[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]

 
                POSSIBLE UNITED STATES INVASION OF HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pelosi). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COX. Madam Speaker, I would like to permit my colleagues to 
extend if they wish to do so and continue this debate and discussion on 
the subject of what we now understand from news reports to be the 
imminent invasion by United States troops of the island nation of 
Haiti.
  As my colleague pointed out, there has been no discussion or debate 
in proper fashion of this on the House floor, neither on the Senate 
floor because the administration has not sought congressional approval. 
I find it ironic that the same administration sought approval from the 
United Nations, sought approval from the OAS, sought approval from 
nations like Tobago, but not from the United States Congress.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield, is the gentleman saying that 
they specifically went to the United Nations and got the vote in the 
United Nations whereas they have not done the same thing here in the 
U.S. Congress?
  Mr. COX. As the gentleman knows, that is precisely the case. And 
while the United Nations provides a useful forum for the debate of 
international matters such as this, its votes are purely advisory for 
the most part. And while it has authorized the use of all necessary 
means to reinforce and to restore democracy to Haiti, the United States 
will be the only nation, only member of the United Nations that will be 
a taker.
  We have been remarkably unsuccessful, the Clinton administration has 
been remarkably unsuccessful in persuading any other government in this 
hemisphere or in Europe to join with us as combatants. As a matter of 
fact, the best we have been able to do is convince four Caribbean 
islands in total to commit 266,000 troops, not combatant troops, but 
for subsequent peacekeeping roles. Canada has turned us down flat. No 
European nation is willing to participate with us, no nation in this 
hemisphere will participate with the United States in invading Haiti. 
There is no support outside of the United States by one member state of 
the United Nations that has voted for this nevertheless. What they 
voted to do was to let Uncle Sam carry this burden, and if that is the 
case, if this is purely an American burden, should we not be debating 
it here in the U.S. Congress?
  My colleague from Ohio pointed out I think absolutely correctly that 
there are some circumstances in which the Constitution permits 
unilaterally the Commander in Chief to commit United States troops to 
combat or to situations that look like war if there is imminent harm to 
United States citizens or property as was in the case in Grenada or if 
there is an overriding military need for secrecy as was the case in the 
Bay of Pigs, if there is a necessary element of surprise as was the 
case in Libya and in Panama. None of those things exists here. This is 
the most preannounced invasion in history.
  We remember how long it took for those ships to steam down to the 
Falklands. There was that strange sense that this war will start some 
day. We all knew it was going to happen, but there certainly was not 
any secrecy about it. This war is even more obvious than that. General 
Cedras has been on our American talk shows, he being the victim of an 
invasion, saying when will the invasion come and so forth.
  Mr. KASICH. Let me just suggest to the gentleman, if he will yield, 
the reason I came to the floor tonight to talk about this is that if we 
intervene without meeting some of the requirements or some of the 
standards that Secretary Weinberger laid out about compelling U.S. 
interests and a plan and an exit strategy and support of the American 
public, we could really damage our ability in the future to be able to 
conduct necessary military operations. This would be such a damaging 
thing for the way in which we conduct foreign policy. That is why I 
come to the floor and almost plead for the fact that we need to have a 
vote because it would force this administration to do the things that 
we need to do before we undertake military action.
  If we go without doing it, we create a precedent for reckless 
behavior on the part of the Executive that the American people will not 
tolerate.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield, the thing that disturbs me 
about this is I remember very well the time after we lost the 18 lives 
in Somalia the administration at that point coming up here to brief the 
Congress on the Somalia mission and their inability at that time to 
articulate what it was that those young people had died for in Somalia. 
It met with disgust on Capitol Hill that you had administration 
officials unable to explain the rationale behind their policy that was 
costing American lives.
  Far better that we have that debate and that rationale is laid out to 
the Congress before we engage in military action rather than 
afterwards, and we find out that the mission is not well defined and 
may in fact be ill-conceived.
  So I am hopeful, as the gentleman from Ohio has said, that we will be 
permitted to have that kind of debate so we do not end up with that 
kind of a tragic situation.

                          ____________________