[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 47 (Thursday, April 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2655-S2660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ASSISTING COLOMBIA IN FIGHTING DRUG TRAFFICKING

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I anticipate the arrival of several other 
colleagues who may wish to speak on the same subject matter.
  Yesterday, members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and 
other interested Members of this body, had the opportunity to meet with 
the President of Colombia, His Excellency Andres Pastrana, during his 
visit to Washington. It was an extremely informative meeting. It was 
also apparent to all of us there that President Pastrana was terribly 
disappointed that the Senate of the United States had not approved, or 
even scheduled, early consideration of President Clinton's emergency 
supplemental request for Colombia to fight the narcotrafficking problem 
in that nation, which contributes significantly to the deaths and 
hardships in our own nation.
  It is no hidden fact that some 50,000 people die in this country 
every year from drug-related incidents. Ninety percent of the cocaine 
and a significant amount of the heroin that is consumed in this country 
comes from Colombia.
  Colombia has been devastated over the years by narcotraffickers. They 
are committed to trying to win this conflict. The European Community 
stands ready to help. They have asked the United States--the largest 
consuming nation of the products grown in their country--to be a part 
of this effort.
  The leadership in this body has seen fit to delay this action until 
the normal appropriations process. I am disappointed by that, Mr. 
President. This is no small issue. It is a scourge in our streets. 
Clearly, we need to do as much as we can here at home, but this battle 
needs to be waged on all fronts, including in the production and 
transportation of nations such as Colombia.
  Colombia's civil society has been ripped apart for decades by the 
violence and corruption that has swirled around their illicit 
international drug production and trafficking industry. High-profile 
assassinations of prominent Colombian officials who were trying to put 
an end to Colombia's drug cartels began nearly 20 years ago with the 
1984 murder of Colombia's Minister of Justice, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla.
  In 1985, narcoterrorists stormed the Palace of Justice in Bogota and 
murdered 11 Supreme Court Justices in that nation who had supported the 
extradition of drug kingpins and traffickers to the United States. In 
1986, another Supreme Court Justice was murdered by drug traffickers, 
as were a well-known police captain and prominent Colombian journalist 
who had spoken out against these cartels. These narcoterrorists then 
commenced a bombing campaign throughout the year, in shopping malls, 
hotels, and neighborhood parks, killing scores of innocent people and 
terrorizing the general population.
  Before drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was captured and killed by the 
police in 1993, he had been directly responsible for the murder of more 
than 4,000 Colombians. In 1994, it became clear that drug money had 
penetrated the highest levels of Colombian society and called into 
question the legitimacy of the Presidential elections of Ernesto 
Samper. Even today, fear of kidnapping and targeted killings by members 
of Colombia's drug organizations has Colombia's citizens living in fear 
for their very lives.
  At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent that a column written by 
Thomas Friedman, which appeared last week in the New York Times, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 11, 2000]

                            Saving Colombia

                          (By Thomas Friedman)

       Bogota, Colombia.--I had a chat in Bogota the other day 
     with a group of government officials and businessmen, and I 
     asked them all one question: When you go outside, how many 
     security guards to you take with you? The answers were: 20, 
     6, 1, 8, 10, 2, 3, 8 and 5. No surprise. Some 3,000 people 
     were kidnapped here last year by guerrillas, and many judges 
     and journalists threatened with chilling messages, such as 
     having funeral wreaths sent to their homes--with their names 
     on them.
       This is the terrifying context we have to keep in mind as 
     we consider whether the U.S. Senate should approve the $1.7 
     billion plan to strengthen Colombia's ability to fight drug 
     traffickers and forge a peace with the guerrillas. There are 
     two ways to think about ``Plan Colombia,'' One way is to get 
     wrapped up in the details--the helicopters, the training. The 
     other way--the right way--is to step back and ask yourself 
     what kind of courage it takes to stay in Colombia right now 
     and be a judge who puts drug lords in jail or a politician 
     who fights for the rule of law--knowing the criminals have 
     millions in drug money and would kill your kids in a second.
       It takes real courage, and that's why the people trying to 
     hold this place together deserve our support. Sure, the 
     democratic government of President Andres Pastrana isn't 
     perfect. But it has a core of decent officials who every day 
     risk their lives by just going to work. Ask yourself it you 
     would have the same courage.
       I asked Mr. Pastrana why he stays. ``This is our country, 
     it's the only country we have to leave to our children,'' 
     shrugged the president, who was once kidnapped while running 
     for Bogota mayor. ``I believe in this country so much that 
     even after being kidnapped, and even after having my wife's 
     father killed by kidnappers, my wife and I had another baby--
     a girl. Look, we've sacrificed the best policemen, the best 
     judges, the best journalists in this country. Whatever you 
     want to write about us, don't write that we are not on the 
     front line in the war on drugs.''
       I asked the head of Colombia's navy, Adm. Sergio Garcia, 
     what it was like to be an officer here. He said it was sort 
     of like being a movie star, with people always trying to get 
     at you, only they don't want your autograph,

