, 1993, the Senate, by a vote of 98-2, approved a sense of the Congress amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which appears to be virtually verbatim to the proposal that is before us today -- with this major exception: The October 21 proposal offered by Senators Dole and Mitchell was a sense of the Congress. That was the format of this proposal when it was originally offered. It has now been modified to be a rule of law. So we are about to pass -- if we were to follow the advice of the advocates of this amendment -- a rule of law to the President relative to the specific country of Haiti, a standard that I do not believe we have adopted for any other site-specific country around the world.

Bob Graham

I am a strong believer that foreign policy should be both bipartisan and presidentially led. The best period of American foreign policy in this century was the period that occurred immediately after the end of World War II, at a time when there was a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, under circumstances that might have led to gridlock and stalemate in American foreign policy. It was a period of tremendous creativity in foreign policy. It was during that time that the United States adopted the Marshall plan, the basic structure of NATO, the policy of containment of communism. It was the period in which the basic architecture of free world foreign policy -- not only United States foreign policy -- lasted 45 years and eventually led to the demise of the Soviet Union, and the Warsaw Pact was put in place. It was done, Mr. President, largely because there was a cooperative relationship and understanding of our common national interests between Republicans in the Congress, such as Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, and President Harry S. Truman. I believe that is the tradition of bipartisanship that we in the 1990's should seek to emulate.

Bob Graham

I am concerned that proposals such as the one before us today will take us in an opposite direction at the very time when we have the need for sensitivity, for very great awareness of not giving comfort to those who are in opposition to United States and international interests in Haiti, at the very time when we want to give the strongest message of resolve behind our current policies, exactly so that we will not be placed in the position of having to consider armed force. To have a proposal which will be interpreted by the military leadership in Haiti as a signal of division in our country is a disservice to the accomplishment of important United States national objectives.

Bob Graham

There are other contexts in which this debate should take place, Mr. President. The United States has had a long, special interest in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was a statement of the United States special concern for its relations with the nations of the Caribbean and Latin America. The Marine Corps hymn starts "From the halls of Montezuma," which is reflective of our early interest in what was occurring in Mexico.

Bob Graham

Within the last few years, we have twice committed U.S. military force to action within this hemisphere -- in 1983 in Grenada, and in 1989 in Panama. I was not a Member of the U.S. Senate in 1983, so I cannot speak from personal knowledge as to the circumstances that surrounded the relationship between the Congress and President Reagan in 1983 when the decision was made to commit U.S. force to that island nation. I was a Member of the U.S. Senate in December 1989 when President Bush committed force in Panama. And I can say, Mr. President, with great certitude that that occurred in the last days of December 1989, just prior to Christmas. It was a time when Congress was not in session. There had been no debate on the Senate floor to formally authorize President Bush to take the action that he did in Panama. But, Mr. President, I believe that President Bush exercised appropriate responsibility as United States Commander in Chief, protecting United States interests in Panama and protecting the principle of democracy which had been thwarted when General Noriega overthrew a free and fair election that occurred in Panama earlier in 1989 and denied the democratically elected President the opportunity to accept his position of responsibility.

Bob Graham

I supported President Bush in 1989. I believe that he used American power appropriately to advance American national interests. I believe the interests of the United States would have been disserved if a Democratic Congress in 1989 had attempted to deny the Commander in Chief the ability to use that kind of authority in the maintenance and advancement of U.S. interests.

Bob Graham

Our policy in Haiti has been the policy through two Presidential administrations. When President Aristide was removed from power at the end of a rifle in September 1991, President Bush immediately committed the United States to a policy of restoration of President Aristide. And throughout the balance of his term, he used various measures, including sanctions, as a means of accomplishing that objective. President Clinton has also had as the touchstone of United States policy in Haiti the restoration of the democratically elected President Aristide.

Bob Graham

It has been suggested that rather than a bipartisan position of two U.S. Presidents, we are engaged in some precipitous act, that we are flailing away and about to act in a reckless manner. I point out that when we talk about our relations with Haiti, we are not talking about a country that is halfway around the world; we are talking about a country that is in our neighborhood; we are talking about a country with a long history of relationships with the United States.

Bob Graham

In fact, Mr. President, as one brief historical aside, but for the fact that the Haitian military in the early part of the 19th century defeated an army of Napoleon, the United States would not have been in a position to have persuaded the French to sell the Louisiana Purchase to this country.

Bob Graham

So almost from the beginning of our American history there have been interrelationships between Haiti, the second republic in the Western Hemisphere, and the United States of America, the first republic in the Western Hemisphere.

Bob Graham

In December 1990, after a long period, three decades of dictatorial and tyrannical rule, the people of Haiti voted in what was acclaimed by international observers to be a free and fair election. The result of that free and fair election was that Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected President of Haiti. He assumed office in February 1991. He served in that office for 7 months, and then in September 1991, in an old-style military coup, was banished and has been in exile from that date.

Bob Graham

It has now been 2 years and 8 months that President Aristide has been denied his lawful position as President of Haiti.

Bob Graham

Both President Bush and President Clinton have committed the United States of America as part of the international community support for democracy to the restoration of President Aristide.

Bob Graham

We are not here debating the personality of President Aristide. We are debating whether the United States has a sufficient interest in the protection of the principle of democracy within our own hemisphere to warrant the President of the United States in 1994 having the same Commander in Chief responsibility that President Reagan exercised in 1983 and President Bush exercised in 1989.

Bob Graham

I believe, Mr. President, that if we are going to have a credible, sustained policy in foreign policy, that while it is good that we have an active debate, it is critical that we speak to the world with a single voice. I supported President Reagan, I supported President Bush, and I will support President Clinton because they are the persons who have the legitimacy of the election of the people of the United States to be that voice to the world.

Bob Graham

The Senator from New Hampshire in his earlier remarks laid out what I think is a fair method of analysis of when the United States should consider the use of armed force. He suggested a three-part test.

Bob Graham

First, can the conflict be resolved by military means, or is it a situation which requires some methods other than military means?

Bob Graham

Second, are there U.S. national interests that warrant the use of U.S. military force and the inevitable danger into which that will place American fighting men and women?

Bob Graham

And third, how do we disengage what is our exit strategy?

Bob Graham

Let me discuss those three items as they relate to Haiti:

Bob Graham

First, can the United States accomplish its objective through the use of military means?

Bob Graham

The answer to that question is clearly yes. Haiti has a small, ill- trained, ill-equipped, incompetent military force. There is no question that the United States in a very short use of combat capability would quickly overwhelm the Haitian military.

Bob Graham

When I was in Haiti 10 days ago, it was the expectation of most of the observers that if there were, in fact, conflict, the Haitian military would fade into the population, would not stand and fight. In fact, it was even suggested that some Haitian military personnel wore civilian clothes beneath their uniform so that in the event that they should be called upon to fight during their particular station time, they could remove their uniform, lose their identity as a military personnel, and flee.

Bob Graham

The second question is, I think, the heart of the debate, and that is, are their sufficient U.S. national interests to warrant the President of the United States having the authority to exercise his role as Commander in Chief?

Bob Graham

I would start by saying that I think there was sufficient United States national interests to warrant President Reagan's action in Grenada and President Bush's action in Panama, and I would defy those who would impose a different standard on President Clinton as it relates to Haiti to explain why we have a lesser interest in a country which is substantially larger, closer, and has at least as many economic, political, and historic relationships to the United States and potential to inflict adverse consequences on the United States as does Grenada or Panama?

Bob Graham

What are the United States interests in Haiti? Let me suggest some of these -- and these are not original.

Bob Graham

It has been stated that President Clinton has been in some way silent, inarticulate relative to United States interests in Haiti. In fact, I think quite to the contrary. He has been precise and he has been repetitive in stating what those U.S. interests are.

Bob Graham

Among others, he has underscored the following:

Bob Graham

First, the United States is a signatory to the San Diego Accord to the Organization of American States to which we committed ourselves with the other countries of the OAS to defend the principle of democracy within our hemisphere.

Bob Graham

That was not a position taken by President Clinton but rather a position taken by President Bush, and that was one of the reasons that President Bush cited when he stated immediately after the coup that the U.S. position would be the restoration of President Aristide I believe that if we were to retreat, to surrender, to accept the military overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti, we would be sending a horrendous signal to the barracks of the Caribbean and Latin America.

Bob Graham

Just 25 years ago, Mr. President, you could count on the fingers of your hand with several left over the number of democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Today, Mr. President, all but two of the nations of the Western Hemisphere, Cuba and Haiti, are democracies. Many of those democracies are fragile, almost all are new, almost all are potentially vulnerable to the same type of military coup that occurred in Haiti in September 1991.

Bob Graham

The signal that we would be sending to the barracks, barracks often occupied by the sons and grandsons of the former military presidents of these nations, would be that if they attempt a military takeover of their country, there will be no resolve, no sustained commitment to the protection of their democracies as there had been none to the protection of the democracy in Haiti.

Bob Graham

It is very much in our interest, in the interest of the United States of America, that the Western Hemisphere be a hemisphere of stable democracies. It would be very debilitating to our relationships within our own neighborhood if again we had to deal with a series of dictatorships.

Bob Graham

Second, Haiti is a neighbor and, therefore, when we see Haiti bleed, as Haiti is bleeding today, it evokes a special sense of empathy.

Bob Graham

From February 1 to June 1 of this year, Mr. President, in Haiti there were 295 political murders according to the United Nations human rights observers. From February 1 to June 1, 1994, in Haiti, Mr. President, there were 66 political rapes according to the United Nations human rights observers. Between February 1 and June 1, 1994, in Haiti there were 91 political abductions according to the United Nations human rights observers.

Bob Graham

Mr. President, those are descriptive of the conditions under which the 7 million Haitian citizens are now living. Those are conditions which now are coming into the living room of Americans as they are being communicated on a daily basis by the American press.

Bob Graham

We have been moved by human rights abuses in Bosnia. We have been moved by human rights abuses in Southeast Asia. We have been moved by human rights abuses in Africa. This is an example of the abuse of our own neighbors.

Bob Graham

Mr. President, we are not immune from the impact of these human rights and other political and economic denials.

Bob Graham

Admittedly, horrendous things happen around the world. But when horrendous things happen in Haiti, we receive a significant part of the negative aftereffects.

Bob Graham

Some of those negative effects are being seen as clearly as on the front page of today's newspapers -- hundreds and now thousands of people seeking to flee Haiti, with the United States being the principal destination of those refugees, Haiti having been taken over as a significant new transshipment point for drugs from the production countries of South America to the United States. We are seeing the results of the Haitian dictatorship in our streets and with our children who are increasingly the targets of the drugs that are coming through Haiti.

Bob Graham

I believe, Mr. President, that the United States has substantial interests in what is occurring in Haiti. Those interests extend beyond the 8,000-plus American citizens who are living in Haiti and who are at special jeopardy during this period.

