[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]

 
                           INVASION OF HAITI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] said 
that there is an idea afoot that it is only Republican obstructionism 
that stands in opposition to the invasion of Haiti. I am ordinarily in 
agreement with my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], but 
quite frankly, I find it difficult in this Chamber, with the exception 
of certain special interest caucuses, to find hardly anyone, Republican 
or Democrat, who stands in support of invading Haiti.
  Indeed, I would call to the attention of the House something here I 
want to share. I find that one of the preeminent Democratic leaders in 
Missouri, our former U.S. Senator, Thomas Eagleton, has made a most 
poignant and persuasive statement in an article that appeared last 
Sunday in the St. Louis Post Dispatch in opposition to invading Haiti.
  Under the heading, ``Haiti Endangers the U.S. Constitution,'' Senator 
Eagleton wrote, I want to read, I want to share this, this is so 
poignant, his statement, that I want to share it with my colleagues and 
I will offer a little commentary of my own. But he said it so well, I 
do not want to digress too much from what Senator Eagleton had to say.

       Secretary of State Warren Christopher all but tells us that 
     the decision to invade Haiti has been made. October might be 
     the best made. October might be the best time politically, 
     when there will be no annoying voices around town to object 
     or question why. We already know the name of the first 
     casualty of the Haiti invasion, the Constitution of the 
     United States. The Constitution very clearly gives to 
     Congress the authority to declare war and the President the 
     duty, once war is declared, to wage it as Commander in Chief.

  Let us remember, as I am sharing this commentary with you, that 
Senator Eagleton was the father of the War Powers Act, which so often 
is referred to in this body.

                              {time}  1100

  He is a person who knows this subject of which he speaks. He goes on 
to say:

       Congress most recently faced up to this responsibility in 
     the Persian Gulf war. On January 12, 1991, the Senate, by a 
     vote of 52 to 47, and the House of Representatives, by a vote 
     of 250 to 183, authorized President George Bush to use 
     American Armed Forces against Iraq.

  Mr. Speaker, I very clearly remember the debate at that time. It was 
in the form of what we called the Bennett resolution: Did Congress have 
to authorize the President to do what President Bush was proposing to 
do in the Persian Gulf?
  There were those who disagreed. Obviously 183 people voted against 
authorizing the President to use force against Iraq, but I was one of 
those who believed that Congress did have to vote, so I was one of the 
250 who voted for the Bennett resolution that said Congress did have to 
vote to authorize such an involvement.
  No question about it, the Persian Gulf war was a lot different than 
this prospective invasion of Haiti. The vital security and economic 
interest of the United States was at stake there. No such issue is at 
stake at all here vis-a-vis Haiti.
  Senator Eagleton goes on to say:

       The gulf war was, to be sure, a big deal: We sent 400,000 
     American troops half a world away. Haiti, at least the 
     invading of it, is a little deal: We will send 10,000 troops 
     into a lightly armed, bankrupt nation in our own back yard. 
     In the gulf war, we got in and got our ground forces out 
     expeditiously. In Haiti, we, in some guise or other, are 
     going to be there a while. In the gulf war, we had the 
     assistance of allies like great Britain, France, Saudi 
     Arabia, Egypt, and Syria. In Haiti we will have the vigorous 
     support of troops from Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and 
     Belize, 265 strong.

  He goes on and says a lot of other things, and, Mr. Speaker, I will 
include the entire Eagleton commentary from the St. Louis Post Dispatch 
of Sunday, September 11, at the conclusion of my remarks in the Record, 
but, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to pull out a couple of other things 
that he said that I want you to hear:
  ``Alexander Hamilton stated,'' and this is quoting Senator Eagleton, 
``that in the scheme of orderly governance, certain things were `so 
delicate and momentous' that to entrust them `to the sole disposal' of 
the President was unwise. Hamilton spelled it out in the Federalist 
papers.''

  He concluded that--

       It was the authoritarian powers of the British king that 
     the Framers did not wish to replicate in establishing the 
     executive branch of the Constitution. War was too important 
     to be left to the whims of one man.

