Speech by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), May 23, 2002

Speech by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), May 23, 2002

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate, and I believe that it is a crucial debate. I rise to support the McGovern-Skelton amendment, and I raise a number of questions today.

This is an emergency supplemental; and, therefore, the basis of this amendment should be in the context of an emergency. I am concerned that we are creating an emergency.

I had the opportunity to speak to both the president of Colombia and the ambassador. Let me say that I am certainly impressed with the efforts that are being made by this new president. I believe that he is sincere. I am also aware of what Colombians seem to be confronting.

As was said early on the floor, they spend little, if any, on their own military personnel. In addition to the 14 a day that have been killed since 1999, we now know that they are killing 20 per day in 2002. Included in those deaths are elected officials, women who have been assassinated, who have been decapitated, those who are speaking about democracy.

So when we come to the floor with legislation that begins now to pierce further into the dilemma in Colombia, the war that Colombia is having, and we begin to start designating terrorist organizations and funding terrorist organizations, we have to raise this question of whether or not this is the right direction.

I understand they had hearings in the Committee on International Relations, but I am not sure of any resolution that came about as a result of those hearings.

[Time: 19:30]
The issue required their deliberation, but the decision was made not to pursue a markup. I would have wanted to hear their input. Because what I view in the present legislation is almost similar to the open rule that I thought we had and would have allowed us to vote on the increase in the debt ceiling. This is smoke and mirrors. We now have language in this emergency supplemental that, one, characterizes this as an emergency in a war supplemental, and so it suggests to me that we are actually going to war and that now we have defined fighting drugs, which have not been that successful in Colombia, to now fighting terrorists. What does that mean? It means that a whole new set of armed forces and military personnel may find themselves, U.S. personnel, to Colombia on the basis of we are fighting the war on terrorism.

Let me just suggest to my colleagues, realizing that I have the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on the floor, and I know that he has worked on this issue, that this is bad policy in an emergency supplemental to start a whole new war. I am disturbed and believe that the McGovern-Skelton amendment is the right approach to take because what it says is it will narrow us to the work that we were intended to do, to try to be successful on that work, which already has its faults, and not begin to wage war against terrorists without any further investigation of such.

[Begin Insert]

This language in the supplemental would open up sending our young men and women to Colombia to fight a war not thought out and where Colombia sends few of its own to fight. This is bad foreign policy and should not be pursued.

[End Insert]

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

As of June 19, 2002, this document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r107:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20020523)