Bob Graham

A third question that the Senator from New Hampshire asked was: How do we disengage; what is our exit route?

Bob Graham

I believe that President Clinton has been following a prudent, sequential policy in terms of our attempts to resolve the crisis in Haiti. We have been following a policy in the past several months of gradually increasing the economic sanctions and the political isolation of Haiti. In the last few days, we have cut off bank accounts for those Haitians wealthy enough to have accounts in the United States. We have terminated commercial air flights into Haiti. We are being joined increasingly by other nations around the world in seeing that those sanctions have the widest possible reach.

Bob Graham

Now, I want to be candid, Mr. President, as I attempted to be yesterday in some testimony before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. That is, that I personally am not optimistic that those economic sanctions alone will be sufficient to cause this current military leadership in Haiti to voluntarily transfer power back to President Aristide. The unfortunate fact is that during this period, the Haitian military has been using their theft of the sovereignty of Haiti to become enormously wealthy -- wealthy by the drug trade, wealthy by the great profits they are taking from contraband through other countries into Haiti.

Bob Graham

I believe that we should continue to allow these sanctions, and possibly further increased sanctions, to run for a period of time to test whether they can accomplish that objective. But we may well reach the point where we are faced with an unhappy set of alternatives.

Bob Graham

This debate has led one to believe that there is some silver bullet for the situation in Haiti that will come without pain and without consequences and without effect on the United States ability to protect its own interests and to be a credible voice in the international community.

Bob Graham

I do not think there are going to be such easy answers. I think that we are going to be faced with the alternative of essentially surrender; accepting the fact that the Haitian military has won; that they have been able to face down the international community, face down the United States; that we would have to begin to accommodate to them to reach some form of working relationship. There would probably be a fig leaf offered in the form of new elections -- new elections under the control of this illegitimate government; new elections which would give no sense of legitimacy of that government to the people of Haiti or to the international community. That is one option that we have before us.

Bob Graham

Another is to fulfill the commitment that two Presidents of the United States, that the Organization of the American States, and that the United Nations have made collectively, and that is that the democratically elected President of Haiti will be restored to power. And, in my judgment, to achieve that end, if these current economic sanctions and political isolation do not do so, will require the credible threat and willingness to use military force.

Bob Graham

I believe that the President of the United States is proceeding in a prudent manner in terms of developing that option should it be necessary. He has been clear that he is not going to take that option off the table. He is not going to give the thugs in Port-au-Prince the peace of mind that they are secure from military force. He is working with other nations and, I might say, in a particularly effective manner with our former colleague, Congressman Bill Gray, to develop a multinational support for future U.S. action; and a multinational direct participation, first, in a force that would be used to carry out that credible threat and a peacekeeping force which would be our exit strategy that would come in after the President had been restored to power in order to assure an ongoing international presence during the transition back to a democratic regime.

Bob Graham

It will be that U.N. presence in Haiti, much like the U.N. presence in El Salvador, that will avoid a repetition of the necessity of a long period of United States involvement in Haiti, such as that which occurred from 1915 to 1934.

Bob Graham

But there will be other forms of United States involvement in Haiti during this period of transition. There will be tremendous needs for economic assistance -- economic assistance in terms of public sector involvement, assistance in rebuilding a shattered infrastructure for the country, and in creating a climate that will bring back private sector employment which has largely fled the country.

Bob Graham

A week ago Sunday, I visited what had been a bustling industrial area near the airport in Port-au-Prince. On that day, it was a skeleton of empty, abandoned buildings, because the assembly industry had fled to other locations.

Bob Graham

We are going to have to have an economic plan -- "we" being the international community -- with the international financial institutions playing a major role, that will be ready to be implemented as soon as President Aristide is restored to power.

Bob Graham

We are also going to have to have a role in democratic reform. One of the most immediate will be to separate the police function from the military function so that there will be a professional police force to guarantee the security of the people of Haiti and to assure that human rights are being protected rather than abused by those who have the gun. I am very pleased that Canada is already in the process of training a corps of Haitian exiles who will form the base of a newly professionalized police force that can provide that kind of quality security to the people of Haiti.

Bob Graham

Mr. President, this is a very serious debate we are having this afternoon. I would hope that, at a minimum, we would act in 1994 consistent with the manner in which we acted in October of 1993. I hope that, on a larger stage, we would act consistent with the manner which we did almost 50 years ago. With a spirit of bipartisanship, Congress and the President joined hands to develop new approaches to a new challenge to American freedom and democracy, the emergence of a Soviet Union with very acquisitive aspirations around the world.

Bob Graham

Bipartisanship served the United States and served the world community well 50 years ago. That same spirit of bipartisanship can do the same in a more complex situation in which we are not facing a single enemy, but a whole series of challenges around the world as we reach the end of the 20th century.

Bob Graham

I hope it would be in that spirit of building an American foreign policy to respond to American interests and opportunities around the world in this post-cold-war era that we would begin to evolve in this and other debates on America's position in the world.

Bob Graham

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, let me just preface my comments by saying I rise in opposition to the amendment, in its current form, of the Senator from New Hampshire. I would like to see if there is room for some discussion with him, with respect to that form.

John F. Kerry

Obviously the language of the amendment is very similar to an amendment that we passed in the Senate, I think last year it was, as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As every one of us knows, there is a huge difference between a sense of the Senate and a resolution which as a matter of law seeks to do more than just express the opinion of the Senate with respect to certain prescriptions on Presidential behavior.

John F. Kerry

If we are to discuss this issue as a matter of law binding as part of the ops appropriations, then we have a serious problem in terms of finishing the ops appropriations bill, because it would be as equally unacceptable, I might say, on the Republican side of the aisle -- as it ought to be on the Democrat side of the aisle -- that that kind of curbing of Presidential prerogative, or even this kind of expression of opinion in a binding form, is, in effect, a War Powers Act, a mini-War Powers Act applying specifically to Haiti. If we are going to pass some sort of mini-War Powers Act with respect to Haiti, then we ought to do it in the proper fashion.

John F. Kerry

I do not think anybody is going to come in here and start applying mini-war powers acts country by country. But that is precisely what binding language seeks to do.

John F. Kerry

There is a serious constitutional issue and, I might add, there is a very serious diplomatic issue in the context of what is at stake in our current efforts with Haiti. I have been here not long compared to some colleagues, like the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] the ranking member and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, whom I know would feel very strongly on the merits that a binding statement with respect to this has serious implications with respect to Presidential power and prerogatives and the separation of powers. If we want to debate that, just as we have debated for ages, the issues of the War Powers Act, then let the debate begin and let it run on into the Fourth of July weekend.

John F. Kerry

I might also say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that there is a duplicity of standard here, a serious duplicity of standard. In the few years I have been here, I can remember coming to this floor and we had debates. I think, by and large, with the exception of major confrontations where forces might have already been in the field, or covert, unauthorized activities were taking place, as in Central America, there was debate on Presidential action. But I cannot think of an instance of prior restraint before any kind of activities had taken place that the Congress saw fit to engage in that forum for restraint. It was restraint on action already taken, not a prior restraint.

John F. Kerry

I can remember supporting President Bush and supporting President Reagan with respect to Panama, Grenada, where people felt there was a justification and certainly Presidential prerogative to immediately take action for reasons that the President saw fit at that time.

John F. Kerry

I think it is fair for the U.S. Senate to express the reservations that we did express. I voted for it. So I am not opposed to the substance of suggesting to the President that we ought to approach this carefully and for national security interests and the other reasons that are expressed.

John F. Kerry

But I think you have to look hard at what is really going on here, Mr. President, and question at least whether or not there is more than is really happening.

John F. Kerry

If you measure the responses that we have heard in the course of the foreign policy debates of the last months on almost every single issue, we hear people complaining about the choices made by the administration, but no offer of an alternative. Or if there is an offer of an alternative, it is an alternative that is kind of casually and cavalierly tossed off without real respect for the consequences of the alternative being offered.

John F. Kerry

You can look at Bosnia and find examples of this. You can look at Korea and find examples of this. You can certainly look at Haiti and find examples of this where we have heard colleagues recently say, "You have to lift the embargo, that's the solution." For the life of me, I cannot understand how lifting the embargo on Haiti does anything except award to a bunch of thugs the victory that they are already claiming.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, this is not good diplomacy, it is not good timing. The administration has appointed -- --

Mitch McConnell

Will the Senator yield?

Mitch McConnell

(Mr. FEINGOLD assumed the chair.)

John F. Kerry

I yield for a question.

Mitch McConnell

Just for a question. I am having a hard time figuring out what the Senator from Massachusetts objects to.

Mitch McConnell

He has, of course, read the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, and these stipulations have the word "or" between them. In other words, if the President meets any of these conditions, he would be free to go forward, as I understand it. So I was curious if the Senator from Massachusetts had a problem with subsection 1 which says:

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, let me say to my friend, as I just said a few moments ago, the substance does not bother me. I voted for this. I have read every line of it now. I have compared it to the original law that is referenced, and I do not disagree with that. That is not the problem.

Mitch McConnell

What is the problem?

John F. Kerry

The problem is severalfold. No. 1, as the Senator knows, there is an enormous distinction between a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and something that we make into binding law. No. 1.

John F. Kerry

No. 2, I think the President can make a decision, he can even explain under any of the circumstances that may arise, he can find a justification in this. That is not the issue.

John F. Kerry

The issue is whether the U.S. Senate has a real need and reason at this moment in time to either curb the President or send this message and, second, precedentially, does the U.S. Senate want to do to this President what this Senator who asks the question would not have done and, in fact, argued against with respect to Presidents Bush and Reagan?

Mitch McConnell

I say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I specifically would not support restricting the President's options in advance by saying under no circumstances could the administration invade Haiti. That is not what I understand this says.

Mitch McConnell

I am looking at my friend from New Hampshire. He is shaking his head no. No, that is not what this says. We are not ruling out the possibility of a Haitian invasion in advance. We are simply saying consistent with the Persian Gulf experience that you ought to come to Congress and get it authorized.

Mitch McConnell

And I say to my friend from Massachusetts, the reason for this is all the flip-flopping -- back and forth, back and forth -- leaving Congress, at least some of us, not to have a lot of confidence and to fear -- and it has been mentioned by several people on the floor, including this Senator -- that this invasion is likely to occur when we are not around.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, let me answer my friend's question and correct him politely at the same time.

John F. Kerry

This is not like the Persian Gulf resolution, and my friend should remember back to the Persian Gulf resolution where the President of the United States put the troops in and then talked to us. There was no prior approval; there was no prior request for approval. The President put the troops in and explained to the American people why he chose to do it.

John F. Kerry

The first notice most Americans had was on television when they saw a bunch of grease-painted Seals arriving on the beach in full combat regalia. And they asked themselves, "What the hell's going on?" So I say to my friend, he would not have done this to President Bush, and there is no rationale for doing this, except to try to come to the floor now and talk about flip-flops, et cetera.

