[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]


 
                 SHOULD UNITED STATES INVADE HAITI? NO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend we all read that quite an event 
occurred in New York. The U.N. Security Council has for the first time 
given its blessing for armed intervention in the Western Hemisphere.
  I would point out that the target of this armed intervention is 
Haiti, a friendly neighboring country of ours. I do not think we want 
to take a great deal of pleasure in that particular happening at the 
United Nations, but I think it is extraordinary the amount of energies 
that have been put into acquiring that U.N. approval.
  They have really strained at it; promised all kinds of things; 
suggested all kinds of rewards; good things would happen for countries 
that supported our position and, perhaps, bad things for countries that 
would not.
  But, you know, the Clinton administration has not spent much time up 
here talking to the Members of the U.S. Congress about this. Here we 
are talking about a warlike action or a wartime action in the Western 
Hemisphere, right off the boundaries of the United States of America, 
involving American troops, and we have not had any consultation with 
the Representatives of the people of this country. Here in this, the 
mightiest of the legislative, deliberative, policymaking bodies in the 
world, we sit.
  What is our official position? In fact, it is silence. We have no 
official position in this body on the subject of an invasion of Haiti 
involving United States forces.
  We have actually had two votes. One called for asking the President 
to check with us before he went through any considerations about an 
invasion, to see what justification there could be to do that.
  Then we had a vote to rescind that.
  So our official position is nothing; absolutely no word; nothing but 
silence.
  Last week I asked where do we fit into this picture? it turns out 
that some of our colleagues, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Durbin, sent 
a letter down to the White House that has many signatures, dozens of 
Members' signatures on it. It hit such a chord with Members of Congress 
that they resent the letter with even more signatures asking the White 
House, please don't invade Haiti. Come and talk to us if there are 
reasons you think you need to do that, but confer with this 
deliberative body.
  I have also filed a resolution that says it should be the sense of 
Congress, before the President does anything in Haiti involving our 
armed services, that he should come and discuss it with the United 
States Congress. After all, we all are accountable to the people we 
work for, the voters of this country, our constituents, for not only 
the well-being of their pocketbooks but for the well-being of their 
youngsters who serve in our Armed Forces. We need to be accountable. We 
need to know exactly what is going on, and why we are putting our 
troops in harm's way in an invasion of a country where there is 
virtually no threat to the continental United States.
  I do not think anybody believes there is a national security threat 
from Haiti to our country.
  Going around our hemispheric allies and talking to them, apparently 
only Argentina and the Aristide government, the duly elected president 
of Haiti, now exiled here in the United States, supported our position 
in New York at the United Nations. Mexico's foreign minister made a 
statement that his country, and I quote, ``rejects the use of force 
except in cases of a threat to peace, its violation or acts of 
aggression.'' Haiti does not fall into any of those categories. This is 
Mexico, our trading partner, our NAFTA partner, our North American 
Free-Trade Agreement business associate, saying, ``Bad idea, don't do 
it; no justification for it.''
  Brazil abstained from the Security Council vote.
  Uruguay's ambassador said his country ``will not support any military 
intervention in the brotherly republic of Haiti, whether multilateral 
or unilateral.'' Those are fairly strong words.
  So the characterization that somehow the allies that we have, our 
neighbors and friends in the Western Hemisphere, applaud this decision 
of the United Nations and are encouraging the United States of America 
to take on this invasion of Haiti is clearly misleading and on the 
wrong track. That is just not the case.
  I would point out that while we are talking about this, the costs are 
mounting for what we are already doing. We are spending millions and 
millions of dollars now just keeping those 15 warships and those ready-
to-attack Marines down there on alert. And we are spending many other 
dollars as well elsewhere in the world.
  I think, as everybody knows after reading the headlines this weekend, 
we have a heat-up going on in Bosnia again. There is some talk about 
toughening the position there, possible use of troops of some type 
there or supplies. We have a commitment of 3,000 soldiers in a relief 
operation in Rwanda. I am not quite sure what that means or what the 
rules of this engagement will be. We have just passed the second year 
of cuts in a five-year plan to reduce the defense budget by $156 
billion. We are beginning to run out of resources to do the things we 
need to do. Fortunately, there are no serious threats in front of us.
  On top of that, we have the misery index of people suffering from the 
sanctions in Haiti. This whole policy is out of control. We need to 
rethink it. We hope the President will come here and let us help him 
rethink it.

                          ____________________