[[Page S2656]]

     they want to kill you--``so even your friends don't want to 
     be in a restaurant with you, and they don't want their kids 
     near your kids.''
       Colombians tell this joke: After god created Colombia, an 
     angel asked God why he gave all the beauty to one country--
     rain forests, mountains, oceans, savanna--and God answered: 
     ``Ha! Wait till you see what kind of people I put there!''
       For years, Colombia's mafia processed cocaine grown from 
     coca in Peru. But as Peru drove the coca growers out, they 
     migrated to the rain forest in Southern Colombia--one of the 
     largest unbroken expanses of rain forest left on earth, but 
     also a region without much government. The drug mafia is now 
     chopping down the rain forest--thousands of acres each 
     month--then laying down herbicides, planting coca, processing 
     it into cocaine in rain forest labs, throwing the chemicals 
     in the rivers, and then flying the drugs out from grass 
     airstrips.
       Underlying Colombia's drug war is a real 40-year-old social 
     struggle between Marxist guerrillas and rightwing vigilantes 
     (32,000 killings last year). But let's cut the nonsense: 
     Colombia's guerrillas may have started as a romantic movement 
     against an unjust oligarchy--they may have started as a 
     movement that ate to fight. But today, these guerrillas are 
     fighting to eat--fighting the government because they make 
     tons of money protecting drug operations in the rain forest. 
     In between the guerrillas and the vigilantes (who also profit 
     from drugs), Colombia's silent majority is held hostage.
       Yes, Colombians are at fault for having been too tolerant 
     of the early drug lords. And Americans are at fault for their 
     insatiable appetite for cocaine. But here's the bottom line: 
     If we give the Colombian majority the aid it needs to fight 
     the drug Mafia there is a chance--and it's no sure thing--
     that it will be able to forge a domestic peace. If we don't--
     and this is a sure thing--the problem will only get worse, it 
     will spew instability across this region, and the only rain 
     forest your kids will ever see is the Rainforest Cafe.

  (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Colombian society is being ripped 
apart by this problem. It is estimated that there are a million 
displaced people in Colombia and that 100,000 a year leave Colombia 
because of fear for their lives over what these narcotraffickers and 
drug cartels have done to this country.
  We often worry about political difficulties here. We get negative 
letters or nasty phone calls, and we think we are putting up with a 
lot.
  In Colombia, if you take on the drug cartels, you and your family 
risk your lives. Journalists, judges, police officials, if they have 
the courage to stand up to these people, put their lives in jeopardy. 
This drug cartel would not exist but for the fact that Americans 
consume the products grown in this country.
  I think we bear responsibility to work with a courageous government 
and a courageous people who are paying a terrible price because of our 
habits and our consumption.
  For those reasons, I am disappointed we can't find the time to bring 
up this supplemental bill, deal with this issue, and offer help to the 
people of Colombia and to the government of Andres Pastrana, who has 
shown remarkable courage. This President was kidnapped by these very 
people. He is not just intellectually committed to this; he knows what 
it is like to be terrorized by these people. He is committed to doing 
everything he can. He can ask us for our help, but we cannot seem to 
find the time to bring up this issue.
  When people wonder why we are not dealing more effectively with the 
drug problems of this country, you can point to this. We spend days 
discussing insignificant issues, in my view, by comparison to this. Yet 
we are told by leadership we don't have time to bring up an issue. At 
least debate it, and vote it down, if you want, but give us a chance to 
vote on whether or not we think providing $1.3 billion over the next 
several years to the people of Colombia to fight back is worthy of this 
institution's time. I think it is.
  The President has asked for it. The House of Representatives, to 
their credit, has done so. Yet this body refuses to bring up this 
matter, even to discuss it on the floor of the Senate.

