[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       HAITIANS SUFFER BECAUSE OF MISALIGNED U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized during morning business for 4 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, here we are. It is another week. We still have 
the same horrible, critical situation in Haiti, where people are 
suffering because of our misaligned foreign policy there. If anything, 
a week later the situation is worse. It is more repressive for the 
people who are trying to get along, have jobs, a way of life in Haiti, 
and if anything, the diplomatic situation is more confusing.
  Mr. Speaker, we read now the possibility that the justification for 
an invasion may be because some American lives are in danger. In fact, 
we have checked and we have checked again recently, and we find that 
there is no such threat to our American personnel there. There is the 
possibility of a threat to Americans possibly being in danger, as there 
is in any foreign country.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the administration has 
not made any kind of a case at all that is compelling, either to the 
American people or to the U.S. Congress, about why we would want to 
invade in Haiti. I have been looking at the polls.
  Last week we had the Newsweek poll that said something like two out 
of three, more than two out of three Americans thought an invasion was 
a very bad idea, especially a unilateral invasion. They were opposed to 
it. That is confirmed, I understand, by a new CBS poll which says 
essentially the same thing, two out of three think it would be a very 
bad mistake.
  The administration has failed to build any type of a constituency or 
support for any kind of an invasion, and understandably so, because 
there is no justification. There is no national security reason. Haiti 
is not going to attack us. We are not going to wake up tomorrow morning 
and find the Haitian Navy sailing up the Potomac River.

                              {time}  1040

  I think the second part of the problem that has emerged is the 
confusion over the OAS/U.N. peacekeeping efforts in the event that 
Cedras and the military junta left. We have had estimates all the way 
from 15,000 to 20,000 people and we have had statements by Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali that the United Nations cannot afford a 
peacekeeping operation like that. Of course the White House has a 
different figure of what it would take and the Special Counsel to the 
President, Mr. Gray, has a different figure of what it would take.
  The question is who does one believe? Who do we believe when they 
start telling you that it is going to take 10,000, 2,000, 20,000? It is 
going to take a lot of people to do peacekeeping in Haiti, especially 
if we invade. It seems that we have missed a good bet.
  I read in the paper this morning, in fact I have read twice, once 
yesterday, once today, that Cedras is offering to retire. He has said 
he will leave at the end of his term, which is a few months away, in 
January 1995. Are we going to invade to get him to leave more rapidly 
than that if in fact he will leave? I think that we are overlooking 
that just as we are overlooking the military leaders' new efforts to 
negotiate attempts to discuss a negotiated settlement rather than a 
military settlement to the problem. It is reported today in USA-Today.
  We apparently in our Government are saying, ``Well, we won't talk to 
those people because they are not legitimate.'' Well, they may not be 
legitimate in diplomatic terms, certainly the Jonassaint government is 
not legitimate, but the fact is, they are the people we have to talk to 
because they are the people causing the problem. We need to open up, as 
Mr. Pezzullo said before he was fired by the administration, ``We need 
to open up that diplomatic track and start talking to the moderates in 
Haiti and work for a negotiated settlement.'' Indeed, there are some 
moderates and there is some desire amongst the military to work out a 
negotiated settlement, as there well should be, and as we all encourage 
should happen.
  While all this is happening, we are watching the cash register tick 
off ever more taxpayers' dollars to support this. Right now we are into 
this to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars--that's $250 million 
so far for this inept policy. The estimate of an invasion, I saw one 
gentleman from the Pentagon said, an invasion would cost about $1 
billion. Well, I will tell you if we took that $1 billion and that 
quarter of a billion dollars we have already spent and we divided it up 
amongst all the people in Haiti, we would probably do more for that 
country and build democracy than just about anything else we could have 
done with that money, in terms of their ability to go out and start 
getting medicine they need, food they need, shelter they need and 
investment they need in their infrastructure to get that country back 
on the democratic track again.
  Today I am going to put in the hopper a piece of legislation. It is a 
sense-of-Congress, saying to the President, don't invade Haiti unless 
he can certify to the Congress that there is a clear and present danger 
to the citizens of the United States and that the United States 
interest requires such action. I hope my colleagues will consider it 
carefully.

                          ____________________