John F. Kerry

I say to my friend, there are no flip-flops with respect to Haiti. It is nice to be able to make these arguments and it has become the current political game in Washington to try to make them. But the fact is that the President has had to balance a whole set of interests. People in Washington say, "Well, we don't want the refugees coming here." But, on the other hand, they are not willing to do something to end the process of refugees coming.

John F. Kerry

That touches our shores. What is astonishing to me is that if you really examine what is happening in Haiti where you have thugs involved in drug trafficking, which our own DEA and State Department acknowledge -- they may dispute the amount, but they do not dispute the fact.

John F. Kerry

The fact is these guys are running drugs into your cities, my cities, and the cities in New Hampshire, and I wonder why my friends on the other side of the aisle are not more concerned about that.

John F. Kerry

They are engaged in the most horrific human rights abuses not far from the shores of the United States, where people are killed, left out in the street to rot. The people go out to try to collect the bodies, and the people who go out to collect the bodies are killed and left to rot as an example to the rest of the people in the community.

John F. Kerry

Prior Presidents of the United States saw fit to send American warships into the region some 27 times prior to the 1915 occupation. Then we saw fit to be there for 19 years. We have seen fit to be in other parts of the Americas. And here we are for once not asked to go down there in the interests of United Sugar or United Fruit but to go down there in the interests of the majority of the people who elected a President, supposedly in support of democracy, which is one of the major hallmarks of American foreign policy, and what happens? The Republican Party says lift the embargo and give a victory to these thugs.

Mitch McConnell

Could I just ask one more question?

John F. Kerry

I wish to say something about this, and then I will come back to it because this is what is at stake. Not only do you have humanitarian abuses, you have widespread hunger; $150 is the annual income of a farmer in Haiti and only one-third of the land is arable. And what happens? Hunger is a solution to send troops to Somalia but hunger alone is meaningless in Haiti to my friends on the other side of the aisle.

John F. Kerry

So you not only have hunger, you not only have human rights abuses, you not only have drug running, but you have the theft of democracy right off our shores. And what happens? The Republican Party says award them the victory. Lift the embargo. That is the policy.

John F. Kerry

So I say to my friends you have in Haiti more rationale to kick these guys out than you had in Grenada or than you had in Panama, and you have all of the reasons that were present in Panama and in Grenada and in Somalia present in this one location, but there is a contrary policy that has been chosen by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

John F. Kerry

Why is there a double standard? Why is it OK for President Reagan to suggest that -- let me use his words. I wish to use his words. Here are the words of President Reagan and President Bush. President Reagan told us he was sending American troops to Grenada to "protect innocent lives, including up to 1,000 Americans, to forestall further chaos and to assist in the restoration of conditions of law and order and of governmental institutions." There is not a word there with respect to Grenada that could not apply to Haiti.

Mitch McConnell

That is covered in the Senator's amendment.

John F. Kerry

President Bush told us that the United States was invading Panama to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.

John F. Kerry

And when he sent American forces to Somalia, President Bush said:

John F. Kerry

So there is a difference in the saving of innocents from death in Haiti and innocents from death in Somalia. I would respectfully suggest in our hemisphere and given our history there are 100 times more reasons, and I would suggest that for African-Americans in America who are asking themselves about this double standard, if we want to keep faith with what this country is about and hold together, we ought to apply the same standard.

Mitch McConnell

Will the Senator yield?

John F. Kerry

I yield for a question.

Mitch McConnell

The Senator makes a very compelling argument. What is wrong with asking the President to make that argument to the Congress, which is all that the Senator from New Hampshire, as I read the resolution, is asking here, that the President simply come make the argument. There are a number of different options in the amendment which could justify an invasion if that is what the President had in mind. All we are saying here is, ask for permission, if you will.

John F. Kerry

Let me say to my friend -- --

Mitch McConnell

I think the Congress might well be willing to have forceful leadership, conviction expressed by the President of the United States that this is what he feels we ought to do and asks for our support.

John F. Kerry

Let me say to my friend from Kentucky that I think the President of the United States is offering forceful and clear policy with respect to Haiti. He has appointed a special negotiator, a special envoy. The President has made clear that the military option is not off the table, and the President has made clear that we are obviously tightening the sanctions and proceeding down a fixed course of action.

John F. Kerry

Now, he is on that course of action. Along comes the Senate at this very instant and merely replicates what it has already said. Now, how can one not believe there is not mischief in the effort to simply replicate what we are already on record 98 to 2 in doing, but we want to do it suddenly in binding fashion. We want to change the terms.

John F. Kerry

Now, we all understand what binding is around here. And we all understand the message that is trying to be sent. I just respectfully submit to my colleagues, if you read the language, in fact, because it is binding, I personally have serious concerns about some of the conditions as they are defined, and I would assert those concerns differently where it is binding than I might have asserted them when it is simply a sense of the Senate.

John F. Kerry

I might also add there are prerogatives expressed with respect to intervention that do not particularly apply to Haiti in the language, and therefore you find that you have a binding statement about reservation of powers of the President of the United States which might, in fact, be used as precedents for other situations and go beyond. We do not do this. This is not what the Senate does in its relationship with the President unless it is being asked to play politics.

John F. Kerry

Now, we were not asked to do that with the prior Presidents. And so the question has to be asked why it is happening now? I just respectfully submit to my colleagues if we want to debate this for a great, great period of time -- if he wants to send his message as a sense of the Senate, I know that Democrats will join in that. But if he wants to create a War Powers Act that specifically curbs the power of the President, this Senator -- and I am confident others, I would think the Senator from Georgia and other Senators will not be sanguine with that approach.

John F. Kerry

Now, it is very simple. It seems to me it is also horrendous timing for the Senate at this moment to send a message which is an expressed reservation about the conditions under which the President could make a choice, is in effect to send a message to the thugs that there are friends here in the Senate, that we are not really looking out for the interests of the country. Arthur Vandenburg would be ashamed of what is happening here right now. This is not bipartisan foreign policy, and it certainly is not an effort to try to find a consensus. So I respectfully suggest we can deal with it.

John F. Kerry

I ask my colleague whether he would be willing to try to send what is a reasonable statement, as we did previously, or whether the Senator feels compelled to force this confrontation on Presidential power.

Judd Gregg

Is the Senator yielding?

John F. Kerry

I am asking the question of the Senator. I yield to him to answer the question. I am not yielding the floor.

Judd Gregg

Mr. President, prior to answering that question, let me make a couple of responses in relation to the question because the Senator made a lot of points here. I think some of them have been well said.

Judd Gregg

I honestly agree with the Senator from Kentucky. I wish the President were speaking as effectively as the Senator has spoken so the American people would have a sense of direction of where the Senate is going. I do not believe the President has done that. Basically this amendment gives the President that opportunity before putting American lives at risk, because that is needed to be done.

Judd Gregg

The Senator said the President has not flip-flopped. Read the President's words. On October 13, 1993, he said, "I have no intentions of asking our young people in uniform to go in there to do anything other than implement a peace agreement." Then in May 1994, he said, "I think that we cannot afford to discount the prospect of a military operation in Haiti." That is just one example of the innumerable statements. The record reflects that inconsistency.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I believe I asked a question and yielded the floor for an answer, not a speech.

John F. Kerry

I would be happy to answer the Senator and say that it is not inconsistent. There is no inconsistency in that statement. The implementing of the agreement was the implementing of the agreement of Governors Island. That agreement had a very specific set of requirements that the thugs were supposed to live up to. They did not live up to it. That is one thing. And the President has tried to act, I think with great patience, as a President of the United States ought to act where lives are concerned and the potential use of American service people are concerned. He ought to proceed with caution and care. That is what he is elected to do. The President has done that in a way, I think, that asserts the interests of trying to get back with the Governors Island accord. But at the same time he has made it very clear that if that cannot be implemented, he reserves other options that are available to him.

Judd Gregg

If I may reply --

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Judd Gregg

Is your definition of a peace agreement --

Arlen Specter

Does the Senator from Massachusetts retain his right to the floor when he asks a question? I do not intend to assert that he does not, although I think that is the rule. But there are quite a few of us who have been waiting to make statements on the issue.

Arlen Specter

So my parliamentary inquiry is, does the Senator from Massachusetts retain the floor when he asks a question of the Senator from New Hampshire?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator retaining the floor may only answer a question of another Senator by unanimous consent.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, parliamentary statement. I believe the Senator said -- we can go back to the record -- I will only ask the question and yield to him if I retain my right to the floor in the asking of a question. So, in effect, I asked unanimous consent and noted no objection if the Senator answered the question. I believe under those circumstances, while the general rule may be you would yield, I asked not to yield the right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.

Bob Bennett

Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?

John F. Kerry

Without yielding my right to the floor, I will yield for a question.

Judd Gregg

May I ask a parliamentary inquiry? Is that the proper form of the request for yielding, or does the Senator from Massachusetts have to ask unanimous consent to ask the right to yield for the purpose of taking a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator who has the floor has a right to respond to the question without yielding the floor.

Bob Bennett

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he would refer to the Gregg amendment, the second portion of which reads that the deployment is temporary and necessary to protect United States citizens from imminent danger, and tell me whether or not in his opinion had this had the force of law it would have prohibited President Reagan from going into Grenada? Because, under my understanding of this language, President Reagan could have gone into Granada if this had had the force of law.

Bob Bennett

I ask the Senator for his reaction.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, that is a very legitimate question. The answer is very simply no. He would not have, nor do I assert that it might preclude him from any situations in Haiti. But it also might not apply to situations in Haiti. We cannot envision what specific situations might be. Certainly, there are some that are not contemplated in this. But I guarantee the Senator that he would not have voted, nor would the Senator from New Hampshire, nor the Senator from Kentucky, to try to restrain President Bush or President Reagan in the way that this amendment seeks to. They simply would not have done so. I know it from the arguments we have had on the floor in the last 10 years regarding this issue. No matter what reservations you may have or may not have about the way in which decisions are being made, let us just call it fair and directly and honestly here among Senators.

Chris Dodd

Will my colleague yield?

John F. Kerry

No other Senator would have voted to restrain the President.

John F. Kerry

I yield for the purpose of answering a question and ask unanimous consent not to lose the floor.

Chris Dodd

I think the Senator raises a very legitimate point. Just look first at the title of this amendment. I ask this in a form of a question, Mr. President. The United States military operations in Haiti, "comma", North Korea, and Cuba.

Chris Dodd

Now let us pose the question whether or not we in this body would want to restrict this President, or any President, from the ability to respond in a way that he may feel necessary in situations that jeopardize the interests of the country by a binding, legal document.

Chris Dodd

I would suggest -- and I raise this in the form of a question to my colleague from Massachusetts -- that you would not find this amendment being offered were those other countries to have been added here.

Chris Dodd

Let us be very candid. What we are talking about here is a small, desperate, poor, black country in Haiti. It does not have any friends in the world, not much of a constituency here in this country. People do not care about it much; 7 million people, the poorest country in this hemisphere; one of the poorest in the world. So it is an easy target.

Chris Dodd

Frankly, we do a great disservice, in my view. My colleague from Massachusetts has accurately pointed out this is going to send a dreadful signal right now. I do not see a great number of people pounding for some military invasion here. We have a broad-based sanctions policy in effect now. We have put restraints on visas and commercial flights.

Chris Dodd

Let us try to come together if we can for just a few weeks to see if this new policy can work. Let us try, at least on this one issue, to see if we cannot find some common ground. No one is advocating at this particular juncture that the military option ought to be exercised. Yet, by voting in this body tonight we make that the issue. In one way or another we send signals that we ought not to be sending.

Chris Dodd

This is irresponsible. We are in the middle of a crisis right now. We ought to be able to come together as Americans on an issue like this. A nation stands a few short miles from our shores where people are being terrorized like no other nation in this hemisphere right now, with serious problems. And as U.S. Senators, we owe an obligation to our constituencies, to the executive branch in this country, and to this institution to act with a far higher degree of responsibility than this amendment suggests.

Chris Dodd

I urge the author of the amendment to withdraw this amendment. Debate Haiti if we want to, but do not place this body in the situation of trying to complicate and confuse the conduct of foreign policy at a critical moment. It is the height of irresponsibility, I would suggest, to put this institution in that position and to complicate the conduct of foreign policy at this critical moment in our relationships with this nation.

Judd Gregg

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, could I answer the question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I would answer whether or not --

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts withhold?

Judd Gregg

I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry and simply ask whether that was a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I thought it was an excellent question.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, if I could simply say to my colleague who asks about the title of the bill and the impact of it, obviously, I agree completely. I think that he has pointed out a tremendous inconsistency, that if this did say "Cuba," we would probably not be debating this right now. I am not sure where we would wind up with respect to some other countries, but certainly you can come up with a list that this obviously would not be before us in this form.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I know my colleagues want to speak to this. I do not intend to hold the floor interminably. But I do want to say that this is much larger than a political issue in Washington. Whatever one's perceptions of the President's choices with respect to Haiti or elsewhere, we have a responsibility to look out for the larger interests of our country.

John F. Kerry

I am not saying the Senator from New Hampshire is not doing that, or does not want to do that. I think his perception may be that this is the way he protects that interest. But I am suggesting that in the process of dialog here on the floor, maybe we can come to a joint agreement or assessment that in fact that judgment might be misplaced or mistaken in this particular circumstance; that if we can avoid sending the kind of message that the Senator from Connecticut has just talked about, we ought to try to. It is our responsibility to.

John F. Kerry

Obviously, if you go back to the succession of events leading up to Haiti, you can look at Somalia. What happened in Somalia? A group of Rangers were ambushed, and I would agree that -- and some of us said it at the time -- the policy somehow rambled out into this broader reach. We suddenly were chasing Aideed, and suddenly it was more than any of us thought.

John F. Kerry

But what was the reaction? The reaction -- if you will recall that briefing we went to -- was the most incredible stampede and hue and cry for cut-and-run that I have ever seen in my life. In point of fact, this President of the United States resisted the enormous political pressure being put on him by the cut-and-run folks to create an orderly, sensible, withdrawal which left something in place of both our original intent and our honor.

John F. Kerry

In effect, we wound up with a President making a tough political decision to get people out, but doing so in a way that was totally contrary to most of the folks who said, "You have to get out of there immediately." That sent a message. And do not mistake it for one instant, the thugs down in Haiti read that message, because it was 1 week later that those thugs were on the dock building on the syndrome of Somalia to threaten the Harlan County.

John F. Kerry

What was the reaction? Harlan County turned because they were not equipped to fight, folks. That was not the mission. Nobody approved it. If they had, there would have been a hue and cry saying, "What the hell are you doing in Haiti?" So they made a decision to respect what the original Governors Island meeting was about and did not engage in the threats of the loss of American life. But believe you me, the Haitian thugs read that message, too.

John F. Kerry

Then you turn around and you have the situation with respect to Bosnia, where everybody knows there is not one person -- maybe 10 in this institution, who would vote to put American troops on the ground.

John F. Kerry

So here you are negotiating a hand where you have little leverage without American troops, and that sends a message. And every leader in the world, including Kim Il-song in Korea, has read that message.

John F. Kerry

So if you want to add to that message here on the floor of the Senate today and say to the thugs in Haiti, "Boy, you guys have a free hand because they have tied the President's hands in a way that he has to jump through hoops," and they are making it a clear message, no matter what the language says -- the language of this amendment that you may understand and others may understand for the way it can be legally interpreted -- to give him the right to make x decision or y decision, the truth is that it is not the legalities that the thugs will look at; it is the broader perception of what is happening here and what people are really trying to say. And you will have stripped out, once again, from this President whatever leverage may or may not exist to try to bring to a close this sorry chapter next to our shores.

John F. Kerry

So I hope we are not going to do that. I am certainly going to resist an effort to try to tie the hands of this President in a way that this same institution denied and resisted, and I think appropriately so, on other occasions efforts to do so for prior Presidents.

John F. Kerry

I yield the floor.

John F. Kerry

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, when I raised a parliamentary inquiry before, my own view -- and subject, obviously, to the determination of the Chair -- was that the Senator from Massachusetts had lost the floor. I did not hear him ask unanimous consent when asking a question of another Senator. I did not raise that matter but only sought to suggest that others had been waiting for an opportunity to debate the issue. The Senator may yield for a question to another Senator without yielding the floor and does not need to ask unanimous consent. But when he asks questions, he loses the right to the floor in the absence of unanimous consent.

Arlen Specter

I have sought recognition here to make a relatively brief statement. I disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts when he says that this is a political issue. My view is that it is a constitutional issue as to who has the authority to authorize the use of military force.

Arlen Specter

My very strong view is that, when time permits, it is the Congress which has the authority to authorize the use of force. I did not like what I saw in the course of the Korean conflict, where the United States was engaged in war without appropriate congressional authorization. And I did not like what I saw in Vietnam when the United States engaged in war without appropriate congressional authorization. When the issue arose in Iraq, there was a specific congressional authorization to have that use of force.

Arlen Specter

I think that the situation in Grenada and Panama are fundamentally different from what is involved in Haiti. But perhaps we ought to revisit Grenada and Panama if there is a suggestion that when the Congress has the opportunity to deliberate and to make a decision on the use of force, the Congress should abdicate that and allow the President to act without congressional authorization.

Arlen Specter

When the Senator from Connecticut says that what the Senator from New Hampshire has proposed here today is irresponsible -- and we have the Senator from Massachusetts agreeing with the Senator from Connecticut -- I disagree with that. If the Senator from Connecticut wants to pursue the argument that there ought to be intervention because of the fact that Haitians are being terrorized, then let the Senator from Connecticut suggest a resolution to authorize the President to use force under that circumstance. And where the Senator from Massachusetts goes through a sequence saying that the thugs are running drugs; there are human rights violations; there is widespread hunger; there is theft of democracy, and then he says, "Why are people on the other side of the aisle not concerned with that?" Well, we are concerned with that.

Arlen Specter

What ought to be done here, if the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Connecticut think that the President ought to have leeway to use military force, is to let them offer a resolution that authorizes the President to do that. When the Senate had a sense-of- the-Senate resolution back on October 21, 1993, which is identical in substance, limiting the President to use force without the authorization of Congress unless there is an emergency to protect U.S. citizens, or unless there is an emergency on national security interests, and the President continues to talk about the use of force, then I think it is entirely appropriate for the Senator from New Hampshire to come back and say, "Let us have it in the effect of law." It is highly unlikely that it will become law, because even if it passes the Congress, subject to a Presidential veto, then you have to have a two-thirds override. But I think what the Senator from New Hampshire is saying here is that he really means business, and that the President ought not to act unilaterally.

Arlen Specter

We went through this in a very measured way on the resolution for the use of force in Iraq. I remember very well back on January 3, 1991 when it was the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who raised a procedural issue which forced the hands of the leadership to bring up the issue for debate on January 10. We had a debate on the floor of the Senate on the 10th, 11th, and 12th and authorized the use of force where the President had set a deadline, or the United Nations did, for January 15.

Arlen Specter

There is no doubt that if we had voted down that resolution the implication would have been plain, that the President could not have used force because he did not have the authorization of Congress to do so, notwithstanding the fact that there was no resolution saying no funds may be used by the President unilaterally to use force.

Arlen Specter

We know what the situation is in Haiti, and there is plenty of notice about what is going on in Haiti.

Arlen Specter

If that warrants the authorization of the President to use military action, then let us say so. But if it does not, then let us not criticize the Senator from New Hampshire for coming forward and offering a resolution which expresses the determination of the Senate and the Congress that force ought not to be used on the current state of the record without the authorization of Congress and unless there is a specific emergency and a specific way.

Arlen Specter

I do not believe that this is a political issue. I believe it is a constitutional issue, and I believe it is a matter of the authority of the Congress.

Arlen Specter

That is why I think the amendment is a good one and I intend to support it.

Arlen Specter

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is not a sufficient second.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, what would constitute a sufficient second with a number of Senators on the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rules the sufficient second requires one-fifth of the seated Senators.

The majority leader.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second

George J. Mitchell

Mr. President, this is a very important matter, one on which the Senate has previously acted. A few months ago, the Senate voted on precisely this language in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. My hope is that the Members of the Senate will act in a manner consistent with their previous vote in that regard.

George J. Mitchell

But there are a number of Senators who wish to address this subject, as I do myself at a later time. And so, because this was offered in a form that is a second-degree amendment, it is not now subject to amendment, although it is likely that there will be an alternative presented in some form after a vote occurs on this.

George J. Mitchell

I will myself have more to say on the subject before we get to a vote on it. I know Senator McCain has requested an opportunity to speak.

George J. Mitchell

So I will now yield the floor.

Patrick J. Leahy

Will the Senator yield to me before that for an observation?

George J. Mitchell

I will yield and the Senator can get recognition.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, I will note the matter before us was originally presented, as was in that form last year, as a sense of the Senate. I should note, as a sense of the Senate, it passed, I believe, 98 to 2. In any event, I know of only two votes against it on the last rollcall vote as a sense of the Senate.

Patrick J. Leahy

Had it remained as a sense of the Senate, as the majority manager of the bill, I would have been prepared to accept it. Others, of course, could have taken a different position, but I would have been prepared to accept it.

Patrick J. Leahy

My objection and concern is setting an unprecedented mandatory position, one that has never been presented certainly in a country- specific fashion as this one is, something that no Member, to my knowledge, in either party, has ever presented in opposition to action of any President.

Patrick J. Leahy

Certainly no Democrat or no Republican has ever presented as binding law legislation of this nature during the time of President Bush. No Senator, Republican or Democrat, ever presented a piece of legislation this specific as binding law during the Presidency of President Reagan. No Senator, Republican or Democrat, ever presented a piece of legislation this specific as binding law during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, nor during the Presidency of Gerald Ford.

Patrick J. Leahy

I use those Presidents because I have served here with five Presidents and never has any Senator, Republican or Democrat, sought legislation, binding legislation of this nature, of this specificity, binding the hands of any President.

Patrick J. Leahy

And there is no question in my mind that, should there be action anticipated by the United States, President Clinton would consult with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, as President Bush did, as President Reagan did, as President Carter and President Ford did.

Patrick J. Leahy

But, I have basically concluded that, if legislation of this nature on a foreign aid bill in the final form were to go to the President, I would recommend the President to veto the bill. I hope we would not reach that point. But it would not be responsible for us to pass legislation this specific.

Patrick J. Leahy

I would be happy to see us go back to what we had last year. There is legitimate debate about our policy in Haiti. It is a debate where Senators on both sides of the aisle and within both parties could differ and disagree. And that is perfectly legitimate. I have expressed my own concerns at times on that and as I know there is within the administration itself.

Patrick J. Leahy

But to put this kind of binding legislation on would be unprecedented, unprecedented, in the annals of this country and something, in my 20 years here, with both Republican and Democratic Presidents, I have never known a Senator to bring forward or seek, in the U.S. Senate, to do anything with this specificity.

Patrick J. Leahy

I yield the floor.

Paul Simon

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Patrick J. Leahy

I yield for a question.

Paul Simon

I thank him for yielding.

John McCain

Does the Senator yield the floor?

Patrick J. Leahy

I yielded for a question. I will yield the floor.

Paul Simon

My question is this: I happen to oppose military action in Haiti. But I also do not want to weaken the President's hand in terms of the present situation.

Paul Simon

In the kind of situation I am in, should I vote against the proposed amendment? What would the Senator from Vermont recommend?

Patrick J. Leahy

I would recommend voting against it. Frankly, if I had my druthers -- and of course the Senator who has proposed it can do whatever he wishes -- but it would make more sense, in my estimation, to go back to what it was, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, vote as we did last year on that. It would express the real concern and legitimate concern of all Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, on the Haiti policy.

Patrick J. Leahy

But, should it be in this form, I would strongly urge one to vote against it. And we can express our opinion in another form, and either I will make that available or another Senator will in a sense of the Senate. But not in this form.

Paul Simon

I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

John McCain

I will be relatively brief. My friend from Utah has been waiting for some time, he informs me.

John McCain

It is with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment. I do so on strict constitutional grounds. I do not believe it is constitutional even with the significant caveats contained in this amendment, to prospectively limit the powers of the President of the United States.

John McCain

Someday we should have a debate and either reaffirm of reject the War Powers Act. It is long overdue. It is an act of cowardice that we have not. But for us to prospectively tell the President of the United States that he cannot enter into military action anyplace in the world, in my view is a clear violation of his powers as Commander in Chief under the Constitution of the United States.

John McCain

Mr. President, let me say I think the views and the concerns raised here by the Senator from New Hampshire are valid. I, too, am afraid we are on a slippery slope toward a military intervention.

John McCain

There is no doubt that if you impose an embargo, you harm the lives of the very people you are trying to help, especially when the embargo is imposed on a poor, unfortunate island like Haiti. A flow of refugees is virtually assured by our policy toward Haiti. And we are seeing that tide increase as the embargo squeezes the very life out of these poor people. The effects of this policy will then give the administration a very invalid, in my view, rationale for invading and replacing this oppressive and dictatorial regime.

John McCain

My prescription is to lift the embargo, offer the generals a way out, and stop insisting upon the reinstatement of Aristide. Call for free elections and see if that will work.

John McCain

Sanctions are affecting the poorest people in Haiti. You cannot deny it. You cannot get around it. Preventing people from going shopping in Miami is one thing. There are people in Haiti who are for the first time starving to death, and we should not allow that to go on.

John McCain

I believe that we could effectively send the right message to the President of the United States with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that we should not undertake military action in Haiti. I believe it would pass overwhelmingly.

John McCain

Mr. President, we should not get militarily involved because there is no way out. If the United States in a very brief military operation -- it would be less than 6 hours -- takes over the country of Haiti, my question is, who will run the country? I will tell you who would be running the country? It would be the United States of America. The people of Haiti would resent it, and you would find the kind of resistance and eventual armed warfare that we saw the last time we were there, where we went for a few months and stayed for 19 years. Before anyone supports invading Haiti, read the history of our last invasion of that country. If you read it, you cannot support an invasion of that country.

John McCain

At the same time, I cannot support any resolution which prospectively limits the powers of the President as Commander in Chief. And I ask my colleagues, what if the Senate of the United States had passed a resolution prohibiting President Reagan from the invasion of Grenada, which might have happened, given the situation in Grenada at that time? What would have happened? What would have happened if this body had passed a prospective resolution prohibiting the President of the United States from invading Panama? Both were operations which, by the way, I supported, because I thought they were in our national security interests. I do not believe Haiti is. I am saying if you do this, you will set a very dangerous precedent.

John McCain

I now yield for a question from my friend.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I was going to ask my friend from Arizona in what way the Gregg amendment would have restricted President Reagan's actions in Grenada?

John McCain

Obviously there are caveats in the Gregg amendment which give the President of the United States some wiggle room. But the fact remains, I tell my friend from Kentucky, that you are telling the President of the United States that he cannot expend funds to invade except under certain circumstances. It is the wrong thing to do. You can express the will of the Senate with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and you can do it with great ease. If we pass this amendment, it will be a small step to further restrict the powers of the President of the United States.

John McCain

The Senator from Kentucky is entitled to his view of what the amendment says. I know the Senator from New Hampshire has his view and the Senator from Utah has his view. I am saying it is dangerous to begin any amendment by saying that no funds will be spent for operations of this nature, even if you add a list of caveats that is 2 miles long.

Mitch McConnell

I say to my friend from Arizona, not to belabor this too long, seven times last year -- seven times last fall I voted to support Presidential flexibility in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. I think on a couple of those amendments I may have been the only one on our side of the aisle. Maybe Senator Warner and I were the only two. So I share my colleague's concern, I say to my good friend. I just do not see how the Gregg amendment unduly restricts the President's hand. Basically, in a sense, the Constitution does that as well with the requirement of a declaration of war, if you wanted to carry it to that point.

Mitch McConnell

But it seems to me that this is pretty sensibly addressed to reflect recent military experiences. Also, it is not without precedent for us to put some restrictions. I think of the Clark amendment with regard to Angola when President Ford was around; the Boland amendment -- various mutations of that; the Cooper-Church amendment during the Vietnam period.

Mitch McConnell

Anyway, I do not want to prolong it, I say to my friend from Arizona. I am sorry he will not be able to support this amendment. I think it is excellent.

John McCain

I thank my colleague. I would be glad to respond to that comment. Early in our history, I would say to my friend from Kentucky, when we had Barbary Coast pirates who were interfering with United States trade, we sent a task force of naval vessels to punish those people. And some of the greatest names in our naval history went there. That was done without a declaration of war. That set a precedent for operations like Grenada, Panama, et cetera.

John McCain

If the Senator from Kentucky supported the Boland amendment, I would say that he was in a very different position than I was because I believe the Boland amendment was unconstitutional. And I wish that the Reagan administration, by the way, had had the guts to fight that all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chris Dodd

Will the Senator yield on that?

John McCain

Chris Dodd

I just point out the Barbary pirates is a good historical example, because in that particular case -- consider the day and age, it was in the early part of the 19th century -- the forces there, in the Mediterranean, sent a boat back seeking permission of the President of the United States as to whether or not they could engage them. It took several months to get an answer. But they did not dare engage them without that permission, I point out to my colleague.

Chris Dodd

Let me just add as well, on the debate of the war powers resolution, Presidents, beginning with President Nixon, he -- and for good arguments -- objected. And there the law says in the absence of a declaration of war -- the last time we did that was on December 8, 1941 -- that Presidents are allowed. The President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of the House of Representatives, 48 hours after the engagement begins, a report in writing setting forth the circumstances, and so forth. That has been the subject of significant debate as to whether or not a President, even after there has been an engagement militarily, should be required to report back to the Congress. This goes the extraordinary step -- --

John McCain

That is what I would also address. I hope my friend from Connecticut would agree -- we need to debate the War Powers Act and clearly define what a President can and cannot do. We would not be engaged in this debate if we did. Be that as it may, my friend from Kentucky asked me what the problem was with the amendment. The first sentence, part (b):

John McCain

As it is, we are now getting embroiled into interpretations of the Constitution of the United States. My interpretation is clear that we cannot prospectively limit the powers of the Commander in Chief.

Chris Dodd

Will the Senator yield?

John McCain

Could I just finish this thought? I tell my friend from Kentucky, hopefully -- hopefully -- some day there will be a different party in power in the White House. And I would hate to be standing on this floor arguing with one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wants to prospectively limit action by the President of the United States when I supported such a thing when my party was not in power. We could be setting a very dangerous precedent for those of us on this side of the aisle.

Chris Dodd

My colleague may know better, but I cannot think of a single example, even during the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush administrations, when any such amendment like this on any part of the world was ever offered or adopted. Does my colleague know of any example I may be forgetting?

John McCain

I know of none, except for the Boland amendment, and the Boland amendment, in my view, was something that, frankly, poisoned the entire issue of our policy towards Nicaragua.

John McCain

In retrospect, whether the Senator from Kentucky agreed with the Boland amendment or opposed it, we would have been better off if it had been judged constitutional or unconstitutional. There were people in the White House, as the Senator from Connecticut knows, who said it was unconstitutional and, therefore, violated it.

John F. Kerry

Will my colleague yield for a point?

John McCain

John F. Kerry

I point out with the respect to the Boland amendment, the Boland amendment reflected the desire to cut off aid to other people's forces, aiding other people's forces and effort, not directly to our forces being engaged in a particular conflict of a country.

John McCain

I think the Senator from Massachusetts makes a good point.

John McCain

I want to apologize to the Senator from Utah for taking so much time.

John McCain

I want to briefly suggest to my friend of New Hampshire that we make his amendment a sense of the Senate, sending an overwhelming message to the President of the United States. If there is a significant vote -- which I think there is going to be -- then clearly the President cannot ignore that message from the Senate of the United States.

John McCain

I hope we could do that. I deeply fear we are on a slippery slope to an invasion which cannot be of any benefit to the people of Haiti or the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States. If we did make it a sense of the Senate, I think we would avoid a lot of this debate.

John McCain

I understand and appreciate the goals of the Senator from New Hampshire. I regrettably cannot support the amendment.

John McCain

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

Bob Bennett

Mr. President, I yield to no one in my respect for the Constitution, for my concern for the maintenance of the proper role of the Constitution and the separation of powers. I would be persuaded by the arguments of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts, and others, who raised the constitutional issue if I were not satisfied that the language of the Gregg amendment reflects proper constitutional procedure.

Bob Bennett

I asked the Senator from Massachusetts earlier when he was talking about this issue if the Gregg amendment would, in fact, have prevented President Reagan from proceeding in Grenada? I am satisfied that the language of the Gregg amendment makes it clear that President Reagan could easily have proceeded in Grenada had this amendment been in place because it says:

Bob Bennett

President Reagan found that to be the case in Grenada and proceeded. This amendment would not in any way have diminished his powers as Commander in Chief.

Bob Bennett

I was prepared to ask the Senator from Massachusetts a second question, which I will now review, with respect to Panama. If this amendment had been law, could President Bush have proceeded in Panama? In my view, he could have because No. 3 in the Gregg amendment says that he could proceed if he finds that the deployment, and I am quoting, "is vital to U.S. national security interests and insufficient time exists for the receipt of prior congressional authorization." President Bush, obviously, believed that that was the case, and he proceeded.

Bob Bennett

I share with my friend from Pennsylvania, who has a legal background that I do not have, having never been to law school, the concern that Congress may well be losing its rights under the Constitution to declare war; that we may be in a position where the executive, under the powers of the Commander in Chief, gets us into a war situation and does not come to Congress for the proper authorization.

Bob Bennett

I find that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance in that concern. I do not want to tie the hands of the Commander in Chief when there is a necessary deployment needed to protect American citizens.

Bob Bennett

I do not want the Commander in Chief to have to come to Congress to ask for permission, to have to come to Congress to ask for a declaration of war when U.S. citizens are in danger. This amendment does not say that would be the case.

Bob Bennett

I do not want the President to have to come to Congress to ask for permission to use his powers as Commander in Chief when vital national security interests are at stake and there is not appropriate time.

Bob Bennett

But I do get concerned on a constitutional basis when I hear people talking about the United States planning an invasion in a leisurely fashion of a sovereign country with the President feeling he has no requirement to discuss that with the Congress. That gives me constitutional pain.

Bob Bennett

This is not an emergency. There is no one threatening American students in Grenada who may be carried off momentarily if the Marines do not land. This is not a surprise operation where national security interests are vitally affected if we do not go in under the cover of some kind of stealth operation and surprise a warlord, as was the case in Panama.

Bob Bennett

This, at least as I understand it in the press, is a considered, formal invasion of a sovereign country by the United States of America military. I think it is appropriate under the Constitution that the Congress be asked to declare war if that is what we are going to do. But if the President says, no, I cannot ask the Congress to declare war because the deployment was temporary and it was necessary to protect U.S. interests, I cannot ask the Congress to declare war because it is vital to our national security interests and there is insufficient time, this amendment says, fine, we will take your word for that, we will not change it. All we are asking you to do is do that much.

Bob Bennett

So I find myself in somewhat -- not somewhat -- in disagreement with my friend from Massachusetts on the legal issue and in agreement with my friend from Pennsylvania on the legal issue here. I feel that the amendment is not a violation of our constitutional circumstances.

Bob Bennett

I wish to make a few other comments because of the statements that were made by the Senator from Massachusetts, in all good motive and intention on his part. This is an issue, obviously, about which reasonable men and women can disagree, I would hope, in reasonable fashion.

Bob Bennett

He said to lift the embargo would be to award the thugs the victory. That is the interpretation he would put on that matter. I view it differently. The people of Haiti are suffering. They are hurting across a wide spectrum of economic deprivation. That economic deprivation is made intolerably worse, in my opinion, by the embargo.

Bob Bennett

The thugs who run Haiti, on the other hand, are prospering, and their prosperity is made considerably better by the embargo. They are not bothered by the lack of food. They are not bothered by the lack of economic support for the economy. They are taking it off the top and, I suspect -- cannot prove it -- that they are putting it in Swiss bank accounts preparing for the time when they decide to leave Port-au- Prince and enter into retirement on the Riviera in the time-honored fashion of other dictators in that part of the world who have gone that route.

Bob Bennett

The embargo, in my view, is furthering that kind of corruption and that kind of devastation of the economy. I believe honestly that lifting the embargo will be good for the economy of Haiti, be good for the ordinary people of Haiti and, ultimately, therefore, reduce the desire of the people of Haiti to physically get out because they will at least have some degree of economic hope where they are. The embargo is cutting down that economic hope.

Bob Bennett

So I say to my friend from Massachusetts, when I stand up here with the idea of supporting the lifting of the embargo, it is not out of all of the motives that he attributed to some on this issue.

John F. Kerry

Will my friend yield for a question?

Bob Bennett

I will be happy to yield for a question.

John F. Kerry

If my friend does not want to award them victory and my friend does not believe that they ought to be simply paid off and shipped out to the Riviera, then what is his leverage if you lift the embargo? What is it that says to them there is any reason to leave? What would compel them?

Bob Bennett

I respond to the Senator from Massachusetts in this fashion.

Bob Bennett

In order for a lever to work, it must have a fulcrum on which it is placed. The embargo has no fulcrum. The embargo is no leverage at all. That is my point.

Bob Bennett

Now, the question: How do we get them to leave? is a separate issue, in my view, from the embargo. It is unrelated to the embargo. The Senator from Arizona has referred to one suggestion that has been made, to which I would subscribe, at least to the degree I understand it so far; that is, that America says to people in power in Haiti, all right, you are in power; we do not like your being in power; we will give up our insistence that Aristide be returned to power -- recognizing the only way that can happen is with American military might behind him -- if you will give up your control on the present government, both step down from that circumstance and we have internationally monitored elections.

Bob Bennett

Now, you say you want them in jail for war crimes. You want them punished in some fashion. I might like to see that happen, too. But I frankly do not see a lever anywhere short of invasion that can produce that, and I do not believe that invasion would indeed produce that.

Bob Bennett

If I might go to -- --

John F. Kerry

Would my colleague be willing just to yield for a comment?

Bob Bennett

I will yield for a comment providing I do not lose the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

I thank my friend for his courtesy.

John F. Kerry

I just say to the Senator from Utah, the plan he has offered might work, but it really ignores a larger sense in the history of Haiti and what is really at stake in this situation. It is pretty easy for any Senator or anybody in America to cavalierly, or however one phrases it, stand there and say abandon Aristide and have another election. But the fact is that this is the first free election the people of Haiti have had in 200 years. They did vote. They did have a free election. We invested in it, as did the rest of the world. The United Nations invested in it. And by 67 percent of their vote they elected this man.

John F. Kerry

Now, who are we to simply say abandon him? Who are we to turn around from the Haitian people and discard their own democracy? I cannot understand how it is that we have the arrogance to make a judgment about somebody else's free and fair election.

Bob Bennett

I thank the Senator for his comment. I respond in this fashion. If, indeed, Mr. Aristide still controls the hearts and support of 67 percent of the people in Haiti, he will have no problem whatsoever in gaining his position as President legitimately in an election of the kind I have described.

John F. Kerry

Can I say to my friend, and I will not interrupt him further, but I just want to say to my friend that would be fine if you have the ability to write the constitution of Haiti. But the constitution of Haiti does not permit him to succeed himself. So if you think Aristide is a problem, the Aristide problem is gone as of a year from this December because they are going to have elections a year from this December and he cannot run to succeed himself.

John F. Kerry

Now, if you want to change the constitution somehow or have some declaration that he can go down there and run again, fine. But he cannot. I am not sure he wants to. But it still begs the question. The Haitian people would sense an extraordinary abandonment of their own investment in democracy if you just discard what they have already achieved.

Bob Bennett

I thank the Senator for informing me as to the details of the Haitian constitution. He made reference to Haitian history. As I understand Haitian history, it is not one that gives me a lot of confidence in any kind of democratic institution, including the elections, prospective elections, to which he refers.

Bob Bennett

The history of this island is wretched. The circumstances that have been going on there for over a century have been wretched from our point of view. And we do not have any good solutions facing us. We do not have any clear -- --

John F. Kerry

Is the solution to render it more wretched? Is the solution to render it more wretched?

Bob Bennett

In response, Mr. President, as I have said before, in my opinion, this is a matter on which we can disagree, the embargo is making it more wretched. In my opinion, the position of this administration has contributed to the misery and difficulty of the people of Haiti.

Bob Bennett

Let me go on, Mr. President, with respect to what in my opinion would happen if, indeed, the United States were to invade Haiti. There appeared in the Washington Post within the last 2 weeks -- I cannot put my hand on the exact date, but if it is important, we can find it -- a report by an American journalist, Robert Novak, who went to Haiti and spent several days driving around the country, talking to people, observing circumstances for himself. He came back with a report that may or may not be accurate but which is, at least on its face, plausible.

Bob Bennett

He came back and reported to his readers that the present military and police establishment in Haiti are expecting an invasion, and they have prepared themselves as to how they will respond. This is his report.

Bob Bennett

(Mr. LEAHY assumed the chair.)

Bob Bennett

He quotes them as saying if the United States invades Haiti, we will take off our uniforms, hang them in the closet and go home, which means that there will be no police on the streets to prevent looting or enforce normal law, which means there will be no military presence of any kind to try to keep the peace, which means that if there is any degree of police activity or normal law enforcement activity on the island, it will have to be performed by the American military or the island will be reduced to absolute chaos with no form of law and order of any kind.

Bob Bennett

If Mr. Novak is correct in reporting that plan, and if the people who currently control Haiti have, indeed, adopted that plan, what are we looking at if there is an invasion? We are looking at an American protectorate that will require American troops in Haiti for months and years and decades to come in a society that is ruled by circumstances that are tremendously foreign to most Americans.

Bob Bennett

I know of these only by hearsay. I have friends who have lived in Haiti who have reported them to me. I admit the evidence is anecdotal. I do not pretend to have any kind of major study of this issue.

Bob Bennett

But voodoo and the secret societies that are woven throughout the Haitian culture, who go underground and who exert enormous amounts of control over what is done and what is not done, in ways that the American mind simply cannot comprehend, these things are reported to be very powerful in Haiti. They are reported to be a tremendous part of the power that was exercised by the former President for life, that he maintained his position not just by military power and terror but by a religious network of practices of the kind, as I say, with which Americans are completely unfamiliar.

Bob Bennett

This is not the kind of circumstance that leads me to believe a series of American police forces and American troops can in any logical or short-term fashion restore order to the island, to the society, and establish democratic procedures and institutions there.

Bob Bennett

What would I do if I were President of the United States faced with the Haitian thing? I guess my first reaction would be to ask myself, why I have run for the office to be faced with this? Because, as I say, there are no good options in my view. But I believe that we are responding to emotions that are very, very American, emotions that are admirable, but not necessarily connected with the facts.

