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

Speech by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), March 29, 2000
[Page: H1546]
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great, great reluctance that I rise in opposition to this amendment, because of the high regard that I have for the concern for human rights of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence; and my two champions for human rights, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

[TIME: 1900]

Both of them have been leaders in trying to help the people of Colombia, all four of them have been, but especially speaking to the credentials of my colleagues on the Democratic side.

As I say, I rise in reluctance. Here is why. It would be great if we could have these conditions that are set forth, very carefully prepared and set forth in this amendment without the waiver. We have lived through the waiver over and over again. Maybe this time it will work, but calling for certification by the President that these conditions have been met and then giving a weak waiver, a low threshold for waiver authority to the President, simply says to the military in Colombia that, really, they do not have to do much.

Again, as I said earlier, we all respect and admire the courage of President Pastrana. He has a very difficult task ahead of him. But giving this assistance to the military the way we are in this bill raises some questions.

In the last month alone, there were three reports about human rights abuses of the Colombian military. The U.S. State Department, our own State Department country report on Colombia, speaks to the abuses that continue, with collaboration from the military.

The U.N. report that was released earlier in March speaks to that same issue, and the Human Rights Watch statement that they put forth was based on information gathered by the Colombian government about the Colombian military.

Specifically, it addressed the collusion between the paramilitaries, and some, some in the Colombian military, their collusion in the violations of human rights of Colombians.

When we said to the leadership in Colombia on our visit there, when I was there with my distinguished chairman earlier this year, with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), when we said to the leadership of the government, you must do more about the human rights record of the military, we were told, tell them. Tell them that they must do a better job. We told the military. We can speak to them through this amendment, as well.

But the very excellent message that our colleague shaped in terms of the conditions under which the assistance, military assistance would be sent, is totally undermined by the presidential waiver that is in this bill.

Our president, whoever he or she is, of whatever party, should always have the national security waiver that underlies all of our foreign policy, but to have a watered down, lower threshold waiver completely guts this amendment.

I know why some people might want it, because they do not want the strength of the amendment to begin with. I do not think that is the agenda of the makers of this motion, but I do think that it is a cause for opposition to it, as I say, very reluctantly, because up until that waiver I think they were going in the right direction.

My view is shared by Amnesty International, the Working Group on Latin America, and other human rights groups. Some do not even want us to go down the path of the military assistance, but certainly they do not want us to do it with a presidential waiver.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman respond, is it not true that the presidential waiver set out in our amendment is fully consistent with current law governing DOD military assistance abroad as was previously authored by Senator Leahy, who has led the fight in the other body with regard to human rights concerns on military aid to Colombia?

Ms. PELOSI. The ranking member has asked me to yield to him on this, and I will be happy to address it, also.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OBEY. That is the problem. Does the gentleman know how many times I have seen presidents waive milquetoast language? The problem is not just with the waiver, the problem is that this language is so weak in the first place, it would not even require a waiver by an intelligent person. I have heard of watering down soup before. I have never heard of watering down water before.

Go to the Senate, come back with some stronger language, and we will be happy to look at it. But this, with all due respect, is no protection at all for human rights. It is simply protection for politicians.

Mr. GILMAN. If the gentlewoman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any prior exercise of the waiver of the Leahy amendment. Is the gentleman familiar with any exercise?

Mr. OBEY. I have not supported the Leahy amendment in the first place.

Mr. GILMAN. There has been no waiver of that amendment, if the gentlewoman will yield further.

Mr. OBEY. So what?

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.

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