[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]

 
                       IMMINENT INVASION OF HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sangmeister). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State 
Warren Christopher, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright have all 
announced that they intend to invade Haiti upon the authorization not 
of the U.S. Congress but of the United Nations, without the 
authorization of Congress. Why? Why is it that Bill Clinton is willing 
to seek a vote to invade Haiti from the United Nations but not from the 
U.S. Congress?
  It is because while he claims that the purpose is to safeguard 
democracy, to defend democracy, the actual stated objective of this 
military mission is to install a Marxist demagog, Jean-Bertrand 
Aristide. Just before the erratic Mr. Aristide was ousted from Haiti he 
made a remarkable speech about necklacing. That is the habit of his own 
supporters of burning their opponents, their political opponents to 
death by putting a necklace comprising a tire filled with gasoline 
around the head of the victims. This is what Jean-Bertrand Aristide 
said about necklacing:

       What a nice tool, what a nice instrument, what a nice 
     device. It is a pretty one. It is elegant, attractive, 
     splendorous, graceful and dazzling. It smells good. Wherever 
     you go you feel like smelling it.

  If put to a vote, the U.S. Congress would not support a policy built 
around Jean-Bertrand Aristide. We would support a policy built around 
freedom and democracy, but not around this erratic Marxist.
  We are led to believe that politics has nothing to do with the 
planned invasion. Notwithstanding the views of Democrats and 
Republicans in this House, notwithstanding the views as recorded by ABC 
overnight of 73 percent I believe it was of the American people in 
opposition to such an invasion, we were led to believe that politics 
has nothing to do with this. Yet I have here a confidential memorandum, 
attention the Secretary General of the United Nations from Dante 
Caputo, U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti, dated May 23.
  He says and I quote now from his confidential memorandum:

       Over the past 15 days I had the pleasure of meeting several 
     times with Strobe Talbott and other officials of the American 
     State Department. The conclusions that I am drawing today are 
     as follows: One, the U.S. administration considers that an 
     invasion of Haiti is its best option.

  This memo is dated May 23 and reads confidential, and it is based on 
meetings that this U.N. Special Envoy had with our highest officials in 
the State Department.
  The memo goes on, ``In the same fashion the President of the United 
States' main advisers are of the opinion that not only does this 
option,'' the invasion, military invasion of Haiti, ``constitute the 
lesser evil, but that it is politically desirable.'' Politically 
desirable. This is on May 23, and we have heard much since then about 
the desirability of negotiations, not invasion. This memorandum gives 
the lie to that.
  It goes on, ``The Americans see in this type of action,'' the 
invasion of Haiti, ``the chance to show, after the strong media 
criticism of the administration, the President's decision-making 
capability and the firmness of leadership in international political 
matters.''
  These are terrible reasons to commit U.S. soldiers to combat. We 
ought not to be thwarting the wishes of this Congress, thwarting the 
wishes of the American people in order to vindicate a political 
strategy built around showing the Presidents decisiveness and 
leadership in international political matters.
  The fact is that the verdict is already in on these things. The 
international community is not willing to participate in an invasion 
force. Only are they willing to participate afterward, possibly, as 
members of a peacekeeping organization once the United States 
unilaterally invades. But if the U.S. is unilaterally going to invade, 
then why is it that this House, the House of Representatives, will not 
debate and vote upon the wisdom of an invasion of Haiti?
  Today, this House was presented with a proposal for a privileged 
resolution by one of my Democratic colleagues. Several of my Democratic 
colleagues, some of them who consider themselves liberals, came in 
support of the notion that we debate and vote upon the wisdom of an 
invasion of Haiti. I myself offered my own privileged resolution which 
under our rules should come up on Monday.
  There is no reason, not surprise, not secrecy, not imminent threats 
of harm to U.S. citizens that would prevent us from debating this 
question here in the House of Representatives. We must do so at once. 
It is the duty of every Member of this House to live up to his or her 
constitutional responsibility under article 1, section 8. It is the 
Congress of the United States that should make this decision whether to 
invade Haiti or not.

                          ____________________