[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          DO NOT INVADE HAITI

  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, as talk of invasion of Haiti escalates and 
indications become more obvious that action is ongoing towards that 
direction, it is quite clear that Congress has to take up its 
responsibility to get into the debate, to get into the deliberation 
that is required under the representative form of government that we 
have in this Nation.
  It is quite clear that we do not have any need to have a debate on 
the War Powers Act, and it is quite clear that we really do not even 
need to have a debate on what the President or the White House 
motivations might be in calling for an invasion of Haiti. But if we are 
going to use men and women in uniform to go on a mission in harm's way, 
then we have to have a justification that stands up for the means of 
our national security, and we need to have an explanation for the 
parents and the families of those men and women in uniform of what it 
is that is so important that we who have the responsibility are willing 
to risk their lives for their Nation. That is a mighty heavy 
responsibility, and it is one that was carried out I think with an 
extraordinary amount of honor and prestige and wisdom and feeling and 
thoughtfulness in this body before the Desert Storm matter.
  I think it is exactly the type of thing that is called for now. We 
need to bring to the people's house on this floor the debate and the 
deliberation, if truly the White House is going to persist in this 
course of talking about putting our soldiers and sailors and marines 
and Air Force people and Coast Guard in harm's way in Haiti, which most 
of us think and most of our country thinks is a friendly neighboring 
county to the south of Florida slightly in the Caribbean which, in 
fact, it is. It has a long history of friendship with the United States 
and we are clearly set out on a question of an invasion that does not 
appear to follow any justification whatsoever.
  Some who have tried to speculate on motivation, I think are missing 
the target of what it is that happens to us when we get involved in a 
shooting war with a country like Haiti. I do not wish to go into the 
motivation, as I have said. I think we can probably rule out common 
sense and we can certainly rule out anything like a comprehensive 
consistent foreign policy. But what we have to look at is the 
consequences. I think that there is some real irony that some of the 
policy that is being talked about with regard to Haiti, the blockade 
using Navy ships, the tight embargo of trade and commerce which is 
choking the nation to death, those elements as policy actually make 
some sense. But unfortunately they are being applied to the wrong 
place. If they were being applied to Castro's Cuba, then it would make 
some sense.
  I believe there is an argument to make for a blockade against Fidel 
Castro. I believe there is an argument to make against a strong 
economic embargo forcing our allies or persuading and urging our 
allies, Mexico, Venezuela, Spain, Germany, Canada, Jamaica, other 
countries with whom we have close working and trade relationships, to 
share our goal of drawing the line in the sand and saying it is time 
for Fidel Castro to go. After all, here we are talking about asking 
General Cedras and his two colleagues in the military junta which is a 
temporary military junta, to go, and it is right that we do that. They 
do not belong there. They need to leave and democracy needs to be 
restored in Haiti.
  The issue is do we do it with the barrel of a gun, our guns? It has 
never really worked before and I do not think it would work in this 
case.
  When we talk about Haiti today, to make myself perfectly clear, I 
think we need to do four things.

                              {time}  1250

  First, we need to stop the invasion talk and planning. If you invade 
Haiti you win, but what it is you win you cannot define at this point 
except a responsibility and an obligation for a long, long expensive 
involvement of nation-building and we have not even begun to define 
that.
  Second, we should cancel the embargo. It is missing the target. It 
has missed the target. The junta has not left but it has made misery 
for the poor people of that country which is about 70 percent of that 
country.
  We certainly should increase our humanitarian relief as a third step. 
We have supplies waiting to do that now. We cannot get through because 
of the embargo. People are literally dying from lack of medical 
attention and food in Haiti today, innocent people.
  And finally, we should negotiate with the democratically elected 
members of their Congress. They call theirs Chamber of Deputies which 
were elected at the same time as Father Aristide was. So there are 
possible choices other than invasion which make much more sense, which 
will yield us better results and a lower cost. That seems to me to be a 
better foreign policy outline and certainly make more sense.
  When we talk about comparing Haiti and Cuba it is ironic to me. 
Castro has been there some 35 years as an avowed enemy of the United 
States and a real threat. We have not told him to go, but we have told 
this military junta we are going to send men and women to throw them 
out. That just does not make sense.

                          ____________________