  The legacy in Colombia is a legacy that President Pastrana confronted 
when he assumed office in 1988. He inherited the reins of government. 
Since then, he has demonstrated, in my view, leadership and a firm 
commitment to address the myriad of challenges facing his nation--drug 
products and trafficking, civil conflict and economic recession.
  I have enormous respect for the manner in which President Pastrana 
has so quickly and aggressively taken steps to entice Colombia's 
largest guerrilla organization--the so-called FARC --to come to the 
negotiating table following on the heels of his election to office. The 
agenda for those ongoing talks covers the waterfront of economic and 
social issues that must be addressed if four decades of civil conflict 
are to be brought to a close.
  President Pastrana has evidenced similar courage and a vision in 
tackling Colombia's illicit coca and poppy cultivation and processing 
industry. He authorized the extradition of a number of Colombia's most 
notorious drug traffickers to the United States, an extremely 
controversial decision in his country. He has also crafted a national 
plan--the so-called Plan Colombia--to address these intertwined 
problems in a comprehensive fashion.
  President Pastrana has made it clear to us that the Government of 
Colombia is prepared to do its part in making available its own 
resources--billions of dollars--to fund the various elements of that 
plan for alternative development programs, for protection of human 
rights, for working for the resettlement of displaced persons, and for 
judicial reform, as well as assistance and training for Colombia's 
military police, the counternarcotics forces.
  During our meeting yesterday, President Pastrana made it clear as 
well that he needs to seek and intends to ask for international 
cooperation if his plan is to succeed. In fact, he left last evening 
for London to meet with members of the European Community and has 
already received favorable indication that the Pacific rim will be a 
part of this international effort.
  Colombia is currently the world's leading supplier of cocaine and one 
of the major sources of heroin. We are the largest consumer of these 
products. But this isn't only President Pastrana's problem; it is 
obviously ours as well.
  All of the enormous demands in the United States and Europe for 
illicit products grown in Colombia are clearly an important part of the 
equation in keeping drug traffickers in business.
  Moreover, despite billions of dollars spent here at home on law 
enforcement and drug education designed to reduce the U.S. demand, 
illicit drugs and consumption continue to pose a threat to the safety 
of our streets and to the health of the next generation of adults.
  I know earlier today my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire, 
Senator Gregg, spoke about the fact that he is concerned that not 
enough money is being spent on domestic-related programs and programs 
to protect our borders against the onslaught of foreign drugs. If one 
looks at the full picture of our counternarcotics efforts, only a 
modest amount is currently being spent on the supply and reduction of 
the source.
  Assuming Colombia's supplemental is approved, only slightly more than 
15 percent of the total counternarcotics budget is being spent on 
programs off our shores where the products are grown: $2.9 billion out 
of a total of $18.5 billion is what the Colombian program has adopted, 
which would be roughly half of what is being spent overseas; $1.3 
billion is being requested. A little more than $1 billion right now is 
being spent off our shores. More than $2 billion currently is being 
spent on border programs alone in this fiscal year.

  If we do nothing to stem the supply at the very source, where it 
comes from, then I don't see how a border program alone can prevent the 
exploding supply of drugs from reaching America's streets and 
communities--rural and urban.
  I am all for adding more money to programs--as the Senator from New 
Hampshire talked about--in the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 
Coast Guard. But I think we are kidding ourselves when we believe 
border programs alone will shut out illegal drugs. We need to attack 
this problem also at its source. There is not one place where this 
battle is going to be won.
  We need to do everything we can to make our borders more secure. We 
need to make sure our police departments have the tools necessary at 
the local level. We need training programs and rehabilitation programs 
to get people permanently off these substances.
  But we also need to attack the problem at its source. That also is 
part of the answer. It is also why it makes

