Speech by Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Illinois), July 15, 2004

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farr-Schakowsky-McGovern amendment. This amendment simply puts the House on record in support of language that the House has already agreed to as part of the defense authorization bill, and it is consistent with the Committee on Appropriation's report language on troop levels in Colombia.

The amendment allows for funds to support an increase in the number of U.S. military personnel in Colombia but continues the practice of this Congress to limit that number. The amendment allows for the current cap of 400 U.S. military personnel allowed in Colombia to be raised by 150, for a total of 550.

Mr. Speaker, when Plan Colombia was first presented during the 106th Congress, we were told it was strictly for the purpose of counternarcotics. In order to ensure that would be the case, the House placed strict prohibitions on funds being used for purposes other than counternarcotics.

Since enactment of Plan Colombia, the policy has changed. Now, as many of us have warned, the Bush administration is seeking to increase military involvement by the United States in Colombia. The administration wants to double the number of U.S. soldiers that are permitted to be deployed to Colombia.

This House placed caps on the number of U.S. troops in Colombia for a reason, and we should stick to the caps. We have provided $3 billion to Colombia over the last several years. This bill seeks to provide over $700 million for the Andean Region, including Colombia, and now we are being asked to commit more of our Nation's sons and daughters to the violence in Colombia.

Make no mistake, this is no longer a counternarcotics mission, and it is not a fight against terrorism that has anything to do with 9/11. It is a war, and sending more troops to Colombia means risking the lives of more Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of this argument seem to see no limit to what is an acceptable cap on U.S. investment in Colombia in terms of dollars and lives. As justification, they seem comfortable to toss around terms like the ``war on drugs'' and ``fighting terrorism'' without really discussing what that means and what the implications are for our country.

Despite our investments in Colombia so far, there have been no improvements in the overall problem of drug consumption in this country, and there has been no reduction in the violence in Colombia.

I have seen firsthand what a beautiful country Colombia is. I have met people from all sectors of Colombian society and traveled throughout Colombia. It is a wonderful nation but one in the midst of a civil war.

I believe what the Colombian people want and need from the United States is support to help improve the lives of its people. Sending troops will not accomplish that goal. If we allow the administration to double the number of U.S. troops in Colombia this year, what will next year's request look like?

We have heard from numerous military and civilian experts about the strains being placed on our Armed Forces as a result of the military conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and additional homeland security needs. Instead of sending another 400 of our service personnel to Colombia, we should look for ways to ease the burden on our forces.

Vote to affirm the House-passed defense authorization and in support of the Committee on Appropriations. Support the Farr-Schakowsky-McGovern amendment.

As of July 16, 2004 this page was also available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r108:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20040715)