Haitian asylum-seekers

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Haitian asylum-seekers hearing before the Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, on H.R. 3663, H.R. 4114, and H.R. 4264, June 15, 1994
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 504 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the Judiciary. -- Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration, and Refugees
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O. :
For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office
Place of Publication:
Washington
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Political refugees -- Legal status, laws, etc -- United States   ( lcsh )
Haitians -- Legal status, laws, etc -- United States   ( lcsh )
Asylum, Right of -- United States   ( lcsh )
Deportation -- United States   ( lcsh )
Emigration and immigration law -- United States   ( lcsh )
Réfugiés politiques -- Statut juridique -- États-Unis   ( ram )
Haïtiens -- Statut juridique -- États-Unis   ( ram )
Droit d'asile -- États-Unis   ( ram )
Expulsion des étrangers -- États-Unis   ( ram )
Émigration et immigration -- Droit -- États-Unis   ( ram )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Title from PDF t.p. (LLMC Digital, viewed on Dec. 19, 2010)
General Note:
"Serial no. 43."

Record Information

Source Institution:
Columbia Law Library
Holding Location:
Columbia Law Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 261124134
Classification:
lcc - KF27 .J8645 1994c
ddc - 342.73/083|347.30283
System ID:
AA00001233:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
















This volume was donated to LLMC
to enrich its on-line offerings and
for purposes of long-term preservation by

Columbia University Law Library





HAITIAN ASYLUM-SEEKERS




HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW,
IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3663, H.R. 4114, and H.R. 4264


JUNE 15, 1994

Serial No. 43


Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary





HAITIAN ASYLUM-SEEKERS


HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW,
IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3663, H.R. 4114, and H.R. 4264


JUNE 15, 1994


Serial No. 43









Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1994


82-190 CC


For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-045959-1










COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JACK BROOKS, Texas, Chairman
DON EDWARDS, California HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma Wisconsin
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota
JOHN BRYANT, Texas ELTON GALLEGLY, California
GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JACK REED, Rhode Island BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
DAVID MANN, Ohio
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
XAVIER BECERRA, California
JONATHAN R. YAROWSKY, General Counsel
ROBERT A. LEMBO, Counsel/Administrator
ALAN F. COFFEY, JR., Minority Chief Counsel


SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES
ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky, Chairman
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BILL McCOLLUM, Florida
JOHN BRYANT, Texas LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
XAVIER BECERRA, California

EUGENE PUGLIESE, Counsel
LESLIE L. MEGYERI, Assistant Counsel
KEVIN L. ANDERSON, Assistant Counsel
PETER J. LEVINSON, Minority Counsel

IKF


.TBG^
7YGl~q5













CONTENTS


HEARING DATE
Page
June 15, 1994 ........................................................................................................... 1
TEXTS OF BILLS
H .R 3663 .................................................................................................................. 2
H .R 4114 .................................................................................................................. 11
H .R 4264 .................................................................................................................. 23
OPENING STATEMENT
Mazzoli, Hon. Romano L., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Kentucky, and chairman, Subcommittee on International Law, Immigra-
tion, and Refugees .............................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES
Brown, Hon. Corrine, a Representative in Congress from the State of
F lorida .................................................................................................................... 66
Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of
M ichigan ............................................................................................................ 53
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln, a Representative in Congress from the State of
F lorida ................................................................................................................... 48
Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .. 55
Forester, Steven, supervising attorney, Haitian Refugee Center, Miami, FL .... 156
McCalla, Jocelyn, executive director, National Coalition for Haitian Refugees 186
McKinley, Hon. Brunson, Acting Director, Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration, U.S. Department of State ....................................................... 105
Meek, Hon. Carrie P., a Representative in Congress from the State of
F lorida ................................................................................................................... 33
Owens, Hon. Major R., a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Y ork ....................................................................................................................... 64
Rangel, Hon. Charles B., a Representative in Congress from the State of
N ew York ........................................................................................................... 51
Ryscavage, Rev. Richard, director, migration and refugee services, U.S. Catho-
lic Conference .................................................................................................... 195
Sale, Chris, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
U.S. Department of Justice, accompanied by T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Gen-
eral Counsel ................ ................................................................................. 117
Stein, Dan, executive director, Federation for American Immigration Reform .. 219
Swartz, Rick, Esq., Swartz & Associates, Washington, DC .............................. 265
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Brown, Hon. Corrine, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida:
Prepared state ent ........................................................................................... 68
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 49
Forester, Steven, supervising attorney, Haitian Refugee Center, Miami, FL:
Prepared state ent ........................................................................................... 161
Goss, Hon. Porter J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida:
Prepared state ent ........................................................................................... 58
McCalla, Jocelyn, executive director, National Coalition for Haitian Refugees:
Prepared state ent ............... ...................................................................... 190

(III)






Page
McKinley, Hon. Brunson, Acting Director, Bureau of Population, Refugees,
and Migration, U.S. Department of State: Prepared statement ................... 109
Meek, Hon. Carrie P., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida:
Prepared state ent ........................................................................................... 36
Ryscavage, Rev. Richard, director, migration and refugee services, U.S. Catho-
lic Conference: Prepared statement ................................................................. 198
Sale, Chris, Deputy Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
US. Department of Justice:
Data concerning Roman(e) Desanges ........................................................... 149
Information concerning the In-Country Refugee Processing Program ...... 156
Prepared statement ....................................................................................... 122
Stein, Dan, executive director, Federation for American Immigration Reform:
Prepared state ent ........................................................................................... 223
Swartz, Rick, Esq., Swartz & Associates, Washington, DC: Prepared state-
m ent ...................................................................................................................... 268
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.-Letter to Hon. Carrie Meek from Rene van Rooyen, Representa-
tive, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, dated February 4,
1994, with attachment, news clipping from Newsday, April 14, 1993, enti-
tled, "Scars Attest to Haitian Brutality" ......................................................... 293
Appendix 2.-Statement of Hon. Ronald V. Dellums, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California ............................................................. 298
Appendix 3.-Statement of Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York ............................................................................. 351
Appendix 4.-Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois .................................................................................. 353
Appendix 5.-Draft letter of understanding with UNHCR from Stephanie
Marks, Esq., coordinator, asylum program, and Scott Stofel, Esq., staff
attorney, Washington office of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights ... 354
Appendix 6.-Statement of Lucas Guttentag, director, American Civil Lib-
erties Union Immigrants' Rights' Project and Laura Murphy Lee, director,
American Civil Liberties Union, Washington office ....................................... 357
Appendix 7.-Statement of Dr. Elizabeth G. Ferris, director, immigration
and refugee program, Church World Service .................................................. 361
Appendix 8.-Joint statement of Washington Association of Churches, North-
west Immigrant Rights Project, and Washington Refugee Resettlement ....... 370
Appendix 9.-CRS report: Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 ............................... 376
Appendix 10.-Steven Forester, Esq., supervising attorney, Haitian Refugee
Center, miscellaneous materials ...................................................................... 380
Appendix 11.-Report from Human Rights Watch/Americas Watch and the
National Coalition for Haitian Refugees ......................................................... 409
Appendix 12.-Letter from the American Immigration Lawyers Association
to Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli, chairman, Subcommittee on International Law,
Immigration, and Refugees, dated June 14, 1994 .......................................... 490
Appendix 13.-Letter from the American Bar Association to Hon. Romano
L. Mazzoli, chairman, Subcommittee on International Law, Immigration,
and Refugees, dated June 13, 1994 ................................................................. 492
Appendix 14.-Statement of Cheryl Little, co-chair, Forum for Haitian Justice
and Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc ............................................................. 495











HAITIAN ASYLUM-SEEKERS


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1994
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW,
IMMIGRATION, AND REFUGEES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room
2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Romano L. Mazzoli, John Bryant,
George E. Sangmeister, Jerrold Nadler, Xavier Becerra, Bill McCol-
lum, Lamar S. Smith, and Charles T. Canady.
Also present: Eugene Pugliese, counsel; Leslie L. Megyeri, assist-
ant counsel; Judy Knott, secretary; Lizzie Daniels, secretary; and
Peter Levinson, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MAZZOLI
Mr. MAZZOLI. We have called this hearing today because the cur-
rent situation in Haiti poses a fundamental dilemma to the United
States and to foreign policymakers: How can we protect the lives
of Haitians who are being victimized by the current military lead-
ers? How can we prevent problems at sea of the Haitians who have
left their country? And, at the same time, how can we prevent
what some would call an uncontrollable exodus of Haitians to the
United States?
We have before us three bills concerning Haitian asylum-seekers,
H.R. 3663 by Mrs. Meek, H.R. 4114 by Mr. Dellums, and H.R. 4264
by Mr. Conyers, Members who have been in the forefront of efforts
to protect Haitian asylum-seekers, and I see in the room also the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel who has been active in that
effort as well.
[The bills, H.R. 3663, H.R. 4114, and H.R. 4264, follow:]









I



1ST SESSION 3663


To reaffirm the obligation of the United States to refrain from the involuntary
return of refugees outside the United States, designate Haiti under
Temporary Protected Status, and for other purposes.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 22, 1993
Mrs. MEEK (for herself, Mr. GILMAN, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. OWENS,
Mr. MFmIE, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. RUSH, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SCOTT, Mr.
LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WATT, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. ROMERO-BARCELW,
Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. TUCKER, Ms. WATERS, Mr.
JEFFERSON, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. PELOSI, Mr.
WYNN, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Ms.
McKINNEY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. WASHINGTON, Mr. DE Luoo, Mr.
CLYBURN, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. DELLUMs) introduced the following bill;
which was referred jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the
Judiciary




A BILL
To reaffirm ihe obligation of the United States to refrain
from the involuntary return of refugees outside the Unit-
ed States, designate Haiti under Temporary Protected
Status, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,







2
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act may be cited as the "Haitian Refugee Fair-
3 ness Act".
4 SEC. 2. ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE.
5 MENT OF NONREFOULEMENT.
6 (a) CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT.-It is the sense of

7 the Congress that Article 33 of the Convention Relating
8 to the Status of Refugees (done at Geneva, July 28,
9 1951), as applied under Article I of the Protocol Relating
10 to the Status of Refugees (done at New York, January
11 31, 1967), imposes an obligation upon states which are
12 party to the Protocol that applies wherever the states act
13 and without territorial limitation, and Congress reaffirms
14 that this Article 33 obligation applies to actions of the
15 United States with respect to individuals within and with-
16 out the territorial boundaries of the United States.
17 (b) OBLIGATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-
18 The United States Government shall not return, cause to
19 be returned, or affect the movement in any manner which
20 results in returning, a national or habitual resident of a
21 country, who is outside the territorial boundaries of the
22 country of nationality or residence to the territory where
23 the individual's life or freedom would be threatened, and
24 no funds may be expended without respect to any such
25 return, unless the United States Government first deter-

26 mines in a manner that incorporates procedural safe-
*HR 3863 m









3
1 guards consistent with internationally endorsed standards
2 and guidelines that such individual is not a refugee of such
3 country under Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the
4 Status of Refugees (done at Geneva July 28, 1951) as
5 applied under Article I of the United Nations Protocol Re-
6 lating to the Status of Refugees (done at New York, Janu-
7 ary 31, 1967) or a person designated under Article 33
8 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
9 (e) OBLIGATIONS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WA-
10 TERS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.-The United States Gov-
11 ernment shall not return, cause to be returned, or affect
12 the movement in any manner which results in returning,
13 a national or habitual resident of a country, who is within
14 the territorial waters of his or her country of nationality
15 or habitual residence, to the land frontier or territorial
16 land of the country of nationality or residence where the
17 individual's life or freedom would be threatened, and no
18 funds may be expended with respect to any such return,
19 unless the United States Government first determines in
20 a manner that incorporates procedural safeguards consist-
21 ent with internationally endorsed standards and guidelines
22 that if that individual were outside the territory of the
23 country of nationality or habitual residence such individ-
24 ual would not be a refugee of such country under Article
25 I of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees


*.ua H 3 IH








4
1 (done at Geneva, July 28, 1951) as applied under Article
2 I of the United National Protocol Relating to the Status
3 of Refugees (done at New York), January 31, 1967) or
4 a person designated under Article 33 of the Convention
5 Relating to the Status of Refugees. This subsection shall
6 not constitute authority for conducting operations by the
7 United States Government within the territorial waters of
8 another country.
9 (d) LIMITATIONS.-The provisions of this section do
10 not apply to an individual if-
11 (1) such individual ordered, incited, assisted, or
12 otherwise participated in the persecution of any per-
13 son on account of race, religion, nationality, mem-
14 bership in a particular social group or political opin-
15 ion; or
16 (2) such individual, having been convicted by a
17 final judgment of an aggravated felony (as defined
18 in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Na-
19 tionality Act), constitutes a danger to the commu-
20 nity of the United States.

21 (e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this sec-
22 tion shall be construed to impose new obligations on the
23 Government of the United States in its treatment of na-
24 tionals and habitual residents of a country at Uiiited

25 States diplomatic and consular missions in that country.


*HR 3663 IH









5
1 SEC. 3. TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR HAITIANS.
2 (a) DESIGNATION.-
3 (1) IN GENERAL.-Haiti is hereby designated
4 under section 244A(b) of the Immigration and Na-
5 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)), subject to the
6 provisions of this section.
7 (2) PERIOD OF DESIGNATION.-Such designa-
8 tion shall take effect on the date of the enactment
9 of this Act and shall remain in effect for a period
10 of 24 months from the date of enactment of this Act
11 or until such time as the President certifies to Con-
12 gress that a democratically elected government is se-
13 curely in place in Haiti, whichever occurs later.
14 (b) ALIENS ELIGIBLE.-In applying section 244A of
15 the Immigration and Nationality Act pursuant to the des-
16 ignation under this section, subject to section 244A(c)(3)
17 of such Act, an alien who is a national of Haiti meets
18 the requirement of section 244A(c)(1) of such Act only
19 if-
20 (1) the alien has been continuously physically
21 present in the United States since November 17,
22 1993;
23 (2) the alien is admissible as an immigrant, ex-
24 cept as otherwise provided under section
25 244A(c)(2)(A) of such Act and is not ineligible for


*HR 3663 IH








6
1 temporary protected status under section
2 244A(c)(2)(B) of such Act; and
3 (3) the alien registers for temporary protected
4 status in a manner which the Attorney General shall
5 establish.
6 (c) REGISTRATION FEE.-Subject to section
7 244A(c)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the
8 Attorney General may provide for the payment of a fee
9 as a condition of registering an alien under subsection (b)
10 of this section.
11 SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERN-
12 MENT COSTS.
13 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the At-
14 torney General shall reimburse from funds authorized
15 under section 404(b)(1) of the Immigration and National-
16 ity Act, State and local governments for incremental costs
17 associated with Haitian nationals who are paroled into the
18 United States by the Immigration and Naturalization
19 Service under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and
20 Nationality Act.


*HR 3663 m








7
1 SEC. 5. FUNDING JOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE OF
2 THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS-
3 TICE AND CUBAN/HAITIAN PRIMARY SECOND.
4 ARY MIGRATION PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
5 YEARS 1994, 1995 AND 1996.
6 (a) COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE.-Of the funds
7 appropriated for the United States Department of Justice
8 for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, not less than
9 $27,000,000 shall be made available in each fiscal year
10 to the Community Relations Service.
11 (b) CUBAN/HAITIAN PRIMARY SECONDARY MIGRA-
12 TION PROGRAM.-Of the funds referred to in subsection
13 (a), not less than $6,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1994,
14 1995, and 1996 shall be used to provide primary and see-
15 ondary resettlement services for Cubans and Haitians pa-
16 roled into the United States by the Immigration and Nat-
17 uralization Service under section 212(d)(5) of the Immi-
18 gration and Nationality Act.
19 SEC. 6. CUBAN/HAITIAN ENTRANT EMERGENCY FUND.
20 Section 404 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
21 (8 U.S.C. 1101, note.) is amended by adding at the end
22 the following new subsection:
23 "(c) CUBAN/HAITIAN ENTRANT EMERGENCY FUND.
24 "(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-
25 There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
26 year 1994 and any subsequent fiscal year to a
HR 38 IH







8
1 Cuban/Haitian Entrant Emergency Fund to be es-
2 tablished in the Treasury, an amount sufficient to
3 provide for a balance of $5,000,000 in such fund, to

4 be used to carry out the purposes described in para-
5 graph (3).
6 "(2) CONDITIONS FOR USE OF FUND.-Funds
7 which are authorized to be appropriated by para-
8 graph (1) shall be available whenever-
9 "(A) the number of Cubans and Haitians
10 paroled into the United States by the Immigra-
11 tion and Naturalization Service under section
12 212(d)5 of the Immigration and Nationality
13 Act in a single fiscal year has exceeded the esti-
14 mate made by the Attorney General as required
15 in paragraph (4), and
16 "(B) funds appropriated for the Cuban/
17 Haitian Primary/Secondary Resettlement Pro-
18 gram are inadequate to provide primary and
19 secondary resettlement services at the fiscal
20 year 1993 funding and service level.
21 "(3) Funds which are authorized to be
22 appropriated by paragraph (1) shall be available
23 solely for the purpose of assisting with the process-
24 ing, placement and reception of Cubans and Hai-
25 tians paroled into the United States by the Immigra-


*HR 363 IH








9
1 tion and Naturalization Service under section
2 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
3 "(4) ANNUAL ESTIMATION OF CUBAN AND HAI-
4 TIAN PAROLEES.
5 "(A) The Attorney General of the United
6 States shall submit each year, concurrent with
7 the President's annual budget request, an esti-
8 mate of the number of Cubans and Haitians
9 who are expected to be paroled into the United
10 States under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigra-
11 tion and Nationality Act in the next fiscal year.
12 Such estimate shall be made independently
13 from the budget request for any programs for
14 Cuban and Haitian parolees.
15 "(B) In determining the estimate required
16 by paragraph (4)(A), the Attorney General shall
17 take into consideration a number of factors, in-
18 eluding but not limited to-

19 "(i) previous experience and current
20 trends in the number of Cubans and Hai-
21 tians paroled into the United States under
22 section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and
23 Nationality Act, and
24 "(ii) political circumstances and
25 trends in Cuba and Haiti.".
o


*nH 3M63 m








I


103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION H.R.4114


To provide for sanctions against Haiti, to halt the interdiction and return
of Haitian refugees, and for other purposes.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 23, 1994
Mr. DELLUMS (for himself, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Mr. OWENS, Mr. RAN-
GEL, Mr. MFUME, Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut, Ms. BROwN of Florida,
Mr. CONYERS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. MEEK, Mr.
BISHOP, Mr. BLACKWELL, Mr. CLAY, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. CLYBURN,
Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr. DIXON, Mr.
FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Mr.
HILLIARD, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms.
McKINNEY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SCOTT, Mr.
STOKES, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. TUCKER, Mr.
WASHINGTON, Ms. WATERS, Mr. WATT, Mr. WHEAT, and Mr. WYNN) in-
troduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees
on Ways and Means, Foreign Affairs, Public Works and Transportation,
the Judiciary, and Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs




A BILL
To provide for sanctions against Haiti, to halt the interdic-
tion and return of Haitian refugees, and for other
purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,








2
1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act may be cited as the "Governors Island Rein-
3 forcement Act of 1994".
4 SEC. 2. SANCTIONS AGAINST HAITI
5 (a) PROHIBITING TRADE AND CERTAIN TRANS-
6 ACTIONS INVOLVING HAITI.-The following are prohib-
7 ited:
8 (1) The import into the United States of any
9 goods or services of Haitian origin, other than publi-
10 cations and material imported for news publications
11 or news broadcast dissemination.
12 (2) The export to Haiti of any goods, tech-
13 nology (including technical data or other informa-
14 tion) or services from the United States, except pub-
15 locations, food, medicine, and medical supplies and
16 donations of articles intended to relieve human suf-
17 fering, such as clothing and temporary housing.
18 (3) The purchase by any United States person
19 of any goods for export from Haiti to any country.
20 (4) The performance by any United States per-
21 son of any contract in support of an industrial or
22 other commercial or governmental project in Haiti.
23 (5) The grant or extension of credits or loans
24 by any United States person to the unelected mili-
25 tary rulers of Haiti, its instrumentalities and con-
26 trolled entities.
.HR 4114 IH








3
1 (b) PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN AIR TRANSPORT IN-
2 VOLVING HAITI.-The following is prohibited:
3 (1) Any transaction by a United States person
4 relating to air transportation to or from Haiti.
5 (2) The provision of transportation to or from
6 the United States by aircraft of Haitian registration.
7 (3) The sale in the United States by any person
8 holding authority under the Federal Aviation Act of
9 any transportation by air which includes any stop in
10 Haiti.
11 (c) SANCTIONS AGAINST OTHER NATIONS.-
12 (1) If the President determines that a foreign
13 country is not cooperating with United States sanc-
14 tions against Haiti under this Act or with applicable
15 sanctions against Haiti imposed by the United Na-
16 tions and the Organization of American States, ef-
17 fective 60 days after such determination no United
18 States assistance may be provided to such foreign
19 country.
20 (2) If the President makes a determination

21 under paragraph (1)-
22 (A) the President shall impose at least one
23 other penalty or sanction which the President
24 considers to be appropriate under the Inter-
25 national Emergency Economic Powers Act; and


*HR 4114 IH








4
1 (B) the President may impose such other
2 sanctions and penalties under the International
3 Emergency Economic Powers Act as the Presi-
4 dent considers appropriate.
5 (3) For the purpose of this subsection, the term
6 "United States assistance" means assistance of any

7 kind which is provided by grant, sale, loan, lease,
8 credit, guaranty, or insurance, or by any other
9 means, by any agency or instrumentality of the
10 United States Government, including-
11 (A) assistance under the Foreign Assist-
12 ance Act of 1961; and
13 (B) sales, credits, and guaranties under
14 the Arms Export Control Act.

15 (d) SANCTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES.-The Presi-
16 dent shall direct the United States Ambassador to the
17 United Nations to assume a leadership role within the
18 United Nations Security Council to ensure that sanctions
19 against Haiti unilaterally imposed by the United States
20 under this Act are adopted by the international commu-
21 nity.
22 (e) TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.-The provisions of
23 this section shall cease to have effect on the date the Presi-
24 dent certifies to the Congress that the democratically-
25 elected President of Haiti has been reinstated and Haiti's


*.HR 4114 IH








5
1 military high command has met its obligations under the
2 Governors Island Agreement.
3 SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT.
4 (a) HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVERS.-The Congress

5 strongly urges the President to take such steps as are nec-
6 essary to facilitate the return to Haiti of a full contingent
7 of human rights observers under the auspices of the
8 United Nations and/or the Organization of American
9 States.
10 (b) MULTINATIONAL BORDER PATROL.-Subject to
11 the request of the democratically-elected President of
12 Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the Congress strongly urges
13 President Clinton to take all available measures to effect
14 the deployment of a multinational border patrol between
15 the Dominican Republic and Haiti which will be fully

16 equipped in terms of personnel and equipment to halt
17 cross-border violations of sanctions against Haiti imposed
18 by the United States and other countries.
19 (c) MULTILATERAL SOCIOECONOMIC AND PEACE-
20 KEEPING ASSISTANCE.-The Congress reaffirms the un-
21 wavering commitment of the United States to support
22 multilateral socioeconomic and peacekeeping assistance to
23 Haiti upon the return to power of the democratically-elect-
24 ed President of Haiti and the removal of Haiti's military
25 high command.


*HR 4114 IH








6
1 SEC. 4. SANCTITY OF GOVERNORS ISLAND AGREEMENT.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to subsection (b) and not-
3 withstanding any other provision of law, no officer or em-

4 ployee of the United States shall attempt, directly or indi-

5 rectly, to amend, reinterpret, or nullify the Governors Is-
6 land Agreement.
7 (b) EXCEPTION.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to

8 the October 30, 1993, deadline for the return to power
9 of the democratically-elected President of Haiti, Jean-
10 Bertrand Aristide.
4
11 SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF BILATERAL MIGRANT INTERDIC-
12 TION AGREEMENT.

13 The President shall notify the Government of Haiti

14 immediately of the intention of the United States Govern-
15 ment to terminate the agreement between the United

16 States and Haiti relating to migrant interdiction (effected
17 by the exchange of notes signed at Port-au-Prince on Sep-
18 tember 23, 1981; 33 UST 3559, TIAS 6577).
19 SEC. 6. ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE-
20 MENT OF NONREFOULEMENT WITH RESPECT

21 TO HAITI.
22 (a) OBLIGATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.-
23 The United States Government shall not return, cause to
24 be returned, or affect the movement in any manner which
25 results in returning, to Haiti a national or habitual resi-
26 dent of Haiti, who is outside the territorial boundaries of
.HR 4114 IH








7
1 Haiti, and no funds may be expended with respect to any
2 such return, unless the United States Government first
3 determines in a manner that incorporates procedural safe-
4 guards consistent with internationally endorsed standards
5 and guidelines that such individual is not a refugee of
6 Haiti under Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the
7 Status of Refugees (done at Geneva July 28, 1951) as
8 applied under Article I of the United Nations Protocol Re-
9 lating to the Status of Refugees (done at New York, Janu-
10 ary 31, 1967) or a person designated under Article 33
11 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
12 (b) OBLIGATIONS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WA-
13 TERS OF HAITI.-The United States Government shall
14 not return, cause to be returned, or affect the movement
15 in any manner which results in returning, to Haiti a na-
16 tional or habitual resident of Haiti, who is within the terri-
17 trial waters of Haiti, and no funds may be expended with
18 respect to any such return, unless the United States Gov-
19 ernment first determines in a manner that incorporates
20 procedural safeguards consistent with internationally en-

21 dorsed standards and guidelines that if that individual
22 were outside the territorial boundaries of Haiti such indi-
23 vidual would not be a refugee of Haiti under Article I of
24 the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (done
25 at Geneva, July 28, 1951) as applied under Article I of


*HR 4114 IH








8
1 the United National Protocol Relating to the Status of
2 Refugees (done at New York, January 31, 1967) or a per-
3 son designated under Article 33 of the Convention Relat-
4 ing to the Status of Refugees. This subsection shall not
5 constitute authority .for conducting operations by the
6 United States Government within the territorial waters of
7 Haiti or any other country.
8 (c) LIMITATIONS.-The provisions of this section do
9 not apply to an individual if-
10 (1) such individual ordered, incited, assisted, or
11 otherwise participated in the persecution of any per-
12 son on account of race, religion, nationality, mem-
13 bership in a particular social group or political opin-
14 ion; or
15 (2) such individual, having been convicted by a
16 final judgment of an aggravated felony (as defined

17 in section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Na-
18 tionality Act), constitutes a danger to the commu-
19 nity of the United States.
20 (d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this sec-
21 tion shall be construed to impose new obligations on the
22 Government of the United States in its treatment of na-
23 tionals and habitual residents of a country at United
24 States diplomatic and consular missions in that country.


*HR 4114 IH








9
1 SEC. 7. TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR HAITIANS.
2 (a) DESIGNATION.-During the period specified in
3 subsection (c) of this section, Haiti is hereby designated
4 under section 244A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nation-
5 ality Act (relating to temporary protected status).
6 (b) ELIGIBLE HAITIANS.-Any alien-
7 (1) who is a national of Haiti and is present in
8 the United States or in the custody or control of the
9 United States (including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
10 and any other vessel or facility of the United States
11 Government) at any time during the period de-
12 scribed in subsection (c) of this section,
13 (2) who is not an alien designated under section
14 8(b) or 9(b) of this Act,
15 (3) who meets the requirements of section
16 244A(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and National-
17 ity Act, and
18 (4) who, during the period described in sub-
19 section (c) of this section, registers for temporary
20 protected status to the extent and in a manner
21 which the Attorney General establishes,
22 shall be granted temporary protected status for the dura-
23 tion of that period and section 244A(a)(1) of the Immigra-
24 tion and Nationality Act shall apply with respect to such
25 alien.


*HR 4114 IH








10
1 (c) PERIOD OF DESIGNATION.-The designation pur-
2 suant to subsection (a) shall be in effect during the period

3 beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending
4 on the date on which the President certifies to the Con-
5 gress that the democratically-elected President of Haiti
6 has been reinstated and Haiti's military high command
7 has met its obligations under the Governors Island Agree-
8 ment. Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of section 244A of
9 the Immigration and Nationality Act do not apply with
10 respect to the designation pursuant to subsection (a) of
11 this section.
12 SEC. 8. CERTAIN HAITIANS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE VISAS
13 AND EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION.
14 (a) EXCLUSION.-During the period specified in sub-
15 section (c), an alien designated under subsection (b) shall

16 be ineligible to receive any visa and shall be excluded from
17 admission into the United States.
18 (b) DESIGNATED ALIEN.-An alien designated under
19 this subsection is any alien who-
20 (1) is a national of Haiti; and
21 (2)(A) is a member of the Haitian military;
22 (B) provided financial or other material support
23 for, or directly assisted, the military coup of Septem-
24 ber 30, 1991, which overthrew the democratically


.HR 4114 IH







11
1 elected Haitian Government of President Jean-
2 Bertrand Aristide;
3 (C) provided financial or other material support
4 for, or directly participated in, terrorist acts against
5 the Haitian people during any period after such
6 coup; or
7 (D) contributed to the obstruction of United
8 Nations resolutions 841 and 843, the Governors Is-
9 land Agreement, or the activities of the United Na-
10 tions Mission in Haiti.
11 (c) PERIOD OF ExcLUSION.-The period of exclusion
12 specified in this subsection begins on the date of the enact-
13 ment of this Act and ends on the date on which the Presi-
14 dent certifies to the Congress that the democratically-
15 elected President of Haiti has been reinstated and Haiti's
16 military high command has met its obligations under the
17 Governors Island Agreement.
18 SEC. 9. BLOCKING OF ASSETS OF CERTAIN HAITIANS.
19 (a) BLOCKING OF ASSETS.-During the period speci-
20 fied in subsection (c), all property and interests in prop-

21 erty of aliens designated under subsection (b) that are in
22 the United States, that hereafter come within the United
23 States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession
24 or control of United States persons (including overseas
25 branches of United States persons), are blocked.


*HR 4114 IH








12
1 (b) DESIGNATED ALIEN.-An alien designated under
2 this subsection is any alien who-
3 (1) is a national of Haiti; and
4 (2)(A) is a member of the Haitian military;
5 (B) provided financial or other material support
6 for, or directly assisted, the military coup of Septem-

7 ber 30, 1991, which overthrew the democratically-
8 elected Haitian Government of President Jean-

9 Bertrand Aristide;
10 (C) provided financial or other material support
11 for, or directly participated in, terrorist acts against

12 the Haitian people during any period after such
13 coup; or
14 (D) contributed to the obstruction of United

15 Nations resolutions 841 and 843, the Governors Is-
16 land Agreement, or the activities of the United Na-

17 tions Mission in Haiti.
18 (c) PERIOD OF EXCLUSION.-The period of exclusion
19 specified in subsection (a) begins on the date of the enact-
20 ment of this Act and ends on the date on which the Presi-
21 dent certifies to the Congress that the democratically-
22 elected President of Haiti has been reinstated and Haiti's
23 military high command has met its obligations under the
24 Governors Island Agreement.
O


.HR 4114 IH





23

I


103D CONGRESS
2D SESSION H.R.4264

To express United States policy regarding the restoration of democratic con-
stitutional government in Haiti, to grant temporary protected status
to Haitians until such a government is restored, and to terminate the
migrant interdiction agreement between the United States and Haiti.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 20, 1994
Mr. CONYERS introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the
Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary




A BILL
To express United States policy regarding the restoration
of democratic constitutional government in Haiti, to
grant temporary protected status to Haitians until such
a government is restored, and to terminate the migrant
interdiction agreement between the United States and
Haiti.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
4 The Congress finds that-
5 (1) Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected Presi-
6 dent of Haiti in a landslide victory on December 16,








2
1 1990, in the first free and fair election in Haiti's
2 186 year history; and
3 (2) the unconstitutional seizure of power by the
4 Haitian military is repugnant to all democratic na-
5 tions, and represents an affront to all who believe in
6 democracy.
7 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES POLICY.

8 It shall be the policy of the United States that-
9 (1) President Aristide should be allowed to re-
10 turn to Haiti immediately and be reinstated as the
11 constitutional President of Haiti;
12 (2) the United States will work in close coordi-
13 nation with the Organization of American States
14 and the United Nations to implement any applicable
15 trade embargo against Haiti;
16 (3) until President Aristide is returned to his
17 constitutional place in Haiti, the United States will
18 extend emergency humanitarian assistance to Hai-
19 tians fleeing the oppression of military dictatorship
20 in Haiti; and
21 (4) the United States Coast Guard should con-
22 tinue search and rescue measures in the inter-
23 national waters surrounding Haiti, but shall cease
24 any activities to forcibly return Haitians against


.1HR 4264 IH








3
1 their will to Haiti so long as the military dictator-
2 ship remains in power.
3 SEC. 3. TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR HAITIANS.
4 (a) DESIGNATION.-During the period specified in
5 subsection (c) of this section, Haiti shall be deemed to
6 have been designated under section 244A(b)(1) of the Im-
7 migration and Nationality Act (relating to temporary pro-
8 tected status).
9 (b) ELIGIBLE HAITIANS.-Any alien-
10 (1) who is a national of Haiti who is present in
11 the United States at any time during the period de-
12 scribed in subsection (c) of this section,
13 (2) who meets the requirements of section
14 244A(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and National-
15 ity Act, and
16 (3) who, during the period described in sub-
17 section (c) of this section, registers for temporary
18 protected status to the extent and in a manner
19 which the Attorney General establishes,
20 shall be granted temporary protected status for the dura-

21 tion of that period and section 244A(a)(1) of the Immigra-
22 tion and Nationality Act shall apply with respect to such
23 alien.
24 (c) PERIOD OF DESIGNATION.-The designation pur-
25 suant to subsection (a) shall be in effect during the period


*HR 4264 IH








4
1 beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending
2 on the date on which the President certifies to the Con-

3 gress that democratically elected government has been re-
4 stored in Haiti consistent with the Haitian Constitution.
5 Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of section 244A of the Im-
6 migration and Nationality Act do not apply with respect
7 to the designation pursuant to subsection (a) of this
8 section.
9 SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF BILATERAL MIGRANT INTERDIC.

10 TION AGREEMENT.
11 The President shall notify the Government of Haiti
12 immediately of the intention of the United States Govern-
13 ment to terminate the agreement between the United
14 States and Haiti relating to migrant interdiction (effected
15 by the exchange of notes signed at Port-au-Prince on Sep-
16 tember 23, 1981; 33 UST 3559, TIAS 6577); and the
17 United States shall not take any actions pursuant to that
18 agreement after the date of enactment of this Act.
O


.*HR 4264 IH







Mr. MAZZOLI. President Clinton's recent announcement that he
will reverse the Bush administration's policy of interdicting and
summarily returning all Haitian asylum-seekers is certainly wel-
come news. For the past 2 years, all interdicted Haitians have been
returned to Haiti without hearing on their claims of persecution. I
commend the administration for reversing this policy and for ex-
panding Haitian refugee processing eventually to Jamaica and the
Turks and Caicos Islands, particularly the Grand Turk Island. It
certainly remains to be seen, however, how this policy will work,
and we intend to ask the Government this morning questions about
that policy.
An asylum-seeker, under international law, is entitled to a case-
by-case determination, regardless of the person's country of origin,
whether that country be Haiti, Sweden, Russia, or any other na-
tion, if that individual is asserting a claim of persecution. Nonethe-
less, on May 24, 1992, President Bush issued an Executive order
directing that Haitian boat people interdicted in international wa-
ters by the U.S. Coast Guard would no longer be permitted to ad-
vance their claims for what is called nonrefoulement or nonreturn.
They would be returned without being questioned to Haiti and to
whatever harm, peril, or nonharm and nonperil awaited them
there. This policy, until recent changes, was the policy of the cur-
rent administration.
It is clear from the many hearings which this subcommittee and
others have held on this issue that the majority of the Haitian boat
people who have sought refuge in the United States are running
from economic pressures and grinding poverty, not persecution.
They are thus not entitled to invoke the principles of
nonrefoulement.
The challenge is, however, to quickly yet fairly identify those who
are entitled to nonrefoulement because they are, in fact, fleeing
persecution and those who could be returned home safely because
they are not entitled to nonrefoulement, and then, which of the
people, even though not to be returned, should be granted tem-
porary safe haven of one sort or another until conditions in the
sending country improve.
The decision of President Clinton to reinstate for Haitian boat
people the right to an individual determination of their claims of
persecution is a welcome first step, as I said. However, to discour-
age flight by boat, in-country refugee processing of Haitian nation-
als should be expanded so more Haitians can be processed in Haiti.
Currently, I understand, at Port-au-Prince, Lake Cayes, and Cape
Haitian, Haitians may go forward with their refugee claims. The
current refugee quota, which I understand is 1,500, is not suffi-
cient, it seems to me, to handle all who might seek that avenue
within their own country.
Beyond that expansion, the United States needs to reform, I be-
lieve, its domestic asylum laws to cut away the numerous avenues
of appeal and review which backlog the system and which allow
frivolous claims to go on interminably. Once a case has been fully
and fairly decided and relief denied, deportation should be swift
and sure, and a bill which has been introduced by the gentleman
from New York, by the gentleman from Florida and by me, I think,
would certainly go in that direction.