[[Page S2657]]

sense for Congress, in my view, to act expeditiously on President 
Clinton's and President Pastrana's request to us, so we can attack the 
drug problem as vigorously as possible at all these sources but 
particularly in Colombia.
  It is in our interest to provide Colombian authorities the 
wherewithal to gain access to areas in southern Colombia and elsewhere 
where coca and poppy cultivation has exploded in recent years but where 
guerrilla organizations and right-wing paramilitary units have made 
interdiction efforts extremely difficult to conduct safely.
  President Clinton has decided that Plan Colombia is worthy of U.S. 
support. The House leadership has also decided that it is in our 
national interest to do so.
  Fifty-two thousand Americans are dying every year in drug-related 
deaths. That is almost as many as died in the entire Vietnam conflict. 
Every year, we lose that many in drug-related deaths. If that is not a 
U.S. interest to which to try to respond, I don't know what is. As much 
as we need to fight this at home, we also need to fight it at its 
source.
  There is clearly bipartisan support for this program. It is not 
perfect. It is not a program I would even necessarily write, nor maybe 
the Presiding Officer, nor would my colleague from California, whom I 
see on the floor. But let's not fly-speck and nickel-and-dime this 
issue. Let's at least get it to the floor, debate it, discuss it, amend 
it, and modify it. But don't deny us a chance to even vote on this 
issue as we now enter another recess this year. For another 10 days, we 
will not be here. The House is out, I am told, maybe another week after 
that. Then it is May, June, and July. How many more deaths will there 
be on our streets? How many more Colombians have to die because of U.S. 
consumption and addiction?
  They have a democratic government, the oldest democracy in Latin 
America, whose very sovereignty is at stake. This country is being 
ripped apart. They are asking for our help, for the cooperation of 
Europe and other nations to fight back against these people and this 
multibillion-dollar operation.
  We don't even have the time to debate or discuss it.
  I promise you that over this Easter break, there will be a lot of 
speeches given about the problems of drugs in our streets and our 
narcotics efforts. Yet another day will go by when we cast one vote 
here, or two votes here--maybe--and no effort is made to bring this 
matter to the attention of the American public and to debate it on the 
floor of the Senate.
  Despite this bipartisan support, the measure is currently stalled. In 
the Senate, the majority leader suggested the clock has run out on an 
emergency supplemental. That has not been the history or experience of 
the Senate. We have dealt with many supplementals after April. I hope 
maybe we can do so in this case as well.

  We asked President Clinton during our meeting for his assessment of 
the likelihood that Plan Colombia will work in the absence of U.S. 
assistance being forthcoming in the near future. We also asked about 
the prospects for other governments contributing resources to this 
effort in the absence of U.S. moneys being forthcoming. President 
Clinton stressed unequivocally that the support of the United States is 
the linchpin to getting additional international support and for the 
ultimate success of this plan.
  Time is running out for the people of Colombia. Madam President, 
100,000 are leaving every year. A million are displaced. Thousands die 
every year. We need to act now and provide the necessary funding so 
that Plan Colombia can be fully implemented. It is the only way I know 
to protect the democratic institutions of that country and throughout 
the region from falling prey to the criminal assaults of illegal drug 
cartels. Moreover, it is in our self-interest to do so. It is the only 
way to ensure that our children will be free from the threat of drug 
peddlers as they walk to and from school every day, that communities 
are safe from drug-related crimes which have taken the lives of too 
many innocent victims.
  There is still time to act and I hope we do so. I think it is tragic 
we have not. I note the presence of my colleague from California, who 
has been one of the stalwarts for years on this issue, and I am pleased 
she is here to talk on this subject as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I begin by thanking the Senator from 
Connecticut. I don't think there is anyone else in the Senate who has 
the kind of expertise about South America as has Senator Dodd of 
Connecticut. He speaks the language. He has studied. He has traveled in 
the country widely. He has been to Colombia.
  On how many occasions has the Senator been to Colombia?
  Mr. DODD. I just came back. I was there a couple of months ago and 
spent time with President Clinton and others involved in this effort. 
The most recent visit was just a few weeks ago.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think the Senator has stated the case about as well 
as it can be stated. I have never been to Colombia. I come at this a 
little differently, as one who has watched the development of major 
narcotics trafficking over a long period of time. My State is very much 
influenced and affected by this kind of narcotrafficking.
  I have worked with Senator Coverdell of Georgia in the certification 
of Mexico. I have watched the development of the big transportation 
cartels because Colombia is the source country of most of the cocaine. 
I have watched the big transportation cartels develop in Mexico. I have 
watched them interface with gangs in our country. I have watched 
California become the export State of gangs. The Crips and Bloods 
started in Los Angeles and are now in 118 American cities. I have 
watched the gang deaths in America over drugs.
  It is a huge problem. I have watched the debate over supply versus 
demand. We spend dollars on demand. In fact, local jurisdictions are 
the ones that mount the demand programs, the prevention, the 
counseling, the drug abuse programs. The one area in which the Federal 
Government has total responsibility is interdiction at our borders; it 
is international narcotics, trafficking, and control. These big amount 
of drugs come from outside of the United States; therefore, what we do 
affects our role.
  I did not know President Pastrana. The chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, on which I am fortunate to sit, had a meeting with him in 
the appropriations room during his last trip. I met this young 
President for the first time. Prior to that, I had been visited by the 
head of the military under the former government who pointed out with 
great alarm what he thought was happening and even said he didn't think 
Pastrana was being strong enough in the drug area.
  The former head of the military pointed out to me that a third of the 
country at that time was under control of narcoterrorists. That is a 
country the size of Switzerland. That is how large the geographic area 
is. He pointed out that a million and a half citizens were refugees 
within their own country; 300,000 had fled. He believed that 60,000 had 
tried to come into this country illegally, people who were devastated 
by this, running in fear for their lives because of it.
  We do have a role to play. He pointed out to me there were 3,000 
citizens held hostage by narcoterrorists, 250 of them local police, 250 
of them soldiers. Nobody knows what happens to these people.
  I met President Pastrana. He was a very sincere leader, a leader who 
had been sobered by this, a leader determined to do something about it, 
a leader pleading for backup and help by the United States.
  Is it in our national interests to help? I believe it is. All of 
these drugs come to our country, all of these cartels interface with 
American gangs, all of these cartels are brutal. They kill anyone who 
stands in their way--even a Catholic cardinal in Mexico. They kill 
newspaper heads who write against them. They kill anyone who stands up 
and says no.
  The question that Tom Friedman mentioned so eloquently in his New 
York Times column--and I ask this of the Senator from Connecticut--if 
someone comes to you and says: here is half a million in an envelope, 
here is a picture of your wife and where she has her hair done, and a 
picture of your children and the schools they go to, which will you 
take?
  I ask the Senator from Connecticut what kind of courage does it take 
to stand against that kind of entreaty?

[[Page S2658]]