Bob Bennett

If I were President of the United States, I would pick up the phone and call Colin Powell, and say, "Mr. Powell, could you come out of retirement long enough to go to Haiti on a factfinding mission, not as an envoy? You are not down there to negotiate. You are not down there to try to tell anybody to do anything. But you at least understand the military as well or better than anyone else on the planet. You understand what would be involved if we were to put military troops there. You have the sympathy for the people that comes out of your own experience. Will you form a factfinding commission and go to Haiti and find out exactly what is going to happen there, and come back and give us your advice?" I would feel a lot more comfortable debating this thing if the facts we had before us came from that kind of an official factfinding group rather than newspaper reports and reactions on the part of individual Senators, myself included, every one of whom is reacting out of his or her own experience.

Bob Bennett

That is why I think we would be very precipitous to consider invading Haiti under the present circumstances. That is ultimately why, as I said in the beginning, I find myself in support of the Gregg amendment.

Bob Bennett

I yield the floor.

Bob Bennett

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Carol Moseley Braun

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Carol Moseley Braun

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and especially disagree with my friend and colleague from Utah with regard to this amendment.

Carol Moseley Braun

I want to also to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker, the Senator from Arizona, when he talks to discuss constitutional issues. This amendment, in my opinion -- and I agree with him -- is a regrettable, unprecedented constitutional assault. Therefore, I think on those grounds alone it should be defeated.

Carol Moseley Braun

Mr. President, I would like to make an inquiry and ask three questions -- actually, a plea and three questions. The plea that I would make to my colleagues is, do not make up new rules for Haiti. Do not change the constitutional order. Do not hamstring the President. Do not do anything new for Haiti. Allow our policy to work. Allow us to stand for those values that we say undergird our foreign relations.

Carol Moseley Braun

I will make three questions or observations in keeping with my plea that we not make up new rules for Haiti.

Carol Moseley Braun

The first is whose side are we on? The contradiction in this amendment is that it simultaneously hamstrings the President, empowers the thugs that are now in power in Haiti -- having taken it -- and at the same time turns our back and is a rejection of the democratic values that were expressed by the people of Haiti in electing President Aristide.

Carol Moseley Braun

So the question is, whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the thugs? I cannot imagine it. Are we on the side of the people who would throw out any attempts of a budding democracy there? I cannot imagine it.

Carol Moseley Braun

So the first question then is whose side are we on here?

Carol Moseley Braun

The second question that I would raise has to do with how we define what is in our national security interests. The amendment, after it says that no money shall be used, speaks to the issue of what our national security interests are in Haiti. I think those interests are pretty straightforward and pretty unavoidable.

Carol Moseley Braun

In the first instance, this democracy or a budding democracy, is in our own backyard, if you will. These are our closest neighbors. How can we therefore stand for the protection and promotion of democracies in places halfway around the world when we cannot even protect it in our own backyard?

Carol Moseley Braun

The second issue is human rights. We have all been appalled at the privations. But at the same time to give something to those who have caused that privation, who are exacerbating that privation, seems to me to fly directly in the face of our national interests.

Carol Moseley Braun

The drug lords probably have been mentioned. Are we going to give some promotion and help out the people who have themselves been able to take power because of their involvement with funneling poison into our country? Are we going to support that?

Carol Moseley Braun

The immigration issue: We have seen the boatloads of refugees, and all the frantic efforts to come up with ways to process and deal with and otherwise stem the avalanche of immigration from that land.

Carol Moseley Braun

Are we going to say that it is OK; the people who have given rise to that will benefit from the action of this U.S. Senate? I do not think so. Not to mention cooperation with our allies in this part of the hemisphere. These are our most immediate neighbors. It seems to me that we are hard put to talk about affairs on the other side of the world and we cannot have clarity about what happens here at home.

Carol Moseley Braun

My colleague, one of the speakers earlier, made the point about, well, we have to work out some way to work through this process, and would not General Powell be a good person? Well, I think General Powell is terrific. But I would point out that we already have Bill Gray, former Congressman, working on this issue. We are doing exactly that. We are trying to find ways to make the sanctions, to make the embargo, to make the approach the President has taken, work.

Carol Moseley Braun

The question has been raised; well, do sanctions do any good or do they not just hurt the poorest and the weakest and the most helpless of the people in Haiti?

Carol Moseley Braun

I want to make this point. It is not a digression because I have talked about affairs on the other side of the world and how relevant they are to what has happened in Haiti. When Nelson Mandela came out of prison, one of the first things that he said was to thank the people of the world community for supporting sanctions in South Africa. His view was that sanctions had given rise to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Carol Moseley Braun

I was not here in the Senate when the debate around sanctions happened with regard to South Africa. But I daresay if you pulled out the memoranda and the records of those debates, the same arguments were made; well, you are going to hurt the poor. I do not think the poor are helped by empowering these thugs that have reduced them to the worst level of poverty, privation and fear that they have suffered in this century. That is why sanctions will work.

Carol Moseley Braun

My colleague, my friend, talked about having what is the fulcrum for this effort. You have to have a fulcrum to have some leverage. He is right. Let me suggest to you that the fulcrum here is the might and power of the greatest nation on this planet. If the United States cannot stand for democracy, if the United States does not have the wherewithal to clean up foreign affairs in its own backyard, how then can we expect anybody else to rise to that challenge?

Carol Moseley Braun

We have the fulcrum, we have the power, we have the money, we have the capacity, we have the ability; all we have to have is the will. All we have to have is the will to stand up for democratic values that we say every day on this floor we believe in.

Carol Moseley Braun

It seems to me that it is fair to have those values apply to Haiti. I go back to my original plea: Do not make up new rules for Haiti. Let us have the same rules apply for Haiti that we say we believe in in this country. Is there a different history? Yes, there are always differences; of course, there are. Democracy is new to Haiti. We have had democracy here for over 200 years. This is new for them. But I think if we have an opportunity to export the thing that made this country great, we ought to take that opportunity. And we ought to use every tool at our disposal.

Carol Moseley Braun

In this instance, we have not yet given sanctions a chance. We have not given peace a chance. We have not given democracy a chance in Haiti, and that is why this amendment -- and that is part of the problem, that it is an amendment -- has to be rejected.

Carol Moseley Braun

Finally, in closing, Mr. President, I ask one final question, and that is: If you do not like the policies of the President, then what are you for? What is the positive? Yes, this is being debated, but I daresay we do not make new constitutional law or foreign policy based on rumor, based on unsubstantiated reports, based on conversations over dinner tables, or cocktail parties, or clips that we get in the beltway circle of what is being said today. Our foreign policy has to have a firmer foundation than that, Mr. President. And this amendment undermines that foundation.

Carol Moseley Braun

This amendment really sets our foreign policy -- even in our "near abroad," to use that word in terms of the United States, and I know it is kind of a different concept, but that is really what it is; this is our "near abroad." If we are going to have a policy, the President has set out on a course. I have not always agreed with that course and, frankly, I was very critical at the beginning, that we were not more forceful and did not have a foreign embargo, that we did not turn the screws on the sanctions and really mean it and put some "umph" behind our policy in Haiti. I was very critical, and vocally so, and I said as much. But I have to tell you that, at the present time, there are real signs of movement. There are real signs that this President has taken the decisive moves, has taken a decisive approach to begin to give us an opportunity to prevail in that part of the world.

Carol Moseley Braun

So I say to those who say, "Well, we are going to make him come to us, and we are going to make him report to us, and we are not going to spend any money, and we are not going to do this or that," there was a former Vice President who used the term "nattering nabobs of negativism." Mr. President, I think if there is going to be a "nattering nabob" in this situation, they are obligated to say: Fine, here is our plan. This is how we are going to do it -- not next year, not next month, but today. And, no, this is not a purely political exercise; this is based on what we believe to be the appropriate course in our foreign policy. This is not just a chance to embarrass Bill Clinton. This is not just a chance to throw some marbles in the road so the foreign policy looks more confused than it is. This is not partisan politics. This is policy, and we believe in this course of action.

Carol Moseley Braun

Let us see that first before we say to the President that he cannot do this, that, or the other. I close by saying: Please, I implore my colleagues, let us not make up new rules for Haiti and change the rules in the middle of the game. Let us go forward with the President's course. I believe it can be a productive course, and it can work if given the chance. The people of Haiti deserve as much, and the people of the United States deserve as much.

Carol Moseley Braun

Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is recognized.

Sam Nunn

Mr. President, I rise and urge my colleagues to defeat the pending amendment. I do so not because I agree with everything the administration policy seems to represent on Haiti, because I do not. I really question the embargo as it is applying to the ordinary and particularly low-income Haitian people. I am afraid that the wrong people are being squeezed, and I think that has something to do with the exodus we are seeing in the last several days that may very well intensify.

Sam Nunn

I think embargoes have their place. But in certain circumstances they can be counterproductive. I think it is very important that the United States set clearly its goals on what we are trying to accomplish in Haiti. I am not sure I have seen that kind of expression -- at least not in terms that I agree with -- from the administration, or from anyone else. In my own view, the goals ought to be to first alleviate the very severe suffering of the Haitian people, which is very apparent. The second goal that is connected to the first should be to prevent a very large exodus of people from Haiti to the United States in a way that causes tremendous difficulties for us in absorbing it.

Sam Nunn

I think the third goal is a very important goal, but the one talked about as if it is the only goal, and that is to have some kind of democracy there that, in the long run, can serve the interests of the Haitian people. But where I suppose I differ with some of my colleagues and the administration is I do not think returning one man -- even though an elected president -- is the equivalent of restoring democracy. I believe restoring democracy in Haiti, where they have not had that kind of experience over the years, requires building a coalition. I think it requires having a foundation there that is enabling in terms of allowing President Aristide, or whoever is elected President in the next election, to govern.

Sam Nunn

I do not think that condition exists in Haiti today. It would be my view that that coalition needs to be built as a condition precedent to the return of Aristide. Otherwise, however he is returned, it will take a very substantial outside security force to protect him. I am not sure how you have a democracy when you have an outside security force, whether it is the U.S. military or whether it is a coalition of countries, that basically is having to protect the President of the country from his own people. I think that is the difficulty.

Sam Nunn

Having said that, Mr. President, I think it would be a fundamental mistake to pass this amendment. Let us just take a look at where we are now. I think some of the people sponsoring this amendment probably are very dubious about the embargo. But what kind of one-two punch are we going to be demonstrating toward Haiti if we have a combination of the embargo, which may very well be causing the kind of exodus we are now seeing, and then we passed an amendment in the Congress saying that we are not going to have any military option unless all of Congress agrees, or unless the President can meet certain conditions, which would be somewhat difficult -- not impossible to meet, but somewhat difficult to meet -- and might require some strained definitions.

Sam Nunn

So, Mr. President, when we find a policy that we do not agree with or that we have some reservations about -- and I have reservations; some people fundamentally oppose it -- I think we ought to always consider the possibility that we can make it worse. The one-two punch I see coming if we pass this kind of amendment is, No. 1, this does not do anything about the embargo or anything about the goals, does not do anything for the restoration of some kind of coalition there that can help President Aristide when he returns to govern that country successfully as a democracy, respecting human rights, without having to have outside military forces basically not only protect him but police the streets for months and perhaps even years to come. But what we will also be doing is saying that we are not going to put any pressure whatsoever on those in charge now who have basically abused democracy and who have abused human rights and who continue to abuse their positions of power; that we are going to say to them, breathe easy, General Cedras, breathe easy Police Chief Francois, because we are not going to let that option even be discovered.

Sam Nunn

What kind of one-two punch is that? To me, it is the worst of both worlds. We have an embargo that is basically causing an exodus, and we will then have the military option the table, at least psychologically and symbolically which is enormously important now.

Sam Nunn

(Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the chair.)

Sam Nunn

So it is my view, Madam President, that as a very practical matter, passing this kind of an amendment would be the worst of all worlds.

Sam Nunn

Then we turn to the constitutional question. This amendment goes further than the War Powers Act, which we debated for a long, long time before we passed it. Then it was vetoed. Then the veto was overriden. And there are a lot of problems with the War Powers Act. But if you are going to change it, you have to do so in a very thoughtful way.

Sam Nunn

This amendment basically changes the War Powers Act as to one country. It says one country is different from all the others in the world.

Sam Nunn

The President tomorrow morning, if this passed and was law, or let us say it passes in a week and becomes law, the President of the United States could invade China and send us a notice within 30 days. He could invade Russia and basically start a major conflict. He could send forces to Bosnia. As far as this resolution is concerned, he could basically take military action against North Korea.

Sam Nunn

But there would be one country that he would have to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop, and that would be Haiti.

Sam Nunn

Madam President, no matter what anyone thinks of the present policy, and there are probably people all over the lot on that -- I certainly do not represent my views are the majority here. I do not know. But no matter what anyone thinks of our present policy, can we conceive of anything more ridiculous than saying Haiti is in a box all by itself and that nowhere else in the world is going to be like Haiti? It is a separate place, and, by golly, the President has got to do A, B, C, D, E, and F by law or he cannot have any flexibility.

Sam Nunn

Madam President, this amendment needs defeating. The majority leader will have a substitute. The substitute will convey some of the same concerns that the authors of this amendment have expressed, but it will be a sense of the Senate. It will not be a matter of law. It will not conflict with the War Powers Act. It will not be unconstitutional or even have the implication of being unconstitutional. And most importantly, it will not take a very difficult situation, where the President needs some flexibility, where he needs counsel but not binding restrictions, and make his situation even more difficult than it is now.

Sam Nunn

So, Madam President, I would urge the defeat of this amendment. It is in the second degree, and I understand that we will need to vote on it first. There will not be a substitute possible at this stage. But I can assure everyone, based on what the majority leader told me, and I am sure he told the same thing to the Senator from Vermont, there will be an opportunity for everyone who decides they want to vote against this amendment to express their own views through, I think, a more responsible vehicle that leaves the President of the United States, President Clinton, and his whole team of national security people a more broad range set of options than this one.

Patrick J. Leahy

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Sam Nunn

Patrick J. Leahy

Madam President, just before the Senator from Georgia came on the floor, I had said that in my 20th year here in the Senate, having served here during the time when President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and now President Clinton, I could not recall one instance where anybody, either Democrat Senator or Republican Senator, had ever proposed in this body a piece of legislation so country specific that would so tie the hands of a President before the fact as this piece of legislation.

Patrick J. Leahy

The distinguished Senator from Georgia has been on the Armed Services Committee throughout his career here in the Senate. He has been here longer than I. Can the Senator from Georgia ever recall that we considered such an amendment with either Republican or Democratic Presidents -- during the time the Senate majority was Democratic or during the time the majority of the Senate was Republican -- such an amendment that would so specifically tie the hands of a President and be so country specific?

Sam Nunn

I cannot think of an example. I would not pretend that I have gone back and researched the whole record.

Sam Nunn

We have passed a good many sense-of-the-Senate type resolutions giving the President the benefit of our thoughts on a particular situation.

Patrick J. Leahy

I am speaking of binding.

Sam Nunn

A binding one in law? The only thing I can think of, I say to my friend from Vermont, is the War Powers Act. That was generic and applied to everybody. It did not single out one country.

Sam Nunn

I cannot think of anything that would cause the leaders in Haiti, who have abused their people there and who caused tremendous hardship there, to rejoice more than passing this amendment tonight.

Patrick J. Leahy

I might say to my friend from Georgia I think not only are the points he makes so accurate but he has spoken of the practical effect it will have in Haiti, certainly an effect that I do not think anybody here would want to see happen.

Patrick J. Leahy

I agree with him. That is exactly what would happen if we passed it.

Chris Dodd

Madam President, will my colleague yield on that?

Patrick J. Leahy

If I could finish on this one thought. Think of what we are doing, Madam President.

Patrick J. Leahy

This is a matter of enormous constitutional impact, because we have disagreements in this body on a Haitian policy, just as apparently there are disagreements within the administration on the Haitian policy and there is disagreements among the public. Then let us debate Haitian policy. Let us set aside a day and everybody step up here and address the Senate. Give the President the value of our advice and the American public. But think of what we are doing.

Patrick J. Leahy

On an appropriations bill that everyone knows we are going to have to pass at some point certainly before we leave this week, we want to take a step of enormous constitutional import to totally change the rules to do something that probably has never ever been attempted in the 200- year history of our country, and we are going to do it after 2 or 3 hours of debate and toss it on to an appropriations bill.

Patrick J. Leahy

This is not a responsible way of setting policy. It is a back-door way almost of trying to change the Constitution, and it is certainly a precedent that I would guarantee, if we were to pass it every single one of us at some time in the future would see that as a precedent that we would rue when faced with a different set of circumstances later on.

Patrick J. Leahy

We should not legislate in this nature for the passing moment. We should legislate for what is in the best interest of the country, what is in the best interest of our constitutional checks and balances. And each one of us should stop and think for a moment that we are the most powerful nation on Earth. We have enormous power residing in the Presidency and in the judiciary and in the Congress, and it works because we have this constitutional checks and balances.

Patrick J. Leahy

And here we are attempting to eliminate part of that checks and balances and do it in a way with very little thought. It is a step that we should not leap forward on. We are going over a constitutional precipice that I guarantee you, if we were to pass this everyone of us would rue it, and I guarantee historians would write, why did the Senate lose its sense?

Sam Nunn

Madam President, do I have the floor?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia retains the floor.

Sam Nunn

Would the Senator from Vermont put a question mark after that erudite statement? That was a question I am attempting to answer.

Patrick J. Leahy

Chris Dodd

I agree there should be a question mark.

Sam Nunn

I generally agree with the thrust of the Senator's remarks.

Sam Nunn

I am glad to yield to my friend from Connecticut, but first let me plead one thought.

Sam Nunn

I hope we do not have to use a military option. In my view the military option would be not very difficult militarily. You never want to put people at risk unless America has a vital stake involved and unless we have tried all other alternatives.

Sam Nunn

But the military scenario in Haiti would not be very difficult, to say the least, but what would be difficult, and the Senator from Utah mentioned this a little while ago, is we would basically become law enforcement officials. We would basically have to provide the police function, and we would be doing it with military forces.

Sam Nunn

As we have seen from difficulty in the Middle East and other places, that is a very difficult job for the military, who have a different mission. They are not taught to arrest and detect and prosecute. They are taught to basically search and destroy. That is a different mission.

Sam Nunn

So I hope that the military option is not required or necessary. But let us do not take it off the table. Let us do not take it away from the President as an option. Let us do not remove this psychological pressure that I hope will be successful in bringing about some resolution of the tragedy in Haiti.

Sam Nunn

I yield to my friend.

Chris Dodd

Madam President, I just want to subscribe to the thoughts being expressed by our colleague from Georgia. We held 4 hours of hearings yesterday on Haiti.

Chris Dodd

I want to come back to the underlying question here, putting aside the debate on Haiti for a minute, whether you agree or disagree with what is present policy.

Chris Dodd

There is a more fundamental issue that is being addressed as a result of our colleague from New Hampshire raising this binding amendment.

Chris Dodd

It goes far beyond the issue of this particular fact situation that I have been reading over the War Powers Resolution, and my colleague from Georgia is far better acquainted with this than I. And I see the arrival of our colleague from Virginia who is well acquainted with it, as well.

Chris Dodd

There has been a 22-year debate on the War Powers Resolution and the debate has not focused on whether or not the Congress has the authority to restrain a President's decision to initiate hostilities prior to congressional approval. The debate has been, one, whether or not he should have to consult with Congress before he engages in those activities and, second, whether, within 48 hours after engaging in those hostilities, he needs to come to the Congress and get some permission. And Presidents going back to President Nixon, if I am not incorrect, have strongly objected to even that restriction on executive power.

Chris Dodd

Now, that is the question I guess I would ask. But that has been a significant debate.

Chris Dodd

This amendment goes far beyond that, in that it is a precondition and sets a standard with which no other President has ever been asked to comply in any case specific or even in the generic situation.

Chris Dodd

Is that the opinion of the Senator from Georgia, as well?

Sam Nunn

I think that is correct.

Sam Nunn

I would have to add, on the Iraq situation I think that there was a very strong view in the Congress because of the time element involved, the fact that there were 6 or 7 months of buildup and consideration and sanctions before there was any kind of formal debate in the Congress in terms of Congress' responsibility under the war provisions of the Constitution, that in that case there were a number of people that urged the President of the United States -- then President Bush -- to come to the Congress before taking military action.

Sam Nunn

I would have to go back and research it, but I do not believe there was any law that was passed. I am not sure there was even any attempt.

Chris Dodd

If my colleague would yield, President Bush actually requested of us to raise that issue.

Sam Nunn

Chris Dodd

And it was a significant debate. But to the contrary, it was not Congress insisting, it was not a legislatively initiated activity.

Sam Nunn

But there were a lot of people in Congress, I would say a majority of Congress, that felt pretty strongly that he should ask that permission, given the circumstances and given the Constitution's clear role of Congress in declaring war, because that indeed would be an action anyone would define as a war.

Sam Nunn

I am not sure what we would call an actual military incursion in Haiti, but it is certainly not comparable to that.

Sam Nunn

Yet, I think the President ought to maximize his consultations with Congress before taking military action, anyway. But that is a different thing altogether than binding him in law and basically demonstrating to whoever would be your possible adversaries in advance that it is a binding action in law. And that is what we have here before us.

Chris Dodd

I thank my colleague.

Sam Nunn

I yield the floor.

Chris Dodd

Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or so, if I can, on a general proposition.

Chris Dodd

First of all, I thank our colleague from Georgia and our colleague from Arizona. Their observations were on the constitutionality of this proposal rather than engaging in debate specifically on Haiti.