I think, frankly, the reason we have the problems with Haiti and
other countries and leads to even things like interdiction is because
we have no confidence in the current asylum policy to work swiftly
and fairly.
I think the Cuban Adjustment Act should be reexamined and
eventually repealed, because there appears to be a disparate treat-
ment of people coming from Cuba and people coming here from
Haiti.
We need to recognize that our enforcement resources are finite.
A Coast Guard cutter ordered to interdict asylum-seekers in the
Windward Passage is one more boat that cannot interdict drug
smugglers or do the other activity of protecting the United States,
an INS asylum officer sent to Jamaica is one who is not reviewing
cases at JFK Airport in New York City. So we need to know what
these decisions are costing and whether the benefits gained from
them outweigh the costs in shortages in other areas of enforcement.
Our faltering economy does not permit the United States to ac-
cept all or even a large part of the world's people of some 20 mil-
lion refugees. We, at the same time, are a fair and proud Nation
with a long heritage of succor and relief to people who need it, and
so these are the competing interests that we have to somehow rec-
oncile, and today's hearing is a start in that direction.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I join
you in looking forward to this hearing today. It is a very important
subject. It relates to the concern all of us have with the suffering
of the people of Haiti and the way that we handle our refugee situ-
ation with regard to those people.
The recent changes in the U.S. refugee policy with regard to
Haiti is something that I am really interested in hearing the ad-
ministration discuss today, not to mention some of our congres-
sional colleagues. I have had a much greater degree of skepticism
than, I think, you have expressed in your opening statement about
the way we have gone about changing this policy-and whether or
not it can be effective, and whether or not it can be a better policy
than the one of returning those who were leaving in these rickety
boats to Haiti for processing actually on the land there.
But as I have said many times before, if we can truly wind up
with a country that is nearby, willing to let us do land processing
of those folks, I think that that is probably the best solution. It is
something which was tried previously and so far hasn't been suc-
cessful, but I understand there is a good deal of optimism about
that possibility.
But I am greatly concerned about the idea of processing them
aboard ship and trying to make that work-and the huge problems
that can be created, at least as I can foresee, as a result of that.
So I will be curious to hear what folks have to say about this proc-
essing procedure today.
As we implement our procedures to adjudicate Haitian refugee
claims outside of Haiti, I don't think we should lose sight of the im-
portance of the INS in-country processing that will continue to go
on. Our subcommittee must continue to monitor the INS operations
within Haiti, fostering expeditious mechanisms for identifying and
resettling Haitians in greatest danger.







Refugee resettlement is not simply a U.S. responsibility, but
rather an international obligation that the United States appro-
priately can expect other countries to share. This hearing affords
us, additionally, an opportunity to learn more about how the Unit-
ed States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
are going to involve other nations, particularly in this hemisphere,
in responding to the humanitarian dimension of the crisis in Haiti.
As we examine the American response to Haitian asylum-
seekers, we must be mindful of the need to expedite asylum adju-
dications conducted within the United States. As you, Chairman
Mazzoli, have just noted, you and I and Congressman Schumer
have a bill-which came out of this subcommittee-that we thought
was a very good bipartisan product but has yet to be moved by the
full committee chairman. This is disappointing in light of the fact
that asylum is such an important issue and straightening it out,
making it work better, certainly would be served, I think, by the
legislative proposal that we all put together-but it has not yet
happened, and it is getting late in this term of Congress.
I am also pleased today that Congressman Porter Goss of my
State will be one of the panelists. At least he is listed as being and
I assume he will be. Porter has offered some innovative suggestions
to this Congress and to the administration on how we might do the
entire processing differently, how we might handle the foreign pol-
icy initiative with regard to Haiti differently. As far as I know, Por-
ter is the only one that has come up with a really creative alter-
native to some of the time-honored methods of trying to deal with
this problem, and I would certainly relish the opportunity to hear
from him. I also look forward to hearing from our other colleagues
who are going to offer their ideas today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank my friend.
Does the gentleman from Illinois have an opening statement?
Mr. SANGMEISTER. Just that I want to compliment the chairman
also for putting this hearing together. Obviously, there is nothing
more important than what is happening in the way of immigration
as far as Haiti is concerned, and if this committee can be of help
in working with or guiding the administration in getting an answer
to that problem, this is going to be well worth our time and effort.
I see through looking through my file that a number of our col-
leagues have bills. I am interested in hearing as to which one of
those thinks that they have got the right idea, and you have got
INS here, you have got everybody that needs to put together a good
hearing, and thank you for putting it together, and let's proceed
with the witnesses.
Mr. MAZZOLL I thank my friend.
The gentleman from Florida, Canady.
Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here at this hearing today and appreciate the
opportunity to address this very important issue.
The one point I would make is that I think we have to proceed
with great caution when we are considering any policy changes
that could precipitate a mass exodus of people from Haiti. I am
concerned that such policy changes would end up actually harming





30
the very people they are designed to help, and I think that is a per-
spective that we must bear in mind as we proceed with this issue.
Thank you.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too join in thanking
the chairman for holding this hearing.
My opening statement is going to be very brief. I am going to be
asking one question throughout this hearing. The law of the United
States, as well as international law, requires that we grant asylum
to people who have fled their homeland with a well-founded fear
of persecution, and apparently, as one can see from this photo of
someone whom we sent back to Haiti because we determined that
he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, this is a photo
of what is left of his head after the authorities in Haiti finished
with him, after the United States sent him back to Haiti. He ap-
parently did have a well-founded fear of persecution, if one can de-
fine being hacked to death as being persecuted.
[The photo follows:]












































*--. qV .,.,- -^ ^
. t .; .-"; .' < ,. 7 '- l 1 .. "- ,,-
" '. ; '.; ," ""-i'.; ,' '. ,' ". .-' "


vc :' .- .- .*...*f *-y^. .. ... ,- .... 'y-' :.-.**i '^
- '-, *' 3.,,. :-.' ,.. ,
drr.







Mr. NADLER. So my question is going to be to every official of the
INS and everybody here today: What can we do? How can we, now
that we know that the Haitian junta does this to people that we
send back, how can we have joined them in being complicit in this
and joined them in having blood on our hands?
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman for the statement, but I be-
lieve the gentleman may be drawing conclusions from his opening
statement that may not be valid. I think it is impossible to aver
or prove that everyone sent back is treated as this gentleman was
shamefully treated, and I don't use the word-I don't think the
gentleman meant to use the word "complicit" in the sense that the
United States is associating itself with miserable and mean-spir-
ited and inhuman activities such as that.
But at the same time the gentleman is correct, we have to ask
some very tough questions as to why it seems to be that we make
different distinctions between how we treat Haitians and how we
treat people from Cuba, how we treat people from Russia, we treat
people from other parts of the world.
Mr. NADLER. Well, I-
Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes? Certainly.
Mr. NADLER. I would simply say that it is self-evident that in the
case of Mr. Desanges here, the United States, which sent him back,
should not have sent him back, that he had a well-founded fear of
persecution. That may not be the case in every case, but it is cer-
tainly the case in many cases where we are sending people back
to their deaths.
Mr. MAZZOLI. And I think we should certainly get into those
exact questions.
The gentleman from Texas, do you have any opening statement?
Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman I don't have an opening statement
except to say that I think the overriding-well, I guess perhaps not
the overriding concern but certainly an important one for me is
how we justify treating Cubans differently than we treat Haitians.
I don't understand it. That doesn't necessarily mean that we need
to treat the Haitians like we treat the Cubans, but maybe we need
to treat the Cubans different. I just think it is totally inconsistent
and is obviously based on the fact that everybody is scared to death
of the Cuban-American population, afraid that they will vote
against them in the elections, I guess.
But we need to confront that as a people. It is wrong to continue
this. The Haitian people are just as good as the Cuban people, and
they obviously right now have a much greater fear of being per-
secuted than somebody even in Cuba does. So we have to resolve
that if we are going to have any integrity in this policy, and I hope
we have some light shed on that.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, the gentleman makes a very important point.
I alluded to that in my statement, and I think the gentleman is
right on.
We now would invite forth our congressional colleagues, the
gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Meek; the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Conyers; the gentleman from New York, my colleague and
classmate, the gentleman, Mr. Rangel; and also the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Goss.







So if you four Members-we appreciate very much your attend-
ing.
Understand gentleman, if it is OK, Mrs. Meek is participating
in a markup of her subcommittee at 9:30. Would it be too dis-
commoding to the gentleman that she go first?
Mr. CONYERS. Not at all.
Mr. MAZZOLI. In addition, the fact that she is much more attrac-
tive than the total of all of you together would make it also a natu-
ral choice.
The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized, and I might say
that all statements wil1 be made a part of the record.
The gentlewoman from Florida.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mrs. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the com-
mittee. I am very grateful for getting this opportunity to come be-
fore you today. I also want to commend the chairman for the work
he had done in the past toward fairness and justice for Haitians.
First of all, of all the things you have heard and read, I come
to you today with certain basic assumptions that must be talked
about before I talk about the bill that I have sponsored for fairness
for Haitians. Why did I sponsor a bill to get fairness for Haitians?
Number one, the basic assumption is that Haitians are not treated
fairly. They are treated impressively racist, they are treated im-
pressively different, they are treated impressively wrong, and of
course you can imagine my emotion, coming from Miami, FL, when
every day the people I represent see hundreds of Cubans coming
in by boat, by plane, or whatever convenience and welcomed onto
the shores without any interdiction, without any hearing, and im-
mediately they are absorbed into the Miami community.
Then, on the other hand, I see Haitian refugees trying to make
it to these shores, our shores which represent freedom and justice
for all, and they are turned back at sea, they are treated unfairly,
many of them are placed in chains, and many of them are treated
in the mode we treated slaves a long time ago.
Those assumptions, members of this committee, are not unfair
assumptions, they are based on facts and empirical observation.
The world is looking at us because they see this unfair measure of
freedom and fairness. That is why I chose to introduce the Haitian
Refugee Fairness Act.
There is an assumption that Haitians can receive fair and safe
haven some place other than on the island. It is an erroneous as-
sumption and a specious kind of assumption that Haitians can live
freely and fairly on another island, a plantation-like island, away
from their native island; an island that does not have the facilities
or infrastructure to treat them. Haitians cannot continue to suffer
under the kinds of double standards which we have them enduring.
So it is a moral kind of thing, Mr. Chairman. Our country has
opened its doors to all other refugees and treated them fairly. That
is why I chose to enter the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act.
What this bill does, Mr. Chairman, is to try in some way to make
it fairer for Haitians. H.R. 3663 seeks to address three specific ref-
ugee problems. One is nonrefoulement or forced repatriation, sec-







ond, the status of Haitian nationals in the United States, and the
third, to provide Federal funds to lessen the impact to State and
local governments.
You have heard so many complaints from Florida, from Califor-
nia, and so many other States where they have had to receive the
economic burden of Haitians coming to this country without any
type of compensation to their State and local governments. This bill
seeks to provide that kind of compensation or reimbursement to
them. H.R. 3663 would also lessen the impact on State and local
government in terms of providing Federal funds.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot forget that U.S. citizens and legal per-
manent residents who reside in New York, Miami, New Jersey, and
other places throughout our wonderful country have children in
Haiti who are suffering at the hands of the attaches and the mili-
tary coup leaders. They are suffering. They are over there sepa-
rated from their parents.
Because of the goodness of Chairman Rangel, I was able to go
to Haiti and to see firsthand what is going on there with the chil-
dren there. It is a terrible and a desperate situation, certainly dis-
parate from the way we are treating children from other countries,
again the reason for the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we can look at some way of
leveling the playing field and make the situation fairer for Hai-
tians. Anyone who looks at this situation and who looks at it with
an air of fairness would know that it is wrong and should be
corrected.
So, I introduced this bill because of the atrocities of stories I
have heard from my constituents in Miami in an area called Little
Haiti and what the administration has very slowly acknowledged.
This Congress addressed this issue a long time ago. You were not
able to get it addressed in both bodies, but we do need now an ad-
ministrative policy which is consistent and equally done and quick-
ly done, to straighten out the killing field in Haiti.
A young woman appeared before NOW and the Women's Caucus
whose face has been just clearly decimated by a machete, and it
has ruined her. One of her arms has been cut off. She is an exam-
ple of what happens for someone in that country who supports
President Aristide.
But that is not what my bill is all about. My colleagues will tell
you more specifically the political climate in Haiti, but I want this
committee to understand, Haitians are not fleeing from economic
persecution, they are fleeing from political prosecution. When there
is a military coup, when there are people there who hate the return
of Aristide and who are bent on being sure that he does not come
back as the elected leader of the people, they kill or maim or terrify
those who are there and support him. So men and women and chil-
dren are being tortured and murdered, and this is commonplace for
the Haitian people.
One week after my visit to Haiti with Chairman Rangel, Guy
Mallory was killed on the streets of Haiti, and he was the person
there who was the heart of the Cabinet of President Aristide-just
wantonly killed.







All you have got to do is look at your newspaper. You see the na-
tive boys and girls bathing in water that is filled with sewage, no
one worried about pollution, no one worried about contamination.
I come here this morning to seek your human qualities, your hu-
manitarian qualities, and your understanding. What we are doing
in this country is unfairly treating some of God's children, and it
is up to us to do something about it.
I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, my complete
testimony. My reason for coming before you this morning is to ask
you to pass the Haitian Fairness Act which tries to do a very sim-
ple thing, to be sure that we follow what is fairly done for refugees
fleeing from other countries, that whatever economic burden there
is on States and local governments, that the Federal Government
pay some of that back. That is the clarion call you will hear from
Florida's Governor and you hear from many other Governors
throughout this country. I didn't hear it, however, when the Cu-
bans were coming in.
So I want you to understand my position. I am not anti-Cuban,
I am not antianybody, I am for people who are seeking freedom
and justice, and that is what the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act is
all about.
There is a lot more I can say, but we want temporary protective
status, Mr. Chairman. You asked for this, and you were able to get
it through this Congress on the House side, to protect the Haitians
that are currently in the United States and to keep them from re-
turning to Haiti, where there is a very strong human rights crisis.
In summary, I beg this committee to listen to the voices of our
colleagues here. I certainly am not in favor of any safe haven for
Haitians on an island, I am certainly not in favor of isolating them
from their progeny at all. So I beg this committee to consider this,
and I thank you, and I want to thank my colleagues also.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mrs. Meek.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Meek follows:]










PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation
to testify this morning on behalf of my legislation, H.R. 3663, the Haitian Refugee
Fairness Act.


I am particularly pleased to be testifying before you because of the leadership
you and the Subcommittee have shown on behalf of Haitian refugees since the
September 1991 coup. Your work and reputation for fairness has been a beacon of
hope for Haitians both in Haiti and in the United States, and an inspiration for all of
us who have been fighting on their behalf.


I note, Mr. Chairman, that right after the coup of 1991, you held the first
congressional hearing on the treatment of Haitian refugees. Shortly after that hearing
you introduced H.R. 3844, comprehensive and far-reaching legislation that sought to
protect Haitian refugees from forced repatriation to Haiti, and to provide Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian refugees here in the United States. I also would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your subcommittee for fighting to get that
legislation to the House floor, where an amended form of it passed the full House of
Representatives in 1992.


I would also like to acknowledge the support for the Haitian refugees by
Members of the Subcommittee. Several Members, including Mr. Nadler and Mr.
Becerra, are among the more than 80 cosponsors of H.R. 3663. And Mr. Schumer
has been a strong supporter of Haitian refugees for many years.


Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who are
testifying with me today. I am a cosponsor of Mr. Dellums' bill, H.R. 4114, and Mr.
Conyers, of Michigan is second to none in both the length and depth of his
commitment to this issue.


I will testify today about the specific provisions of H.R. 3663. But before I
begin, let me mention the other bills that I have introduced on Haitian refugees.










I introduced H.R. 3364, legislation which would allow the children of legal U.S.
residents to adjust their status here in the U.S. The need for the bill is more critical
now than when I introduced it in November.


Current law requires that the children of legal U.S. residents, who are living
with families and going to school here in the United States, to leave the U.S. in order
to adjust their status. Because of this law the children of many of my constituents
in Miami -- legal U.S. residents living in Miami -- have to go to Haiti to become legal
residents themselves. As a result, children have been stranded in Haiti while waiting
to receive their immigrant visas. And during this time there has been continuous, and
numerous reports of the terror that the Haitian people must endure under the illegal
government there.


These children, all of who have 1-130 petitions approved by INS, must appear
before a consular officer for a final interview and issuance of a visa. Requiring
children of legal U.S. residents to return to this uncontrolled environment of terror and
intimidation to adjust status is inhumane and it is an unintended consequence of
current law. It results in children being cruelly separated from their parents and
forces them to live with strangers or (if they are lucky) with family or friends in an
unsafe environment until their cases are resolved. My bill, H.R. 3364 would allow
these children to become permanent residents without forcing them to leave their
families.


Another bill I introduced, H.R. 986, would allow Haitians who have been in the
United States since January 20, 1993 to adjust their status to permanent residency
within two years from enactment. Many of the Haitians currently in the United States
are fortunate to be alive. After the military coup, they risked their lives at sea
primarily to escape political persecution. Many of these same Haitians are now in
various stages of immigration processing. This bill would not benefit any Haitian not
in the U.S. prior to that date.