  Mr. DODD. The Senator from California has answered her own question 
by raising it. It takes a remarkable amount of courage.
  I noted earlier and introduced as part of the Record the article by 
Tom Friedman because they so clearly made the point, of the courage of 
these people. I mentioned 11 members of the Supreme Court in Colombia 
were gunned down in 1985. Literally thousands of people are kidnapped 
and executed every year; journalists, just by being there and speaking 
out or saying anything against these narcotraffickers.
  This is a business that collects $60 billion a year from this country 
alone. President Pastrana tells me that in Colombia $100 million is 
used just to bribe local police officers and functionaries who in some 
cases earn less than $100 or $200 a month to raise their families. Then 
someone shows up and offers them an envelope of thousands of dollars to 
turn the other way, look the other way, don't examine the truck.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have seen it impact our border areas in the United 
States. I go down to Otay Mesa where trucks are lined up by the 
thousands and you have Customs agents who maybe earn $45,000 or $50,000 
a year--we know some trucks are loaded with tons of cocaine, with 
street values of millions of dollars--taking a bribe, maybe half a 
million dollars just to turn their head and let that truck go through.
  This is where the corruption becomes so evil and where it is not just 
confined to jungle areas of Colombia or outposts in Mexico or anywhere 
else in the Andean region but comes right into the United States as 
well.
  Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield further, it is this corrosive 
corruption that spreads. It begins in a small hamlet or borough in 
Colombia, and once it gets through there, then it reaches up into the 
higher elevations of Government there and then spills across the 
borders. Before you know it, as the Senator from California has pointed 
out, it spreads. If you do not stand up to these people early on and 
fight back, then you, in a sense, become an accomplice to the results, 
to what occurs.
  We have been asked, as the Senator from California has pointed out, 
by the good and decent Government of President Pastrana, that our 
Nation step up and help--not do it all, not take on the entire 
responsibility, but to help him regain the sovereignty of his own 
nation, to eliminate the corruption, and give the people of Colombia a 
chance for a decent future.
  Our inability to bring up this supplemental to at least debate and 
discuss this issue is deplorable and sad, deeply sad--that we do not 
have the time, apparently, to discuss this kind of issue which can make 
such a difference in the lives of the people of Colombia and, more 
importantly, in some ways, to the citizens of this country who lose 
their children every day to these drug cartels, these gangs terrorizing 
the streets of this country because of drugs. Mr. President, 52,000 a 
year die on average in drug-related deaths. If that is not enough of a 
U.S. interest to respond to it, I don't know what is.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I 
think the point is well taken. I, for one, was delighted--because I 
tend to read all of Tom Friedman's articles in the New York Times--he 
spent time in Colombia. I was so pleased that he saw what was the 
central point in all of this debate. I want to quote him. I know the 
Senator did earlier, and I hope this is not redundant.
  He said there are two ways to look at Plan Colombia. One is to get 
wrapped up in the details--the helicopters, the training, why we might 
or might not like it. The other way, and he suggests the right way, is 
to step back and ask yourself: What kind of courage does it take?
  That is what we are talking about here, what kind of courage it takes 
to stay in Colombia right now--to be a judge who puts drug lords in 
jail or be a politician such as the President of the country, or the 
Attorney General, or the generals of the army, or local public 
officials who fight for the rule of law, knowing that criminals have 
millions of dollars in drug money and would kill their kids in a 
second. That is not an esoteric concept. The numbers of children of 
families who have been killed in drug wars are legion.
  These people do not care for anybody who stands in their way. The 
debilitating part about it is the ability to corrupt to get your way. 
How many people can actually stand up to that? We see over and over and 
over again where a respected public official, a police officer, a 
judge, a prosecutor gives in to this kind of tyranny. The Ariano Felix 
Cartel in Mexico is notorious for this. They will kill anybody standing 
in their way. Their cocaine comes right out of Colombia. There you have 
the narcoterrorists controlling a third of their country and everybody 
and everything within that third.

  So the real courage, as Mr. Friedman points out, is that the people 
who are trying to do the right thing deserve our support. This is our 
hemisphere; it is not another hemisphere. The results of drug 
trafficking, the results of narcoterrorism, only spread. They do not 
contain themselves; they spread. The spread is northerly into our 
country.
  So I make this point again and again and again: This supplemental 
appropriation, an appropriation in our budget, is in our national 
interest. It is in the American national interest to stand tall against 
the cartels, to stand tall against this kind of terrorism, to support 
public officials who are willing to do the same thing. That support 
should be for the Attorney General of Mexico, the President of Mexico, 
the President of Colombia, the Attorney General of Colombia, the Judges 
of Colombia, the people who have been able to come back from M-11 and 
what was done in their country to try to institute a democracy. These 
are the people who recognize that, yes, there are problems but they are 
trying to make the changes. The people who plead to this country say: 
Help us. Don't do the whole thing; just do a part of it. Put your 
imprimatur of leadership on it so other nations will follow and so we 
will have the ability to control something which, if we do not, will 
spread through the whole Andean region and, I contend, to Mexico and to 
the United States as well.
  I think you have, essentially, a major battle in this area of South 
America that will effectively determine the future of these countries--
Colombia, the Andean region, Mexico--and to a degree our own country.
  I very much hope people will reconsider and really look at how 
important it is to stop this trafficking. I remember the day--and it 
was in the 1980s--we in the cities of America never saw an arrest 
involving a ton of cocaine or a ton of any other substances, hundreds 
of pounds of drugs at one time. Now the arrests are being made, and 
they are finding 5 tons, 6 tons, 4 tons.
  The business that is inherent in this, the corruption that comes with 
it, is so enormous it is beyond anything we can possibly conceive. The 
complicity by transportation companies is one of the reasons Senator 
Coverdell and I worked together on this drug kingpin bill, to apply the 
RICO statutes to companies doing business with the cartels who simply 
turn their heads when there are 5 tons of cocaine on a train coming 
into this country or in a container as part of a fleet of trucks that 
come across the border every day. People have to open their eyes. They 
have to see what is happening. We have to begin to support the leaders 
who will stand tall.
  I will be very candid with the Senator from Connecticut and our 
distinguished Presiding Officer from the great State of Maine. If 
somebody came to me with a picture of my daughter or my granddaughter, 
I don't know what I would do. I don't know. I believe I would tell them 
where to get off, but I don't really know. It is like the person who 
jumps in the river to save someone who is drowning. You don't really 
know until you are in that situation.
  The fact is, thousands of people in Colombia are in that situation on 
a daily basis. What they are saying is: Help, United States. Use your 
leadership. Give us the resources because we need helicopters that can 
fly at a certain altitude and have a certain range. The Huey cannot do 
it; it is the Black Hawk. We need a certain altitude for certain areas. 
The Huey can't do it; give us the Black Hawk. Help us with some of this 
other equipment we need and stand by us as we make the battle real.

