[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
                                 HAITI

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we, once again, as a body need to address 
the issue of Haiti. I want to compliment my colleague from Indiana on 
his excellent and precise remarks relative to the issue of Haiti. It is 
critical, Mr. President, as has been discussed on this floor before, 
that this Nation not use its military in an arbitrary and capricious 
way, and that we not put our soldiers' lives at risk without a defined 
policy that gives them guidance and that makes it clear to not only 
those soldiers but to the American people what it is that they are 
risking their lives for.
  The problem that we confront in Haiti is that this administration's 
actions, rather than being defined and precise, rather than outlining a 
clear strategy for where this country should be going and why it should 
be involved there, has rather been a strategy of confusion, of 
inconsistency, and has been a strategy which has led to a lack of 
confidence not only within this body as to the goal of the 
administration, but amongst the people of this country and, I think, 
amongst the international community.
  I have said before on this floor that before we pursue a military 
invasion, I believe very strongly that the President has the obligation 
to come to this Congress, under the terms of the Constitution, and ask 
for authority to do such. This is not an event that is created as a 
result of an emergency. This is not an instance where our national 
interests are suddenly threatened or where American lives are put at 
risk. This is not an event that has evolved quickly and spontaneously.
  Rather, the planned invasion of Haiti is just that--a very planned 
event. It has been an off-again/on-again plan, obviously, where 
spokesmen for the administration have said differing and sometimes 
contradictory things about its purposes and goals. But still there can 
be no question that the administration has made it clear that it 
intends to use American military forces in Haiti.
  One wonders how they can pursue that course without first coming to 
the U.S. Congress and asking for authority. If they are not going to 
come to the Congress and ask for authority--which they have an 
obligation to do under the Constitution--then they should at least go 
to the American people and explain what it is that brings us to the 
brink of going to war with a neighbor in this hemisphere. What is it?
  Well, they have outlined three different reasons why we should pursue 
military action in Haiti, why American lives should be put at risk in 
that country. The first is that there is an outpouring of refugees 
which threatens in some way our interests in the United States as these 
destitute individuals leaving Haiti seek asylum in other countries and 
end up here in our country. Of course, if that were the cause, we would 
have to invade a lot of our neighboring countries, like Cuba which is 
creating much more of a problem with refugees coming here. We might 
have to invade Mexico. Last year, over 1.2 million Mexicans entered 
this country, and only 5,000 Haitians illegally entered this country 
last year.
  So the concept that we need to invade in order to stem the flow of 
refugees is not supported. There is no outrageous flight of refugees 
from Haiti. And second, if there were, it would be a secondary or even 
a third-level threat to our immigration policies as compared with some 
of the other nations in this hemisphere. So that is not a valid 
statement.
  Their second argument is that it is a drug-lord center, a 
transshipment point for drugs. Well, that is specious on its face. The 
fact is that Haiti is surrounded by the United States fleet. That is 
about the last place drug lords are going to go in and out of because 
of the nature of the military force in the region. Then if we are 
talking about islands in the Caribbean that transship drugs, Haiti is 
very close to the bottom of the list compared to the top five or six 
nations in that region where we have a significant transshipment 
problem with drugs. So that is just poppycock.
  The third reason that is given is, well, we need to replace the 
dictatorial government which has usurped authority in Haiti with the 
government elected by the people, headed by Mr. Aristide.
  First off, Haiti is not the only country which has a government that 
is led by thugs. That is not an unusual event, unfortunately. That is a 
sad commentary on the situation in this hemisphere and on the situation 
in this world, that there are a number of countries which are led by 
people who are not what we would consider to be democratic--people who 
take from their people, who abuse their people and who use military 
force within their own nation to maintain power. Again, we need look no 
further than a nation closer to us in this hemisphere--Cuba--as a 
classic example of that. If we want to look at human rights, 
repression, abuse of people, and misuse of military force for the 
purposes of maintaining power, we need to look no further than Cuba as 
an example. We are not threatening to invade Cuba.
  Second, it would be very hard, I think, for any citizen in this 
country to justify putting an American life at risk for the purposes of 
reinstituting in power Mr. Aristide. Yes, he may have been 
democratically elected, but he is not an individual with attractive 
credentials. It would be hard for myself, as a Senator, and I think for 
any Senator in this room, to go to a parent--a mother or a father--or 
to a son or a daughter of a service man or woman who lost their lives 
or who were severely injured in the streets of Port-au-Prince and say: 
You did it, and it was for the American interest, and the American 
interest was, put Mr. Aristide back in place as the President of Haiti.
  No Americans should lose their lives, or even be put at risk, for the 
purpose of putting Mr. Aristide back in power. That is not a 
justifiable goal.
  So this administration has outlined no definable national interest 
for the use of military force in Haiti. Yet, they insist on moving down 
this path.
  What is the cause behind that insistence? Well, it cannot be that 
there is a national interest there. Maybe there is a domestic political 
interest there, and some cynical people would say that. I am afraid 
that as I watch this administration's policies unfold, I am becoming 
such a cynical person, because I do not see that they have any other 
purpose, any other cause than one which would be for the purposes of 
domestic consumption.