38


The bill I am discussing today, H.R. 3663, seeks to address three specific
refugee problems: nonrefoulement or forced repatriation; the status of Haitian
nationals here in the United States; and federal funds to lessen the impact to state
and local governments of admission of Haitian refugees in their states.


Nonrefoulement


On May 24, 1992, the United States put into place a policy of returning to Haiti
those Haitians we have encountered on the high seas without first assessing whether
they were fleeing persecution at the hands of the military junta that has seized control
there. Since that time, these diverted refugees have been routinely fingerprinted,
photographed, and interrogated by Haitian authorities upon their return. Human rights
observers have reported that a number of returnees have been imprisoned or beaten
upon their return. Others have disappeared or have been forced into hiding.
Unfortunately, the current administration took repatriation a step further by extending
it to Haitians encountered within Haiti's territorial waters. For more than 17 months
now, the current Administration has actively searched out, interdicted, and returned
all Haitians to Haiti, regardless of their intended destination. For more than 17
months, this Administration, in effect, erected and maintained a floating Berlin Wall
around Haiti to keep anyone seeking to flee persecution from escaping from their
tormenters.


Mr. Chairman, I introduced H.R. 3663, the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act, as a
result of my concern for the injustices and suffering faced by the Haitian people as
well as the lack of response and indifference by the U.S. I introduced H.R. 3663
because it is the moral and humanitarian responsibility of the U.S. to protect those
Haitians who have sought refuge in this country.


As I have repeatedly heard from my constituents in Miami of the area called
"Little Haiti" and as the Administration has finally acknowledged, there is a human
rights nightmare -- a holocaust -- a killing field -- occurring in Haiti. It is a consistent
campaign of terror against the Haitian people by the ruthless military regime. It is a









campaign of terror against the supporters of President Aristide that has intensified in
recent weeks. It is a campaign of terror that is being carried out in all areas of the
country, from Port-au-Prince to the remotest hamlet. Yet, we refuse the Haitian
people sanctuary.


Men, women, and children are being tortured, murdered, and mutilated. Killings
have become commonplace for the Haitian people. Their bodies, disfigured,
dismembered and unrecognizable to friends and family, are dumped in the streets to
be scavenged by dogs and pigs. Yet, we refuse the Haitian people sanctuary.


Human rights advocates rate Haiti as one of the worst violators of human rights
in the world. And the reports confirm that one of the most hideous crimes, the rape
of women and young girls, is being committed by the de facto regime.


In Haiti, naked boys are often a common sight -- a way to endure the
oppressive heat. But the genitals of girls are covered. Why? Because Haitian culture
honors the "birth part" of females as the "pathway of life." This custom once kept
rape to a minimum. But now rape is becoming a frequent tool of political repression
by the military. The gang rape of women and young girls whose husbands, fathers,
brothers and sons are politically active are being reported at an alarming rate. Yet we
refuse the Haitian people sanctuary.


I would like to submit for the record the story of Alerte Belance. Miraculously,
Ms. Belance survived a machete attack by a pro-military terrorists. "The attack left
Ms. Belance with her right arm severed below the elbow. A slash across her face
took out her upper palate. A deep gash dents the back of her neck and scars cover
her body. Doctors were able to sew back her severed right ear. The front half of her
tongue was recovered and reattached." Ms. Belance's story is just one of many of
the unmerciful treatment being inflicted on the Haitian people by the military.


As a candidate, President Clinton criticized the previous administration for not
giving Haitian refugees an opportunity to apply for political asylum after being










intercepted at sea by U.S. Coast Guard cutters. He hit a responsive cord in many
Americans who were appalled at the unfairness of our policy toward Haitians. On
May 8, 1994, the President made a step towards fulfilling his promise. However, we
must not forget that it is just that, a step.


I applaud the President's decision to interview all Haitian nationals fleeing the
brutal regime that is in power in Haiti to determine if they have a legitimate claim for
political asylum. However, I am more concerned than ever about those individuals
who have been returned to Haiti by the U.S. and are now a of target for the ruthless
Haitian military.


Forced repatriation is particularly distressing in light of the announcement that
the illegal junta has reinstituted enforcement of 1980 Duvalier provisions which make
illegal "all irregular trips toward foreign lands" and punish those individuals who have
fled by boat and are returned to Haiti by the United States.


Since the May 8th change in Haitian refugee policy, at least 80 of these
repatriated refugees have been arrested upon arrival in Port-au-Prince. They have
been detained anywhere from several hours to several days. During these
repatriations, journalists and human rights observers have been prohibited access to
the dock, and U.S. officials routinely have been denied access to detainees by the
Haitian army. Given these facts, coupled with the recent attack on the United Nation
observers, I ask that the Administration revisit the question as to whether anyone
should be returned to the hands of the military-backed government.


As we all know, Mr. Chairman, thousands of refugees have tried to escape the
horrors of the increasing human rights abuses in Haiti. They would rather face the
danger at sea and try to make it to America where they believe that we "Americans
have a respect for human life."


And what is the U.S. doing with the people it is "rescuing?" We are sending
them back to the very persecutors we denounce. We are sending them back to the









ruthless military that has now decided that they are the criminals. Mr. Chairman, it
is unconscionable that we, a nation of refugees, send these people back to the
torture, the rape, the mass murder, the mutilation, the total disregard for human life
that is in Haiti.


Section 2 of H.R. 3663 seeks to reverse the Bush/Clinton policy of automatic,
forced repatriations of refugees to Haiti. It would make our policy conform to
international law by requiring the United States to determine the legitimacy of an
individual's claim and prohibiting the United States from returning people to their
country of persecution if we determine that they are refugees. For the record, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the letter I received from the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regarding the "U.S. practice of interdicting
Haitian refugees on the high seas and summarily returning them to their country of
origin."


The nonrefoulement provision in H.R. 3663 is not Haiti-specific. It would apply
to anyone encountered outside U.S. territory or within the territorial waters of another
nation.


The Bush/Clinton repatriation policy did not meet this requirement. Under the
Bush/Clinton, policy Haitians were held hostage in their own country. This blockade
by the U.S. Coast Guard surrounding Haiti was an unprecedented denial to Haitians
of the most basic human right, the right to flee persecution in their country in search
of safety in a country of first asylum. This policy was not just a violation of
international law; it was a violation of the most basic code of humanity. The
Administration's announcement on May 8 was clearly an admission that its policy was
patently wrong.


While the legislation would prohibit the return of individuals deemed to be
refugees to their country of persecution, it would not require that they be brought to
the United States.










Temporary Protected Status


Section 3 of H.R. 3663 would designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status
(TPS) under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), thereby
protecting Haitians currently in the U.S. from return to Haiti while there is a human
rights crisis there.


It is imperative now, more than ever, Mr. Chairman, that we provide Temporary
Protected Status to Haitian nationals. H.R. 3663 would permit Haitians already in this
country as of November 17, 1993 to apply for Temporary Protected Status.


Under the provisions of TPS enacted as part of the Immigration Act of 1990,
the Attorney General is authorized to designate any nation or part of a nation under
TPS if she finds that there is an ongoing armed conflict within that nation. TPS would
allow Haitians to remain in the U.S. until the Attorney General determines that
conditions in Haiti are safe for their return. Meanwhile, they would be granted work
authorization. By granting Haitians TPS we achieve two objectives: undocumented
Haitians can live and work in safety without fear of being deported, and the INS
would know where they reside so that it can facilitate their return once conditions in
Haiti are safe. Certainly there is ample evidence that Haitians here in the U.S. would
be in grave harm if sent back to Haiti under current conditions.


* Roving bands of government-sponsored thugs, known as zenglendoes, are
terrorizing and maiming Church officials, political activists, elected and
appointed officials loyal to Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haiti's democratically-elected
president, and Aristide supporters;
* Officials and activists loyal to the democratically-elected government have been
dragged from churches, murdered in the streets, kidnapped from their homes,
and jailed;
* Just last week two United Nations and the Organization of American States
observer teams were stopped, their possessions were confiscated and they









were threatened imprisonment if U.S. military or multinational forces took
action against Haiti.


This Administration's unwillingness to designate TPS for Haitians is inexplicable.
During his May 8 announcement of the Administration's change in policy, President
Clinton said, "the repression and bloodshed in Haiti have reached alarming
proportions. Supporters of President Aristide, and many other Haitians, are being
killed and mutilated." On May 3, the President stated "they [the military] have begun
to clearly kill more innocent civilians --- people not even directly involved in. the
political life of the country." These events and the endless number like them, as
well as the numerous statements about the generalized violence in Haiti made by the
Administration, clearly makes Haiti eligible for TPS.


TPS is a status that has been granted by the Attorney General to nationals of
other nations, such as Kuwait, Somalia and Bosnia during conflict in their countries.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, Congress is left with no alternative but to
legislate TPS as it did in 1990 when it designated TPS status for El Salvador by an
Act of Congress.


I would like to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a technical adjustment
that should be made to the TPS section of my bill. I would like to clarify that Haitian
parolees who have been resettled in the U.S. through the Community Relations
Service of the Department of Justice and who are consequently deemed PRUCOL not
lose this status if they avail themselves of TPS. It is my hope that the Subcommittee
will adopt this amendment during markup of this legislation.



Impact on State and Local Governments


Sections 4, 5, and 6 of H.R. 3663 deal with the impact on state government
of the federal government's decision to admit Haitians and Cubans into the U.S.
More specifically:










Immigration Emergency Fund
Section 4 explicitly permits use of the Immigration Emergency fund
created by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) for this
purpose.


Cuban/Haitian Primary/Secondary Migration Program
Section 5 assures adequate funding for the Cuban Haitian Primary
Secondary Program, operated by the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the
Department of Justice. My bill authorizes $6 million for that purpose.
However, many more Cubans and Haitians have come to the United States in
recent months than the Justice Department had originally estimated. I would
ask that this amount be increased to $10.8 million which reflects the latest
estimates of the cost of this program, when the Subcommittee marks up this
legislation.


The number of Cubans and Haitians who are now expected to reach our
shores in the remainder of this and the coming fiscal year is dramatically higher
than in recent years and increasing almost every day. Adequate funding for
this program is of enormous importance to the state of Florida which has borne
the expense of caring for Cubans and Haitians entering the U.S.


Year after year, CRS has been underfunded. With the recent dramatic
increase in the number of Cuban and Haitian arrivals needing resettlement, the
program needs additional funds from within the Department of Justice to
maintain current resettlement operations for the current fiscal year. Moreover,
all indications are that in fiscal year 1995, arrivals will far exceed those
anticipated by the Department's original request of $7 million.


The existing Cuban/Haitian Primary Secondary Migration Program's
budget is inadequate to resettle anticipated arrivals. In order to avoid the chaos
and disruption to the program and local communities that uncertain funding
brings, $10.8 million is needed.










Cuban/Haitian Entrant Emergency Fund
Section 6 creates an emergency fund of $5 million to take care of future
large, unexpected flows of Cubans and Haitians. The intent of this fund is
make funds available to CRS for primary and secondary resettlement of Cubans
and Haitians if as in this year, the regularly appropriated funds are insufficient
in the face of a large, unexpected flow of Cubans and Haitians. Such a fund
would shield CRS from the obligation of scurrying to find funds to provide
services for Cubans and Haitians in an emergency situation.



Conclusion


Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the fact that the U.S. cannot possibly accept
all the people who would like to come here, but we must have a standard that treats
all nationality groups equally and procedures that are applied to all with fairness.


No one wishes to provoke a mass exodus of desperate people onto dangerous
seas. But we cannot use that concern to justify discrimination and inequity of
treatment. We must act in the most just and humane way possible to ensure the
safety and well-being of those who seek the protection of our country.


Fifty-five years ago, just before World War II, nearly 1000 German Jewish boat
people aboard the ship St. Louis were denied refuge by U.S. immigration officials. Not
allowed to dock at U.S. ports -- including Miami -- or at ports in any other country, the
St. Louis returned to Europe, where many of its unwanted and unwelcome passengers
died on the killing fields and in the gas chambers of the Third Reich.


Despite the embargo and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts, Haiti remains a
very dangerous place for its citizens. As a nation, we refused to protect desperate
Jews seeking refuge from Nazi Germany. If we fail to protect Haitians, we will have
learned nothing from our mistakes and will be continuing a callous and inhumane
policy, repeating mistakes of the past.






46


Mr. Chairman, the ultimate solution to the problem of refugee flight from Haiti
is to restore democracy there. But until that happens, we must correct the injustices
of current law and respond to the pleas of the Haitian people. It is imperative that we
reform our Haitian refugee policies to remove the blanket presumption that all Haitian
asylum seekers are economic refugees. This is our opportunity to regain the moral
high ground. We cannot ignore the Haitian people in their time of need.


In closing, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I am
pleased that your subcommittee is meeting to discuss this very important issue. I look
forward to working with you and the Congress in an effort to ensure justice for all
who are seeking asylum.







Mr. MAZZOLI. For the record, we have been joined by our col-
league from Florida, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and we will note that his
statement will be made a part of the record.
In order to accommodate Mrs. Meek's schedule-she has a 9:30
markup-I think if it is OK with the other panelists, that we do
brief questions of the gentlewoman and then move on to the gentle-
men. Is that sufficient?
Well, very quickly, Carrie, thank you very much for your testi-
mony and for your leadership here.
Secondly, I think that the term "fairness" is certainly an apt
word today because it is an effort-the gentleman from Texas most
recently said that we are trying to find some fair and balanced way
to handle this thing.
I have several questions, I will not ask them of you, but first, as
far as the Haitian children, your position is that the children who
are in the United States but who are not U.S. citizens but their
parents are permanent residents currently have to go back to Haiti
in order to process their papers.
Mrs. MEEK. Yes.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Your thinking would be for a lot of reasons, includ-
ing the ferment in Haiti, that the children not have to return to
Haiti to process their citizenship papers. Is that essentially the
issue?
Mrs. MEEK. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman, that they be processed in
the United States, and of course INS has tried to help us in this
regard. They have tried to set up a place in the New Mexico where-
in the ones who are over here and must go back to Haiti to adjust.
But what I am asking is that they be adjusted here in the United
States.
Mr. MAZZOLI. We will take that up with the INS, and I am sure
that they will be sympathetic to that.
Mrs. Meek, the last question would be the thing that all of us
have said, and that is, we want the effort to be as fair and bal-
anced with regard to Haitians without at the same time creating
what some would call a magnet or a lure to get people to leave the
island who would otherwise stay or to subject themselves to dan-
gerous situations which some would argue is the condition of rick-
ety boats in the Windward Passage.
Do you see the application of temporary protected status or the
application of nonrefoulement, which means that the people are not
going to be sent back as constituting that kind of a lure that would
only worsen the condition even as we are trying to invoke reason-
able solutions and trying to have a tighter embargo and trying to
precipitate this situation?
Mrs. MEEK. I think that in terms of the U.S. policy toward Hai-
tians, that, as I said, it is unfair. They have not done this for any
other refugees. I do think that when they do get the kind of thing
that I am asking for, that it might be an incentive for them to come
to the United States, yes. The answer is yes.
But I think that with the return, the precipitated return of Presi-
dent Aristide, that we will see fewer and fewer Haitians wanting
to come to the United States. The Haitians I represent in south
Florida tell me every day that if Aristide were to return to Haiti,
that they would want to go back to Haiti even though they are now






48
in the United States. Naturally, the United States has good condi-
tions here, but they would naturally rather be in their own country
than over here. That is the word I get from the Haitians in the
United States.
So to answer fairly your question, there is an incentive for com-
ing to the United States for all foreigners, for all immigrants, so
there is some incentive for Haitians as well.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, is it possible that I could reschedule
or come back? I understand you will be meeting until 2. I, too, have
a 9:30 markup.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Certainly. I would be happy to accommodate the
gentleman. In fact, for all the Members, I realize the schedules we
have. We certainly would accommodate the gentleman.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would request unan-
imous consent to be able to submit a written statement for the sub-
committee's consideration and appreciate very much the oppor-
tunity to do so.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Very good.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am here just to state on the record that I
support the Meek legislation in support of elemental human de-
cency and fairness with regard to treatment for Haitians.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the ability to submit my state-
ment.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, my colleague. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz-Balart follows:]






49


PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding today's hearing, and
appreciate the opportunity to appear in support of legislation
drafted by my good friend Congresswoman Carrie Meek. We in South
Florida know of the terrible plight and desperation faced by
refugees fleeing oppressive dictatorships better than anyone else
in this Congress. I myself am a refugee who fled the totalitarian
regime of Fidel Castro, which continues its brutal 35 year effort
to squeeze the life from the Cuban people. Mr. Chairman, I am a
co-sponsor of H.R. 3663, the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act, because
I know first-hand the desperation of people who are driven into
exile.

As you know, Haiti is a country where democracy has been
abused, and most recently, hijacked by the current military
government. Not only that, the Haitian people have been subjected
to the empty hope of the Governor's Island Accords, negotiated in
July 1993, signed by the current regime and then completely
ignored. As a result, there is no democracy in Haiti, and we are
faced with a worsening refugee crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the United States and
the international community, and recognize that democracy is the
only way to genuinely solve the crisis. However, in the meantime
we must not ignore our responsibility to deal with the refugee
situation. That is why I have worked closely with my colleague on
H.R. 3663 which reaffirms our obligation as a nation to refrain
from the involuntary return of refugees outside the country.

H.R. 3663 commits us to determining the legitimacy of Haitian
refugee claims, designates Haiti under the Temporary Protected
Status program for a period of 24 months, and prohibits
repatriation of refugees who are deemed to be fleeing persecution.

Mr. Chairman, there are other aspects of H.R. 3663 which are
important to note. For example, H.R. 3663 requires the federal
government to reimburse overburdened state and local governments
for the costs associated with Haitians paroled into the United
States.







50


H.R. 3663 also earmarks funds for the Cuban and Haitian
Primary Secondary Migration Program which is operated by the
Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. This bill
would also create an emergency fund (Cuban/Haitian Entrant
Emergency Fund) for resettlement services necessary should the
number of Haitian and Cuban parolees exceed current funding, which
they most probably will. This funding is needed not only by those
seeking to adjust to their refugee status in the United States, but
is desperately needed by my home st-,te, which is the front-line
state in this effort.