[[Page S2659]]

  If we are to put our money where our mouth is, it has to be to fight 
the major trafficker. It has to be to fight the narcoterrorist. It has 
to be to stand up for the political leaders who are willing to stand 
against them.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if my distinguished colleague will yield 
one more time, I commend her immensely for her heartfelt statement and 
use this as another appeal. We are leaving for another week now. There 
are only two of us here, but I suspect our sentiments are shared by a 
majority of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats. We make an 
appeal to the majority leader to reconsider this decision on bringing 
up a supplemental, a boiled-down one if necessary, to focus on this 
issue and a couple of others that legitimately fall into the category 
of emergency.
  I say this because I think the last statement made by our 
distinguished colleague from California is an important one. What we 
say here does not go unnoticed. What we do here or not do here does not 
go unnoticed. The greatest fear the narcotraffickers have is that there 
will be a united front to take them on.
  That is their greatest fear. They worry about a government in 
Colombia that is not afraid to extradite. They do not want to be 
extradited because they know we are not afraid to lock them up forever, 
if necessary. They are frightened about a European Community and other 
Latin American countries joining in a common effort. As every one of 
these leaders will tell you, they know what happens in Colombia can 
happen in Venezuela, in Ecuador, and happened in Peru. It is happening 
in Bolivia. These are better financed operations than any insurgency we 
have seen before with millions of dollars.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I ask the Senator a question? I believe the 
Senator was in the Senate when President Bush gave the order to send 
American troops to Panama because so many heavy narcotics were coming 
through Panama, much of it under the control of one person, a general 
by the name of Manuel Noriega. They picked up this general and brought 
him back to the United States for trial. To this day, he is in Federal 
prison in the United States, and the problem has been remedied in 
Panama. This was the kind of direct recognition of a problem and a 
response that has solved the problem. Does the Senator agree?
  Mr. DODD. I do. I say to my friend and colleague from California, I 
remember it very well. In fact, the decision to go in was made late at 
night. There was talk about it ahead of time. I received a call, as I 
think other Members of the Senate did, in the wee hours of the morning 
informing us that the effort was about to be undertaken.
  I recall early that morning going on a couple national television 
programs to discuss it. I expressed my strong support for what 
President Bush was doing in Panama. I thought it was important he have 
bipartisan support in the effort in Panama.

