July 18, 1997

From Carlos Salinas (Amnesty Intl) with clarifications added by Colombia 
Support Network.

FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION -- For Human Rights in Colombia -- ACT BEFORE 5 
PM TUESDAY JULY 22

HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE RESOLUTION GUTS HUMAN RIGHTS SAFEGUARD 
GOVERNING COUNTERNARCOTICS MILITARY TRANSFERS: 

CALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE (HOUSE SIDE ONLY) AND ASK 
THEM TO: 
PLEASE VOTE _AGAINST_ THE "RULE FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS BILL"

US Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121.  Ask them for your Representative.  
Or if you know your Representative's fax number, please send them a letter.  
Please tell them that:

The rule for the consideration of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill 
(Foreign Ops Bill) specifically targets the Leahy Amendment which 
prohibits US counternarcotics aid from going to specific foreign military 
units where there is credible evidence they've been involved in violations. 
(THIS IS, IN ESSENCE, REFERRING TO COLOMBIA AS WELL AS PERU.) Even 
offending units can receive aid if steps are taken to bring the responsible to 
justice.  

The rule was designed in part to remove this provision from the bill thus 
voting for the rule is voting to strike the Leahy provision.  

Voting for the rule is tantamount to saying the US should send military aid 
to units in spite of credible evidence those units have been involved in 
torture and murder.  

It is morally indefensible to provide military aid to known or suspected 
torturers and murderers.  

The rule must be voted down or rewritten to ensure the Leahy Amendment is 
not targeted.

Update
The rule was going to be voted on the evening of Wednesday July 16 but was 
postponed to Thursday, July 17.  But then House Democrats, angry about 
another provision in the rule, protested during consideration of the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill and the House adjourned.  The next vote that 
can take place is Tuesday July 22 after 5:00 p.m.  This may come up from 
that point forwards.

The vote may well be taking place in a highly charged partisan atmosphere 
with strict party line votes (Republicans for the rule, Democrats against), 
although the stated reason for the recess until Tuesday was to let tempers 
cool.  It may also mean that some efforts may be made to rewrite the rule.  
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), sponsor of the rule resolution 
insinuated as much during a C-SPAN interview as the House was adjourning 
on the afternoon of Thursday July 17. 

It is imperative that any re-writing include the Leahy Amendment.  If the 
rule is rewritten, it should be done in such a way that it no longer makes 
the Leahy Amendment vulnerable.

Background
In the House of Representatives, a rule is a resolution which governs the 
handling of a bill on the floor, in this case, the "Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 1998," H.R. 2159, a.k.a. 
the Foreign Ops Bill.

The Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2159) or Rule 
reads (page 2,  lines 11-15): "Points of order against provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as 
follows: beginning with ": Provided" on page 24, line 8, through "justice" on 
line 16."  This refers to the Leahy Amendment which reads ( page 24, lines 
8-16 of the Foreign Ops Bill): "Provided further, That none of the funds made 
available under this heading [Department of State, International Narcotics 
Control] may be provided to any unit of the security forces of a foreign 
country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence to believe such unit 
has committed gross violations of human rights unless the Secretary 
determines and reports to the Committees on Appropriations that the 
government of such country is taking steps to bring the responsible 
members of the security forces unit to justice."

What this does is allow a point of order against the Leahy Amendment (and 
only the Leahy Amendment), which will result in the removal of the 
Amendment.  A point of order is an objection raised by a member that the 
chamber is breaking its own rules.  The objector cites the rule, and the 
chair sustains the objection if its correct.

The reason this can happen is that the Leahy Amendment is "authorizing" and 
not "appropriating" language.  The "authorization" language is supposed to be 
language which specifies the programs to be funded: which ones and in what 
way, and includes restrictions such as those of the Leahy Amendment.  
"Appropriations" on the other hand is only supposed to designate amounts of 
money to be spent on the "authorized" programs.  But this has not been the 
case as there has not been an "authorizing" bill for foreign aid in several 
years.  Instead, all of this has been included in the appropriations.

Since the Foreign Ops Appropriations Bill has been replete with such 
language in the past few years, it has been common practice for the rule 
against such language to be waived by precluding such points of order from 
being raised when the bill is considered.  In this case, the waiver on such 
points of order is applied to the entire bill except for the Amendment.  So if 
the rule is approved any member can raise the point of order and the 
Amendment will be stricken.

The rule will be voted on by the entire House, and usually is approved 
because few want to be on the bad side of the Rules Committee.  However, 
given the controversy over another provision and the pressure they are 
already feeling from many constituents and organizations, there is a chance 
the Rule may either be defeated or rewritten.