I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the Haitian
Refugee and Fairness Act, and take into account the pain and
suffering of those it seeks to help.

Mr. Chairman, as a final word, let me say that I want to do
all I can to solve the crisis of dictatorship in the Caribbean.
Both the Haitian military and that totalitarian madman in Cuba
should wake-up to the inevitable: only true democracy and respect
for human rights will satisfy their people. Not negotiations, not
gradual economic reform, not cosmetic adjustments, not temporary
"openings." The choice is clear: there is only democracy or
dictatorship. There is absolutely no excuse for the wanton and
indiscriminate abuse of your own people.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the international community to do
more to solve both the Cuban and Haitian crises.







Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. I don't want to ask questions out of turn. Before ev-
erybody gets away, I would like everybody to answer the question:
Do you agree we should treat the Haitians exactly like the Cubans,
particularlyyou guys from Florida?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may-may I Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MAZZOLI. Surely.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I think that we need to view the existence of
these two dictatorships first as temporary and, secondly, as com-
pletely unacceptable, and I think that certainly the Cubans and the
Haitians are in a unique situation in this hemisphere. In this era
that we are living, dictatorships, I think, are something that not
only should be something from the past but our law, our law as
well, should recognize that they are unacceptable and they should
be treated as unacceptable and especially as temporary, and I
think that not only our policy but inter-American policy generally
should be focused on the elimination of dictatorships in this hemi-
sphere and in the interim period certainly special treatment
should be provided for those fleeing from the scourge of those two
dictatorships.
Mr. BRYANT. A very simple question, however: Should we treat
the Haitians just like the Cubans?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I think they should certainly be allowed-
while there is a dictatorship in Haiti, they should be treated as
fairly as the Cubans are treated.
Mr. BRYANT. The same law would apply to both?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I would support that.
Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Certainly, unless anyone has a question of Mrs.
Meek-I think not. The gentlewoman is excused, and thank you
very much for your help today.
Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.
Mr. MAZZOLI. We might now possibly go on-the gentleman from
New York has the time. Would the gentleman wish to go forward?
If other colleagues would defer, we could accommodate the gentle-
man's schedule.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from New York has assured me he
needs only 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. RANGEL. Really, and I really appreciate the courtesy, and I
really want to thank this committee for once again bringing the
Members together to try to bring about a humane policy for Hai-
tian refugees as you always have as relates to other refugees.
I just want to briefly tell a story. Jerry Nadler and I had a dear
friend who was a friend of the House as well, Ted Weiss,'and re-
cently in New York when we were refurbishing the Statue of Lib-
erty, we had a great ceremony out there with the fireworks and the
choir singing "God Bless America," and the late Ted Weiss was cry-
ing, and I felt it was a political affair, I couldn't see why he was
so emotional about it. But he reminded me that he and his sister
fled Hungary and how great America had been to them, that they
were allowed to come into America, and he shared with me that in







the 1930's there were many Jews that were fleeing Europe and in
a boat called the St. Louis, and at that time the United States did
not see fit to open up its heart and its arms, and these Jewish peo-
ple were returned to Germany and got caught up in the Holocaust,
and he was just thanking God that he was not treated that way.
Ever since hearing that story and seeing these poor wretched
souls on the boats with the women and children, I could not help
but remind myself that this is certainly not what the Statue of Lib-
erty is all about, or our Constitution, and I know that if these peo-
ple were rich or had oil or came from Europe, that they would be
treated differently, that the policy that we have is-as you said,
Mr. Chairman, we don't have a foreign policy as relates to Haiti
and the racism that exists. It is difficult and embarrassing to talk
about, but it is the politics of racism as well.
So when the United States really reaches the point that we be-
lieve that, morally and constitutionally and legally, we can seal up
a person in their own country because we have decided that it is
in their best interests, then we know that we don't want them on
television, we don't want Americans to be viewed as being insensi-
tive and that we have no moral right to seal up people in their own
country, and, even though that policy has been changed, we have
no moral right to go to the high seas and stop people because we
know that they are heading for the United States.
As relates to the processing and the screening, I mean we put a
cap on how many people can come in, if indeed they are found to
have a legitimate cause. The fact of the matter is, the President of
the United States already declared that Cedras, the general in
charge of the coup, is a murderer, Francois is a murderer.
We know, as people have testified, that individuals have been
sought out that supported Aristide and killed, entire communities
have been wiped out merely because they support Aristide, and the
truth of the matter is, if you are poor and you are black and you
are not in the army, you are a supporter of Aristide. The election
result clearly pointed out what it is, and those that flee and are
returned home are subjected to the type of terrorism and mutila-
tion as we have seen with this dramatic picture that Congressman
Nadler brought.
So I know the President has a political problem, and I am just
saying that the refugees shouldn't suffer as a result of this lack of
policy. Any time you take the military option off the table and you
are dealing with bullies, clearly what you are saying is that yes,
we signed an agreement with you at Governors Island; yes, we de-
mand that you leave the country; yes, we are coming in with inter-
national people there; but don't worry about us, we'll never inter-
vene with military. And so please don't let the President's lack of
a foreign policy with Haiti cause so many lives to be lost at sea.
My friend here indicated that dictatorship, whether light or dark,
black or white, if there is a standard, then let's apply the standard.
If indeed Cedras was a Communist, would it be any different?
Would the lives be any different? Would the feeling be any
different?
We know what is going on, and I just hope that this committee
can find some way, and a humane way, to just protect the refugees
until the President can see his way clear to do the right thing.







I thank you and my colleagues.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman very much, and now we will
proceed more or less to regular order, and the regular order is the
gentleman from Michigan. We welcome him, and the gentleman
from Florida is excused.
Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Michigan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here again as a result of our deep concern about this par-
ticular immigration problem. As my seatmate in Judiciary for
many years, Chairman Mazzoli, I am highly disappointed that you
will not continue in this seat. You have made a very important de-
cision to step down, and I am hoping that this issue will be your
last contribution to the tragedy of Haiti policy and one that I think
you may be able to do something about.
We have talked about this many times across the years, and I
have brought a solution to this committee that we may be able to
help the present administration and President Clinton out of the
difficulty that he is in, and it would simply be to do among these
several things: One, that we terminate the bilateral migrant inter-
diction agreement that has allowed Duvalier from September 1981
to return Haitian refugees to the United States. That is an unprec-
edented agreement and is obviously flawed both, morally and
legally.
The second is that we would halt the Coast Guard forced repatri-
ation of Haitians. We are not helping them by returning-saving
them from drowning by returning them to the dictator that they
sought to escape. I mean they had already weighed that decision,
and, as tragic a choice as that is, what we might consider doing in-
stead is joining in not only in refurbishing Guantanamo, but the
OAS has now come forward, and we have other nations in that
area that are suggesting that they would provide a haven for Hai-
tians who are temporarily seeking refuge from the brutality that
exists in their country, and so we are making progress. What we
now need to do is turn this modest progress into something
substantive.
Our former colleague, Bill Gray, has now replaced Larry Pasula
as our special envoy to Haiti. We have Randall Robinson's dramatic
fast in which he risked his life and is, in a way, responsible for the
change in position and tone that our Government has put forward
with regard to Haiti, and I want to credit him, Trans-Africa, and
the Congressional Black Caucus, the church groups, the artists or-
ganizations that have all weighed in to witness what I think I see
is a beginning of a turnaround in policy, that this committee is in
a unique position with your leadership to make a change.
Now what is the basic underpinning of all of this? Well, it is the
simple fact that the military junta does not believe that we are se-
rious about restoring President Aristide and restoring democracy.
That is the simple bottom line. Many of us were at Governors Is-
land, and the representatives of the military took us through all
kinds of changes. We dotted every I, crossed every T, went through






54
all kinds of changes. They finally reluctantly agreed to sign and
immediately went out and began violating literally every part of
the Governors Island accord.
So it is very difficult for us to realize that we cannot negotiate
our way through, we cannot even with sanctions force out an illegal
government that has now been revealed to be probably facilitating
drug trafficking, drugs which, incidentally, are coming directly to
the United States, which are involved in money laundering and all
manner of activity. There are all kinds of reports about the great
wealth being accumulated there illegally under this takeover of the
government.
So what we are trying to do here is find a way to do that, and
so the President has begun to rattle his saber, the swords are rat-
tling: Well, there might be military intervention, we haven't ruled
out anything. We are trying to send these kinds of signals, and this
committee could send a legislative signal that could be very impor-
tant. It is my experience, and it even exists in Haiti's history, that
once they understand that the United States really means busi-
ness, then we are in a position to really get something accom-
plished, but as long as they believe that we are mouthing demo-
cratic platitudes with no sincere conviction about restoring Presi-
dent Aristide as the clock ticks away, I think we are going to be
in the situation that it will continue in one form or the other.
So I support temporary protected status. I introduced it in the
legislation to the committee in the previous Congress. There are a
number of bills, all of which I support, before you that accomplish
the same thing. But we have got to make it clear that our policy
is different and there is a great benefit that comes about by taking
on the immigration question first, because once we make it clear
that we mean what we say, the need for increased accommodations
for escaping, fleeing Haitians will be dramatically lessened, and it
seems to me that that is pretty clear, that we can do the right
thing, the humane thing, and at the same time help resolve the po-
litical problem.
So I urge that we continue in this vein, move forward as expedi-
tiously as we can, and remember that what we have now is two
sets of laws. We have a two-track asylum process and one that ap-
plies to Haitians and one that applies to everyone else.
I would say treat the Haitians as the Cubans, but I would say
treat the Haitians as we treat everybody else, with the understand-
ing and the tools that are available for us to use under this situa-
tion, and TPS is a perfectly reasonable temporary method that I
think would take care of the circumstances. So I urge you, in what
may be our final mutual attempt to resolve this problem, that you
move this kind of legislation forward as soon as you can.
Mr. MAZZOu. I thank my friend for his statement and thank him
for recollecting our long seatmateship, if there is such a word, over
the years on Judiciary, and I appreciate his statement.
For the record, we should note that the gentlewoman from Flor-
ida, Ms. Brown, has joined us and the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Owens, has joined us.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Goss.







STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Goss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I hope this is not going to be your last contribution. You have
made many, and I suspect there will be more, but I surely hope
this is an area of success and achievement because it is a very
troubling problem, and I congratulate you for taking these efforts
and your colleague, Mr. McCollum.
We are talking about, it seems to me, two separate things here.
One is the situation in Haiti today as it applies to the suffering
that is going on, the refugee situation and the restoration of demo-
cratic government; that is one set of issues. Another set of issues
is the question of fair treatment, the comparison of the Cuban Ad-
justment Act situation versus the other people in the world, those
being in closer proximity suffering proportionately a greater in-
equity, and Haiti is of course very close to Cuba in terms of Amer-
ican geography, so that emphasizes that issue.
There have been a lot of solutions suggested. I would just like
to briefly say this with regard to the present situation. In terms of
suffering, there is no question that the policies of the U.S. Govern-
ment today are adding to the suffering and the misery in Haiti.
That is not denied. We see that for every picture of that type that
we see Mr. Nadler has introduced, there are regrettably many
more pictures that are much worse of children and women and in-
nocent victims who are on the poor end of the spectrum who are
being seriously impacted by the lack of food, lack of nutrition, med-
ical attention, every day as this thing goes on.
I was just informed that we finally got one AGAPE flight from
Florida yesterday, but each flight is still being handled on an indi-
vidual basis. That means they are basically sitting on the runway
in Florida. We cannot get medical and foods supplies in. There has
been no change in administration policy. Even though Mr. Gray
has said he would help us on these flight situations, there is a rou-
tine that involves getting about five people to sign off all the way
through some U.N. committee and then all the way back down
through State again. So every time we send one plane with relief
supplies down there, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. The con-
sequence is, people are going hungry, getting diseases, and it is
going to be even a worse problem to resolve when we get through.
So in terms of suffering, we are not doing ourselves or the Haitians
a favor with our present policies.
Secondly, with regard to refugees, I think that right now in this
country we have something more than a million Haitian refugees.
Florida has a very large percentage of those. I will not stand quiet-
ly by and say that we have been in any way inhospitable to Hai-
tians over the years in this country. We have done a magnificent
job of putting out the welcome mat and trying to do our best. The
fact of the matter is, our retention facilities in Florida are over-
loaded, they are full. The last batch of Haitians to come in, more
than 500 were basically released into society, some with active dis-
ease, sadly enough, who will probably not get the right attention
because we are full. We have got to provide other facilities if refu-
gees are going to come here.






56
We are creating an incentive for more refugees, we know that.
More pressure makes more suffering, more suffering means more
economic hardship, which means more desire to leave the country.
We will talk a little bit in a second about the economic/political
hardship question.
But thirdly, we have got this situation of more suffering, more
refugees, and my feeling is that the situation is so bad in Haiti now
that if you say, "Everybody who wishes to come to the United
States, please come, we will help you get there," you will find a
very large number of refugees coming to the United States, prob-
ably millions.
Going to the third question, nourishing democracy, returning
Aristide, I am very much in favor of having President Aristide re-
turned to his country and being on his soil. I agree that is a critical
part of building up what is our very slight hope for democratic in-
stitution building in that country because he is the properly elected
President and he should be there in Haiti, being the President of
the 70 percent or so of the people who enthusiastically elected him.
I was there, and I know that is true.
We have talked a lot about why there is a problem in Haiti. Hai-
tians have been trashing their country and each other for two cen-
turies. That is history. It is a tragedy. We have been trying to pro-
vide guidance and help to get them from a condition that is not
supportable in terms of our definition of democracy to a condition
that is more in keeping with the democracy we aspire to have
throughout the Western Hemisphere. We have tried hard and
faithfully, and I am proud of the U.S. record on that, and I think
we are doing well.
I don't think we need to stand back and say we have caused this
problem, we have not, we are trying to provide a solution to a prob-
lem where none of those who have ventured before have had great
success, either the French or the Venezuelans or the Canadians, or
anybody else who has tried. So we are making a good-faith effort.
There is some revisionism going on while we talk about this sub-
ject. There are some who say that once you get rid of Cedras or
Michel Francois you have solved the problem. How do you know
that? We have had a whole history of dictators in Haiti. What is
to say there won't be more replacements that will come in and be
just as vicious and just as far over, that will have just as much hos-
tility to the masses as those do now because they are afraid? We
have traditionally had this breakdown in Haiti of the 10-percent
elite versus the 70-percent rest of the country. Just because you
get rid of two individuals or three doesn't mean there aren't
replacements.
We have polarized the situation in the country, we have created
a divide, we have added to hate rather than solution building and
bringing the country together to hit a high water mark, as the
Aristide election represented 3 years ago.
Secondly, with regard to the economic refugees/political refugees
breakdown, everybody who looks at this dispassionately-and it is
hard to do-says that about 90 percent or more are economic refu-
gees. These are not true political refugees as we define them, and
perhaps that is something your subcommittee needs to address, is
what is a real refugee in this kind of a situation.







I think it is very important to point out, though, that if we are
going to change the rules and we are going to have different rules
now for political asylum, we need to address them on a worldwide
basis because it has implications in other countries that are not
quite as close as Haiti, where there are people who are also in eco-
nomic dire straits who would love to come to the United States of
America and have more relaxed rules to get here, and if you doubt
me, go back and look at the consular statistics through the normal
process.
With regard to the issue of drug trafficking, I suggest this is get-
ting to be the great bogus issue to justify some type of military ac-
tion. There is no evidence whatsoever, that I am aware of-I re-
peat, no evidence whatsoever that I am aware of-that there is any
bubble, any change in drug trafficking that warrants special atten-
tion, and if there were, it certainly would not be on a level that the
IMSHA report or any of the other normal monitoring programs
have reflected to us.
If you are talking about some type of a program now, gee, we
have to think about invasion because of a drug threat, we have got
to start with three Andean nations before we start talking about
little places like Hispaniola where there are some drug overflights
going on. So I don't think we ought to fall into the bogus issue of
rug trafficking as a justification to get out the U.S. Army, Navy,
military, Coast Guard, or whatever.
I agree very much with the testimony that we should have some
type of a protective area. I would like to have that. I would like
to know what countries my friend, Mr. Conyers, is referring to.
There are no other countries, that I am aware of, that are willing
to take on, on a full-time basis, the problem of Haitian refugees.
Some will allow the temporary processing, some will allow the use
of real estate, some will allow us to use some of their facilities, but
nobody is saying, "Look, we want to take Haitian refugees and be
responsible and absorb them into your society," that is just not
happening, and where that has happened in the past, those people
who have left Haiti voluntarily, who have not come to the United
States but gone to third countries, have returned to Haiti, by and
large. Those are the facts.
So when we get talking about this idea of forced repatriation of
Haitians, which is important to all of us, the question is: Where do
we put them? That is why I have offered the solution I have of-
fered. You are familiar with it; you have accepted my statement
into the record; I will not repeat it.
I think that the idea of taking off the sanctions and stopping this
ratcheting up of misery, resuming the flights that are going to pro-
vide for compassionate relief for these people, and trying to find a
solution for where we can process and grant temporary protective
status is the right idea. I think those are the things we need to do,
and I think we need to encourage in every way President Aristide's
return to Haitian soil. I thought my solution did that. If somebody
has got a better one, I want to listen to it, but the administration's
present policy is not that, it is not better, it is worse; it is worse
for America, and it is worse for Haiti.
Thank you very much.







58

Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman from Florida very much.
Provocative thinking, and, to say the least, we need some provoca-
tive thinking if we are ever going to solve this problem at all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goss follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER GOSS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you
today to discuss Haitian refugee policy. This is a serious issue
and one that desperately needs to be addressed.

Today, we consider approaches to the current Haitian crisis:
specifically, H.R. 4114 the Governors Island Enforcement Act,
H.R. 3663 the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act and President
Clinton's Haiti policy. All are well-intentioned; each raises
serious concerns.

By endorsing sanctions and lifting the repatriation policy,
H.R. 4114 does nothing to discourage Haitians from taking to the
high seas. Rather, it encourages them to do so by driving up
their misery index to a point where those who still have the
means to do so will get out despite the risks they face on the
open sea. It is important to remember that the Haitians who leave
are those who still have something left -- if only enough to buy
passage and bribe the appropriate officials.