  The Senator from California is absolutely correct, General Noriega 
was removed. While the problem has not been eliminated entirely in 
Panama, that action certainly made a huge difference. It is a good case 
to point out.
  We need that kind of leadership in the Senate on this issue, in my 
view. The narcotraffickers in Bogota, Colombia, in the flatlands, the 
llanos, as they call them, of southern Colombia know what we are not 
doing in the Senate. They know President Pastrana has asked for our 
help. They are watching, and they see a Senate of the United States 
that says it does not have time to bring this up or does not think it 
is that important to bring up. I can tell my colleague firsthand there 
is no more encouraging sign to these people than our apparent 
disinterest in the subject matter.
  Every day we wait and do not respond, their grip grows stronger. I am 
not exaggerating when I tell the Senator that the sovereignty of this 
country of Colombia is at stake.
  The Senator from California has pointed out a third of the country 
has already been lost to them. The oldest democracy in Latin America 
can be lost. Mark my words. This is a well-heeled and well-financed 
operation. Millions of dollars every day pour into the coffers of these 
insurgency groups through the narcotrafficking efforts. If we wait 
another week or another month, we make it that much more difficult to 
address this issue. We have a courageous President and a courageous 
country in Colombia and other nations willing to step up.
  We are the largest consuming country. We are the addicted nation. The 
reason these campesinos and farmers grow the poppy seeds and grow the 
heroin is because there are people here who consume it.
  The journalists, the politicians, the judges, and the police officers 
are willing to fight back. They want to know whether or not we are 
going to join with them in that fight. That is all we are asking: Stand 
up and join them in that fight.
  I am hopeful, again, before too many more weeks go by that we will 
respond. The admiration I have for the House for having done so is 
tremendous. My admiration for the President for calling on us to do it 
is tremendous.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I bring up another subject? One of the criticisms 
I have heard is we spend too much on this kind of activity already, and 
we need to spend more on demand. In fact, as we both know, there are 
provisions in this bill to meet the demand needs in our own country.
  Mr. DODD. Right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was interested in finding out how much of our 
entire drug control budget is devoted to international drug control 
efforts. Does the Senator have an idea what that amount is?
  Mr. DODD. I do. The total amount we spend--my colleague can correct 
me--is about $18.5 billion total--domestic and foreign, all the 
efforts. Of the $18.5 billion, if one excludes the Colombian plan 
money, it is about $1.5 billion out of the--three my colleague is about 
to say?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, it is 3 percent.
  Mr. DODD. Three percent.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Only 3 percent of that entire drug budget, which the 
Senator just accurately stated, goes to international narcotics 
control. Yet we know the drugs are coming in in 5-ton lots. We know the 
one area of responsibility we have is to control the borders in 
international drug control. No local government can do that, most 
certainly, and yet only 3 percent of the budget goes for that.

  Mr. DODD. My colleague says we spend about $2 billion on our borders, 
as she points out, and on the drug abuse programs, the efforts of local 
authorities, but it is a fraction. I am not suggesting and I do not 
think my colleague from California is suggesting we spend all of the 
money there or even a half of the money there. This is a multifaceted 
effort.
  We have to spend it locally. We have to fight it at the local level. 
We have to have rehabilitation efforts, drug abuse efforts. We have to 
be fighting it at the borders of this country, but we also need to go 
to the source, and we are not going to the source.
  Here is a country willing to fight back. Many times we find it 
difficult to get cooperation from governments. Here is the President of 
Colombia who was kidnaped and knows firsthand what it is to live under 
this kind of system, who is coming to us and saying: Look, we are going 
to put $4 billion of our own money into this effort. The Europeans are 
willing to step up. Can you help? The addicted nation, can you help?
  Up to this point, this Chamber has said no.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will conclude with one additional comment. Colombia 
is the source country for 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in this 
Nation. It is the source country of 70 percent of the heroin consumed 
in this Nation. It is a country under siege. It is a country where one-
third of the geographic area is controlled by narcoterrorists, and it 
happens to have a government that is willing to stand up and say: We 
want to do something about it. United States, help us in a multilateral 
effort do something about it.
  This Senate is saying it does not have time to consider the request. 
It is in our national interest to consider the request. It is in our 
national interest to have debate on the request. It is in our national 
interest to appropriate the dollars for this request.
  I end by summarizing something Mr. Friedman said in the New York 
Times:

       If we give the Colombian majority the aid it needs to fight 
     the drug Mafia, there is a chance--and it's no sure thing --
     that it will

[[Page S2660]]

     be able to forge a domestic peace. If we don't --and this is 
     a sure thing--the problem will only get worse, it will spew 
     instability across this region, and the only rain forest your 
     kids will ever see is the Rainforest Cafe.

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business until 2 
o'clock.

                          ____________________