Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that this is the closing minute, I would just like to make a couple of quick remarks. There was some comment from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] that maybe the House and Senate have not got it exactly fitted together. They certainly have it exactly fitted together a whole lot better than the Clinton administration does. The budget that has been set up here by the President was a nonstarter, and I remember the President, in a place in an approximate position next to the gentleman in the Chair, as he was addressing the joint session said, ``It is the CBO who will make the judgment,'' and the CBO made the judgment and his budget was found wanting, seriously wanting and out of balance. We have been just told that we can expect some dilatory tactics, more effort to obfuscate and interfere with the proper business of the people of this country being done in an efficient way by the majority party. Mr. Speaker, I would invite our colleagues in the minority on the other side to put as much effort as they are putting into the rhetoric on this issue, I would ask them to give that much energy into working in cooperation with the majority, so that every American has a better quality of life. The way to start that is to vote for this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to let this go unanswered, but it has gotten a little out of control here in the rhetoric. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has just said when it is made known. He objects to that language, and that is the language in Mrs. Meek's amendment as well, so I guess he is opposed to Mrs. Meek's amendment as well. The question was raised by the gentleman: Who will make it known? Any number of people will make it known to the President. As I recall, the last person who made it known to the President that there was a problem in Haiti was the gentleman named Randall Robinson. Randall Robinson actually made it known by a protest in front of the White House, a starvation diet type of thing, a publicity stunt as it were. Well, I would suggest a very great way the president will know. Mrs. Robinson now works for the government of Haiti, as I understand is on the payroll of the Government of Haiti. Presumably she will tell Randall Robinson and Randall Robinson will tell the president again. So I am not concerned that we are not going to get the word to the President that the folks who are taking the Rangel position want to know. It is going to happen; there is no question there. I am a little bit offended by the statement that I did not support President Aristide. I was in Haiti for the election in 1990; I was in Haiti for the election in 1995, as an observer. As an observer in 1990 I came back and signed on and said President Aristide is a duly popular, enthusiastically elected President of the country of Haiti, and I have stuck to that position the whole way through. When former President Carter, and General Powell and Senator Nunn negotiated the settlement that avoided the armed hostile conflict of war between the U.S. Armed Forces, and the Haitian army, and people, and the innocent bystanders that would have been hurt, I was the first Member in the well the next day to congratulate President Clinton for a negotiated settlement. I think he was fortunate to get it at the last minute. He had good people working for him and made that come out. I met with President Aristide this Monday. We had a very nice discussion after this election. We agreed there are some very hopeful signs that we need to focus on. It was a courteous call, a pleasant call, there was no disagreement. There is no question that we have a challenge ahead. President Aristide said so and has been saying so publicly, frankly, in the past 2 days. I do not think we have any disagreement about that. This is not about the election last weekend. Sure, there were tremendous logistical difficulties. Everybody knows that. Sure, there were some disturbances. Some were severe, some were not. In some areas there were no disturbances at all. I think everybody who was there understands that. Nobody would mischaracterize that. My problem is, what is going to be the standard? The gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] said what is the standard. He said a vague and mischievous standard was my game. It is not. I am saying the standard of measuring democracy in Haiti is the Haitian Constitution. Is there anybody who would deny that that is about a bad idea? That is what we are measuring democracy by in Haiti, is their democratic Constitution. Can we get real here? What is wrong with that?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I will answer that very briefly. As I said before, the reason to this amendment is on my responsibility, our first responsibility on the foreign aid bill to provide proper oversight that the funds are spent in the proper priority areas with the proper governance and oversight and accountability back to the American taxpayers. Haiti we have put an awful lot of money in, pretty near $2 billion. It has come in different places and forms. That is a ton of money. I think we owe an accountability to the American people, and a statement to them that we are checking. I will not withdraw my amendment, but there is nothing more sinister to my amendment than what I have said. preferential motion offered by mr. bonior

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman, is that a rhetorical question?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I had the good fortune and pleasure of meeting the bishop while we were there. We had a very pleasant conversation. If somebody who was one of my observers on the IRI team intimidated him, I would certainly like to know that person's name and know the circumstances. I have had no such report.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to say that I filed this amendment way at the beginning of last week, way before the elections. It actually had very little to do with the elections. Second thing, I did confer with you, as you point out. Third, I want to assure you, it is the real me. I am definitely here. I am standing here and it is me. The third thing I want to say is this is not about the elections. The fourth thing I want to say is I have not made any allegations or charges that we should stop aid because it was not a democratic election. That would be a very foolish thing to do, I do not think you or anybody else over there would say right now that we have supported a nondemocratic election because they did not have their electoral council in place. I, at your request and others' requests, put in the words ``substantial compliance'' so we would know we are not talking about trickery or anything like that. I do not expect all the T's to be crossed or the I's to be dotted. I expect substantial compliance. I have said publicly, these elections are OK, on to the next ones.

