[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 115 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SONNY CALLAHAN

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 4, 1997

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to clarify 
my position on the point of order that was raised during consideration 
of the bill in July on certain language included in the appropriation 
for international narcotics control.
  Last year the Appropriations Committee nearly doubled funding for 
International Narcotics Control, from $115 million to $213 million. As 
part of a compromise on the funding level, the conferees agreed on bill 
language offered by Senator Leahy that prohibited funds from going to 
the security forces of a foreign nation if the Secretary of State has 
credible evidence to believe such unit has committed gross violations 
of human rights. The Secretary may waive this prohibition if she 
certifies the government of such country is taking steps to bring the 
responsible members of the security forces to justice.
  There are two similar provisions that already exist in the Foreign 
Assistance Act. One portion of that act, section 502B, explicitly 
states that no security assistance may be provided to a foreign country 
if that country engages in ``gross violations of internationally 
recognized human rights''. This provision can be waived by the 
President only under what that act calls ``extraordinary 
circumstances''.
  According to information provided to the committee by Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ryan of the Bureau of 
International Narcotics and Enforcement Affairs, the Leahy amendment 
restates past and present policy. The policy embodied by the amendment, 
and as it is stated elsewhere in the Foreign Assistance Act, would be 
pursued whether or not the Leahy amendment existed.
  This issue has arisen regarding proposed assistance to Colombia. 
Let's be clear; the only reason assistance has been suspended to 
Colombia is because the President found the Government of Colombia was 
not taking sufficient steps to halt narcotics trafficking. Let me 
repeat; other than existing counter narcotics assistance, funds 
previously committed for Colombia have not been made available to that 
country due entirely to the provisions of section 490 of the Foreign 
Assistance Act.
  For the past year, the executive branch has been debating whether to 
provide funds appropriated in prior years to the Government of 
Colombia, but withheld due to the decertification of that country. To 
make these funds available, the President must use section 614 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act, which allows him to waive other provisions of 
law.
  Using section 614, the President has requested that up to $30 million 
in prior year funds and equipment be made available for Colombia--$17 
million for the Colombian National Police and $13 million for the 
Colombian military.
  The law he is waiving is not the Leahy amendment, which does not 
apply to these funds, but the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act 
which resulted in the decertification of Colombia.
  I have no problem with the President's proposal; he has the authority 
under section 614 to make these funds available to Colombia 
irrespective of the prohibition in the counternarcotics provisions of 
the Foreign Assistance Act.
  My understanding is the administration has concerns about the use of 
these funds by certain elements of the Colombian military. Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Ryan has informed the committee that such concerns 
would exist irrespective of the Leahy amendment. Indeed, the Leahy 
amendment does not prevent the use of such funds for two reasons; 
first, they were appropriated prior to the existence of the Leahy 
amendment, and second, 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act would allow 
for a waiver of the Leahy amendment even if it applied to such funds.
  The administration and the Colombian military have now reached an 
agreement on the use of these funds, and they should begin flowing in 
the near future.
  I have gone into some detail about this since a number of Members 
appear to have misunderstood the effect of the Leahy amendment. Last 
year I opposed the Leahy amendment because it micromanages foreign 
policy, but it is clear the policy embodied by the amendment is current 
administration policy which is why I reluctantly agreed to it. But it 
is very important for Members to know that the Leahy amendment is not 
the reason funds have been held up to the Colombian military; 
decertification of Colombia is the reason.
  I know the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the International 
Relations Committee, is also pursuing a legislative solution to the 
decertification of Colombia that would allow prior year funds to be 
made available to that country for counternarcotics purposes. I hope he 
is successful.




                          ____________________