[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               OPPOSE UNITED STATES INTERVENTION IN HAITI

                                 ______


                        HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 6, 1994

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose United States military 
intervention in Haiti. The U.S. has no strategic or economic interest 
there. This is made evident by President Clinton's inconceivably 
misguided decision to ask the United Nations for authority to invade 
Haiti. If invading or occupying Haiti is in our national security 
interest, we most certainly do not need permission from the United 
Nations or anyone else to take action. Clearly it is not.
  In the wake of the cold war, the United States must be willing to 
stand up for what is right and lead the world. We cannot, however, 
intervene militarily everywhere oppression occurs, nor can we accept in 
this country every person who wishes to flee economic or political 
persecution. We must carefully calibrate our responses.
  I believe the United States should put our servicemen and women in 
harms's way only when our national security interests are at stake, and 
then only when Congress provides the constitutionally required 
authority. Short of that, we should use diplomacy, economic pressures 
where appropriate, foreign assistance, and work with the United Nations 
and other multilateral institutions to achieve our foreign policy 
objectives.
  While we must promote human rights and democracy, we simply cannot 
afford a policy of intervening militarily to ensure that every person 
on earth lives under a democratic system. In any event, it is unclear 
whether a United States occupation will be able to create lasting 
solutions to Haiti's political and economic problems. More likely, 
United States troops will find themselves in the intractable position--
much as they did in Somalia--of trying to promote democracy in an 
unfamiliar, fractious political environment where friends and enemies 
are virtually indistinguishable. We are already seeing ``mission 
creep'' as the military is taking on police duty and crowd control.
  I advocated a vote in Congress before any U.S. troops were deployed, 
and I joined my friend Mr. Skaggs and dozens of other members in 
sending a letter to the President reinforcing this constitutional 
requirement. Unfortunately, the President decided to act without 
congressional approval. The timing of this debate is regrettable. It 
should have come weeks ago before U.S. troops landed rather than after 
the fact.
  We support our troops and members are understandably uneasy about 
voting in any way that seems to endanger them or denigrate their 
efforts to this point in any way. American troops are the best trained 
and best disciplined in the world. In Haiti they have been called to 
undertake a humanitarian mission and have proven more than up to the 
job, but it is not rightly their responsibility and they should not be 
asked to risk their lives to do it.
  The Michel-Gilman resolution calls for the immediate, safer and 
orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Haiti and provides for 
an expedited vote on the issue early next year if the President does 
not comply. Let us not compound the mistakes of the last few weeks by 
keeping United States troops in Haiti one day longer than necessary.

                          ____________________