I particularly want to call your attention to the impact of
the sanctions, which are central to both H.R. 4114 and the
President's Haiti policy. The situation in Haiti has gone from
bad to worse in recent weeks -- especially in terms of human
misery. The sanctions clearly are missing their mark and
punishing those most in need of help. More than 2,000 Haitians
have been intercepted leaving Haiti in the past 6 weeks.

In Florida, the AGAPE and MFI humanitarian aid flights are
still sitting idle on the runways while U.S. officials await a
ruling from the U.N. sanctions board on whether or not they can
be cleared. Fuel shortages in Haiti mean that, even if those
supplies get through, it will be difficult to distribute them to
the outlying regions.

American and other foreign businesses in Haiti are closing
up shop, leaving the few Haitians who had jobs unemployed. In a
country where one paycheck often feeds ten mouths, the
devastating impact of job losses is far-reaching.

According to the humanitarian aid organizations in Haiti, 2
out of 3 Haitian children now suffer from malnutrition and
missionaries throughout Haiti report a deepening public health
disaster. Diseases, once controlled by a regular flow of






59


medicines (especially tuberculosis) are now running rampant. In
many cases, medicines and aid are simply not getting through.
When one looks at the impact of the U.S.-led embargo is it any
wonder that Haitians are taking to their boats in record numbers?

Option number two, H.R. 3663, seeks to set up a preferential
arrival system for Haitian refugees, along the lines of the Cuban
Adjustment Act. The time may have come for that act to be
revisited in the context of the changing situation in Cuba.
However, by extending the same types of protection to Haitian
refugees, we have once again done nothing to help Haitians or
Haiti, while encouraging them to come to our shores.

Option 3, the President's approach, is particularly
troubling. As noted above, the embargo is missing its mark. The
Haitian people are starving while the elite fill their coffers
with the proceeds of a black market fed by a porous embargo.

The President's offshore refugee processing plan lacks
substance. Although the Jamaicans have agreed to allow the U.S.
to anchor ships in their waters, they are still U.S. ships with
U.S. personnel processing Haitians for refuge in the U.S. Turks
and Caicos have offered us the use of their beaches, for which we
will pay them $12 million and help them repatriate 3,000 Haitians
currently living there, but they will not be accepting any
refugees nor helping to process them. Finally, we have no answers
about many crucial, basic questions (please see the attached
list) that should have been answered before this policy was
announced.

The President's fall-back plan is a military invasion of
Haiti. This option is fraught with difficulties, as I have tried
to highlight in my list of questions. I think these issues are
particularly relevant in any discussion about putting U.S.
soldiers into harm's way in Haiti.

Because of the problems with these three options, I have
offered the Administration option number four: the Goss safe
haven plan. The House supported this plan and opposed military
intervention on May 24, but that vote was recently reversed after
some heavy lobbying from the Administration and the Majority
leadership. I was very disappointed with this undeniable foreign
policy flip-flop, but feel that as events unfold in Haiti U.S.
policy-makers will return to constructive options like the Goss
safe haven proposal. I have attached a basic outline of the
proposal for your attention.

The Goss safe haven plan is a better way for Haiti and for
Haitians. Working with the OAS or the U.N. to create a safe haven
on the Haitian island of Gonave, we could bring about an
immediate end to the punishing economic sanctions, provide an
opportunity for the return of the democratically elected Haitian
President, reorganize and then expand the badly broken U.S.
refugee processing system in Haiti, and provide a workable means








60


for supplying the humanitarian aid so desperately needed. All of
these steps can help to put Haiti back on the path to democracy
and a long-term solution to the refugee problem.

Options 1,2 and 3 do nothing to address the long-term
refugee problem, a problem that can only be solved by the
movement of Haiti toward political stability and economic
prosperity. Neither of these goals can be accomplished at the
barrel of a gun, by decimating the Haitian economy, by destroying
the spirit and hope of the Haitian people. We cannot do anything
constructive in Haiti when all that we do is destroy. What we
should be doing is helping Haitians to stay and work for a
democratic and prosperous future in their homeland.











PORTER GOSS

330 CANNON U-lLO0tG
nASInGCON OSic 20os-ol
1201 122s-I34
COMMIT)ils
MULIS
_NOARQS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT


WITNESSES:

WILLIAM GRAY


FREDERICK SMITH


Congress of the United states

iaust of 'Reprutntatitts

Washington, BE zo0-oqgi

8 JUNE 1994
FOREIGN AFFAIRS -- FULL COMMITTEE
U.S. POLICY IN HAITI
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR WRITTEN RESPONSE
BY PORTER GOSS (FL-14)


THE PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL
ADVISOR ON HAITI

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
SECRETARY INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


1) WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES SEEKING
PROCESSING TO REACH KINGSTON OR TURKS/CAICOS? DOES THE
COAST GUARD SHUTTLE THEM?

2) WHAT IS THE CAPACITY OF EACH OF THE PROCESSING CENTERS?


3) HOW WILL THE 90-95% OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE
POLITICAL REFUGEES RETURN TO HAITI? IF THEY ARE NOT
RETURNED TO HAITI, WHERE DO THEY GO?

4) HAS THERE BEEN OR WILL THERE BE ANY CHANGE IN THE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRANTING POLITICAL REFUGEE STATUS?

5) WHERE DO THOSE GRANTED ASYLUM GO? HOW DO THEY GET
THERE? WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM WHEN THEY GET THERE?

6) ARE THE SANCTIONS WORKING? HOW LONG DO YOU ANTICIPATE
CEDRAS ET AL TO HOLD OUT? IS THERE A CUT-OFF DATE, A
"LEAVE OR ELSE" DEADLINE, INVOLVED?

7) ARE THERE ANY EFFORTS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, TO NEGOTIATE
A STEP-DOWN BY CEDRAS ET AL? IF SO, WHAT ARE THE
INDUCEMENTS OFFERED? WHAT ARE THE THREATS INVOLVED?
yARE THERE RELOCATION AND SUPPORT OFFERS?

8) WITH ALL OF THE MEDIA SPECULATION ABOUT OAS (OR
MULTINATIONAL) FORCE INVASION, HAVE YOU BEEN ACTIVELY
PROMOTING INVASION PLANS OR POLICY IN YOUR TALKS WITH
CARIBBEAN LEADERS? IS THE ADMINISTRATION WILLFULLY
IGNORING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REJECTING U.S.


2000 MSIM $yN~Fl
SUtI 30.
tT 2OERS *L3300I
.1 2 ]32-417
330, fA.IAM TMA "S
SUILOtING SUIT 212
*LUS 11. FL 3362
131 074-o00
F`3NTA GO0OA
il 131* 3*3 1








62



MILITARY INTERVENTION IN HAITI?

9) WHAT ARE THE COSTS INVOLVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION'S
CURRENT HAITI POLICY? OF ENFORCING SANCTIONS?
OF PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT TO JAMAICA AND TURKS/CA:COS?
OF RUNNING PROCESSING CENTERS (AND CRUISE SHIPS)?
OF SUSTAINING ARISTIDE'S GOVERNMENT-IN-EXILE IN D.C.?
OF HUMANITARIAN RELIEF?

10) IN THE EVENT OF AN INVASION, IS THERE A GUA-RANTEE THAT
ARISTIDE WOULD RETURN (ASSUMING THE DEPARTURE OF CEDRAS
ET AL)?

11) WHO WOULD PROVIDE SECURITY FOR ARISTIDE?

12) WOULD U.S. FORCES BE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING FOR THE
PERSONAL SECURITY OF ARISTIDE?

13) IN THE EVENT OF AN INVASION, WHAT ARE THE PLANNED RULES
OF ENGAGEMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT? IS THERE A TIMETABLE?
ARE THERE CLEAR RULES ABOUT THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE?
BESIDES CEDRAS, MICHEL FRANCOIS, HOW MANY "ELITISTS"
HAVE TO BE NEUTRALIZED OR REMOVED?

14) MEDIA REPORTS SUGGEST THAT THERE WILL BE NO
PEACEKEEPING FORCE SENT TO HAITI UNTIL OR UNLESS CEDRAS
ET AL STEP DOWN. IS THAT THE UNDERSTANDING?

15) MEDIA REPORTS FURTHER SUGGEST THAT A MULTINATIONAL
PEACEKEEPING FORCE WILL NOT BE PUT IN PLACE IF U.S.
MILITARY INTERVENTION IS USED TO REMOVE CEDRAS ET AL.
IS THIS TRUE?

16) DOESN'T THIS EFFECTIVELY RULE OUT UNILATERAL U.S.
MILITARY INTERVENTION IN HAITI?






63



*MEMORANDUM *
TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
FROM: PORTER J. GOSS
RE: SAFE HAVEN PROPOSAL


THE PROPOSAL:
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A "SAFE HAVEN" ON HAITIAN 3OIL

A SECURE AREA FROM WHICH THE LEGITIMATE HAITIAN
GOVERNMENT COULD GOVERN, FOR HAITIANS TO SEEK REFUGE
FROM ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL HARDSHIP ON THE MAINLAND,
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO RENDER HUMANITARIAN
AID AND REFUGEE VISA PROCESSING

THE HAVEN WILL BE INTERNATIONALLY ESTABLISHED AND SECURED UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF THE OAS OR UN

DAY-TO-DAY ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, INTERNAL SECURITY AND OTHER
DECISIONS WILL BE HAITIAN RESPONSIBILITIES

LOGISTICS:
LOCATE THE SAFE HAVEN ON L'ILE DE LA GONAVE

ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A PERIMETER AROUND THE ISLAND USING
MINIMAL FORCE SUPPORT -- AIR COVERAGE IS UNNECESSARY, ONE OR TWO
CUTTERS COULD ADEQUATELY PATROL THE PASSAGE TO MAINLAND HAITI

PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES INCLUDING GENERATORS, SHELTER, MEDICAL
CARE, BROADCAST SYSTEM AND OTHER NECESSITIES

BENEFITS:
PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY
ELECTED LEADER TO HAITIAN SOIL, PROVIDING A MORALE BOOST AND
RALLYING POINT FOR HAITIAN PEOPLE

PROVIDES SECURE AREA FROM WHICH THE DULY ELECTED LEADER CAN
GOVERN

ENABLES THE PROVISION OF HUMANITARIAN RELIEF, HELPING TO
MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE EMBARGO ON HAITI'S POOREST CITIZENS

SHIFTS THE IMMIGRATION MAGNET FROM U.S. SHORES AND BACK TO
HAITIAN SOIL, REDUCING THEIR JOURNEY FROM 800 HAZARDOUS MILES OF
OPEN SEA TO 15 MILES ACROSS THE GOLFE DE LA GONAVE

MINIMIZES THE AMOUNT OF U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT, INVOLVEMENT AND
COST IN HAITI -- ONE COAST GUARD CUTTER, ONE MODEST CONSULAR-
TYPE INSTALLATION, A HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE STATION

PAVES THE WAY FOR LONG-TERM DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY IN
HAITI-- RALLYING THE PEOPLE AND COALESCING HEMISPHERIC SUPPORT--
CENTERED ON MODERATE GOVERNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF HAITIAN
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONTROL.







Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Owens.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAJOR R. OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. OWENS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
these hearings and commend you for ending the double standard
approach to Haitian problems.
You are treating this bill, I hope, like you treat all others and
will give it a fair hearing, but there has been a double standard
applied in the case of Haiti, and that is the problem. You can't sep-
arate the problem of refugees and what happens to refugees from
the political problem of democracy in Haiti and the return of Presi-
dent Aristide, and you certainly can't absolve the United States of
responsibility here. We encouraged the Haitians to write a con-
stitution, we encouraged them to have elections, we encouraged
international observers at that election.
There is no question about that election. The election which
elected Jean Bertrand Aristide with 70 percent of the voters was
not a close election. People are trying to draw parallels between
what is happening now in the Dominican Republic and what hap-
pened in Haiti. There was no dispute about the Haitian election.
Everybody agreed that it was a fair election, and everybody agreed
that Father Aristide won overwhelmingly. So democracy was on
course.
During the time that President Aristide was in office, the num-
ber of ships interdicted on the high seas by the Coast Guard went
down to zero. The facts I have are that no ships were interdicted
for that 7-month period. It says a great deal about what the solu-
tion is and about whether people are fleeing Haiti for economic rea-
sons or for political reasons.
President Aristide didn't do anything economically, he had no
money, he had no great amount of aid from any country, he only
restored hope because they expected law and order, they expected
a civil government acting like any government, and President
Aristide proposed raising the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour,
proposed that the rich should pay taxes for a change, ordinary
things that any government would do, and of course the army over-
threw him.
That army was trained in the United States; the leaders of that
army were trained in the United States. The leaders of that army,
until less than 2 years ago, some were on the payroll of the CIA.
It is not something that we can wash our hands of and say that
we are not responsible, we are very much responsible.
And then we proceed to establish a double standard with respect
to the way Haitian refugees are treated. We would only recognize
their government. We at least were moral enough not to recognize
the illegal terrorist government that overthrew Aristide.
Other international bodies have joined us in condemning that
government.
Amnesty International has said, along with other groups, that
terrorists are running the government, that the government of
thugs, military thugs, is allowing terrorism, nurturing terrorism.
The minister of justice was murdered in cold blood, and other sup-







porters of Aristide are murdered in cold blood in front of everybody,
left to bleed on the street.
You know, we have all kinds of examples of what kind of govern-
ment we are dealing with. If ever there was a fascistic bunch, it
is a criminal fascism. They don't even have any kind of totalitarian
program that they are offering, they are just using their power to
cream off the small amount of resources that exists in that govern-
ment, and to say that drug trafficking has not increased is to be
ridiculous. Of course, when there is no government at all, no at-
tempt at all being made to counteract the drug trafficking. When
there is a military government in power which has divided up the
country into sectors in terms of certain colonels will take all the
graft coming in-they will take the levies that are being placed on
goods coming through the ports, others will cream off the money
from the state electric power company and/or will cream off the
money from the state flour factory, and they have certainly divided
up in terms of who will get the proceeds from the drugs, why
should we think that they would behave honestly in the case of
drug trafficking when they have not behaved honestly in any other
way and when they are ordering the murder of justice ministers?
So we have a situation, first of all, that we cannot wash our
hands of; we are very much a part of it. The United States has not
played a positive role in Haiti in fostering democracy over the last
few decades. Only recently did we do that, and then we have
backed away, reneged on the bargain.
The only solution to the problem that we as Americans can sup-
port as Americans is a return of President Aristide, recognizing the
election that elected him, and restoration of democracy in Haiti.
Any other solution is un-American. To talk about negotiating be-
tween the church and the military and the rich, negotiating a solu-
tion, that is un-American. That is some kind of fascism, but it is
certainly not democracy. We must stand behind the democratic so-
lution in Haiti. It solves the refugee problem.
You know, I am not going to back away from the practical prob-
lem of large numbers of Haitian refugees coming into the country,
concentrating in certain area, Florida first; they also concentrate in
New York. I think my district has the second largest number of
Haitians, Haitian-Americans and Haitian refugees. It is a problem
that we don't run away from. The country has 225 million people
though. We have absorbed large numbers of people fleeing persecu-
tion before. It is not an insurmountable task, but it is a task we
don't need to undertake. Solve the problem in the most practical
way: Return Aristide to Haiti, return him by any means necessary.
We have gone through all the other steps.
We had a Governors Island agreement. It was forced on Presi-
dent Aristide. Even though he was forced to sort of sign an agree-
ment, he lived up to every part of the agreement, it was the mili-
tary that ran away from it. Now we need to reinforce that agree-
ment by any means necessary. Use all diplomatic means possible,
sanctions over a limited period of time.
I agree with the previous speaker, the sanctions impose suffering
on innocent people and should be limited. At this point we should
be talking about 30 days of sanctions and then move on to some-
thing else. I think military intervention, what we call protective







military intervention, is the next step, and by that I mean the Gov-
ernment of Haiti is here in this country. Aristide represents the
head of the Government of Haiti. There are other people who were
elected in the same election that Aristide was elected in.
We ought to send back enough forces to protect the Government,
those who were elected. The Aristide supporters and those who
were in opposition to Aristide should be protected by troops, and
if anybody attacks those troops, then of course they have to be re-.
pelled, but it is not an invasion to protect a democratically elected
government. That is a solution to the refugee problem.
In the meantime, I think this committee should assert itself and
demonstrate that Congress will not be part of a double standard,
and the Haitian Refugee Fairness Act moves in that direction of re-
establishing where we should be, the same standard applied to all
refugees no matter where they come from.
Thank you very much.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman from New York for the ex-
cellent statement.
I will have to disassociate myself with the part that talks about
military intervention. There have been several here who have al-
luded to that. I do not think that is the answer. Of course, it is not
within this subcommittee's purview, but I think we need to do
something, but I do not believe military intervention is the answer.
The gentlewoman from Florida.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today
about one of the worse humans crises in my lifetime.
I would personally like to submit my entire statement for the
record, and I just want to make a few comments.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection, the gentlewoman's statement
will be made a part of the record.
Ms. BROWN. As a new Member of Congress, I don't know that
there is anything as disappointing as how we have not been able
to resolve the Haitian situation. For the first time in 120 years,
Florida sent African-Americans to Congress, and I truly believe
that Congress needed the diversity. I truly believe we needed the
diversity in this room that for the first time we have people of color
speaking about how the Haitians have been treated, and we close
to Florida experience it every day. I was a citizen here in Washing-
ton in the Capitol for some reason.
When the Congress first voted on the Cuban and Haitian issue
several years ago and we voted to let unlimited Cubans come in
this country, and I am not saying there is anything wrong with
that, but we voted not one Haitian, and that has been our policy.
There have been incidents when Haitians and Cubans have gotten
on the boats together, and when the Cubans arrived we welcomed
them and the Haitians we sent them back, and it is truly only be-
cause they are people of color, and that is a sad indictment on this
country, and it is a true indictment.
I have been to Haiti several times. I got away from security and
went all up in the mountains and talked to the people. Let me tell







you something, none of us win by 77 percent, none of us. The Presi-
dent of Haiti won by 77 percent of the people, and even though
they are being killed, raped, they still have that resolve that they
want democracy.
I met with a group of Haitian business people, and I asked
them-they were talking to me about, "What is this democracy?"
because they didn't quite understand. They said that Aristide
didn't have the support of the ministers, I said, "Yes, I understand
that;" and he didn't have the support of the business community;
I said, "Yes, I understand that too;" and he didn't have the support
of the military, I said, "I truly understand that." I said, "But you
know, he won by 77 percent of the people," and they said, "Yes, yes,
just the masses." I said that is what counts in a democracy, is what
the masses want, and we go all over the world supporting the
masses but yet here, right here, less than a hundred miles from
our shores, we do not support the people because they are people
of color.
The rape that has been going on and all of the things that the
Haitian people have had to put up with, one thing we have got to
keep in mind, they still want democracy, and as a member of the
U.S. Government we should push for restoring democracy to Haiti,
and nothing else is acceptable.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentlewoman very much for that state-
ment, obviously heartfelt and well delivered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]









PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify today about one of the worst human rights crisis in my
lifetime.
H.R. 3663, the Haitian Fairness Act is a long overdue bill and I commend
my colleague, Carrie Meek for introducing it. For too long Haitian refugees have
been treated differently from other refugees, particularly Cuban refugees. The
U.S. refugee policy has not been color blind, it has not been a policy we could
be proud of. Even since the Administration has announced a new policy, it has
not yet been implemented. More than 1,500 asylum seekers have been returned
to Haiti since the announced change without any procedure to determine whether
they are refugees. I have serious concerns with the Administration's proposal. in
particular: (1) that their expected approval rate will be only 1-2% of Haitian
asylum seekers there should be no pre-determined low rate of approval, (2) the
24 hour turnaround time in deciding refugee claims is not adequate, and (3) there
is no independent review of refugee determinations. The questions I would pose
to others who will testify today are: (1) will there be lawyers or NGOs (non-
governmental organizations) permitted to assist the Haitian asylum seekers during
the interview process? (2) who will conduct the interviews, trained asylum
officers, or border patrol agents? and (3) what standard of proof will be applied?
Another problem that must be addressed is the dilemma of internal refugees in
Haiti, those people who have been repatriated or have been forced to flee their
homes and are in hiding, searching for safety. We have not adequately addressed
this problem.
H.R. 3663 would correct some of the serious problems in our treatment of
Haitian refugees, especially regarding establishing Temporary Protected Status to
protect Haitians currently in the U.S. from being forced back to a land of violent
and deadly persecution. It would be unconscionable to send Haitians back to Haiti
in these conditions, which have grown especially dangerous for women.






69


Rape was hardly ever heard of in Haiti before the coup, and never as a tool
of political repression. Rapists have not hesitated to abuse pregnant women and
children. One pregnant woman was beaten until she aborted; she died several
days later. In fact, children of know democracy supporters have been abused and
even abducted, especially in Cite Soliel.

Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that the U.S. Ambassador to Haiti has
expressed doubts that rapes against women is really a serious problem and
suggests, perhaps, that there is simply an exaggeration. I must contradict such
a notion. Rape in Haiti was largely unknown prior to the coup of September
1991 and had not been a common criminal act. Rape, used specifically as an act
of political retaliation, was not documented before the coup. Since the coup, and
increasingly as political pressure mounts, rape is being used against women as a
tool of oppression. The breakdown of traditional family structures, particularly
the absence of men from households, coupled with economic and political
insecurity, has left Haitian women as vulnerable victims in a massive political
cleansing campaign. Weapons such as guns, machetes and wooden clubs, have
been used during the repressive sexual acts, subjugating women with verbal
threats warning them that if they refused or fought to defend themselves that they
would be killed -- or revisited. Many women victims have been told, during their
act, that they were being raped for their own or their family member's
participation in democratic activities.

One strong supporter of President Aristide has been persecuted on many
occasions and he tried to flee Haiti on a sailing boat but was intercepted,
repatriated, and since then, has been living in hiding. One night, his wife
left a prayer vigil and on the way home, she was attacked, beaten and raped
by known FRAPH members. She was afraid to press charges because the
rapist, a FRAPH member, lives in her neighborhood. She was raped
because she was known to FRAPH as the wife of a known Arisitide
supporter.

* One woman was raped twice, on two different occasions, due to her
husband's involvement with democratic activities in their area. On one
occasion, she was followed by a military truck, abducted, beaten and raped.
Her three month old child was also beaten. Her house was subsequently
burned down by the same criminals.

* One woman, who had just given birth and who had a baby in he' arms, was
forced to witness the rape of her daughter, then she was also raped, even
though she had just given birth.

* The most recent reports describe horribly calculated rapes designed to
destroy families. Sons have been forced to rape their mothers, fathers have









been forced to rape their daughters, and brothers have been forced to rape
sisters in front of other family members. A 15 year old boy was forced to
rape his mother after she had been raped by attaches. One young man
refused to rape his sister and was immediately shot to death, on the spot,
in front of his family.

Finally, I'd like to bring to your attention a story of horrible cruelty and
miraculous recovery. I must warn you that the materials accompanying
my testimony are graphic and disturbing but one woman's story is too
important for me to gloss over. Alerte, a 32 year old Haitian woman was
married with three children. Her only crime was that she and her husband
exercised their right to vote for the candidate of her choice, Father Aristide.
The family survived 2 years of daily fear and harassment since the coup.
However their luck ran out on the night of October 16, 1993 when members
of the para-military group called FRAPH knocked on her door and proceed
to attack her and her children. She was repeatedly hacked with a machete
and left for dead in the road. It was only through a miracle that she
survived and her tongue was re-attached by doctors. She says the Lord
allowed her to survive so that she could tell others of her story. She is
living in the United States now but doesn't know how long she will be able
to stay.

Mr. Chairman, FRAPH should be condemned as a terrorist organization.
It should not be treated as a political organization as U.S. Ambassador Swing has
suggested. It is obvious that FRAPH works in concert with the military thugs to
kill and terrorize Haitians who have supported democracy. FRAPH's activities
have grown more selective and systematic, and more deadly. The international
community has the responsibility to condemn FRAPH for the terrorist organization
that it is.


Thank you, I would be happy to take any questions the committee may


have.






Haiti


One Example of Repression and Torture
Since the Military Coup











1

First photograph, before the attack

This young woman is 32 years old. Her name is Alerte. She is married and has three children. She was
living at Cote Plage 26 in Carrefour. Her only crime was to have exercised, along with her husband. her right
as a citizen to vote for a candidate of her choice on December 16, 1990: Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The
family was able to survive 2 years and 15 days ofdaily anxiety and harassment, since the September 30. 1991
coup up until the night of October 16, 1993 when the paramilitary forces of FRAPH came knocking at their
door.



Primera foto, antes de la agresi6n

Estajoven mujer tiene 32 afios. Se llama Alerte. es casada y tiene tres hijos. Vivia en Cote Plage 26 en
Carrefour. Su 6nico crime fue de haber ejercido, junto con su esposo. su derecho de ciudadana de votar por
el candidate de su elecci6n el 16 de diciembre de 1990: el padre Jean-Bertrand Aristide. La familiar pudo
sobrevivirdurante 2 aiosy I5 diasde ansiedad y represi6n diaria. desde el golpe de estado del 30 de septiembre
de 1991 hasta la noche del 16 de octubre pasado cuando las fuerzas paramilitares del FRAPH vinieron a tocar
a la puerta de su casa.



Premiere photo avant I'agression

Cettejeune lfemme a 32 ans. Elles'appelle Alerte; elleest marieeetatroisenfants. Elle habitat Cote Plage
26 a Carrelbfour. Son seul crime est d'avoir exerce. avec son maria. son droit de citoyenne a voter pour un
candidate de son choix le 16 decembre 1990: le pOre Jean-Bertrand Aristide. La famille a pu tenir 2 ans et 15
jours dans I'inquietude et le harcelement quotidien. depuis le coup d'Etat du 30 septembre 1991 jusque dans
la nuit du 16 octobre dernier quand les forces paramilitaires du FRAPH sont venues frapper a sa porte.



Premye foto

Jen Ayisyenn sa gen 32 lane. le rele Alerte. li marye. li se manman 3 pitit. li te abite K6t Plaz Kafou. Li
te Ie y\on sel "krim". li menm ak maria li yo te vote 16 desanm 1990 Jean Bertrand-Aristide. Depi koudeta 30
septanm 1991 lan kalve-1 koumanse. Li menm ak fanmi li se mas\wi fe yap moute, chakjou kijou se lan ke sote
lan kache \o viv. Lan lanns it 16 okt6b 1993 pase neg ak zam an sivil te debake lakay li.




73











Z ,








.* ,,_- .'.,,'- ';. ',, ....,
,. .,_ ., _Sf '' ..

....... .:' I











2

2nd photograph

The face hideously devastated by a machete blow. Alerte is one of the thousands of victims thro\\ n in
the mass grave of Titanyen. The objective of the de facto regime is to punish the Haitian people for having
dared anew--after the November 29. 1987 massacre and after the December 5. 1990 attack which resulted
in tens of dead in a crowd of youth in P6tionville--to mobilize with, as theironly arm. their voting ballots, and
fling open the door of History so as to demand that their rights be respected.



2a foto

La cara horriblemente desfigurada por un golpe de machete. Alerte es una de las miles de \ ictimas
echadas en la fosa comutin de Titanyen. El objetivo del regimen de hecho es de castigar al pueblo haitiano por
haberse atrevido nuevamente--despues de la massacre del 29 de noviembre de 1987 y desputes del ataque del
5dediciembrede 1990que hizodecenasdemuertosenunamultituddej6venesen P6tionville--a mobiliz.arse
con. por todaarma. su boletin de voto. y forzarla puertade la Historia para exijirque se respeten sus derec ho,.



2eme photo

Le visage hideusement ravage par un coup de machete. Alerte est l"une des milliers de victimne jetees
dans le charnier de Titanyen. Le but du regime de facto est de punir le people haitien pour avoir o0, une
nou\ elle fois--apres le carnage du 29 novembre 1987 et apres I'attentat du 5 decembre 1990 qui a tail Jdes
dizaines de morts dans une foule dejeunes Petionville--se mobiliser avec come seule arme son bulletin de
sote et forcer la porte de I'Histoire pour reclamer ses droits.



Deziem foto

Figi-l filange ak kout machet lan ti tanyen. Poukisa? Fanmn sa se %oun pami dibita moun yo te al jete lan
simityi ti tane en. pou pini pep A% isyen d&ske yon fwa ank6. apre masak 29 novanm 1987. malgre 5 desanm
1990. x ote kanpe tmni 16 desanm 1990 ask billen v6t yo k6m sel zam pou reklame dwa yo gen\ en pou chita
toou rebo tab la.
















2










3A&B

3rd photograph

Why this machete blow in the neck and \vhy slash the body of this young woman? Because on that 16th
of October 1993. 2 years and 15 days after the coup, the terrible repression has not been able to put an end
to the people's resistance, an unarmed resistance, but nevertheless an efficient resistance.



3a foto

Porque este machetazo y porque haber acuchillado el cuerpo de esta joven mujer? Porque este 16 de
octubre de 1993.2 aios y 15 dias despues del golpe de estado, la terrible represi6n no ha podido acabar con
la resistencia del pueblo, una resistencia sin armas, pero una resistencia elicaz.



3Mme photo

Pourquoi ce coup de machete i la nuque et pourquoi avoir lacenr le corps de cettejeune femme? Parce
que ce 16 octobre 1993, 2 ans et 15 jours apris le coup d'Etat, la terrible repression n'a pu \enir i bout de
la resistance du people, resistance sans armes mais resistance efficace.



Twazikm foto

De (2) lane apre koudeta-a pouki fanm sa pran kout manchet sila lan bouda tet li. Pouki o filange on
se bel po konsa an miyet moso. Pouki .o depatcha ponyet li konsa. Se paske 16 okt6b 1993, 2 lane apre
koudeta. malgre tren repres on an ap kouri ak tout boulin li pa rive lan bout rezistans pep la. Rezistans ak
deteminas\on pou sa change.









3A


3B







ON THE HOSPITAL BED


EN LA CAMA DEL
HOSPITAL


A L'HOPITAL


SOU KABANN LOPITAL

















4









5

5th Photograph, with her children
Alerte was able to escape from the Titanyen mass grave and she came to the United States to testifty about
the horror in Haiti. She is currently in New York.


5a Foto, con sus nifios
Alerte pudo escapar de la fosa comun de Titanyen y vino a testificar en los Estados Unidos a cerca del
horror en Haiti. Ahora se encuentra en Nueva York.



56me Photo, avec ses enfants.
Alerte a pu 6chapper du chamier de Titanyen et elle est venue tdmoigner aux Etats-Unis sur I'horreur
en Haiti. Elle est actuellement a New York.


Senkiim Foto, Alerte ak timoun li yo.
Volonte gwan m&t lo te vie li chape % i% an lan simitye ti tan) en. Foto sa yo se pr&v, temN1ay az sa kap phase
lan pey i d'A% itijounenjodia.




81












5










6

Fellow citizens, brothers and sisters of all races and religions, you have before your eyes photographs
which openly reveal the horror of the Haitian tragedy. Don't let your silence make you an accomplice. Speak
up, talk to the leaders of this world. Protest all you can so as to end the repression, so that the United Nations
finally make their voice heard concretely and decisively in the Haitian crisis. It is high time that \\e stop the
flow of blood in Haiti.


Compatriotas, hermanos y hermanas de todas razas y religiones, tienen en frente de sus ojos fotos que
revelan todo el horror de la tragedia haitiana. No se queden silencios porque serian ac6mplices. Alzen la voz.
hablen a los poderosos de este mundo para que las Naciones Unidas hagan por fin oir su \oz de manera
concrete y decisive en la crisis haitiana. Es mas que tiempo que paremos el torrente de sangre en Haiti.



Compatriotes, freres et soeurs de toute race et de toute religion, vous avez sous les yeux des photos qui
revelent A la lumiere du jour l'horreur de la tragedie ha'tienne. Votre silence serait complice. Elevez la \ oix,
parlez aux grands de ce monde. Protestez de toutes vos forces pour que cesse la repression. pour que les
Nations unies fassent enfin entendre leur voix de faqon concrete et decisive dans la cruise ha'tienne. 11 est grand
temps qu'on arrete le flot de sang en Ha'ti.


Kompatriyot. neg ak nrges lakay, piti zantray peyi d'Ayiti, zanmi kanmarad, nou gen dean je nou imai
ki bla\ i tout mechanste ak tribilasyon pep A isyen. Pa rete san nou pa di kichoy. Rele anm\\e. jiskaske late
tranble. Rele jiskaske tout nanchon sou late tande nou. Rele, lite jiskaske nou femen \ann san an kap koule
t\\6 lontan sou to d'Ayiti.


PLEASE HELP
STOP THE REPRESSION IN HAITI
AYUDEME POR FAVOR
AU SECOURS
ANMWE SOUPLE





83




















I's )-












Awo ._ *
i~




-? '^-:*






I

















Haiti, a few miles from the
United States (Florida).


Haiti, a quelques kilombtres des
Etats-Unis (La Floride).


Haiti, a algunos kil6metros de los
Estados Unidos (Florida).










Mr. MAZZOLI. Unfortunately, our clock is not working. I will try
to keep a little bit of time so we can get some questions in, so I
will start with myself for 5 minutes.
Your statement did talk about the dropoff of the outmigration
with the time that Father Aristide was elected in the spring of
1991 and its resumption. How do you see the imposition of tem-
porary protective status, and the ceasing of any interdiction? How
do you see that as affecting the flow of people and the handling of
these people, given the existing asylum laws which in effect say
that once anyone touches U.S. soil, the reality is that they never
leave?
Mr. OWENS. Well, first of all, I didn't know it was a disputed fact
that the number of ships interdicted on the seas by the Coast
Guard was zero. I thought that was a fact. It was represented to
me as a fact.
Mr. MAZZOLI. That is empirical.
Mr. OWENS. Economic conditions did not improve after Aristide
was elected, so obviously the people were not fleeing-the new peo-
ple were not staying in Haiti because economic conditions had im-
proved, they began to flee because political conditions changed, and
we are bound by international standards, and we have always par-
ticipated in and we have always allowed people fleeing persecution
to enter the country, and we have never before asked ourselves the
question, how many is enough, In the case of Cuba, and the fact
that, you know, two superpowers were still at war with each other
in the cold war and it was to our advantage to embarrass the Com-
munists; we placed no limit on it.
The question of limits has never been raised before. We actually
sent airplanes to Hungary to bring in the people when the Hungar-
ian revolution took place. They didn't have to find a way to get
here, we sent the planes to pick them up.
So I really don't want to answer the question and don't think it
is proper to raise it.
Mr. MAZZOLI. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Michigan: Just any thoughts on how we
harmonize anything we do here with the idea that basically people
who come in the country for even temporary protected reasons
would gain vested interests and rights to remain.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, I think there are several ways we can look
at this. First of all, in our colleagues from Florida, many of their
proposals contain provisions for reimbursements to the State for
those costs, and I don't think that is unusual or prohibitive. I think
that that is one way that we can handle it.
The second is that there are other countries in the area that are
negotiating with Bill Gray, literally as we speak, as to land-based
processing points for temporarily taking care of the immigration
problem. There have also been suggestions of us using some of our
naval forces to house people that would be there. But in the end,
we have to have one consistent policy.
To think that the kinds of oppression that are going on now are
not politically motivated and aren't enough to make a person
choose between two horrible decisions: One, to stay there and face
the oppression that comes from anybody that might even be sus-
pected of having supported Aristide; and, you know, as the inter-







