Speech by Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan), March 29, 2000

Speech by Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan), March 29, 2000
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this is about the drugs in America that have devastated this country, its families, its children, and its communities. We have a supplemental before us, the first of the 21st century, and we propose to fund $1.7 billion in tax dollars in economic aid to Colombia. Columbia sends 90 percent of the cocaine to this country; it sends over 60 percent of the heroin to this country. We all agree, we must do something to decrease that supply. It is imperative that we decrease that supply, but we must also agree, as we consider this supplemental appropriation bill, the first in the 21st century, to reinforce our commitment to drug treatment and prevention. We exist in a culture that makes drugs available on demand. We must provide the funds to give treatment on demand.

Everyone who is addicted to drugs is not ready for treatment; but those who are ready for treatment on demand must have access to treatment programs. In my district there is a 6-month waiting list for an addicted person who wants treatment today--not 6 months from now--when their families have deteriorated, when their community has deteriorated. They need access now, today, on demand.

What we asked in committee with the Pelosi amendment, and what we are asking today, is a small drop in the bucket, $57 million out of a $1.7 billion appropriation to Colombia, to allow money for treatment so troubled Americans can take care of their families and become citizens again of this society, pay taxes and raise their children. Is that too much to ask? I think not, Mr. Chairman.

How can the gentleman talk about a `Plan Colombia' that talks about supply and not do anything to eradicate the demand? It is not fair. It is not right. As leaders of this country, of the free world, the greatest country in the world, we need to stand up for what we believe in. Many of our constituents across this country, across all ethnic, racial, and gender lines are addicted. Does the gentleman not want them treated on demand when they finally decide in their life they have had enough?

The Pelosi amendment is a small piece of what we need. We ought to be putting $1.7 billion into treatment, but the amendment before us only asks for $57 million. How can the gentleman be against $57 million? My colleagues have heard the figures already. I am not going to repeat them again. We all know people who are addicted. We know families and children that have been devastated by the drugs from Colombia. Let us do the right thing, Mr. Chairman.

I strongly support the Pelosi amendment. We need to begin to provide funding for treatment for those people who have finally decided in their life that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

It was said earlier that we will have to attack drugs on all bases, and we must. On the supply side, I agree totally. Let us give them that money, but it is unconscionable that we will not at the same time in this bill, when we have a budget surplus in our government, provide more money for treatment. It is the right thing to do, and I hope my colleagues will stand up and do the right thing.

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