[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   THE UNITED STATES INVASION OF HAITI

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the United 
States invasion of Haiti. It is my observation that it would be unwise 
for us to send troops to invade and to occupy that country.
  Let me make another observation. If you take the exact criteria that 
are being used to justify the invasion of Haiti, you could use those 
same criteria to say we should invade the District of Columbia, our 
Nation's Capital. That may sound a little preposterous upon first 
hearing it, but the fact of the matter is that an average of over one 
American is being killed per day on the streets of the District of 
Columbia by criminals and gangs. Schools in the District of Columbia 
had to be closed for a week because of disorder and problems just 
recently. Public housing in the District of Columbia has been taken 
over by the Federal judiciary because of corruption and ineptitude.
  Public safety of the citizens of the District of Columbia is at 
stake. Human rights are being violated, certainly, when over a person a 
day is being killed and as many as five or six are being seriously 
wounded. These are American citizens.
  The Mayor of the District of Columbia has, at one point, called for 
stationing troops in the District of Columbia to restore order.
  This may sound far-fetched, but if you use the exact same criteria 
that are being used to justify the invasion of Haiti, you could justify 
the invasion and the stationing of troops in the District of Columbia, 
where we would be saving American lives, providing safety for American 
citizens, and helping with poverty in our own country.
  Mr. President, I think it is very strange that this invasion is being 
approached the way it is. It is planned, it is public, but the Congress 
is not voting. In the case of Grenada it was a surprise exercise.
  In the case of the Middle East, it was not a surprise exercise; 
therefore, a vote was sought in this body, by President Bush, and we 
had a debate and I spoke here from this desk on that issue. I think we 
should have a vote in the Congress precisely because the planned 
invasion of Haiti is not a surprise.
  I think it is very strange that this invasion will occur in October. 
I believe that it is being planned in part for political reasons to 
help a President restore his party at the polls. That may sound 
cynical. But why has it been delayed so long?
  I would finally make the observation, and I make this as a former 
second lieutenant and first lieutenant, who served in Vietnam, in the 
United States Army: I believe the second lieutenants and the first 
lieutenants and other soldiers serving in the Army are being used for 
political purposes in Haiti if we send them there.
  The American taxpayer will have an enormous bill to pay. It will be 
glorious the first day because our troops will go in, and face really 
no opposition. But then problems will start to occur, just as in 
Somalia. Our taxpayers will have to pay for bridges that our trucks 
drive over. We will be building infrastructure in Haiti that we should 
be building in the District of Columbia or on the Indian reservations 
of South Dakota, where immense poverty and a high rate of prenatal 
deaths due to alcoholism are abundant, in addition to all sorts of 
other problems.
  We have problems in our own country that will not be solved as a 
result of the money we spend in Haiti, which, in the long run, largely 
will be lost.
  Then, after we are in Haiti for a few months, disturbances against 
our troops will begin. Some of our troops will be killed. They will 
have to return fire. There will be lawsuits against the United States.
  If we really believe Aristide is going to restore democracy, we are 
fooling ourselves. It is true he was freely elected, but Hitler was 
freely elected in one of the fairest and freest elections in German 
history, and he did not rule like a democrat. If we look at Aristide's 
record, he did not rule like a democrat when he was in power. He urged 
judges to give his political opponents the death sentence. He urged 
necklacing; that is, putting a tire around the necks of his political 
opponents and pouring gasoline into it and lighting it as a punishment 
for people who disagree with him politically.
  Young Army lieutenants--second lieutenants and first lieutenants--and 
sergeants and noncommissioned officers are going to be used to restore 
this person to power who has no intention of implementing, and no 
concept of building democracy once he is back in power.
  This is a sad day for the United States. I hope that the President of 
the United States will come to this Senate for a vote. It differs 
greatly from Grenada, which was a surprise operation. In this case we 
have a situation with plenty of time. The Senate is not doing much 
else. We could have a debate and vote on it. But the majority party 
will not allow us to have that vote. We should make that point to the 
American people. It is sad that in this election season, we find 
ourselves in this state of affairs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger].

                          ____________________