[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]

 
 A CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MILITARY ACTION IN HAITI

  (Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine 
Albright explained on the talk shows that the administration's proposed 
action in Haiti was merely a police action and directly implied that 
there was no need to consult the Congress or otherwise seek the support 
of the American people before going into Haiti.
  Mr. Speaker, I resent the implication, and I think the American 
people reject the suggestion, that the United Nations approval 
supersedes that of the American people.
  Indeed, on August 3, 3 days after the administration received U.N. 
approval, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution asserting that 
U.N. approval ``does not constitute authorization for the deployment of 
U.S. Armed Forces in Haiti under the Constitution of the United States 
or pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.''
  The latest ABC News poll indicates nearly 75 percent of Americans 
oppose an invasion of Haiti; Americans oppose an invasion by two-to-one 
even if it's done in conjunction with a multinational force.
  The basic question is: What compelling United States national 
interest is served by an invasion and occupation of Haiti? This 
question must be answered by the President to the satisfaction of the 
American people and this body.
  Any attempt by the President to answer this question must fully 
address both the risks in terms of American lives, and the costs in 
terms of our Nation's credibility.
  Any answer by the President must also address the question of an exit 
strategy. It must be clear to the American people that this is not 
another fool's errand which will end only when we are forced out in 
some ignominious manner.
  Having threatened repeatedly to use force, the President has backed 
himself into a position where his foreign policy credibility--already 
sorely strained by flip-flops on Bosnia, China and Vietnam, and Haiti--
is on the line, and sadly, along with it, the very credibility of the 
United States is increasingly questioned around the world.
  This is not an argument for invading Haiti, but rather for clearly 
stating the goals of an invasion and limiting them to the concrete and 
attainable so that the action--however avoidable and regrettable it may 
be judged--is at least accomplished with the minimum loss of life and 
national credibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people will remain opposed, as will I, 
until President Clinton makes his best case to the Nation that the 
invasion of Haiti--and the attendant likelihood of American 
casualties--is vital to the national security and will advance 
America's interests.
  That case has not been made. It will be a very hard case to make. But 
it must be made if the President is to proceed with the support of the 
American people.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this timely 
subject again to the podium of the House of Representatives. It is the 
most current of all issues. Is it not ironic, I ask the gentleman, that 
the United Nations would approve our action and the Organization of 
American States would approve our action but the action would be taken 
without the approval of the U.S. Congress? That is a supreme irony 
which the gentleman has borne out in his statements.
  Mr. ROYCE. It is more than just an irony. It is also quite improper 
in terms of the Constitution.

                          ____________________