  So this Congress, this Senate, should use its authority to 
participate in the debate in an aggressive way as to whether or not we 
should be using American military forces in Haiti. The way we should be 
doing that is by passing a resolution that has some authority and has 
some teeth which says to the President: Listen, explain to us what your 
purposes are in Haiti before you invade Haiti. We do not have to tie 
his hands, as he is the Commander in Chief. We do not have to say: No, 
you cannot do it under any circumstance without coming for approval 
here. But we should at least pass a resolution that says that we have 
authority that you, Mr. President, must explain to the Congress, and 
therefore the American people, what is the logic of this precipitous 
action which you appear to be ready to undertake.
  That explanation has not been forthcoming, and I regret that. We did 
pass a resolution in this body that said essentially that, but it was a 
sense-of-the-Senate. Therefore, the administration has ignored it, and 
I, therefore, maintain my position which, when I offered an amendment 
earlier, said that there should be enforcement mechanisms behind that 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would require the President to 
explain to us his purposes in invading this nation.
  The inconsistency which this administration participates in in 
discussing its policies on Haiti are startling. Again and again, they 
have said contradictory things. Just this weekend, for example, you had 
Secretary Christopher and Ambassador Albright giving two opposing views 
on what the administration expects to do once they invade and take 
control of Haiti.
  Secretary Christopher said that he would not require the military 
leaders who are presently in charge of Haiti to leave Haiti. Ambassador 
Albright said yes, they would have to leave Haiti. That is within a 
half hour of each other. That is a very significant public policy 
position.
  Then we have had the issue of when will and how will American troops 
get out of Haiti once they are in there. Members of the administration 
said it will take up to 20,000 troops to invade Haiti. When will they 
leave?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Is there objection to 
morning business being extended accordingly?
  Hearing no objection, the Senator is recognized for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the administration has said it will take 20,000 troops 
to invade Haiti, 20,000 American lives that will be put at risk, and 
they will be at risk.
  It is talked about as if this would occur as an overnight event. 
Maybe it will. But the fact is that Port-au-Prince is a dangerous 
place, and keeping peace in Port-au-Prince will be a difficult 
undertaking and American lives will be at significant risk.
  The question is, How do we get the 20,000 troops out of Haiti once 
there? Once again, the administration is unclear on that policy. They 
have said that they intend to have a peacekeeping force of 6,000 
individuals, half of whom may well be made up of Americans. That is the 
language that they have used. That means up to 3,000 people, 3,000 
American military personnel, will be kept in Haiti for an extended 
period of time. In fact, Mr. Christopher said it will be through 1996. 
That is a long time to have American troops walking the streets of 
Haiti, risking their lives for whatever outrage may be perpetrated on 
them by some disgruntled faction within a country that has always been 
extraordinarily violent.
  Then we have the fact, where are the rest of the troops going to come 
from that are going to be used for this peacekeeping undertaking? Well, 
so far, the report is that the other Caribbean nations that have been 
petitioned by this administration to participate in this event have 
made an agreement that they will be willing to offer up to 250 
individuals, 250 troops. That is a far cry from the 3,000 or so that 
are going to be needed to man the peacekeeping effort.
  So one suspects that not only will we end up with 3,000 troops there, 
but we will end up with many more thousands of troops there trying to 
keep peace in this country, which has an inordinantly long history of 
violence and fratricide.
  Every day that they are there, probably, we are going to have to 
answer the question, because one American or another will have his or 
her life threatened in some way, and maybe one will be injured or will 
unfortunately lose his or her life. Every day they are there, we are 
going to have to ask the questions: Why did we go; why are we there; 
and when are we going to get out?
  So far, we have no answers to any of those questions. So until this 
administration comes forward and explains to the American people what 
is our national interest in Haiti that requires us to put American 
lives at risk, a minimum of 20,000 in the initial invasion and a 
minimum of 3,000 over a period of time, as we try to keep peace in that 
country after we have invaded--what is the national interest? Explain 
it to us, Mr. President, because I am not aware of it, and I do not 
think most Members of this body are aware of it. And I do not think the 
American people are aware of it.
  If there is a national interest, once we get in, how are we going to 
get out?
  As the Senator from Indiana mentioned, the last time we invaded 
Haiti, we went there to be there for 6 months. That was in 1915. We 
left in 1934, 19 years later.
  It is clear from Secretary Christopher's own statement that they 
expect the occupation to last at least through 1996 and to involve 
literally thousands of Americans troops. How do we get those troops 
out? What is the scenario that allows us to remove them from that 
ravaged country, that country that is so full of violence, that will 
put so many American lives at risk. We have no definition of goal, and 
therefore we have no definition of what the end is, and therefore we 
have no definition of when the American troops will be coming out of 
that country.
  This administration is on the wrong track. Invasion of Haiti is a 
mistake. It will put at risk American lives without having properly 
explained to the American people why, and it will be very difficult for 
those of us who are Senators in this body to go back to our 
constituents, our friends, and our neighbors if one of their children 
or one of their husbands or one of their wives shall have died in this 
invasion, or shall have been severely wounded in this invasion, and 
look them in the face and say that it was a good purpose that they went 
for, that it was an American purpose that they fought for, because it 
is not. And the President seems to be unable to explain to us what is 
there that causes us to be willing to put at risk those very precious 
lives.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________