[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1040
 
DRIFT AND DISORDER IN THE CLINTON FOREIGN POLICY--PART 2, TO INVADE OR 
                             NOT TO INVADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman 
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized during morning business for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, on May 24, 1994, this Member felt it 
necessary to come before this body, quite reluctantly, to express his 
deep concerns and misgivings about the lack of direction in American 
foreign policy. It is an erratic, flip-flop foreign policy which 
encourages international thugs and rogue regimes to conclude that 
America neither says what it means nor means what it says. They are 
thereby encouraged to have the view that there is precious little 
penalty for flaunting international norms of behavior.
  Today this Member believes it necessary to elaborate on this concern, 
looking specifically at the Clinton administration's deep 
misunderstanding of the proper role and value of the military as an 
instrument of foreign policy. Indeed, it is when one looks at the 
Clinton administration's military policy that the disarray becomes most 
pronounced and more immediately dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, this Member was pleased when 
President Clinton, in his 1994 State of the Union Address, announced 
that ``as long as I am President [our forces] will remain the best-
equipped, the best-trained, and the best prepared fighting force on the 
face of the earth.'' Yet this was quickly shown to be a hollow promise, 
as each and every month our Armed Forces continue to cut 15,000 
personnel, retire 1 ship, slash 37 primary aircraft from our inventory, 
and eliminate 1 combat battalion.
  It also is clear that this administration intends to address its 
budgetary shortfalls by raiding much-needed defense programs. In 
addition to defense cuts that will total $156 billion through fiscal 
year 1999, the defense budget also is being raided to pay for billions 
in nondefense initiatives such as environmental clean-up, our U.N. 
responsibilities, and cancer research. As a result, this Nation is 
headed down the perilous course to a hollow Army and a decommissioned 
Navy, the type of military establishment which would not allow us to 
adequately honor our treaty commitments and defend our people and 
national interests.
  This gradual crippling of our military capability is particularly 
unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because President Clinton and his advisers 
appear willing, and indeed, eager, to deploy U.S. Forces in a host of 
contingencies. This administration has already committed at least 
25,000 ground troops to enforce a peace settlement in Bosnia--without 
any sign of congressional support. This administration has committed 
U.S. ground forces as part of a Middle East peace settlement. And, this 
administration was perfectly willing to retain United States Forces in 
Somalia far beyond the time when the original mission was fulfilled.
  This Member is particularly concerned about the apparent willingness 
of the Clinton administration to invade Haiti, by whatever guise and 
whatever name, as part of an effort to restore Jean Bertrand Aristide 
to power. Mr. Speaker, such an action would be the height of folly and, 
ultimately, an expensive disaster with long-term damage to our 
hemispheric relations. While the deployment of United States Forces in 
Haiti may address the near-term problem that President Clinton is 
experiencing with certain more restive elements of his coalition, this 
is precisely the sort of intervention that would haunt American 
policymakers for years, and perhaps decades, in the future. Our Haitian 
policy must not be set by the fasting of Randall Robinson.
  Mr. Speaker, the question of whether or not the United States should 
become militarily engaged in Haiti is not even a close call. While this 
Member has no doubt our forces would face little military resistance to 
an invasion, we would then be forced to assume broad humanitarian and 
administrative responsibilities in an attempt to provide law and order, 
support the regime we will have reinstated, and protect President 
Aristide from his many enemies. This would be far more difficult than 
the Haiti hawks would have us believe. This Member would remind this 
body that the last time the United States became involved in Haiti, it 
took 19 years before we were about to extricate ourselves.
  It is clear that there are powerful elements within the Clinton 
political coalition and the administration who see the U.S. Armed 
Forces are merely a tool to be used in this grand game called 
nationbuilding. And these master strategists are not in the slightest 
deterred by the fact that our military capability is being slashed well 
below the level dictated by elementary prudence.
  The logical disconnect is mind-boggling, but it does not seem to have 
penetrated key elements in this coalition or the administration. We are 
reducing our Army by a battalion a month, we are reducing our Air Force 
by 37 aircraft a month, we are reducing our Navy by 1 combat vessel a 
month. Yet this administration is preparing to commit tens of thousands 
of troops to a very lengthy occupation, on a mission that is clearly 
misguided and which is not a vital interest to the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is not an isolationist. This Member has 
supported and will continue to support the deployment of our Armed 
Forces when it is proper and necessary to do so.
  For example, this Member strongly supports the deployment of troops 
in Macedonia to serve a deterrent against the spillover of the conflict 
in Bosnia. Indeed, this Member has urged the deployment of a full 
brigade rather than the reinforced company presently in Macedonia, and 
this Member has expressed his support for much more forceful and 
responsive rules of engagement for those troops. This is clearly a 
situation where the vital interests of the United States are at stake.
  But this Member will not support, and will not remain silent, as the 
Clinton administration plans to embark on a counterproductive and 
politically motivated military incursion in Haiti. President Aristide 
may have been democratically elected by the Haitian people, but he is 
not a democrat. Were we to bring about his return to power, we would 
also be responsible for his subsequent actions--and Mr. Aristide has a 
proven track record of extreme political violence. When Mr. Aristide 
resumes supporting arbitrary arrests and advocating necklacing of 
political opponents, as it clearly did, that too would be America's 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, military action in Haiti is not the national interest, 
and therefore will not be supported by the American people. By 
embarking on this course, President Clinton only reinforces the deep-
seated belief that this administration's foreign policy is in a state 
of deep disarray.

                          ____________________