  Mr. Speaker, I commend to the President his earnest reconsideration 
of the prospect of invading Haiti. There is a lot wrong there. I think 
we should pursue our goals and ambitions through an orderly, diplomatic 
approach, rather than the use of troops. I seriously and sincerely urge 
the President to reconsider what I think, we all think, he is about to 
do.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record Senator Eagleton's article in 
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 11, 1994]

                   Haiti Endangers U.S. Constitution

                          (By Thomas Eagleton)

       Secretary of State Warren Christopher all but tells us that 
     the decision to invade Haiti has been made. October might be 
     the best time politically--when there will be no annoying 
     voices around town to object or question why.
       We already know the name of the first casualty of the Haiti 
     invasion: the Constitution of the United States.
       The Constitution very clearly gives to Congress the 
     authority to declare war and to the president the duty, once 
     war is declared, to wage it as commander in chief.
       Congress most recently faced up to this responsibility in 
     the Persian Gulf War. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate, by a vote 
     of 52 to 47, and the House of Representatives, by a vote of 
     250 to 183, authorized President George Bush to use American 
     armed forces against Iraq.
       The gulf war was, to be sure, a big deal: We sent 400,000 
     American troops half a world away. Haiti, at least the 
     invading of it, is a little deal: We will send 10,000 troops 
     into a lightly armed, bankrupt nation in our own back yard. 
     In the gulf war, we got in and got our ground forces out 
     expeditiously. In Haiti, we, in some guise or other, are 
     going to be there a while. In the gulf war, we had the 
     assistance of allies like Great Britain, France, Saudi 
     Arabia, Egypt and Syria. In Haiti, we will have the vigorous 
     support of troops from Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and 
     Belize--265 strong.
       The scale of a war, however, does not affect the 
     constitutional requirement for congressional authorization. 
     (Military action can be initiated by ``declaring war'' or 
     ``authoriz- ing'' it by resolution.) To the Founding Fathers, 
     all wars were important. James Madison considered war ``among 
     the greatest national calamities.'' Madison wrote, ``In no 
     part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in 
     the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the 
     legislature and not to the executive department.'' George 
     Mason said that he was ``for clogging, rather than 
     facilitating war.''
       Alexander Hamilton stated that, in the scheme of orderly 
     governance, certain things were ``so delicate and momentous'' 
     that to entrust them ``to the sole disposal'' of the 
     president was unwise.
       Hamilton spelled it out in the Federalist Papers:
       The President is the commander in chief of the army and 
     navy of the United States. In this respect, his authority 
     would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great 
     Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would 
     amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction 
     of the military and naval forces, as first general and 
     admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king 
     extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and 
     regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the 
     Constitution under consideration would appertain to the 
     Legislature.
       It was the authoritarian powers of the British king that 
     the framers did not wish to replicate in establishing the 
     executive branch of the Constitution. War was too important 
     to be left to the whims of one man.
       A U.N. Security Council resolution and a resolution from 
     the Caribbean Community and Common Market dealing with Haiti 
     are not the constitutional equivalent of a vote by Congress 
     authorizing the invasion of Haiti by American military 
     forces. Why do we pursue the approval of multinational 
     organizations and ignore the one entity that the Constitution 
     mandates be consulted? Bear in mind, when Haiti is seized by 
     American forces, it is the U.S. Congress that will have to 
     appropriate the money to keep the impoverished nation afloat. 
     No other nation or organization will give them a dime.
       But no one seems to care about the constitutional niceties. 
     No member of Congress wants to force the issue. No one is 
     anxious to have his or her fingerprints on the decision.
       If all goes well, if but few lives are lost, if we are in 
     and out in a reasonable period of time, then everyone can 
     claim to have been supportive of the effort. Everyone wins. 
     On the contrary, if the mission, over time, is marred by 
     failure or if we have to fund Haiti as something akin to a 
     vassal province, then everyone can say, ``I told you so. It 
     never should have happened. It's all Clinton's fault.''
       On something as dicey as Haiti, it's better to stand up and 
     be counted--afterward. That may not constitute a profile in 
     courage, but it sure as hell beats voting on a hot potato 
     right before an election.

                          ____________________