Mr. GOSS. I have picked Haiti for two reasons: The substantial compliance question I think accommodates most of your concern. But the other reason is because we have $2 billion, B, billion, invested in Haiti in this 2-year frame, probably going to be more before we are through, and that is my foremost responsibility to the United States of America as a Representative here, is to make sure in the House of revenue, the people's House, we use dollars wisely.

Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is very simple: Because I am first and foremost accountable to the American taxpayers for the wise use of their tax dollars, and I do not stand still for the proposition that we are going to put any money in any country, no matter what, unless they are proceeding in a properly democratic way.

Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for yielding to me. The problem with the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida is that it simply bases the question of how we judge democracy on some unknown. There is no particular standard for it. It is sort of in the eye of the beholder. We are very particular about how we do that in our amendment, by design. We measure democracy by the Haitian Constitution. That is the way we measure democracy in this country, and we believe specific reference to the Haitian Constitution is also extremely critical because that is the path they have announced they are taking and that is the path that the dollars of our tax support are committed to pursuing, in helping them pursue. If we get that off that path and create some new direction, we open the door for a lot of mischief, and I am sad to say that there was some mischief in Haiti this past weekend, and I am sorry that my colleague from Florida has felt it necessary to shoot the messenger for reporting that. But in the words of the mayor of Port-au-Prince, who called the election, and incidentally the mayor of Port-au-Prince is a member of the former coalition of elected President Aristide, called the election a massive fraud. The minister of culture said he was ashamed. Quoting from the New York Times on this, he said, ``As a member of the Government, I am not proud of this at all.'' These are serious challenges. The political parties are calling for a re-vote. They are calling for re-elections. This is not Porter Goss saying this, this is Porter Goss bringing the message. I am sorry, it is the Haitians who have said this, who participated in this. It is not Porter Goss who has created this. The fact that we have brought it to your attention may be distressing, but it is important that when we represent first and foremost the United States taxpayers, we have a higher obligation to make sure their money is properly and wisely spent than any other obligation in a foreign country. I think that is an extremely important point. I would say that one of the problems I have with the Meek amendment is that it clearly weakens accountability to the American taxpayers. I think that not specifying that we stick to the Constitution in Haiti is a serious flaw in the Meek amendment, and I am afraid that leaving it up to somebody, presumably the spokespersons for the liberal left, as who have been speaking widely on this, to define what democracy is and how well it is doing in Haiti is a dangerous mistake and would not pass muster with the United States taxpayers. Having said all of this, I urge definitely a ``no'' vote on the Meek amendment, and I urge support for the Goss amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It is about Haiti and it says, ``No democracy, no taxpayer money.'' The intent is to encourage both the Clinton administration and the Haitians in Haiti to ensure that this year's parliamentary and Presidential elections are as free, open, and democratic as possible. Simply put, the Goss amendment says that in the event of a new regime assuming power in this fiscal year in Haiti through means other than an election in substantial compliance with the Haitian Constitution of 1987, the United States would halt aid to Haiti. I believe this amendment is of significant value, if not necessary, because I believe the American people would draw the line at funding a regime in Haiti that gained power through a nondemocratic or an antidemocratic process. We saw some serious problems with the electoral process in this past weekend's parliamentary elections. Today, we have new reports of trouble, including the assassination of a mayoral candidate in the coastal town of Anse d'Hainault. Others have noted that the electoral council we have there is provisional, not permanent as required by the Constitution. The international community has looked at that and the international community and Haiti have accepted that a necessary compromise for this past weekend's election. It was necessary to do it that way because we had to have the elections and I think that makes sense. The natural follow-on question is whether or not building a more permanent electoral administrative mechanism will be a priority once the new parliament is in place. There are, arguably, more important Haitian issues than the electoral council. The Haitian Constitution also prohibits President Aristide from running again and prohibits the new parliament from changing the laws to allow him to do so. Whether or not that standards holds should be of particular interest to this House, to the Clinton administration, and to the Haitian people themselves. Ultimately, this amendment is, in part, about adding incentives to keep the evolution of democracy in Haiti on track by holding elections in a manner as consistent with the Haitian Constitution as possible, despite the realities of holding elections from scratch in what is a poverty-stricken, infrastructure-challenged Third World country. The larger issue for us is deciding what our job as Members of Congress is all about. Members of Congress are the keepers of a trust for the American taxpayers. We are responsible for knowing whether our tax dollars are used for priority spending and whether there is value in return. Let us be clear about this. No one knows exactly how much the Clinton administration has spent on operations in Haiti. What we do know is that before American soldiers leave, the cost of this effort is projected to be well over the $2 billion mark. That is a tremendous amount of money. Why have we committed this level of resource of Haiti? Because the White House has placed a priority of building democracy there. And this is an admirable goal I think all of us support in principle. But if at end of the election cycle this year we find that the process has drifted or been jolted far from democratic standards, then we should stop pouring money into that small Caribbean nation. When I say pouring money, it is about $300 per capita, which is about $50 per capita per year more than the average income. This amendment says ``No'' to United States assistance for any new regime in Haiti that comes to power via an antidemocratic process. If building democracy is not about that kind of commitment, then what is it about? This amendment is good for a democratic Haiti; it is good for the American taxpayers. Also I would like to point out that we have checked it out with the Committee on International Relations and we have made it in modified form today, after checking with the Department of State, to try and relieve some problems they were concerned about. I have added the words ``substantial compliance'' with regard to observing the Haitian Constitution, because obviously they are not going to be able to cross every T or dot every I. We have also tried to make this effective as of March 1996, well into the fiscal year, to allow plenty of opportunity for adjustment in case there are technical glitches with the election process. We have tried to accommodate in every way possible the concerns of the administration. I think we have done that. I think we have a very clear, simple amendment that says as long as Haiti stays on the track, they are eligible for foreign assistance. If they get off that track, then we better take another look. amendment offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida to the Amendment, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Goss

