[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN HAITI

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, these are dangerous days for our troops in 
Haiti. Today is the third anniversary of the coup d'etat that 
supplanted the elected Government of Haiti, and massive demonstrations 
are expected. The climate of violence is obvious to anyone who watched 
television news reports yesterday and this morning. As was amply 
demonstrated just yesterday, when a grenade or other explosive device 
was tossed into a group of Aristide supporters, killing at least five 
Haitians and wounding many more, there is the potential for the 
demonstrations today to erupt into Haitian-on-Haitian violence. And 
United States troops could very easily get caught in the middle by 
acting, as they are, as the guarantors of President Aristide's return 
and as the only civil police force for large areas of Haiti.
  This has always been my greatest concern regarding Haiti, that United 
States forces on the ground could again, as they did so tragically in 
Somalia, become prize targets for the Haitian military and other 
opponents to the intervention and to President Aristide's return. 
Today, tensions could rise to a flashpoint. October 15th could be 
another flashpoint, as are dates linked to the departure of the 
military junta, to legislative campaigns, and to legislative elections. 
I raised these concerns with the President in a meeting over two months 
ago and expressed my opposition to an invasion of Haiti. I believed 
then, as I believe now, that a United States military intervention in 
Haiti is an extremely risky proposition, with a dangerous potential to 
expand into a difficult and lengthy exercise in nation-building.
  Although an invasion, as such, did not occur, almost 20,000 U.S. 
troops are now on the ground in this risk-filled environment. And 
according to the Pentagon spokesman, that number may rise, despite 
earlier assurances that only 15,000 troops would be needed and that 
those numbers would rapidly decrease. I believe that the Congress has a 
responsibility to those troops, and a responsibility to the 
Constitution--which we swore an oath to support and defend--we have a 
responsibility to weigh in on this issue. We were not in on the 
takeoff, but we are not without responsibility and recourse. I firmly 
believe that we ought to establish an end date for this operation, with 
a funding cutoff. I cursorily outlined my views on this issue yesterday 
on this floor when I suggested that February 15, 1995, was a reasonable 
end date for this operation. But, I am not at all tied to that date, 
and may very well support an earlier one. I would prefer an earlier, 
rather than a later, date for the end of this operation.

  Anything less than a cutoff of funds for this operation is 
inadequate, an abdication of Congress' role with respect to the power 
of the purse and the constitutionally mandated role in raising and 
supporting armies and providing and maintaining a navy.
  James Madison stated,

       Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of 
     things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be 
     commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the 
     latter functions by a great principle in free government, 
     analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, 
     or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

  This Congress is charged by the Constitution with the very great 
responsibility of making those determinations, of whether a war ought 
to be commenced, continued, or concluded, just as it is charged with 
the responsibility of raising and supporting armies and providing and 
maintaining a navy. Although this is not a war in the sense of the 
constitutional phrase, ``to declare war,'' this Congress has a 
responsibility to act on this issue, because it is a very volatile 
environment in which American fighting men and women are potentially 
the target of actions as deadly as in an all-out shooting war. And, 
through the power of the purse, this Congress has the means, and indeed 
the solemn duty, to enforce its judgment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________