[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       UNITED STATES HAITI POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier in this Chamber this week 
about the situation in Haiti, and I made the proposition do the 
American people really want to spend a billion dollars--a million 
precious--a billion dollars from our United States taxpayers on such a 
frivolous event as an invasion of Haiti, which is a friendly, 
neighboring country. I think not.
  I also wanted to examine some of the other damage of this very inept 
foreign policy that the Clinton Administration is persisting in. We are 
not making any friends in the Western Hemisphere.
  The one ally we had who sort of tentatively supported the idea of 
perhaps a multiforce invasion of Haiti was Argentina, and the President 
of Argentina, when he went back home and checked with the people in his 
country, changed his mind, suddenly decided that his word about joining 
us in a multilateral invasion of Haiti would not be possible because 
the people of his country had reversed his position. They did not want 
to invade Haiti either. That puts them very much in the majority 
opinion in this country and, frankly, in this Chamber. I am not sure 
that there is anybody who is calling for the invasion of Haiti in a 
serious way except the Clinton Administration.
  Our friends in Mexico, our new trading partners, are strenuously 
urging against it. Our friends from Uruguay, another trading partner 
and longtime Democratic ally in the Western Hemisphere also say no, do 
not invade. Brazil, ``for heaven's sakes, what are you talking about?'' 
All of these players, and Brazil is a major player in this hemisphere, 
I would point out, are saying look, why have we got such a clumsy 
policy? Why are we trying to force people to do something they do not 
want to do, that does not fit, which is not going to help the Haitians, 
and certainly not going to help the United States of America?
  In fact, it is not helping the cause of peace and human rights 
either, because now the embassy of Colombia and Argentina have closed 
their doors and have moved across the border from Haiti into the 
Dominican Republic because of threats of mischief and trouble stemming 
from all of this violence going on, caused by the pressure cauldron of 
our sanctions and embargo.
  Just as much trouble as President Clinton has had in selling his 
Haitian policy to our allies in the Western Hemisphere he is having 
selling it to Americans in his own country because the polls clearly 
shows Americans are not supporting this any more than the Members of 
Congress are supporting it.
  What is a little confusing to me is if the President has gone to the 
United Nations, and they have spoken, and the other body has spoken, 
why has not the Democratic leadership in this body brought the subject 
of Haiti to this floor? It is a legitimate question. It is a foreign 
policy question. It is certainly a question of human rights violations 
and suffering. All that we hear about the social needs, all we hear 
about the problems of the world, we are causing suffering by our policy 
in Haiti by withholding the medicines, the food, the support, the 
logistics that the very poor need there in that country which has been 
trashed. I challenge the leadership, the Democratic leadership: Why do 
we not bring forward some debate on our policy in Haiti?
  It is not just a question about the War Powers Act, it is not, it is 
about the misuse of our military for a misguided foreign policy. It is 
also a misguided foreign policy that has frankly encouraged the 
extremes in Haiti at the expense of the moderate concerns.
  Lawrence Pezzullo, who was formally the top man on Haiti for the 
White House, who has been fired, has written I think a very good piece, 
and I will read rather than paraphrase it. This comes from the 
Washington Post of Thursday, May 5, 1994, quoting Mr. Pezzullo: In 
February and March we saw legitimate parliamentarians who previously 
had opposed Aristide's return join forces with pro-Aristide legislators 
to call for his return. We saw conservative businessmen joining more 
progressive younger businessmen and pro-Aristide labor unions in 
calling for the departure of the country's military head.
  ``Unfortunately, this movement fell victim to intensive lobbying 
campaigns by both the extreme right, who saw the threat to their power, 
and Aristide's expatriate entourage, which incorrectly labeled the idea 
of a coalition with the majority of parliament `power sharing' with the 
military. Ultimately, he extremes succeeded in killing the center.''
  There was no room for the moderates.
  ``The United States helped bring this about. Despite initial support 
for the parliamentary proposal, the U.S. Government was once again 
unable to stay the course on Haiti. A week after Vice President Al Gore 
advised Aristide of our considered position of support for the 
proposal, the U.S. Administration was in full retreat. Why? Quite 
simply, the administration could not withstand domestic pressures 
against the proposal emanating from congressional supporters of 
President Aristide.''
  In other words, our foreign policy, if Haiti being driven by 
domestic, political considerations rather than legitimate foreign 
policy interests of the United States of America, that is absolutely 
intolerable, and that is exactly why we have a House of Representatives 
to debate, discuss and guide this abuse of power by the White House.

                          ____________________