[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]

 
                                 HAITI

  Mr. SPECTER. At the outset, I state that I both agree and disagree 
with the Senator from Arizona on his comments as to Haiti. I agree with 
him on the extraordinarily bad public policy judgment to invade Haiti, 
but I respectfully disagree with him on the issue of constitutionality 
and on the issue as to whether the Senate of the United States ought to 
be in the business of giving advice to the President.
  I think that is our role. I think that is our role because, 
constitutionally, the Senate has extraordinary powers on foreign 
policy, on treaties, on advise and consent, and the Congress as a 
whole, both Houses, have extraordinary power on the very basic 
proposition of declaration of war.
  Last week, I wrote to the President a very short letter, which I will 
read.

       Dear Mr. President: I am very deeply concerned about the 
     announcements coming from your administration that you intend 
     to order an invasion of Haiti. I believe that it is 
     extraordinarily bad judgment for you to order the United 
     States to invade Haiti as a matter of public policy. I 
     believe that you do not have the constitutional authority to 
     order an invasion of Haiti without prior congressional 
     authorization on the current state of the record.

  There are two questions posed on the Haiti issue. First, what should 
the United States public policy be on an invasion of Haiti? And, 
second, who has the constitutional authority to make that decision?
  Mr. President, the Constitution is unequivocal. It is only the 
Congress of the United States which has the authority to declare war. 
The executive branch, the President, makes the argument that the 
President has the constitutional authority to make war. That simply 
does not make any sense. It does not make any common sense and does not 
make any legal sense. If the President has the authority to make war, 
what is the value of the constitutional mandate that only the Congress 
has the authority to declare war? Absolutely none.
  This is a question which I have consistently asked nominees to the 
Supreme Court of the United States. And it is customary for the 
nominees to duck that kind of a question. But even the most recent 
nominee, Justice Breyer, conceded that Korea was a war and the issue of 
Korea and especially Vietnam show the erosion of the constitutional 
authority of Congress on its sole authority to declare war.
  The analogies of Grenada and Panama are not similar to the Haitian 
situation. There, at least there was some indicator of an emergency 
situation for Presidential action, although I will not speak long in 
defense of the Presidential action there, thinking that the better 
course in both of those cases would have been to come to the Congress 
of the United States.
  The best analogy is the analogy of United States action in Kuwait, 
where the United Nations authorized the use of force on January 15. 
Weeks, months intervened between that declaration and United States 
preparations to move in to retake Kuwait from Iraq. At that point, many 
of us spoke out, I among them. It was not a matter of Democrats or 
Republicans. I said that a Republican President, George Bush, had a 
constitutional duty to come to the Congress before conducting a 
military operation in Kuwait. And, similarly, the Democratic President, 
William Clinton, has the constitutional duty to come to the United 
States Congress before conducting an invasion of Haiti.
  There is no precedent, Mr. President--no precedent at all--in U.S. 
history for action by the President alone without congressional 
authority where there is as much time as has elapsed for Congress to 
act one way or another on this issue. We have had months of the record 
being established on whatever U.S. interests there are, and under these 
circumstances it is a clear-cut congressional prerogative.
  When we come to the question of what the policy should be, there is 
an extraordinary list of arguments now being made. The most recent 
argument, listed No. 1 by administration officials just yesterday, is 
the credibility of the United States. If our Government is to act on 
everything that President Clinton declares, we would have a hard time 
knowing when and where to act with so many changes of policy by 
President Clinton. He has talked about military action in Bosnia on 
many occasions. Does that bind the United States? Does that bind the 
Congress of the United States to military action in Bosnia?
  The President expanded the United States operation in Somalia. It was 
only when the Congress voted to cut off the funds as of March 31 that 
the United States withdrew the military operation in Somalia.
  When you talk about protecting U.S. policy on immigration, we can 
solve that problem without a war. When you talk about restoring 
democracy in Haiti, with special emphasis on its being a Western 
Hemisphere nation, if we are to take that tack, why not around the 
world? If we are to take that tack even in the Western Hemisphere, 
there are many nations where we would be intervening.
  Haiti has had a 200-year history with very little democracy. We were 
in Haiti for 19 years after a 1915 invasion. What good did that do? 
When we talk about the suffering of the Haitians and the human rights 
issues, that is a matter of enormous concern. But then what about 
Rwanda, what about Somalia, what about Bosnia, what about north 
Philadelphia? There are examples given about the rape of a 13-year-old 
girl, which is atrocious; a murder of a supporter of Aristide. You can 
go through a litany of crimes in major American cities where there 
ought to be more help for American citizens.
  The figleaf of international support is transparent when the 
Secretary of State talks about 1,500 from a group of other nations, 
conceding at the same time that there would be 20,000 U.S. troops 
involved and the other nations would not have any obligation or 
intention to come in until the field was secured. So it is U.S. 
fighting personnel who are going to be exposed to loss of life and 
limb. This is absolutely unjustified on the state of the record.
  I heard about it on the street as I traveled through Pennsylvania 
during the course of the past recess. I hear about it wherever I go. 
Last night at the football game in Philadelphia, between the Eagles and 
the Bears, the principal topic of conversation before the game started 
was not Randall Cunningham's throwing arm, but what was the United 
States going to do in Haiti? That is a concern all over this country.
  There is no doubt about the sense of the Congress voting 98 to 2 
against an invasion of Haiti, the sense of the Senate. When I offered a 
resolution specifically disallowing the authority of the President to 
invade Haiti, it was defeated largely along party lines.
  Mr. President, on this record, it is clear as a matter of public 
policy, at least as I see it, that we ought not to invade Haiti. And as 
a matter of constitutional law, I submit that it is plain that the 
President ought to come to the Congress before any action on an 
invasion of Haiti.
  Again, I thank my colleague, noting that I have come within the time 
limit, although it was close.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly do appreciate 
the Senator from Pennsylvania, both in his comments and also his 
willingness to stay within the time limit.

                          ____________________