national climate winds up against the junta, their terror increases,
their violence increases; that is the only tool they have. They are
not a government's force, they are not trying to set up agencies and
departments of government, the only thing they can do is use more
force, and so it seems to me very important, Mr. Chairman and my
colleagues, that we understand that allowing temporary protective
status is something that we should not shy away from. We have
done it time after time after time.
Mr. MAZZOLI. You would be in favor-let me say it this way,
John: You would not be opposed to temporary protected status in
other countries, in regional nations or even in Guantanamo. Would
you also favor TPS here in the United States to admit, not for the
Haitians already here but to admit those people who can't be sent
back because we feel that either they have a legitimate claim, in
which case they can come in, but even if they don't have a legiti-
mate claim, we feel like the random violence is such that they can't
easily be sent back?
Mr. CONYERs. Right. The answer is yes, because everybody that
comes into this country is put to the test under our immigration
law. It isn't, as someone has characterized, that, "If you want to
come to America, come on;" that is not the law, the law is that you
can establish that you have a political reason that would allow you
under these laws to be temporarily allowed into the country. So
even people coming from Haiti would have to establish that. That
happens to be our procedure, and to temporarily allow them into
this country or other places in the OAS nations would be perfectly
consistent with my view.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Just to finish up this panel.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Goss. I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, and hit the points exactly,
if I can.
In the first place, all immigration is out of control, whether it is
political asylum, processing illegal immigration, or legal immigra-
tion. There are Haitians who are going through the visa processing
process right now in Port-au-Prince; there were; there have been.
They are going through a normal orderly process, although the at-
mosphere there is not as we would like it to be, I am sure, as in
other countries where that same process goes on.
The trouble is that there are many more people who want to
come to the United States than there are places under our quota
systems and so forth. Plus, the consular system is overloaded, as
is the political asylum officer review system, as is the illegal immi-
gration system in which we can't even control our borders.
That said, if we continue with the policies we have got now, the
Miami magnet will work even more forcibly than it has been draw-
ing the flow of refugees seeking greater economic opportunity, a
better quality of life. You can hardly get a worse quality of life than
exists in Haiti right now, and consequently any place looks good.
Miami looks awfully good, so I think we are going to see that.
With regard to the comparison with the Cuban Adjustment Act,
I would say that Fidel's days are numbered, there is no question
about that, and I think that the Cuban Adjustment Act is directly







related to Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs events of history, and per-
haps the missile crisis. I think that chapter is closing, and I think
therefore, that comparison by the time legislation passes out will
probably no longer be one we need to worry about.
With regard to the reimbursement that my friend, Mr. Conyers,
has mentioned, we would love it in Florida if the Federal Govern-
ment would indeed reimburse us for the proper costs of the immi-
gration problems we have had because of our geographical location.
t is so bad in Florida now that the Governor of Florida, who is a
good Democrat, an excellent Democrat Senator of the U.S. Senate,
now the Governor of Florida, is suing the Democrat administration
of this country for almost $1 billion overdue for not only Haitians
but Cubans as well, as we all know.
With regard to this question of land-based processing points in
other countries, I don't know anybody who is willing to deal with
this program on a permanent basis. Everybody is talking about yes,
we will help you out and process people, but we don't want the peo-
ple to end up in our country.
The final point is, using more force in Haiti by our sanctions has
caused a reaction of more force by the people in power who feel
more threat. That is why this polarizing policy that the administra-
tion has embarked on is such a terrible idea.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. I would just like to interject to this very sudden
burst of partisanship, I think, in that last comment in that you
said that the Governor of Florida a Democrat, is suing the Demo-
crat administration-let me finish my question if I may-first of
all, our political party is the Democratic Party, number one. Num-
ber two, this suit is against the U.S. Government for a history
going back many years as being joined by my Governor as well of
not repaying all of us who are on the border for failures by the Fed-
eral Government to deal with immigration problems, and I just
want to take exception to describing it as a suit against the so-
called Democratic administration. It is not a suit against the Demo-
cratic administration, it is a suit against a U.S. Government.
Mr. Goss. What I wanted to point out, if the gentleman from
Texas will allow me, is that even good working relationships by
members of the majority party have not worked to resolve this
problem as they usually do in the democratic process. Those have
not worked. Consequently, I underscore that by saying we are
going to have do something more deeply if we are going to call for
reimbursement.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. BROWN. I would just like to respond to that last remark be-
cause I served in the Florida House of Representatives for 10 years,
and clearly talk would not resolve the problem that we have experi-
enced in Florida. We need dollars from the U.S. Government, be-
cause it is not a Florida problem, it is a national problem, and it
affects people, I understand, in Texas and California. But particu-
larly in the area of health care, we have really had real burdens
on our health care system in Florida because we have not got the
kind of assistance that we need from the Federal Government.
I think I can just associate my remarks with the first question
of the chairman of the task force, Mr. Owens. I support his







position, and I think we really need to go in there and resolve the
problem.
In talking to the Haitian people, they don't necessarily want to
come to the United States or go to other places, and really we have
guide and support from other countries to assist. What we need to
do is go in and resolve this problem, and my feeling is, any means
necessary.
Mr. MAZZOLI. I appreciate that. The only thing I can say-and
I yield to my friend from Florida for such time as he will use-is
the fact that we tried that same thing back in 1917. I think we
were there until 1934 and we didn't really solve the problem. So
I think we have to be extremely chary and circumspect about talk-
ing about any force or any means necessary, because that isn't al-
ways a guarantee of success.
The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just would like to make one distinguishing comment. Though
I have a good relationship, I think, with all of my colleagues on the
panel, there is one area which I am sensitive to and concerned that
I want to be sure is clarified, and that is that I do see a distinction
between Cuba and Haiti as far as our asylum processing is con-
cerned, and it isn't race based. I think that distinction needs to be
set on the record so that everybody understands at least where this
Member comes from.
Historically, the record is pretty clear that anyone who seeks to
come to this country, seeks asylum from Cuba, when they are re-
turned to that country is locked up in jail, is persecuted automati-
cally. It is a fact, it does occur. That has not been the pattern in
the case of Haiti, although we certainly know there are a substan-
tial number who are persecuted there, which is why we grant asy-
lum. There is a good percentage who are getting that asylum relief
through the processing that we are doing and will continue to be
doing.
But when somebody has left on the boats or whatever and has
returned to Haiti, the history has not been that, as bad as that
military government is, they take everybody automatically and per-
secute them, put them in jail, or do something to them.
So for those reasons, that is the distinction I have seen over the
years and why I have not been amenable to those changes.
Mr. OWENS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. BECERRA. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I would be very glad-who am I yielding to
now?
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. If I may ask the gentleman from Florida a quick
question.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Sure.
Mr. BECERRA. To the degree that the gentleman makes the dis-
tinction between the Cuban situation and the Haitian situation, if
in fact the gentleman learned that the Haitian military had a pol-
icy of incarcerating those who left on boats and were subsequently
returned, would that change the gentleman's position?







Mr. MCCOLLUM. If there were a flat policy that that indeed oc-
curred and that they were persecuted just the same as the Cubans,
yes, it certainly would.
Mr. BECERRA. Well, persecuted the same way as the Cubans-I
am not certain if we can get the full details on how Cubans may
or may not be persecuted once they return to Cuba.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Well, I am not trying to fudge anything. If you
are treated essentially the same way, I am certainly going to
change my view, but my understanding is that is not so. That is
not what the INS or the State Department has told this sub-
committee in the past, but I am willing to be open minded-of
course I am-about it. That is my whole point. That is the reason
for the distinction.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OWENS. Can the gentleman tell us how many thousand Cu-
bans have been returned by the U.S. Government?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I can't tell you how many we have returned, but
I know there are quite a number who have returned either of their
own volition or have not made it over here and been locked up.
Mr. OWENS. We have never returned them en masse to the
Cuban Government, have we?
Mr. McCOLLUM. No, we have not returned them en masse. That
is precisely the reason. The reason we haven't is for the same rea-
son that I just described to you, because we know what happens
to them when they are returned. When you do return them to
Haiti, we also know what happens because we certainly return
them en masse. So I think the answer is pretty clear, Congressman
Owens.
I want to ask you something though, while we are talking here.
On temporary protected status, do you believe that if we granted
that kind of status and let Haitians stay here, that at some point
in time in the future if Aristide were returned to power, they would
all voluntarily return-or a high percentage? What is going to hap-
pen if, say, 3 or 4 or 5 years were to go by and we didn't have the
thing come out the way we wanted in Haiti, we didn't have a
change? What would happen-to these folks who came here-when
it eventually did occur that the Government changed?
Mr. OWENS. Solzhenitsyn has returned to Russia. I don't know
how many of the Hungarians who were brought here during the
Hungarian revolution against the Soviet Union would be returning.
Those are questions I can't answer, and, you know, it is a com-
plicated world, and I don't think we should try doing simple
answers.
I do know one thing, when one clear thing: When Aristide was
elected, thousands of Haitians from all over the world, Haitians in
France, in Canada, and the United States, and from my district,
they returned to Haiti because there was hope. Some went to set
up businesses, schools, et cetera.
The way to get people to return is to restore democracy. A large
percentage will return, some who were not even refugees but Hai-
tian-Americans who are citizens.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Well, I don't doubt for a minute that a good
number would return, but I only ask the question to raise the point
that there will be a substantial number who won't.







Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCCOLLUM. In a moment, please.
But the overall numbers of those who do not return, if we grant
temporary protected status, are going to be very, very large. I
would presume a very good percentage of folks are going to come
on out. It would encourage more people to come out, would it not?
Mr. OWENS. I recognize the practical problem, and certainly the
gentleman from Florida you are on the firing line, you are right
in the heart of the problem. Solve the problem. Solve the problem
by returning President Aristide, restoring democracy. Then we
don't have the numbers to worry about.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. But the only way I know how to do that, other
than through Mr. Goss' suggestion, is direct military intervention.
The sanctions don't appear to be working. Have you got any other
suggestions how we do that?
Mr. OWENS. Albert Einstein was a pacifist who changed his mind
about Hitler and said the pacifists will ultimately endure, they
would win, if you had enough of them, but the way Hitler operated,
they would all be dead before they could win. You are dealing with
criminals, not just a regular government, you are dealing with a
criminal government. You don t meet criminals with negotiations.
Once they demonstrate that they are criminals, they can only be
dealt with as criminals. That is what we have to do. It will take
force to dislodge criminals.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Well, let me ask you this question, Congressman
Owens. How do you envision it going after we intervene? How do
we, as Congressman Mazzoli suggested, after a history of seeing so
many years of our having to be there-how will police protection
and civil protection be provided without the U.S. troops having to
stay there?
Mr. OWENS. Very simple. We should do what we did not do be-
fore when we occupied Haiti. We should train the army and the po-
lice, not an overwhelming army, but the police force, to respect de-
mocracy. We trained large numbers of Haitian officers at Fort
Benning, GA. We didn't do a good job in terms of training them to
respect democracy. Aristide supporters, people who voted in that
election, people who want democracy in Haiti, outnumber over-
whelmingly those who want fascism and totalitarianism. Train
those people to be the police. Train them to be the army, and you
will have people who respect democracy, and democracy will go for-
ward like any other democracy, with problems, but they would go
forward without having an army.
The people with the guns interrupt the process because they
have the guns and the majority don't have the guns.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I am going to end because my time is running
out by asking Congressman Goss if he could comment on the view-
point we have heard today.
Mr. Goss. Well, I don't take the position that the Governors Is-
land accord is of no account because it was negotiated with crimi-
nals, which seems to be the suggestion that has been made here.
I suggest that what has happened is that those people who have
controlled things in Haiti for almost 200 years one way or the other
have been very concerned that in their attempt toward accommo-
dating the middle of the road with the election of Aristide, which







they did recognize and work with to try to form what I will call
a "multiparty" or a "pluralistic" government, that the Aristide re-
gime was clumsy in its handling of that. The end result was that
there was a feeling among a great number of people that it was
now their turn, and, regrettably, some retribution began to steal
into the daily activities of the governance. It ended perhaps in Sep-
tember when the necklacing events took place. I think that was the
beginning of the repolarization in Haiti. I think it wiped out the
opportunity for the moderates who are trying to make the govern-
ment work with the concept of loyal opposition, with the concept
of the military being subject to civil order.
All of those things were sort of thrown out, and that high water
mark was retreated from, and people went back to brute force, and
I think that is the situation we are at today. The Aristide people
were clumsy, they couldn't help out as well as we hoped they could
by reaching across the aisle, as it were. We tried to help them do
that. They did not succeed.
Mr. OWENS. They could not make miracles in 7 months. They
only gave us 7 months.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. BROWN. I just want to briefly respond to my colleague from-
that we share part of the district from, Orlando.
I would just want to ask you this question: How many of the Cu-
bans do you think are going back from Miami?
Mr. MCCoLLUM. Well, not very many are going back.
Ms. BROWN. Probably none.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. And that is a good point.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you.
I regret Mr. Owens had to leave because I think he made a lot
of sense.
Mr. Goss, do you think that our position should not be to restore
Aristide to power?
Mr. Goss. Oh, .I think it should be, affirmative, to restore
Aristide to power, absolutely, to give him the opportunity. I think
the morale boost for the followers, whether, as Ms. Brown has said,
it is 77 percent or my understanding it was 67 percent, doesn't
matter, it is two out of three Haitians who voted, and they were
pretty darn good elections.
Mr. BRYANT. Then the question is, if he clearly would be govern-
ing legitimately, and it is very clear to me he would be, if it is obvi-
ous that he can't be restored to power through some agreements
with people who have consistently not kept them, their agreements,
then we have no alternative, it seems to me, but to use military
force, I would hope in coordination with the Organization of Amer-
ican States, to bring him back.
Mr. Goss. I would like to say that that is, in my view, an option,
but it is the worst of all the options that are out there. I think
there are many other options, including mine, which I know you
don't agree with.
Mr. BRYANT. I am not sure what your option is.
Mr. Goss. My option is to assist Mr. Aristide get back to Haitian
soil that is, in effect, a protected, safe haven area for Aristide loyal-







ists to operate from. The geography of the country favors such a
course. There is a place called the Ile de la Gonave, if you have
been following the debate. I think it would work very well at vir-
tually no cost. We don't have to hire any cruise ships or anything
else. I think that this is an area where you can begin the process
of nation building again, and that is what this is about. We don't
disagree on that.
Mr. BRYANT. It is very clear, though, that the guys in charge are
not going to tolerate Aristide coming back to power.
Mr. Goss. There is a whole bunch of guys in charge right now
who are pushed to an extreme position.
Mr. BRYANT. By who?
Mr. Goss. By the U.S. policies, in part. We are never going to
resolve this problem by saying one side or the other side is going
to get it all, and that is what the mood is.
Mr. BRYANT. You know, we kind of get a disjoinder, the guy won
the election.
Mr. Goss. That was absolutely right.
Mr. BRYANT. He gets it all because he won the election.
Mr. Goss. No, he doesn't get it all. That is exactly the point.
He still has to govern for 100 percent of the nation. That is the
majority. When the majority thinking says we only represent the
majority-
Mr. BRYANT. The problem is this, that you still are holding-I
think you and those who agree with you-still are holding out some
feeling that somehow it is the military, the bad guys down there-
and I think they are very bad guys, no question about it-deserve
to have some role in governing the country, and it is clear to me
that the people who won the election ought to govern the country,
and if they don't do it all correctly, that is too bad, but that is the
way democracies operate.
Mr. Goss. Well, that is what happened.
Mr. BRYANT. If every time that happened in any democratic
country in the world, we then said it is OK for the guys who were
offended to take over, where would we be?
Mr. Goss. Well, the question I would ask you, Mr. Bryant: Sup-
pose every time in the history of the globe we have a situation
where that does happen, do we send troops and restore democracy
at the barrel of a gun? And, if so, why aren't we in Rwanda? Why
aren't we in Bosnia? Why aren't we in a whole bunch of places?
Mr. BRYANT. Good question. Because Haiti is right off our coast
and people can get in boats and float in the ocean to get here, that
is why, and it affects our national interest. That is the difference.
Mr. Goss. It doesn't affect our national interest at all. It affects
our problem of delivery of services in Florida and Texas and some
places like that, but there is no national security threat.
Mr. BRYANT. Well, I am disappointed you have excluded 'Florida
and Texas from the Nation by saying there is no national interest
involved.
Mr. Goss. I think you have mischaracterized what I have said,
but-
Mr. BRYANT. Well, if we are not going to use military force to re-
store this government, and if clearly it is not going to happen any
time soon that he is going to be restored and therefore people are







going to continue coming here from where they are, and it is very
clear when they get sent back that bad things happen to them and
that they have no freedom of speech there and they have economic
problems as well, then why don't we change the Cuban Adjustment
Act to include the Haitians as well?
Mr. Goss. I think that is a question that you need to ask the
committee of jurisdiction.
Mr. BRYANT. I am asking you. We are the committee. I am ask-
ing you.
Mr. Goss. I am not on that committee.
Mr. BRYANT. We are the committee.
Mr. Goss. Oh, my view is, as I have testified on the Cuban Ad-
justment Act, I believe the reasons for the Cuban Adjustment Act
as pointed out by Mr. McCollum, in addition to the practical reali-
ties of today that he underlined. This is a period that is beginning
to wind down. I think the days of Fidel are numbered.
Mr. BRYANT. But we don't know when they might wind down. We
are here, we could meet, we could mark up or change the Cuban
Adjustment Act right now to treat the Haitians just-
Mr. Goss. Well, if you would like to mark up the Cuban Adjust-
ment Act, that is a prerogative that your committee has.
Mr. BRYANT. No. I am asking you a question. Do you think we
should change the Cuban Adjustment Act so that we treat Haitians
just like Cubans? Yes or no?
Mr. Goss. I believe that we should change the Cuban Adjust-
ment Act after Fidel Castro allows free elections or releases himself
from power.
Mr. BRYANT. OK, but that may be a long time from now. We are
dealing with Haitians today.
Mr. Goss. That is the answer to the question, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. BRYANT. Shouldn't we treat the Haitians just like the
Cubans?
Mr. Goss. We treat the Haitians exactly the way we treat every-
body else in the world except the Cubans because the Cubans are
the only people who have an Adjustment Act because of the histori-
cal circumstances involving Fidel Castro and a clear and present
danger to the United States of America, including Texas and Flor-
ida, through the missile crisis and the installation of a Marxist re-
gime that was-
Mr. BRYANT. It is empirical, I think, to everyone listening,
though, that you are not directly confronting my question. We
allow Cubans when they arrive here to stay no matter what, be-
cause of the fact that they do not have freedom at home, and we
sanction their leaving, and we say, "Welcome to our shores." The
same is true in Haiti.
So I am asking you, should we or should we not treat the Hai-
tians just like the Cubans?
Mr. Goss. We should treat the Haitians the way we treat all
other immigrants.
Mr. BRYANT. But not like the Cubans, is that right?
Mr. Goss. The Cubans have a special privileged status under the
Cuban Adjustment Act. I am just telling you what the facts are.