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the new form at the desk.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me. It seems a lot of folks from Florida are interested in this, Mr. Chairman, and indeed, we are. We represent Haitians who are Haitian Americans. We represent Americans who are not Haitian Americans. I thank the gentleman for yielding, because there are a couple of points I feel I have to add to here, some things made that are getting a little bit on the edge of being ad hominem attacks. I am truly sorry for the distress of my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from south Florida. We share the same goals. It is just a question that we are not sure we do. We do share the same goals. Mr. Chairman, in previous resolutions and pieces of business before this floor, I have taken a very, very strong position about not wanting to send our armed troops to make war on Haiti. I consider it a friendly neighboring country, and have said that almost every time I have referred to it. I do not believe in making war on friendly neighbors. As I have said before, I applauded very loudly, I applauded President Clinton for the negotiated settlement after President Carter, former President Carter, General Powell, went down there. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the embargo, I opposed the embargo because I felt it would bring suffering to the people of Haiti, innocent victims. It did. It did. There is no question about it. This tiny island in some far remote part of the Caribbean that the distinguished gentleman referred to, I do not remember who made the statement, apparently has not got much of an understanding of where Haiti is or what it looks like. This tiny island is a rather large island. It is in the central mass of sovereign Haiti, it is Haitian soil, it is bigger, bigger than Manhattan, and it has thousands of Haitian citizens living on it, and they voted on Sunday. To say that we were trying to create a problem in some tiny remote non-Haitian territory, I have only said the way to solve the problem in Haiti is by Haitians on Haitian soil with U.S. aid, appropriately expended and properly justified. That is what this is about. Mr. Chairman, this is the foreign appropriations bill we are talking about. We are talking about are we using American taxpayers dollars wisely. I think we are. We are trying to do the right thing. I am asking that we always keep asking ourselves that question, because Haiti has had a difficult history, as we all know. It is not more than that. It is not complicated. There is nothing sinister, there is nothing Machiavellian, there are no tricks. We have had this out in the open in this wonderful democracy. I do not know what more I could say. I think perhaps more is being read into this amendment than is there.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I hope we are going to do better.

Mr. GOSS. I am not asking for a higher standard than substantial compliance.

Mr. GOSS. I am not asking for a higher standard.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I will not say it was fine. I will say it was substantial compliance for the purposes of this amendment.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is, by substantial compliance, I certainly think that if we have said that this election this weekend involves substantial compliance, that that gives us a pretty good idea of how far away we can get from the specific words and technical requirements because we were quite far away from them. And I do not believe anybody is--certainly I am not--saying that this last election was not in substantial compliance.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], who is also the author of this very, very important amendment. I am pleased to rise in support of what I think is a very fair and responsible rule, especially relative to how we have dealt with this in the past and also in support of the underlying legislation. This rule works within the time constraints that we have been given, and I think it ensures the careful, structured, scrutiny of what we are about here. Equally important, this rule does provide the minority with a chance to offer a substitute. I do not understand the problem on that. We have a motion to recommit there, and we will have debate, and we are going to debate the alternative for the same amount of time--the full hour-- that we are going to give to the Solomon proposal. So I think that is a pretty good deal. Each side gets the same amount of time. I commend the chairman for this very fair approach, and I frankly think all Members should support it. With respect to the amendment itself, I am generally very hesitant to support changes to the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers exhibited, I think very uncanny long-sightedness in establishing the framework for the greatest democracy on Earth. But their tremendous forethought also allowed them to recognize that there might be times when the American people would want to join together and seek to make measured changes to the living document that the Constitution is. It has actually happened 27 times, a very small number to be sure, but most of those 27 amendments established and reinforced bedrock principles of our free society. I venture to guess that even those who strongly oppose today's proposed amendment would agree that the American people have thus far used the awesome power of amending the Constitution in a very wise and judicious way. There is no reason to doubt that this time will be any different. There is much misinformation about what this legislation does and does not do. In my view, simply put, it takes back from the nine individuals of the Supreme Court, who are not accountable, and it gives to the people, all the people in their States, in their home communities, wherever, it gives them the decision on how best to treat the flag. In sum, I trust the people of our country more than the Supreme Court on this matter, which is close to the heart of every American.