Statement by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), June 28, 2005

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, at issue in the case of Colombia are priorities, but in a different sense than is usually assumed. The ``priority'' debate today is not about whether stemming the drug trade is appropriate, but the methodology of going about it. Military approaches fit war scenarios. Civil war is more problematic; criminal activities even more so. My concern is that when America enters into internal conflicts we change the nature of on-going struggles as well as the motivations of various combatants. We become implicitly accountable for a panoply of policies of any side we back and accordingly answerable to the people for that side's allegiance or lack thereof to social fairness and the rule of law itself.

In this context, would it not be better to limit our military involvement in this struggling, divided country and focus our efforts instead on alternative crop production, democracy building programs and the effective prosecution of human rights abuses? And at home wouldn't we be better off emphasizing education to reduce the demand for drugs?

Military involvement simply carries too many seeds of counterproductivity as well as the prospect of escalation if policies at one level of engagement prove insufficient.

Accordingly, I support the amendment before us, not out of a conviction it is an adequate answer to a real dilemma for both of our societies, but out of a belief that more balanced social involvement holds a better prospect for more productive economic and social development in Colombia and hence more comprehensive drug curtailment through national law enforcement.

As of July 7, 2005 this page was also available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:H05308