[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO DEBATE AND VOTE ON POTENTIAL INVASION OF 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, I think Americans need to know what has been 
going on here today that may not have been quite so evident by 
following C-SPAN and some of the remarks in the corridors. A concerted 
effort has been being made to try and get to the floor of the people's 
House debate on whether we should invade Haiti or not.
  Mr. Speaker, trying to get that debate going has been frustrated at 
every turn by the Democratic leadership of this House, who do not want 
that debate to come forward, apparently. We have seen in our 1 minutes, 
our special orders, in our morning business, a domination of the theme 
of ``Why are we talking about invading Haiti?'' Even in the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs meeting this morning, there was an amendment tacked 
onto a piece of legislation to try and bring the issue forward through 
that committee process, which was, by our House rules, properly ruled 
out of order, but nevertheless, part of the desperation, in a sense, 
that we need to find a way to get this topic right here on the front 
row, in the front seat, because that is what we are talking about in 
America today. That is what is happening right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we understand that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] has asked for special orders, and 
others have asked that we provide special types of instructions in 
conference reports today, and in every turn so far we have been unable 
to get the main issue to the floor, which I think most Members of 
Congress want to see, and that is a debate on whether it is a good idea 
to invade Haiti or not.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be people on both sides of that issue, 
undoubtedly, but most people, I would hope, would favor the idea that 
the debates should come now, in the House of the people, because that 
is one of the main reasons we are here. It is one of the reasons we 
pick up a paycheck, and it seems to me there is no justification for 
not letting that debate come forward.

                              {time}  1620

  Here we are talking about getting ready to launch this invasion, 
pictures of aircraft carriers, troops loading up, kissing their loved 
ones goodbye. We are talking even today about calling up the reserves 
perhaps. We have editorials in the major newspapers in the country 
speaking on this, all of this going on, despite the fact that the 
polls, as recently as yesterday, show that three-fourths of Americans 
do not want to invade Haiti and three-fourths or more do not even 
understand and are asking us, please take up the issue in Congress 
before anything happens.
  So with that kind of lopsided support to have a debate and to not 
have an invasion, it strikes me as very curious that the democratic 
leadership is not letting that issue come forward to the well of the 
House.
  Why would that happen? I do not want to get into the motivation of 
why President Clinton feels that he has to invade Haiti when there are 
clearly other choices. But I would suggest that one of the reasons 
perhaps why the Democratic leadership does not want this to come 
forward might be found in today's edition of USA Today which I will 
quote very briefly. I am quoting the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hamilton]. He says:

       Suppose you have a resolution and it's defeated in either 
     House. That just sends a terrible signal to the world about 
     the conduct of American foreign policy.

  I think it is important to say that this debate is no longer about 
sending signals. This debate is about sending America's men and women 
into harm's way where they could get killed in a military action. That 
is a very different thing than talking about whether our foreign policy 
is working well or not. In some places it is and in some places it is 
not.
  I think that it is very clear we have another course besides invasion 
to solve the problems of Haiti. It is ironic that the Parliament in 
Haiti just yesterday voted to extend its session so they could continue 
to negotiate with us. We have an invitation from the parliamentarians 
from the Chamber of Deputies in Haiti that want to talk with the 
legislators here, that want to talk with the Government here and work 
out a solution to this problem. They are not interested in an invasion, 
either. These were duly elected, democratically elected in free, 
fair elections parliamentarians we are talking about. These are not 
stooges of the military. These are people just like myself and the 
other representatives here who were elected in a free democratic 
election trying to find a solution to help build democracy in that 
country other than at the barrel of a gun which is what the Clinton 
administration tells us we now must do.

  When we come to the justification of why are we doing that, there is 
no reasonable answer. It is because Haiti is close, it is because they 
have a drug problem, it is because this or that. There is no 
justification.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Weinberger a few years ago in a speech that I keep 
referring to said five basic things before you used U.S. force:
  First, is it in the national interest? The President has not 
demonstrated that Haiti is in the national interest, for going.
  Second, is there a plan, an achievable goal if we intervene? The 
President has clearly not demonstrated it.
  Third, is there an exit strategy, can we get in and can we get out? 
The President has not even begun to think about the exit strategy.
  Fourth, does he have the support of the American people and the U.S. 
Congress? He clearly does not.
  Without meeting those requirements, I would say to the gentleman from 
Florida, committing military forces without meeting the points that 
Weinberger so brilliantly stated several years ago will get us into 
quicksand, not just here but all over the world. It would be a terrible 
mistake for us to go without forcing a vote here and forcing the 
President to lay his plans out.
  Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman for taking this special 
order.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman and am happy to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PENNY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I especially 
appreciate his willingness to yield on short notice to me so that I 
might add some thoughts regarding this issue of potential military 
action in Haiti.

                          ____________________