[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
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]

 
                     MILITARY ACTION AGAINST HAITI

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I must confess to you that many, many 
of my constituents have asked me how it is and why it is that the 
United States would seem to be prepared to undertake a military action 
against Haiti.
  I have to tell you that I find it difficult myself to respond in a 
logical fashion as to why that should be. More troubling are the 
statements that come out of the administration, whether they be by 
Secretary Christopher or Madeleine Albright, our U.N. Ambassador, as it 
relates to the justification that is being put forth for such an act.
  I have to ask myself if the President of the United States can go to 
the U.N. for approval of such an act, then certainly should not that 
same consideration be given to the Congress of the United States? 
Should that case not be made for why it is that an invasion and 
military action in Haiti is to be undertaken? Should there not be a 
debate here in the Congress of the United States before the American 
people?
  This is not a question of an invasion or an action being taken in a 
manner to rescue someone. We had the use of military force in Grenada. 
One of the reasons that we moved with the speed that we did was that 
there was the potential for loss of American lives, and Americans were 
being held hostage at a medical facility there. We quickly extracted 
our American troops and the U.S. citizens who were endangered there, 
and this operation was never questioned. That is not the case here.
  We have been speaking about this, preparing for this, and now we have 
a situation where the Haitian junta has been clearly notified of an 
imminent military engagement. We are not going to be jeopardizing lives 
by speaking as to whether or not we should or should not invade Haiti. 
This is not a question where speed and a quick strike is going to make 
the difference. This really comes down to a question of the 
justification for independent military action by the President. Haiti 
is not an unexpected threat to our national security.
  I have had people say, well, what about Panama? And I have raised the 
question that we had American lives at stake and we had vital American 
interests at stake, the Panama Canal.
  In Haiti this is not the case. We have no U.S. lives and no immediate 
threat to American interests. We do not have the Communists building 
bases, as they were at that time in Grenada, with both the Soviets and 
the Cubans making overtures to expand their sphere of influence there.
  I would like to note that President Bush sought and received 
congressional approval prior to the start of the gulf war. He went to 
the United Nations, but the drums were loud and clear, and he knew that 
that was not sufficient. If he was going to engage in a military 
action, he knew that the Congress of the United States should be 
consulted and there was vigorous debate both for and against.
  How is it now that the situation has turned so dramatically? I have 
heard people say that well, the President and his national security 
adviser, Mr. Lake, made these pronouncements, and now if he were not to 
go forward with this ``it would jeopardize his standing.''
  That is not sufficient reason to put any of the lives of our young 
men and women in harm's way, because of concern over the President's 
standing. And, by the way, if he has a good case and if there are those 
in the Congress who feel that he can and he should, well, then, fine; 
let us do it. But let us not do it in some manner which is not 
prescribed by law or the Constitution or by logic or emergency. If you 
have a dire emergency, if U.S. lives are in danger, then we should 
move, and the President should move quickly, and I would support him in 
this action. There is no doubt, that is not the case with Haiti.
  Now, if this is an invasion and it is being undertaken for political 
reasons, then, Madam President, it is wrong. It is immoral, and it 
should not take place. Not one life should be lost or risked for the 
sake of political advantage.
  The people of the United States will rally behind our troops whether 
we believe in a particular cause or not because they are our young men 
and our young women. But should we put them into harm's way, should we 
endanger their lives simply to pump up the polls, as has been 
suggested? I would say resoundingly no. It does not matter whether one 
be a Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative, they would come 
down and say, no, we should not be jeopardizing the lives of our young 
Americans simply for someone or some side to look better in the polls. 
If that is the reason, then shame on those who would be going forth 
with an invasion any place at any time.
  That is what is taking place here. I would like to know why it is we 
in Congress should not be consulted. What is the imperative to prevent 
us from sanctioning such an action?
  We know there would be an overwhelming military victory within a 
relatively short period of time. But do we know what the cost will be 
in terms of lives as time goes by? How much is this operation costing 
us? And once we do achieve some military victory, as overwhelming as it 
might be, what then? What happens then?
  How many lives should be placed at risk? I do not think one. But once 
we have this overwhelming victory and there are no lives lost--and I do 
not believe that can be the case, I certainly do not think we could 
assume that--how long will our young men and women be obligated to 
defend whatever administration comes to power? What will be the role of 
our soldiers? How long will they have to stay there? Will they then 
become, in effect, the policemen for this island of 7 million people? 
How many of them will be required? What happens if there is an 
insurrection? Whom do they defend? What acts do they take?
  Is this nation building? Do we undertake this action in similar cases 
as it relates to countries, whether they be island countries or others 
that are in our hemisphere?
  Is this the beginning of a new doctrine, that we go to the United 
Nations and we get permission to use our troops for this kind of 
military or police action in our own hemisphere?
  These are questions that need to be answered. I do not have all the 
answers. I think the American people, and I think that the young men 
and women whom we ask to defend this Nation, take an oath and pledge to 
do so, place themselves at great risk, and they have a right to know 
why it is and how it is that they will be expected to put their lives 
on the line in an invasion of Haiti.
  Are we going to be calling up reserves? How many reservists?
  Again, what about the costs of this action? I have heard some 
estimates as high as $500 million. Is that $500 million for what period 
of time? To the end of this budget year, to when? Is it more if we stay 
there a longer period of time?
  I want to see democracy in Haiti. I recognize this is a very complex 
and difficult issue. I do not believe that we should tolerate the 
status quo. I think we should use all of our power and wherewithal in 
concert with our allies to seek a way to bring about freedom and 
eliminate those totalitarian forces that have taken charge, the 
colonels and their goons.
  We were able to do that without invasion as it related to Baby Doc 
Duvalier. We got Baby Doc out of there. He was certainly no paragon of 
virtue. He had the military under his command. We were able to 
eventually make him an offer he could not refuse and he left Haiti.
  I am not suggesting that the administration has not tried, but I 
suggest that maybe they have not tried hard enough and thoughtfully 
enough, and have not brought more pressure to bear on the junta, short 
of invasion.
  Let me tell you, there are dictatorships throughout this world. Do we 
send troops into each one?
  It seems to me that no one has justified national interests and goals 
and what it will cost in terms of lives and the disruption and the 
damage to our troops and their families.
  So I would hope that this action is not being contemplated to justify 
or to raise someone's stature in the polls, to look politically better, 
then this is not the way a great democracy should be conducting itself.
  I am deeply saddened to think that we even have come to a point where 
probably more Americans think that this may be taking place for exactly 
that reason--political advantage. If we have really reached that point 
in time in the life of this country, it is a very sad commentary about 
what the greatest democracy on the face of this Earth has come to 
represent. If it means that we are so desperate for election and for 
power that we would place in harm's way our young men and women, then 
how far have we slipped? And what would our forefathers think about our 
Nation conducting its foreign policy and the use of the military for 
these purposes?
  I hope that is not the case. I hope that they are not attempting to 
gain political advantage by the use of the military. That would be a 
very sorry, sorry situation, a very sorry time in the history of this 
Nation, a nation that has stood up for democracy, yes, whose young men 
and women have given their lives, shed their blood for the safety of 
this country, for democracy to beat down the forces that would deprive 
us and others of freedom.
  I do not believe that we should engage in this kind of action until 
and unless these questions can be fully answered.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________