Speech of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), March 29, 2000

Speech of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), March 29, 2000
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could have the time to have a full debate on the military assistance package to Colombia. I commend the gentleman for his attempt with his amendment to have a reasonable, as I said, full debate on that subject. But that will not be allowed under these rules.

[TIME: 1315]

I want to focus my attention on two areas in the bill. First let us stipulate that there are many fine projects in this bill. We all agree to that. That is why many people will be voting for it, because of issues that are of concern to their regions, and I respect that.

I just want to say why, and even in light of the fact that I would normally support some of the provisions in the bill, that I find it impossible to do so because of the manner in which this bill has been brought to the floor. Are the American people not entitled to something better than a debate on military assistance to Colombia than having it as one provision in a multifaceted emergency supplemental bill?

Why can we not have a debate on a very important foreign policy issue, and a vote that stands on its own? Is the Republican majority afraid of a debate in the House of Representatives? Are they afraid that their arguments are too weak, that they could not stand the scrutiny of the American people in a full debate on this issue?

Let us stipulate that the President of Colombia is a brave and courageous man. President Pastrana has a very, very difficult task ahead of him. He deserves our support. What form that support should take is a matter that this House should debate, hear comment on, hold hearings on, in other words, the regular order. But the regular order is being cast aside for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each side, to debate whether we are going to commit all of this military assistance and all that goes with it, including putting our young people in harm's way, which we have already done, without a vote of this Congress.

I am also very concerned that this military approach does not really get to the heart of the matter. This bill, this assistance to Colombia, is called an emergency because we have an emergency drug problem in our country and indeed we do. As we heard on this floor earlier today, 5 1/2 million Americans need substance abuse treatment. Two million of them are getting it. We have a 3.5-million-person treatment gap in our country.

If we want to reduce substance abuse in the United States, we must do that by reducing demand in the United States. Cutting off supply in Colombia is more costly and less certain. Let me tell my colleagues how much more costly. According to the Rand Corporation report, for every dollar spent to reduce demand in the U.S., you would have to spend $23 in the country of origin in coca leaf eradication. That means if you spend $34 million in the U.S. to reduce dependence on drugs by 1 percent, that same effect of reduction of 1 percent costs $723 million by taking the approach of the eradication of the coca leaf in the country of origin, in this case Colombia.

But say that has to be part of a comprehensive drug problem. How can we bring an emergency supplemental bill to the floor of the House of Representatives whose emergency status in this area in terms of reducing substance abuse in the United States is dependent on reducing demand in the United States without one dollar in the bill, without one dollar in the bill being used for reduction in demand in the U.S., a formula that is 23 times more effective, according to the Rand Report which was done in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the Office of Drug Control Policy? So do not take my word for it. Twenty-three times more effective.

On the subject of again Plan Colombia, of which this is a part, we were told that Plan Colombia was an over $7 billion proposal. Colombia would put up $4 billion, we would put up $1.7 billion, the EU would put up $900 million, and then IMF and the Multilateral Development Bank would put up money. This is the only money on the table, the military money. So when we are told this is the military part but there is a big humanitarian part, we have not seen that yet. That is why I am voting no on this bill and respectful of my colleagues' decision for their own part.

As of March 30, 2000, this document was also available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:H29MR0-173: