[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5482-S5507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2522, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2522) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes.


[[Page S5483]]


  Pending:

       Sessions amendment No. 3492, to provide an additional 
     condition on assistance for Colombia under Plan Colombia.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
that I deliver my statement while seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3498

  (Purpose: Relating to support by the Russian Federation for Serbia)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be in 
order at this time. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3498.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 140, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SUPPORT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOR SERBIA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) General Dragolub Ojdanic, Minister of Defense of the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and an 
     indicted war criminal, visited Moscow from May 7 through May 
     12, 2000, as a guest of the Government of the Russian 
     Federation, attended the inauguration of President Vladimir 
     Putin, and held talks with Russian Defense Minister Igor 
     Sergeyev and Army Chief of Staff Anatoly Kvashnin;
       (2) General Ojdanic was military Chief of Staff of the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war and has 
     been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for crimes against humanity and 
     violations of the laws and customs of war for alleged 
     atrocities against Albanians in Kosovo;
       (3) international warrants have been issued by the 
     International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for 
     General Ojdanic's arrest and extradition to the Hague;
       (4) the Government of the Russian Federation, a permanent 
     member of the United Nations Security Council which 
     established the International Criminal Tribunal for the 
     Former Yugoslavia, has an obligation to arrest General 
     Ojdanic and extradite him to the Hague;
       (5) on May 16, 2000, Russian Minister of Economics Andrei 
     Shapovalyants announced that his government has provided the 
     Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic $102,000,000 of a 
     $150,000,000 loan it had reactivated and will sell the 
     Government of Serbia $32,000,000 of oil despite the fact that 
     the international community has imposed economic sanctions 
     against the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
     and the Government of Serbia;
       (6) the Government of the Russian Federation is providing 
     the Milosevic regime such assistance while it is seeking debt 
     relief from the international community and loans from the 
     International Monetary Fund, and while it is receiving corn 
     and grain as food aid from the United States;
       (7) the hospitality provided to General Ojdanic 
     demonstrates that the Government of the Russian Federation 
     rejects the indictments brought by the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia against him and other 
     officials, including Slobodan Milosevic, for alleged 
     atrocities committed during the Kosovo war; and
       (8) the relationship between the Government of the Russian 
     Federation and the Governments of the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia and Serbia only encourages the regime of Slobodan 
     Milosevic to foment instability in the Balkans and thereby 
     jeopardizes the safety and security of American military and 
     civilian personnel and raises questions about Russia's 
     commitment to its responsibilities as a member of the North 
     American Treaty Organization-led peacekeeping mission in 
     Kosovo.
       (b) Actions.--
       (1) Fifteen days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the President shall submit a report to Congress detailing all 
     loans, financial assistance, and energy sales the Government 
     of the Russian Federation or entities acting on its behalf 
     has provided since June 1999, and intends to provide to the 
     Government of Serbia or the Government of the Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia or any entities under the control of 
     the Governments of Serbia or the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia.
       (2) If that report determines that the Government of the 
     Russian Federation or other entities acting on its behalf has 
     provided or intends to provide the governments of Serbia or 
     the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or any entity under their 
     control any loans or economic assistance and oil sales, then 
     the following shall apply:
       (A) The Secretary of State shall reduce assistance 
     obligated to the Russian Federation by an amount equal in 
     value to the loans, financial assistance, and energy sales 
     the Government of the Russian Federation has provided and 
     intends to provide to the Governments of Serbia and the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (B)(i) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States executive directors of the international 
     financial institutions to oppose, and vote against, any 
     extension by those institutions of any financial assistance 
     (including any technical assistance or grant) of any kind to 
     the Government of the Russian Federation except for loans and 
     assistance that serve basic human needs.
       (ii) In this subparagraph, the term ``international 
     financial institution'' includes the International Monetary 
     Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the International Development Association, the 
     International Finance Corporation, the Multilateral 
     Investment Guaranty Agency, and the European Bank for 
     Reconstruction and Development.
       (C) The United States shall suspend existing programs to 
     the Russia Federation provided by the Export-Import Bank and 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and any 
     consideration of any new loans, guarantees, and other forms 
     of assistance by the Export-Import Bank or the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation to Russia.
       (D) The President of the United States should instruct his 
     representatives to negotiations on Russia's international 
     debt to oppose further forgiveness, restructuring, and 
     rescheduling of that debt, including that being considered 
     under the ``Comprehensive'' Paris Club negotiations.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the hopes that it 
will bring about needed realism in our Government's relationship with 
Russia. President Clinton continues to promote the myth that the 
Russian Government has been ``a supportive and reliable partner in the 
effort to bring peace and stability to the Balkans.''
  That myth was shattered again last month by the Kremlin's brazen 
display of the enormous political, military, and economic support 
Russia continues to provide the Milosevic regime. Surely no Senator has 
forgotten the visit to Moscow last month by General Ojdanic, 
Milosevic's Minister of Defense, who just happens to be a war criminal 
indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal of the former 
Yugoslavia. Instead of arresting and sending this man to The Hague, the 
Kremlin provided not only meetings with the Russian Minister of Defense 
but a privileged seat at the Putin inauguration and a week of fine food 
and camaraderie.
  Shortly after Milosevic's Minister of Defense visited Russia, Russian 
officials announced that it is sending to the Milosevic regime $102 
million of a $150 million loan. All of this flies in the face of the 
effort of the international community to isolate and undermine the 
Milosevic regime.
  I confess that I find incredible the audacity of Russian President 
Putin. Here he is, providing the Milosevic regime with more than $150 
million in economic support while seeking debt relief from the 
international community and loans from the International Monetary Fund. 
He is doing this while his country seeks and receives food aid from the 
United States and while he is asking the United States to reschedule 
and forgive Russian debt owed to the United States.
  The Kremlin should not be encouraged to assume that Western, and 
particularly the United States, economic assistance and aid are an 
entitlement. It is, however, sadly evident that Putin has concluded 
that he can conduct Russian foreign policy with impunity and still 
count on the West's economic largesse. The fact is, the hospitality and 
support provided to Serbian war criminals occurred just one month prior 
to President Clinton's visit to Moscow, emphasizing how little respect 
Putin has for the policies of the U.S. Government.
  What concerns me most about the relationship of the Kremlin and the 
Milosevic regime is the threat it poses to America's men and women in 
uniform serving in the Balkans, along with those of our allies. The 
political, military, and economic support the Kremlin provides 
Milosevic directly jeopardizes the safety and security of both American 
and allied forces deployed in the Balkans. While we are trying to force 
the Milosevic regime to step down and turn power over to Serbia's 
democratic opposition, Russia is signaling Milosevic that he can 
survive and even outlast the alliance and that Russia will help him, 
Milosevic, prevail.

[[Page S5484]]

  There is no reason the American taxpayer should provide Russia loan 
forgiveness and economic assistance when the Kremlin continues to 
support a regime in Serbia whose forces directly threaten U.S. troops 
who are trying to bring peace to the Balkans.
  My amendment, which I have just offered, simply underscores that the 
U.S. assistance is not an entitlement benefiting the Kremlin. The 
amendment proposes that the United States withhold assistance to Russia 
by an amount equal to the amount which Russia provides Serbia. The 
amendment also will preclude any debt forgiveness or rescheduling of 
OPIC and Eximbank programs along with U.S. support for loans from 
international financial institutions to Russia. This assistance 
certainly is not warranted unless and until the Kremlin demonstrates 
that it has at long last cut its ties to the Milosevic regime.


               Amendments Nos. 3499 Through 3513, En Bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a group of managers' amendments 
to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration. They 
have been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes 
     amendments numbered 3499 through 3513, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3499

       On page 142, on line 5 strike: ``Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available under this heading, not less than 
     $5,000,000 shall be made available for administration of 
     demobilizing and rehabilitating activities for child soldiers 
     in Colombia'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``Provided further, 
     That of the amount appropriated under this heading, 
     $5,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of State for 
     transfer to the Department of Labor for the administration of 
     the demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers in 
     Colombia, of which amount $2,500,000 shall be transferred not 
     later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and the remaining $2,500,000 shall be transferred not later 
     than October 30, 2000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3500

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of State to submit a report 
      concerning human rights in Colombia, and for other purposes)

       On page 145, line 12, after ``(b)'' and before 
     ``Definitions'', insert the following:
       ``Report.--Beginning 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and every 180 days thereafter for the duration of 
     the provision of resources administered under this Act, the 
     Secretary of Sate shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees containing the following:
       ``(1) A description of the extent to which the Colombian 
     Armed Forces have suspended from duty Colombian Armed Forces 
     personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed gross 
     violations of human rights, and the extent to which such 
     personnel have been brought to justice in Colombia's civilian 
     courts, including a description of the charges brought and 
     the disposition of such cases.
       ``(2) An assessment of efforts made by the Colombian Armed 
     Forces, National Police, and Attorney General to disband 
     paramilitary groups, including the names of Colombian Armed 
     Forces personnel brought to justice for aiding or abetting 
     paramilitary groups and the names of paramilitary leaders and 
     members who were indicted, arrested and prosecuted.
       ``(3) A description of the extent to which the Colombian 
     Armed Forces cooperate with civilian authorities in 
     investigating and prosecuting gross violations of human 
     rights allegedly committed by its personnel, including the 
     number of such personnel being investigated for gross 
     violations of human rights who are suspended from duty.
       ``(4) A description of the extent to which attacks against 
     human rights defenders, government prosecutors and 
     investigators, and officials of the civilian judicial system 
     in Colombia, are being investigated and the alleged 
     perpetrators brought to justice.
       ``(5) An estimate of the number of Colombian civilians 
     displaced as a result of the ``push into southern Colombia,'' 
     and actions taken to address the social and economic needs of 
     these people.
       ``(6) A description of actions taken by the United States 
     and the Government of Colombia to promote and support a 
     negotiated settlement of the conflict in Colombia.
       ``(c)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3501

       On page 13, line 16, after ``vaccines'' insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``, notwithstanding any other provision of law''.
       On page 13, line 8, delete ``41,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$35,000,000''.
       On page 13, line 11, delete ``$65,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$50,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3502

       On page 57, line 19, delete the following: ``Panama,''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3503

        (Purpose: To appropriate funds to assist blind children)

       Before the period at the end of the paragraph under the 
     heading ``Global Health'', insert the following: ``: Provided 
     Further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $1,200,000 should be made available to assist 
     blind children''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3504

       On page 151, line 10, after ``6105'' insert ``Herbicide 
     Safety.--''.
       On page 151, line 12, strike ``Surgeon General of the 
     United States'' and insert in lieu thereof ``Director of the 
     National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention''.
       On page 151, line 11, strike ``aerial spraying'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``use''.
       On page 151, line 18, strike ``water or leach in soil'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``ground or surface water''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3505

       On page 38, line 6, strike ``$330,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$340,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3506

       On page 63, on line 9 after the words ``Sec. 530.'' strike 
     all through line 15 and insert the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and except as provided in subsection (b), the United 
     States may not sell or otherwise make available under the 
     Arms Export Control Act or chapter 2 of part II of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 any Stinger ground-to-air 
     missiles to any country bordering the Persian Gulf.
       ``(b) Additional Transfers Authorized.--In addition to 
     other defense articles authorized to be transferred by 
     section 581 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriation Act, 1990, the United States 
     may sell or make available, under the Arms Export Control Act 
     or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, Stinger ground to air missiles to any country bordering 
     the Persian Gulf in order to replace, on a one-for-one basis, 
     Stinger missiles previously furnished to such country if the 
     Stinger missiles to be replaced are nearing the scheduled 
     expiration of their shelf-life.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3507

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new general provision.


              procurement and financial management reform

       Sec.   . (a) Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``International Financial Institutions'' in this or any prior 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, or Related Programs 
     Act, 10 percent of the United States portion or payment to 
     such International Financial Institution shall be withheld by 
     the Secretary of Treasury, until the Secretary certifies 
     that--
       (1) the institution is implementing procedures for 
     conducting semi-annual audits by qualified independent 
     auditors for all new lending;
       (2) the institution has taken steps to establish an 
     independent fraud and corruption investigative organization 
     or office;
       (3) the institution has implemented a program to assess a 
     recipient country's procurement and financial management 
     capabilities including an analysis of the risks of corruption 
     prior to initiating new lending; and
       (4) the institution is taking steps to fund and implement 
     measures to improve transparency and anticorruption programs 
     and procurement and financial management controls in 
     recipient countries.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Treasury shall report on 
     March 1, 2001 to the Committees on Appropriations on progress 
     made to fulfill the objectives identified in subsection (A).
       (c) Definitions.--The term ``International Financial 
     Institutions'' means the International Finance Corporation, 
     the Inter-American Development Bank, the Inter-American 
     Investment Corporation, the Enterprise for the Americas 
     Multilateral Investment Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the 
     Asian Development Fund, African Development Bank the African 
     Development Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development and the International Monetary Fund.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3508

       On page 21, line 21, after the word ``organizations'' 
     insert, ``: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading for Kosova, not less than 
     $1,300,000 shall be made available to support the National 
     Albanian American Council's training program for Kosovar 
     women''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3509

       On page 21, at the end of Section (c) insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading not less than $750,000 shall be made available 
     for a joint project developed by the University of Pristina, 
     Kosova and the Dartmouth Medical School, U.S.A., to help 
     restore the primary care capabilities at the University of 
     Pristina Medical School and in Kosova''.

[[Page S5485]]

     
                                  ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 3510

 (Purpose: To require the submittal to the congressional intelligence 
 committees of reports on waivers relating to assistance to countries 
             providing sanctuary to indicted war criminals)

       On page 103, beginning on line 13, strike ``Committee on 
     Appropriations'' and all that follows through ``House of 
     Representatives'' and insert ``Committees on Appropriations 
     and Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Appropriations and International Relations and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3511

(Purpose: To make available certain environmental assistance funds for 
                    the People's Republic of China)

       On page 140, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. USE OF FUNDS FOR THE UNITED STATES-ASIA 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries, funds appropriated by this 
     or any other Act making appropriations pursuant to part I of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that are made available 
     for the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership may be 
     made available for activities for the People's Republic of 
     China.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3512

  (Purpose: To make available funds for education and anti-corruption 
                               programs)

       On page 140, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. EDUCATION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION ASSISTANCE.

       Section 638 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2398) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any provision of law that restricts 
     assistance to foreign countries, funds made available to 
     carry out the provisions of part I of this Act may be 
     furnished for assistance for education programs and for anti-
     corruption programs, except that this subsection shall not 
     apply to section 490(e) or 620A of this Act or any other 
     comparable provision of law.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3513

(Purpose: To add $2,500,000 to Title ________, Research and Development 
  for the Foundation for Environmental Security and Sustainability to 
 support the need for environmental security assessments for economic 
                   planning, and operations support)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds to be appropriated under this heading, 
     $2,500,000 is available for the Foundation for Environmental 
     Security and Sustainability to support environmental threat 
     assessments with interdisciplinary experts and academicians 
     utilizing various technologies to address issues such as 
     infectious disease, and other environmental indicators and 
     warnings as they pertain to the security of an area.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3499 through 3513), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 3507

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the past two years, the 
Subcommittee has held hearings which have focused on corruption, fraud 
and financial management problems at the international financial 
institutions. The interest was stimulated in part by flagrant abuses 
which compromised the World Bank's program in Indonesia. The Bank's 
Country Director ignored internal reports detailing program kickbacks, 
skimming and fraud because he was unwilling to upset the Suharto family 
and their cronies whom he believed were responsible for Indonesia's 
economic boom. A change of government and country directors presented 
an opportunity to set a new course for management and lending policies.
  Because of these problems, I asked GAO to conduct a review of the 
Bank's management with an emphasis on anti-corruption policies and 
programs in several of the largest borrowing countries, including 
Indonesia, Russia, and Brazil. While the Bank limited GAO's access to 
documents, and set up a special committee to supervise their work, they 
still did an excellent job.
  In brief, the GAO concluded the Bank has launched an ambitious effort 
to identify problems, but significant challenges lie ahead. We are a 
long way from real solutions.
  Let me tick off some of the conclusions which concerned me the most--
  First, although the World Bank has established an Investigations Unit 
which answers to a new Fraud and Oversight Committee, many local 
problems in borrowing countries never reach the investigators. In one 
country where the Bank itself identified corruption as a serious 
problem, 30 allegations of abuse reported to their local officials had 
not been referred on to the Investigations Unit or Committee.
  Second, both the Investigations Unit and the Committee answer to one 
of the Bank's Managing Directors. GAO concluded that the independence 
of investigations could be compromised by the fact that a Managing 
Director controls the unit's budgets and makes final decisions on 
whether an investigation is pursued, including those that may involve 
employees who answer to the Director.
  Third, new initiatives introduced in 1998 to improve financial and 
procurement procedures only apply to 14% of the Banks 1,500 projects. 
In recent audits, 17 of 25 borrowers showed a lack of understanding or 
noncompliance with procurement rules. GAO's review of 12 randomly 
selected projects identified 5 projects where the borrowing countries 
implementing agencies had little or no experience managing projects.
  Fourth, when making project recommendations for Board approval, the 
staff's risk analysis fails to adequately address corruption or undue 
political influence as key factors. Eight of Twelve projects reviewed 
did not identify corruption or political manipulation as a critical 
risk even though other Bank reports indicated both were serious issues 
in the countries included in the project sampling.
  Finally, GAO determined that solving problems is made more difficult 
because audits are often late and of poor quality, and the Bank does 
not evaluate the quality of audits.
  To remedy these problems, GAO recommends the Bank integrate the 
investigative function and establish its organizational independence, 
include more complete corruption data in risk assessments and country 
strategies, develop a system for allocating anti-corruption assistance, 
improve borrowing countries' capabilities to monitor, implement and 
supervise fraud free projects, and improve auditing and project 
supervision.
  These problems are not unique to the World Bank. We have all read the 
stories about the IMF being caught by surprise in both Russia and 
Ukraine regarding manipulation of loans and loan data. I am sure there 
are similar problems in the regional institutions as well.
  To accelerate a solution to these pressing issues, Senator Leahy and 
I felt it was prudent for the Secretary of the Treasury to encourage 
these institutions to implement GAO's recommendations. The amendment 
before the Senate requires the Secretary to withhold 10% of our 
contribution to each institution until audits are in place, independent 
investigation units are established, and the problem of corruption is 
being addressed in risk assessments. We also expect the institutions to 
strengthen local government capacity so that lending and projects are 
better supervised to prevent corruption.
  This amendment addresses one of the most fundamental issues which has 
compromised support for the multilateral banks. Bringing more 
transparency to lending and improving procurement and management 
procedures will help restore confidence and support to the banks.


                           amendment no. 3511

  Mr. ROBERTS. I support the Baucus-Roberts amendment to engage china 
on the important issue of rapid industrialization and the environment. 
The amendment would permit appropriated funds for the US-Asia 
Environmental Partnership (USAEP)--an initiative of the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID)--to be used for environmental 
projects in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In other words, the 
U.S. government would finally be able to, for example, help U.S. 
businesses connect with provincial and municipal governments in China 
to initiate badly needed environmental engineering projects. This work 
is necessary to attempt to prevent a possible long-term environmental 
catastrophe resulting from intense industrialization and development in 
the PRC and Asia in general.
  Why should one care whether Chinese or Asian people breath clean air 
or

[[Page S5486]]

drink clean water? Besides the obvious humanitarian concern, a ruined 
environment throughout Asia will--at some point--affect us here in the 
United States and our interests. This is common sense.
  The Baucus-Roberts amendment also sends a strong pro-engagement 
message to the PRC since the U.S. excluded de jure or de facto the PRC 
from U.S. foreign aid programs with passage and signing of the FY 90-FY 
91 State Department Authorization, specifically section 902 of H.R. 
3792.
  Our government purports to be concerned about global environmental 
issues, Mr. President, about avoiding contamination of the world's 
water, air, and soil. Yet, we prohibit ourselves from consulting and 
cooperating on a government to government basis with the one nation 
with the greatest potential to impact the world's environment over the 
next 50 to 100 years. That makes no sense.
  What is the United States-Asian Environmental Partnership? It is a 
public-private initiative implemented by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID). Its aim is to encourage 
environmentally sustainable development in Asia as that region 
industrializes at a phenomenal rate. By ``environmentally sustainable 
development,'' we mean industrial and urban development that does not 
irreparably damage the air, water, and soil necessary for life. It's 
really that simple. US-AEP currently works with governments and 
industries in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, 
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 
creating US-AEP, the U.S. government recognized the long-term 
environmental hazards of Asia's rapid industrialization and the need 
for the U.S. government to engage on the issue.
  The program provides grants to U.S. companies for the purpose of 
facilitating the transfer of environmentally sound and energy-efficient 
technologies to the Asia/Pacific region. Again, the objective is to 
address the pollution and health challenges of rapid industrialization 
while stimulating demand for U.S. technologies. In cooperation with the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, US-AEP has placed Environmental Technology 
Representatives in 11 Asian countries to identify trade opportunities 
for U.S. companies and coordinate meetings between potential Asian and 
U.S. business partners.
  Mr. President, on the basic issue of the global environmental impact 
of Asian industrialization, specifically Chinese modernization, the 
Senate has the responsibility to authorize at least some cooperation 
between Beijing and Washington. I ask for my colleagues support for 
this common sense amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3512

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the United 
States to provide non military education and anti corruption assistance 
to countries, and their governments, that are not on the terrorism 
list, and that are denied U.S. assistance or are under U.S. sanctions. 
Let me just reiterate that this amendment is not applicable to 
countries on the terrorism list or which are major producers or 
traffickers in illegal drugs.
  This provision is specifically intended to enable the U.S. Government 
to conduct a broad range of rule of law programs, as well as other 
programs (e.g. setting up elementary schools, high school exchanges, 
health education, economic reform measures; tax reform, tariff 
regulation, developing rational and transparent budgeting procedures, 
privatization, or drafting a commercial code, etc.), so long as there 
is some component of the program that includes educating or providing 
information to persons.
  Mr. President, the United States has been working for a long time to 
try to find ways to help the most vulnerable populations around the 
world. Allowing the United States to continue to provide assistance in 
education and anti corruption training is something which ultimately is 
in our own interests.
  In many parts of the world, we are up against elements like the 
Wahhabis, the Saudis, the Iranians and the likes of Bin Laden and 
others, who are pouring money into the poorest regions of the world to 
set up schools which are dedicated to teaching children anti-Western 
attitudes, as well as how to carry weapons.
  In many countries, because of the dire poverty, such schools are the 
only game in town. And the single common element which allows these 
schools to flourish is poverty and ignorance. There is no other option 
for many people. The poverty and the lack of education leads to 
radicalism, and violence, often directed first against women, and a 
host of problems which every one on this floor can list.
  The growth of this radicalism comes back and haunts us and affect 
American lives and American security. The popularity of Bin Laden for 
example, and the anti-Western fervor which is rampant in the Middle 
East and South Asia can too often lead to terrorism and attempts to 
destabilize developing countries that are trying to remain secular and 
pro-west. Ultimately, this is a threat to U.S. security.
  This lack of education also leads to tragic global phenomena like the 
trafficking in women and children: Education would substantially 
increase awareness regarding the insidious practice of international 
sex slavery. This involves forcing women and children into prostitution 
against their will, who are held in slavery-like conditions, having 
been transported into a strange country.
  There is a general sentiment in the Congress these days that 
sanctions have gone too far, that they don't work and that we should 
remove all of them. I do not share this view, I believe sanctions have 
a role to play and are appropriate in certain situations. But denying 
ourselves the opportunity to provide education in a variety of fields 
in certain parts of the world is counterproductive. We are only hurting 
ourselves.
  Instead of being able to implement education programs which would 
help bring a secular alternative to the lack of education, or the types 
of schools I mentioned earlier, we find our hands are tied when 
assistance is denied to a country or when general sanctions are imposed 
on a country--including sanctions on countries that for one reason or 
another default on their loans. Yes, we should be able to take 
political action against countries that are doing bad things; but we 
should not be put in a situation where programs in education or in anti 
corruption training is involved. We shouldn't be mandating sanctions in 
an area, like education, which are of long term assistance to the 
United States.
  We sit and complain about such things as corruption or lack of 
environmental awareness, or lack of democracy, or child labor, or 
trafficking in women and children. Education could help make a dent in 
such things, from helping to set up elementary schools, having 
exchanges at higher school levels, to such things as providing 
information to people in such areas as economic reform, equitable 
distribution of wealth, growing their economies, implementation of tax 
reform and tariff regulation, development of rational and transparent 
budgeting procedures, development of rule of law and democratic 
institutions, and privatizing or drafting a commercial code.
  And yet we occasionally find ourselves in the position of having to 
deny assistance in the very area which would help fix these problems.
  That is why I am introducing this amendment today. Denying U.S. 
assistance to a country is a right we should preserve, but we shouldn't 
be cutting our ability to influence countries at such a basic level as 
education and we certainly should do what we can to combat anti-
corruption.
  The most effective way to overcome the anti democratic threats and 
the lure of terrorism is to go to the root of the problem and to 
encourage the development of civil society.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized to offer an amendment relative to Colombia.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I got a last-minute call from the 
Budget Committee, and we may have to work this amendment out. I will 
wait about 5 minutes before I offer the amendment. I am waiting for 
some last-minute wording.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5487]]

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the situation 
now? Is there an amendment pending? Are we open for general debate on 
the foreign operations appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina sent up an 
amendment by unanimous consent, and the regular order is to recognize 
the Senator from Minnesota to offer an amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to use leader time at this 
point to speak with regard to the Wellstone amendment, which I 
understand he will be offering momentarily.
  I rise to speak against the Wellstone amendment that I understand 
will be offered. What this amendment would do would be to knock out the 
funds that are included in the foreign operations appropriations bill 
for Colombian aid. Is that correct about the intent of the amendment by 
the Senator from Minnesota?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, no, it is not. This amendment leaves 
several hundred million dollars out of the $900 million that would go 
to the southern Colombia military campaign. I will talk about the 
military and the right-wing violence groups and go through State 
Department reports and human rights reports about this. But in no way, 
shape, or form does this amendment say that.
  Mr. LOTT. You would move a significant portion of the funds in excess 
of $900 million into another category to be used for exactly what? Will 
the Senator describe that to me?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to. We are working on this final wording 
because we are trying to figure whether to do this out of emergency 
designation or whether we can do this in a different way.
  What this amendment says is that we absolutely are committed to 
institutional building in Colombia; we are committed to helping out in 
every way, shape, or form, including interdiction and police action.
  There are very serious concerns that have been raised by a whole 
range of religious groups. I have a list of hundreds of nongovernment 
organizations in Colombia, but a particular portion, $225 million, 
would go to this one military campaign in southern Colombia. This money 
instead would say--and this follows up on what General McCaffrey and 
others have said, which is that we also need to deal not just with 
interdiction but also the demand side in this country.
  I say to the majority leader, I am going to be presenting compelling 
evidence about the huge gap in the number of people who are not getting 
any treatment. We have to figure out a way to cut down on the demand 
side in our country so we will provide money for prevention and 
treatment programs in this country.

  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
  At this time, rather than just speaking against his amendment, I will 
speak for what is in the foreign operations appropriations bill for the 
Colombia aid package. As a matter of fact, the Senate version has over 
$900 million in this area. The House bill actually included around $1.7 
billion because the House included not only funds for the drug war in 
Colombia--I believe they also provided more than what had been asked 
for by the administration--they also provided some aid for other 
countries in the area that are also having some difficulty in fighting 
the drug situation in that part of the world.
  Let me emphasize that we have been very much involved, obviously, in 
being supportive of bringing about a peaceful solution in Kosovo. It 
has been, of course, debated what should be done there, if we should do 
what we have done there, and how much should be spent there. The 
administration has pursued the policy there and the Congress has gone 
along with it, for better or for worse, at a cost of billions of 
dollars.
  I point out on this map the area we are talking about. Kosovo is in 
this area of the world. It is very important to Europe and to our 
allies in Europe. I have suggested to our allies--NATO, Germany, 
Britain and other countries--they should assume more of the 
responsibility there, not less. I have been very concerned they have 
not met their responsibilities. Until just very recently, they seemed 
to be doing a better job of providing the money and the people they 
committed.
  My point is while this is important, it is not nearly as close and as 
directly involved in the U.S. national security as the situation in 
Colombia. This map depicts Colombia. This whole region is experiencing 
some transition now. Since we have turned over the Panama Canal and 
closed our bases there, we see evidence that already there has been an 
increase of drug trafficking through Panama. We are concerned about the 
narcotraffickers in Colombia; we are concerned about what is happening 
in Venezuela, and this whole region of the world. It is in our 
neighborhood.
  For years, to our own detriment, in my opinion, we have not been as 
involved with Central America and South America as we should have been. 
Now we see democracy and economic opportunity beginning to make 
progress in Central America, in the Caribbean, and democracy at least 
blossoming in parts of South America, but we see a threat, and it is 
being driven by drugs.
  In addition to being in our hemisphere and in close proximity, we are 
talking about activities by people who are undermining the Colombian 
Government, who are killing people, and who are killing our children. 
The drugs that come out of Colombia are coming right into the United 
States--cocaine and heroin. They are poisoning our children.
  I take this not very well. I am very concerned about it. I think we 
ignore it to our own peril. Should we do more in our country to deal 
with the demand problem, education, and treatment? Sure. We ought to 
find ways to do that. But we shouldn't do it by taking away from the 
efforts that are underway in Colombia.
  That is why I call this a close national security interest for our 
own country. There are those who are worried if we do this, we are 
slipping toward being involved. Where better to be involved than to try 
to take action and provide support for people who are trying to move 
toward greater democracy and greater economic development and to 
control and stop the drug trafficking and the drug pushers in that part 
of the world? I think we should do this. I think we should have been 
doing more a year ago or 2 years ago. I worked in the Senate with 
Senators Coverdell, DeWine, and others in communication with our own 
drug czar in America that we were not doing enough in Colombia.

  Finally, the administration has said, well, we need to do something 
more; we need to be involved. I commend them for that. We need to get 
it done. That is why we pulled this foreign operations appropriations 
bill up as early as possible. We think we should get this foreign 
operations bill done and we should get the Colombian aid package 
included. This is very important for us.
  President Pastrana of Colombia has asked for our help--not to solve 
the problem for him. We are not advocating U.S. troops go in or that we 
have direct involvement in their efforts there but to help him without 
American troops. Give them the aid they need; give them the equipment 
they need to fight these massive narcotic drug cartels in Colombia and 
that part of the world.
  President Clinton's plan is multifaceted: Economic, political, 
social, and military means to gain the upper hand in dealing with the 
narcoterrorists who control vast amounts of Colombian territory. That 
is an area where I have some concern. I think too much territory has 
been conceded to these narcoterrorists.
  Make no mistake, the FARC and the ELN guerrillas are ruthless. They 
don't know anything or care anything about human rights. They only want 
power to turn Colombia into the first nation controlled by 
narcoterrorists. Think about that. That is a real possibility unless we 
act to get assistance there as soon as possible.
  Will this aid package alone solve the problem overnight? No. I 
emphasize again we should have been doing more last year and the year 
before and over a period of years. But it will make a significant 
contribution by giving to

[[Page S5488]]

the Colombian Government the wherewithal to challenge these 
narcoterrorists.
  We know one thing for certain: Without this package, these 
narcoterrorists will be emboldened and they will have no incentive to 
come to the peace table. The freely elected pro U.S. government of 
President Pastrana will be dealt a very serious blow. We cannot leave 
them unassisted when they have asked for our help.
  This is a question of standing up for our children, of standing up 
and fighting these narcoterrorists in our part of the world, in our 
neighborhood, in our region. Colombia has a chance. They are tired of 
the bloodshed. They are tired of kidnappings. They are tired of human 
rights abuses on all sides. I don't for a minute mean to push aside the 
complaints about some of the human rights violations on the other side, 
but that shouldn't be a reason not to act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, support the foreign 
operations bill as it is, with the Colombian aid. As a matter of fact, 
I think it is possible the aid may actually be increased somewhat in 
conference. We should not let this be pecked apart. We should step up 
to our responsibility and fulfill our commitment to Colombia, to 
President Pastrana for his efforts, but particularly for the children 
of our country.
  Do not support amendments that will take away funds in this package 
and move them over into other areas. It is the minimum that we should 
do.
  I thank Senator Wellstone for allowing me to go forward at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader, I 
appreciate his comments and I did not want to interrupt him while he 
was speaking.
  I will, in as thoughtful a way as possible, respond to some of his 
comments. I don't think there is any question that we need to deal with 
narcoterrorists. I don't really believe that is the issue. I will take 
time to develop this.
  My colleague from New York wanted to speak.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. President, more than 80 percent of the cocaine, and most of the 
heroin flooding America's streets comes from Colombia. That is just one 
of many reasons why helping honest Colombians is an urgent and absolute 
necessity.
  Today, Colombia's democratically elected government is besieged by 
blood-thirsty communist guerrillas who have gone into business with 
narcotraffickers, and, Mr. President, without U.S. help, Colombia may 
very well lose its fight with these narcoterrorists--and that is why 
the United States must move swiftly to help President Andres Pastrana 
save the second oldest democracy in the Americas.
  I support doing whatever it takes to save Colombia--not only because 
of the enormous cost of drugs to our country but because the United 
States of America should stand with a decent, democratic government in 
our own hemisphere that is threatened by Marxist terrorist groups.
  I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, 
and the able Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for including in the 
foreign operations bill the emergency anti-drug assistance for Colombia 
and surrounding countries.
  This bill deserves our support even though I expect that the House-
Senate conference will choose to make some adjustments.
  For example, we must resist unrealistic conditions that will block 
the delivery of badly needed support. Also, I am persuaded that we must 
supply the Colombian Army with Blackhawk helicopters so they have the 
mobility to respond to the hit-and-run tactics of the guerrillas who 
are part of the drug trade.
  The stakes are enormously high. Colombia is one of the most important 
U.S. trading partners in the Americas, with $4.5 billion in direct U.S. 
investment in sectors--not counting the key petroleum sector. Also, the 
guerrillas have expressly targeted American businesses and citizens in 
Colombia for bombings, kidnapings, and murders.
  Further, the threat to regional stability is acute: Venezuela, Peru, 
and Ecuador all have massed troops on their borders with Colombia. 
Panama, which has no army, is helpless to secure its frontier from 
smugglers of drugs and weapons.
  President Pastrana doesn't ask us to do his fighting for him. In 
fact, no man alive has taken more risks for peace. If anything, he 
might be criticized for making too many concessions to bring the 
guerrillas to the peace table.
  The guerrillas have responded by launching murderous attacks on 
civilian targets. While President Pastrana is going the extra mile for 
peace, the guerrillas have launched a recruitment drive--bent on 
tearing Colombia apart.
  These guerrillas are criminals and terrorists who thrive on drug 
trafficking, kidnaping, and extortion. They are playing an ever-
increasing role in the drug trade, which earns them a blank check from 
the narcotraffickers who realize that chaos is good for their dirty 
enterprise.
  These 20,000 guerrillas move about the country virtually unchallenged 
while most of Colombia's army is pinned down protecting bridges, oil 
pipelines, and power stations from terrorist attacks. That leaves only 
40,000 soldiers, with a mere 30 helicopters, to take on the guerrillas 
in a rugged, mountainous country almost twice the size of Texas.
  What can the United States do to help?
  We can approve emergency anti-drug aid to Colombia and to her 
neighbors, thereby giving them a fighting chance to stem the tide of 
lawlessness and cocaine that threatens the entire Andean region.
  U.S. support will bolster the Colombian army's counter-drug 
battalions, providing continued U.S. military training, better 
intelligence and communications, and increased mobility in he form of 
transport helicopters. We will also provide support to eradicate 
illegal crops and create alternative employment for displaced farmers.
  Current U.S. law requires that any military units receiving U.S. aid 
must be ``scrubbed'' for human rights violations. That is as it should 
be. But we should not hold U.S. support hostage to unrealistic 
preconditions.
  If America fails to act, Colombia will continue to hurdle toward 
chaos. If the war drags on--or if desperate Colombians lose their 
struggle or are forced to appease the narco-guerrillas--the United 
States and the rest of the hemisphere will pay a very dear price.
  The longer we delay, the higher that price will be.
  I urge Senators to support emergency anti-drug support for Colombia--
and to do so without delay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Without objection, 
the Senator's time will be charged under the previous order against his 
time on the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we are working on the final version of 
the amendment, but I will outline for colleagues what this amendment is 
about. I will send the amendment to the desk in a short while.
  This amendment would essentially transfer $225 million--as I said to 
the majority leader, this is by no means an amendment that says we 
don't supply assistance to Colombia--from the Colombian military for 
purposes of the push into southern Colombia to the domestic drug 
treatment programs.
  Specifically, this amendment would transfer funds to the substance 
abuse prevention and treatment block grant program to provide--I will 
marshal evidence to colleagues--desperately needed funds for State and 
local community-based programs and for drug treatment programs within a 
variety of different facilities, such as correctional facilities and 
other facilities in the country.
  By the way, part of the argument that I present today is that we deal 
with this drug problem for sure, but there is a considerable amount of 
evidence that we don't want to all of a sudden militarize this whole 
package, especially with the record of the military in Colombia.
  Moreover, we want to deal with the demand side in our country. By the 
way, I am sure the vast majority of people in the United States of 
America agree.

[[Page S5489]]

  This amendment leaves substantial assistance for the Colombian 
Government and civil society, including all sorts of alternative 
development programs such as judicial reform and human rights programs.
  I want to make this clear, given some of the comments of the majority 
leader. It also leaves extensive funding for interdiction, 
investigating, and prosecuting drug trafficking and money laundering, 
and for the counternarcotics effort of the Colombian national police, 
as well as for other counternarcotics programs in other Latin American 
countries. It doesn't cut 1 cent from any of that.
  I want colleagues to know what they are voting on. It simply removes 
and transfers to more effective domestic use the resources in this 
particular bill destined for the Colombian Army's push into southern 
Colombia.
  Since 1989, virtually all U.S. assistance to Colombia has officially 
been intended to fight illicit drug production and trafficking. The 
majority leader comes to the floor and speaks as if we have not been 
making this effort. But what is sold as a war on drugs to the Congress 
and the American public is far more complex. This is where I dissent 
from the majority leader. This is much more complex than just a war 
dealing with drug production and trafficking.
  Colombia today is embroiled in the hemisphere's largest and longest 
civil war with the military increasingly linked to paramilitary death 
squads.
  The majority leader says this is just a matter of whether or not we 
are serious about the war on drugs. That is not what this amendment 
deals with. I am serious about the war on drugs. I am serious about 
interdiction. I am serious about getting the assistance to Colombia for 
that. But when the majority leader says: I am concerned about human 
rights, he then quickly brushes this aside.
  We need to understand that there is a civil war in Colombia. There is 
a military link to paramilitary death squads with massive corruption 
and widespread human rights atrocities. The rebel insurgency has also 
expanded throughout large sections of the country, and innocent 
civilians have been killed by these rebels as well. Colombia now has 
the third largest internally displaced population in the world.
  Before I go any further, since we are now by a 7-to-1 ratio going to 
change our assistance from police to military--that is what worries me 
with American advisers--let me talk about the military.
  Let me, first of all, quote from the 1999 country reports on human 
rights practices released by the U.S. Department of State, February 25, 
2000.

       Paramilitary groups and guerrillas attack at increasing 
     levels unarmed civilians expected of loyalty to an opposing 
     party in the country.
       Government forces continue to commit numerous serious 
     abuses, including extrajudicial killings, at a level that was 
     roughly similar to that of 1998. Despite some prosecutions 
     and convictions, the authorities rarely brought officers of 
     the security forces and the police charged with human rights 
     offenses to justice, and impunity remains a problem. At 
     times, the security forces collaborated with paramilitary 
     groups that committed abuses.
       Paramilitary groups and guerrillas were responsible for the 
     vast majority of political and extrajudicial killings during 
     the year. Throughout the country, paramilitary groups killed, 
     tortured, and threatened civilians suspected of sympathizing 
     with guerrillas with an orchestrated campaign of terrorizing 
     them into fleeing their homes thereby depriving guerrillas of 
     civilian support.

  This report goes on. It basically says you have the military directly 
linked to these paramilitary groups which have committed widespread 
abuses of human rights and which have murdered innocent civilians.
  I am all for interdiction. But I have to raise some questions about 
what we are doing all of a sudden in this package by dramatically 
changing the ratio of our support and giving much more to the military 
linked to these death squads. I don't think that is what our country is 
about.
  Moreover, I don't believe the militarization of this package will 
work. I will get to that in a moment.
  The majority leader says he is concerned about human rights. He said 
it in a word or two. But I would like to spend a little bit more time 
on this.
  ``Human Rights Watch World Report 2000,'' in Colombia,

       Paramilitary groups working in some areas with the 
     tolerance and open support of the armed forces continue to 
     massacre civilians, commit selected killings and special 
     terror.

  Democratic Senators and Republican Senators, now we are going to give 
this military, given this record, a massive infusion of money for a 
campaign in southern Colombia with American advisers with them.
  Let me quote again from the ``Human Rights Watch World Report 2000.'' 
That is this year.

       Paramilitary groups working in some areas with the 
     tolerance and open support of the armed forces continue to 
     massacre civilians, commit selected killings and special 
     terror.

  I argue that we should take this seriously.
  Amnesty International, May 3, 2000:

       Jesus Ramiro Zapata, human rights defender, was abducted 
     and killed in Segovia, department of Antioquia. Several days 
     earlier he reported that members of paramilitary groups had 
     inquired into his whereabouts eight times in the latter part 
     of April. On the 3rd of April, 500 paramilitaries reportedly 
     entered the municipalities of Segovia and Remedios, setting 
     up camp in Otu. The large number of Colombian National Army 
     4th Brigade troops stationed in the area did nothing to 
     confront the illegal paramilitary group.

  That is a report from Amnesty International.
  I could go on.
  The armed forces, the military that we are now going to provide money 
to with American advisers watching and standing by idly as paramilitary 
groups violate human rights, abduct innocent people and murder them, 
and we are going to be providing all of this support for this military?
  Colleagues, if there had been some evidence over the last couple of 
years that there has been a change, that would be a different story.
  This is a letter from a number of different religious organizations 
in the United States of America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of these documents be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Legal Action Center, National Association of Alcoholism 
           and Drug Abuse Counselors (NAADAC), National Council on 
           Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD), Partnership for 
           Recovery, State Associations of Addiction Services 
           (SAAS),
                                                     May 18, 2000.

       Support the Wellstone Amendment to the Foreign Operations 
                          Appropriations Bill

       Dear Senators: We are writing in support of Senator 
     Wellstone's Amendment to the Foreign Operations 
     appropriations bill to transfer $225 million from the section 
     of the bill funding military operations in Southern Colombia 
     to drug and alcohol treatment and prevention programs funded 
     by the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) block 
     grant. We feel this amendment leaves intact critical 
     assistance for democracy stabilization and drug interdiction 
     efforts in Colombia, while also supporting the vastly 
     underfunded drug and alcohol treatment and prevention 
     programs here in the United States.
       Public funding for treatment primarily serves low income 
     and indigent people who are seeking treatment in order to 
     reclaim their lives. When looking at drug and alcohol 
     addiction, we find that in addition to being a disease 
     itself, it is a critical risk factor for health problems such 
     as the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases as well as 
     social problems such as crime and domestic violence.
       Additionally, treatment and prevention systems have faced 
     increased pressure from entitlement reforms, specifically 
     welfare and SSI program reforms that decrease system capacity 
     while increasing the need for public treatment and prevention 
     services. Successful criminal justice programs involving (and 
     often mandating) treatment, including drug courts, have 
     proliferated and are steadily increasing the demand for 
     treatment.
       We feel that a balanced approach to the drug control effort 
     is necessary, yet prevention and treatment programs have not 
     received adequate funding to keep up with demand. The 
     Wellstone amendment adds necessary prevention and treatment 
     funds to domestic programs that will save lives and taxpayer 
     dollars.
       On behalf of the 18 million Americans who chronically use 
     drugs or alcohol and the 8.3 million children whose parent(s) 
     abuse drugs or alcohol, we ask that you support drug and 
     alcohol prevention and treatment programs by supporting the 
     Wellstone amendment.
       We thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Tom McDaniels,
       Director of National Policy, Legal Action Center.

[[Page S5490]]

     William D. McColl, Esq.,
       Executive Director, National Association of Alcoholism and 
     Drug Abuse Counselors (NAADAC).
     Sarah Kayson,
       Public Policy Director, National Council on Alcoholism and 
     Drug Dependence (NCADD).
     Carol McDaid,
       Partnership for Recovery.
     Art Schut,
       President, State Associations of Addiction Services (SAAS).
                                  ____


             1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices


                                colombia

       Colombia is a constitutional, multiparty democracy, in 
     which the Liberal and Conservative parties have long 
     dominated politics. Citizens elected President Andres 
     Pastrana of the Conservative Party and a bicameral 
     legislature controlled by the Liberal Party in generally 
     free, fair, and transparent elections in 1998, despite 
     attempts at intimidation and fraud by paramilitary groups, 
     guerrillas, and narcotics traffickers. The civilian judiciary 
     is largely independent of government influence, although the 
     suborning or intimidation of judges, witnesses, and 
     prosecutors by those indicated is common.
       The Government continued to face a serious challenge to its 
     control over the national territory, as longstanding and 
     widespread internal armed conflict and rampant violence--both 
     political and criminal--persisted. The principal participants 
     were government security forces, paramilitary groups, 
     guerrillas, and narcotics traffickers. In some areas 
     government forces were engaged in combat with guerrillas or 
     narcotics traffickers, while in others paramilitary groups 
     fought guerrillas, and in still others guerrillas attacked 
     demobilized members of rival guerrilla factions. Paramilitary 
     groups and guerrillas attacked at increasing levels unarmed 
     civilians suspected of loyalty to an opposing party in the 
     conflict. The two major guerrilla groups, the Revolutionary 
     Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation 
     Army (ELN), consist of an estimated 11,000 to 17,000 full-
     time combatants organized into more than 100 semiautonomous 
     groups. The FARC and the ELN, along with other smaller 
     groups, exercised a significant degree of influence and 
     initiated armed action in nearly 1,000 of the country's 1,085 
     municipalities during the year, compared with 700 
     municipalities in 1998. The major guerrilla organizations 
     received a significant part of their revenues (in the 
     hundreds of millions of dollars) from fees levied on 
     narcotics production and trafficking. Guerrillas and 
     paramilitary groups supplanted absent state institutions in 
     many sparsely populated areas of the national territory. In 
     July 1998, then-President-elect Pastrana met with the FARC's 
     leader, ``Manuel Marulanda Velez,'' and agreed to a 
     demilitarized zone (``despeje'') in which the two sides could 
     pursue direct peace talks. In November 1998, the despeje was 
     initiated in 5 southern municipalities, with a total 
     population of approximately 100,000 persons. Security forces 
     completed their withdrawal from the area the following month. 
     In January Marulanda failed to appear for the scheduled 
     formal inauguration of peace talks in the despeje. President 
     Pastrana and Marulanda met again in May and agreed on an 
     agenda for formal negotiations and on procedures for the 
     creation of an international verification commission to 
     monitor both sides' compliance with the terms of the despeje. 
     However, the FARC refused to proceed with the establishment 
     of the commission. Formal Government-FARC peace negotiations 
     began in earnest in October and were underway at year's end, 
     following the Government's concession to the FARC that, at 
     least initially, there be no international verification 
     commission. The Government also held a series of informal 
     discussions with the ELN during the year, but insisted on the 
     ELN's release of the victims of specific mass kidnapings as a 
     condition for undertaking formal negotiations and for 
     demilitarizing a zone in which the ELN could hold its 
     national convention. At year's end, the ELN had not complied 
     with the Government's request and still held captive several 
     dozen of the specified kidnap victims.
       The civilian-led Ministry of Defense is responsible for 
     internal security and oversees both the armed forces and the 
     National Police, although civilian management of the armed 
     forces is limited. The security forces include armed state 
     law enforcement, investigative, and military authorities, 
     including the National Police, army, air force, navy, 
     marines, coast guard, the Administrative Department of 
     Security (DAS), and the Prosecutor General's Technical 
     Corps of Investigators (CTI). The army, air force, navy, 
     marines, coast guard, and National Police fall under the 
     direction of the Minister of Defense. The DAS, which has 
     broad intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and 
     investigative authority, reports directly to the 
     President, but is directed by a law enforcement 
     professional. The police are charged formally with 
     maintaining internal order and security, but in practice 
     law enforcement responsibilities often were shared with 
     the army, especially in rural areas. The security forces 
     regularly failed to confront paramilitary groups, and 
     members of the security forces sometimes illegally 
     collaborated with paramilitary forces. The armed forces 
     and the police committed numerous, serious violations of 
     human rights throughout the year.
       Despite years of drug- and politically related violence, 
     the economy is diverse and developed. However, the economy 
     has suffered a recession, and there was negative growth of 5 
     percent in 1999 for the first time in the country's modern 
     history. The Government has privatized many public-sector 
     entities and liberalized trade and financial activity since 
     1991, and it plans further privatizations. Crude oil, coal, 
     coffee, and cut flowers are the principal legal exports. 
     Narcotics traffickers continued to control large tracts of 
     land and other assets and exerted influence throughout 
     society, the economy, and political life. The official 
     unemployment rate peaked at 20 percent, a record high, 
     although it had declined to 18.1 percent by year's end. 
     Inflation at year's end was 9.2 percent. The Government 
     passed an austere budget to address the fiscal gap, which was 
     at 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and has 
     prepared reform proposals in areas such as pensions and 
     regional finance. The balance of payments deficit was 4.5 
     percent of GDP. Income distribution is highly skewed; much of 
     the population lives in poverty. Per capita GDP was 
     approximately $2,100.
       The Government's human rights record remained poor; there 
     was some improvement in several areas, and the Pastrana 
     administration took measures to initiate structural reform, 
     but serious problems remain. Government forces continued to 
     commit numerous, serious abuses, including extrajudicial 
     killings, at a level that was roughly similar to that of 
     1998. Despite some prosecutions and convictions, the 
     authorities rarely brought officers of the security forces 
     and the police charged with human rights offenses to justice, 
     and impunity remains a problem. At times the security forces 
     collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed abuses; 
     in some instances, individual members of the security forces 
     actively collaborated with members of paramilitary groups by 
     passing them through roadblocks, sharing intelligence, and 
     providing them with ammunition. Paramilitary forces find a 
     ready support base within the military and police, as well as 
     local civilian elites in many areas.
       On August 12, President Pastrana signed into law a revised 
     Military Penal Code, which includes provisions that unit 
     commanders no longer may judge their subordinates; that an 
     independent judge advocate general corps is to be created; 
     and that troops are to be protected legally if they refuse to 
     carry out illegal orders to commit human rights abuses. 
     However, necessary implementing legislation had not been 
     passed at year's end. Also on August 12, the Government made 
     public the Government's national human rights plan, which 
     includes a provision that permits the armed forces commander 
     to remove from service summarily any military member whose 
     performance in combating paramilitary forces he deemed 
     ``unsatisfactory or insufficient.'' The State demonstrated an 
     increased willingness to remove from duty security force 
     officers who failed to respect human rights, or ignored or 
     were complicit in the abuses committed by paramilitary 
     groups. The Government removed four army general officers 
     from service during the year; the generals were under 
     investigation for collaborating with or failing to combat 
     paramilitary groups. A few other state security officers were 
     removed from service or suspended during the year. The 
     military judiciary demonstrated an increased willingness to 
     turn cases involving security force officers accused of 
     serious human rights violations over to the civilian 
     judiciary, as required by a 1997 Constitutional Court ruling; 
     however, concerns about impunity within the military 
     judiciary remained.
       Police, prison guards, and military forces continued to 
     torture and mistreat detainees. Conditions in the overcrowded 
     prisons are generally harsh; however, some inmates use bribes 
     or intimidation to obtain more favorable treatment. Arbitrary 
     arrest and detention, as well as prolonged pretrial 
     detention, are fundamental problems. The civilian judiciary 
     is inefficient, severely overburdened by a large case 
     backlog, and undermined by intimidation and the prevailing 
     climate of impunity. This situation remains at the core of 
     the country's human rights problems. The Superior Judicial 
     Council (CSJ) reported in August that 63 percent of crimes go 
     unreported, and that 40 percent of all reported crimes go 
     unpunished. The use of ``faceless'' prosecutors, judges, and 
     witnesses, under cover of anonymity for security reasons, 
     continued until June 30, in cases involving kidnaping, 
     extortion, narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and in several 
     hundred high-profile cases involving human rights violations. 
     Human rights groups accused these courts of violating 
     fundamental rights of due process, including the right to a 
     public trial. On June 30, a ``specialized jurisdiction'' 
     replaced the anonymous regional court system. The specialized 
     jurisdiction prosecuted and tried cases of extortion, 
     narcotics trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, and 
     serious human rights violations, including massacres, some 
     homicides, torture, and kidnaping. It permitted the use of 
     anonymous witnesses and prosecutor in exceptional

[[Page S5491]]

     cases that potentially placed their lives in danger.
       The authorities sometimes infringed on citizens' privacy 
     rights. Journalists practices self-censorship. There were 
     some restrictions on freedom of movement. There were 
     unconfirmed reports of security forces harassing or 
     threatening human rights groups. Violence and extensive 
     societal discrimination against women, abuse of children, and 
     child prostitution are serious problems. Extensive societal 
     discrimination against the indigenous and minorities 
     continued. Child labor is a widespread problem. Trafficking 
     in women and girls for the purpose of forced prostitution is 
     a problem. ``Social cleansing'' killings of street children, 
     prostitutes, homosexuals, and others deemed socially 
     undesirable by paramilitary groups, guerrillas, and vigilante 
     groups continued to be a serious problem.
       Paramilitary groups and guerrillas were responsible for the 
     vast majority of political and extrajudicial killings during 
     the year. Throughout the country, paramilitary groups killed, 
     tortured, and threatened civilians suspected of sympathizing 
     with guerrillas in an orchestrated campaign to terrorize them 
     into fleeing their homes, thereby depriving guerrillas of 
     civilian support. Paramilitary forces were responsible for an 
     increasing number of massacres and other politically 
     motivated killings. They also fought guerrillas for control 
     of some lucrative coca-growing regions and engaged directly 
     in narcotics production and trafficking. The AUC paramilitary 
     umbrella organization, whose membership totaled approximately 
     5,000 to 7,000 armed combatants, exercised increasing 
     influence during the year, extending its presence through 
     violence and intimidation into areas previously under 
     guerrilla control. Although some paramilitary groups reflect 
     rural residents' desire to organize solely for self-defense, 
     others are vigilante organizations, and still others are 
     actually the paid private armies of narcotics traffickers or 
     large landowners. Popular support for these organizations 
     grew during the year, as guerrilla violence increased in the 
     face of a slowly evolving peace process. The army's record in 
     dealing with paramilitary groups remained mixed. In some 
     locations the army on rare occasions attacked and captured 
     members of such groups; in others it tolerated or even 
     collaborated with paramilitary groups.
       The FARC and the ELN regularly attacked civilian 
     populations, committed massacres and summary executions, and 
     killed medical and religious personnel. Guerrillas were 
     responsible for the majority of cases of forcible recruitment 
     of indigenous people and of hundreds of children; they also 
     were responsible for the majority of kidnapings. Guerrillas 
     held more than 1,000 kidnaped civilians, with ransom payments 
     serving as an important source of revenue. Other kidnap 
     victims were killed. In some places, guerrillas collected 
     ``war taxes,'' forced members of the citizenry into their 
     ranks, forced small farmers to sow illicit crops, and 
     regulated travel, commerce, and other activities.
                                  ____



                                         U.S. Aid to Colombia,

                                                    March 8, 2000.
       Dear Representative: We are writing as religious leaders in 
     the United States to urge you to oppose the two-year $1.3 
     billion military aid package for the ``Push into Southern 
     Colombia'' proposed by President Clinton on January 11. This 
     aid targeting the coca growing regions of southern Colombia 
     will escalate the violence and undercut efforts for a 
     negotiated peace settlement to Colombia's 40-year civil war. 
     We urge you instead to support much-needed assistance for 
     peace, human rights, justice reform, alternative development, 
     and humanitarian assistance to Colombia's internally 
     displaced.
       Colombia is currently the third largest recipient of U.S. 
     military assistance. Yet reports from the United Nations, the 
     U.S. Department of State, independent human rights 
     organizations, and Colombian judicial authorities point to 
     continuing ties between the Colombian security forces and 
     brutal paramilitary groups responsible for massacres, 
     assassinations of community leaders and human rights 
     defenders, and over 70% of Colombia's human rights abuses. A 
     report released by Human Rights Watch this month links half 
     of Colombia's 18 brigade-level army units to paramilitary 
     activity.
       Colombia's internal conflict has produced 1.6 million 
     internally displaced persons, more than in Kosovo or East 
     Timor, and an increasing number of refugees fleeing to Panama 
     and Venezuela. It is our fear the proposed aid package will 
     draw the U.S. deeper into Colombia's civil war, intensify the 
     conflict, and make the U.S. complicit in violations of human 
     rights. Even more disturbing, the proposed aid package 
     includes plans for intensive aerial fumigation that will 
     displace 10,000 more people from southern Colombia, forcing 
     them off of their lands and deeper into the fragile 
     rainforests, causing great human suffering and incalculable 
     environment damage.
       Aerial fumigation of coca cultivation in Colombia has 
     failed to reduce coca production in Colombia or consumption 
     in the United States. Between 1992 and 1998 the area under 
     coca cultivation has increased from 40,000 to 100,000 
     hectares despite huge increases in U.S. assistance for 
     weapons, training, and intelligence. This proposed aid 
     package will only expand a failed war on drugs by increasing 
     military force, while failing to address the complex 
     political, economic, and social inequalities at the root of 
     Colombia's internal conflict.
       On October 24, 1999, more than 10 million Colombians 
     marched for peace. Talks between the Colombian government and 
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the 
     largest guerrilla force, have resumed. Progress is being made 
     toward opening negotiations with the National Liberation Army 
     (ELN), the second largest guerrilla group. We ask you to 
     honestly assess the possible negative effects on U.S. 
     military aid on those peace efforts. It is our judgment that 
     such aid will undermine them. We urge you to vote against 
     increased U.S. military involvement in Colombia.
     Raquel Rodriguez,
       Program Associate, Latin American and Caribbean Office, 
     Global Ministries, United Church of Christ--Disciples of 
     Christ.
     David A. Vargas,
       Executive for Latin America and the Caribbean Global 
     Ministries, United Church of Christ--Disciples of Christ.
     Thom White Wolf Fassett,
       General Secretary, United Methodist Church, General Board 
     of Church amid Society.
     Steven Bennett,
       Executive Director, Witness for Peace.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. They are opposed to this aid package for the push into 
southern Colombia, again with the same concern about the basic 
violation of human rights and the close connection between the armed 
services and these paramilitary terrorist organizations.
  Mr. President, I also have here a document which is from Human Rights 
Nongovernmental Organizations and the Peace Movement In Colombia.
  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Colombia Answers Plan Colombia: A Plan for Peace or a Plan for War?

      (A Declaration From Social and Human Rights Nongovernmental 
  Organizations, and the Peace Movement in Colombia, Bogota, May 31, 
                                 2000)

       We would like express our support for those offers of 
     international assistance that contribute to resolving the 
     armed conflict through a process of political negotiation, 
     and that strengthen and unite Colombian society and the 
     economy. We support proposals that include viable and 
     integral solutions to the problem of drug trafficking, the 
     design of a new development model agreed to by the people, 
     and the strengthening of a new kind of democratic 
     institutionality.
       However, Plan Colombia, presented by the Government of 
     President Pastrana, has been developed with the same logic of 
     political and social exclusion that has been one of the 
     structural causes of the conflict Colombians have experienced 
     since the time of our formation as a Republic.
       In this same vein, because we feel it is a mistake, we are 
     obligated to reject the fact that Plan Colombia includes, as 
     one of its strategies, a military component that not only 
     fails to resolve he narcotrafficking problem, but also 
     endangers the efforts to build peace, increases illicit crop 
     production, violates the Amazonic ecosystem, aggravates the 
     humanitarian and human rights crisis, multiplies the problem 
     of forced displacement, and worsens the social crisis with 
     fiscal adjustment policies. In its social component, the Plan 
     is limited to attending to some of the tangential causes and 
     effects of the conflict.
       What we are proposing is the need for a concerted agreement 
     between different actors in Colombian society and the 
     international community, one where civil society is the 
     principal interlocutor, where solutions to the varied 
     conflicts are found, and where stable and sustainable peace 
     is constructed. We are ready and willing to design 
     strategies, to define forms of implementation and to monitor 
     a plan that reflects these intentions.
       Taking into consideration the arguments put forth above, we 
     the undersigned are given no choice but to reject the U.S. 
     assistance for Colombia that you are considering at this 
     time.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will quote one section:

       In this same vein, because we feel it is a mistake--

  They are talking about this package--

     we are obliged to reject the fact that Plan Colombia includes 
     as one of its strategies, a military component that not only 
     fails to resolve the narcotrafficking problem--

  I say to the majority leader and others, ``that fails to resolve this 
problem,'' but that is what we want to do, is resolve the problem--


[[Page S5492]]


     but also endangers the efforts to build peace, increases 
     illicit crop production, violates the Amazonic ecosystem, 
     aggravates the humanitarian and human rights crisis, 
     multiplies the problem of forced displacement, and worsens 
     the social crisis with fiscal adjustment policies.

  It is from a variety of about 70 nongovernment organizations, 
including religious organizations as well, in the country of Colombia. 
They are saying don't do this. Provide the assistance; we need it. 
Let's get it to the civic-building organizations, get it to the police, 
get it to some of the interdiction efforts, get it to some other 
economic development efforts. But don't put the money into the military 
for this campaign, given the military's record of torture, murder, and 
widespread violation of human rights.
  In short, continuing to pursue our current Colombia counterinsurgency 
policy, cloaked under the veil of antinarcotics efforts--that is not 
what this is about. This is not about an antinarcotics effort. That is 
not what the vote is about. The vote is about whether or not you are 
going to put money into this military anti-insurgency effort. It risks 
drawing us into a terrible quagmire. History has repeatedly shown, 
especially in Latin America--just think of Nicaragua or El Salvador--
that the practical effect of this strategy now under consideration is 
to militarize, to escalate the conflict, not to end it. That is, I 
think, the flaw in this package.
  The call by the administration for a massive increase in 
counternarcotics assistance for Colombia this year puts the United 
States at a crossroads. Do we back a major escalation in military aid 
to Colombia that may worsen a civil war that has already raged for 
decades or do we pursue a more effective policy of stabilizing Colombia 
by promoting sustainable development, strengthening civilian democratic 
institutions, and attacking the drug market by investing in prevention 
and treatment at home--the demand side of the equation, right here in 
our own country?
  The decision to fund the Colombian Army's push into southern Colombia 
is an enormous policy shift. It represents a 7-to-1 shift in funding 
from the Colombian police to the army. General McCaffrey says the 
purpose of Plan Colombia is to help the Colombian Army recover the 
southern part of the country now under guerrilla control. But honestly, 
if the purpose of this military aid is to stop drug trafficking, should 
some of that aid not target the northern part of Colombia as well? 
Something strange is going on here. If we want to deal with the people 
who are involved in drug trafficking, then one would think we would 
also have a campaign in the northern part of Colombia. There you have 
the right-wing death squads involved. Colombia is currently the largest 
recipient of U.S. security assistance. It is exceeded only by Israel 
and Egypt. Foreign aid and other assistance to Colombia, since 1995, 
now totals $739 million. Yet the administration's own estimate shows a 
140-percent increase in Colombia coca cultivation over the past 5 
years.

  Colombia now produces 80 percent of the world's cocaine. Drugs today 
are cheaper and more available than ever before. If the drug war was 
evaluated like most other Federal programs, I suspect we would have 
tried different strategies a long time ago. More weapons and more 
soldiers have not and cannot defeat the source of illegal narcotics. 
While the Colombian Government and people merit our assistance, more 
money for guns is not the answer to Colombia's troubles or our own 
troubles with the serious use of drugs right here in our own country.
  Being tough on drugs is important. But we also need to be smart about 
the tactics we employ. No one disagrees that Colombia faces a difficult 
challenge and we should respond to President Pastrana's call for help 
to combat illegal drug trafficking. I agree. President Pastrana has 
argued that U.S. support is necessary to ``strengthen democratic 
institutions, stop the flow of drugs, and bring peace to the country.'' 
I agree.
  I would support the army's push into southern Colombia if I felt this 
proposal would make that happen. But, in fact, I think a military push 
would have the exact opposite effect by weakening democratic 
institutions and bringing more hardship to the Colombian people. There 
is not anything in the world we can do, by way of monitoring this, to 
make sure that this military--which has been so clearly linked to these 
right-wing death squads and terrorist organizations--will change its 
practice.
  Amnesty International, the State Department report, ``Human Rights 
World Watch Report''--I could spend hours just reading from these 
reports on the atrocities committed by the military, or the atrocities 
committed by these death squads, these paramilitary organizations 
toward which the military basically has turned a blind eye. Now we are 
going to provide the money for this military, for a military campaign, 
with American advisers, in the southern part of Colombia? That is what 
is problematical about this.
  At the same time, however, forces from within Colombia threaten 
democracy. Paramilitary groups operating with the acquiescence or open 
support of the military--the very military we are going to support--
account for most of the political violence in Colombia today. I need to 
make that point.
  Yes to interdiction, yes to going after drug trafficking--but 
understand that this is a country in civil war. This is a country with 
the largest internally displaced population, maybe in the world, 
certainly in the hemisphere. And this is a country where too many 
innocent civilians are murdered. This is a country where paramilitary 
groups, operating with the acquiescence or open support of the 
military, account for most of the political violence.
  Yet Colombia's military leaders have not taken a firm stand or taken 
clear steps necessary to purge human rights abusers from their ranks. 
The evidence is clear. They have taken no steps to purge human rights 
abusers from their ranks. They have acquiesced to these human rights 
abuses. Sometimes they support these human rights abuses. And we are 
going to provide this money for this military with American advisers?
  I support the addition to this bill that requires conditions on 
assistance based on human rights concerns. But just as the Committee on 
Appropriations noted in its committee report to this bill, I, too, 
``have grave reservations.'' I quote from the Committee on 
Appropriations:

       . . . grave reservations regarding the Administration's 
     ability to effectively manage the use of these resources to 
     achieve the expected results of reducing production and 
     supply of cocaine while protecting human rights.

  Human rights organizations have detailed abundant and compelling 
evidence of continuing ties between the Colombian Army and paramilitary 
groups responsible for gross human rights violations. In its annual 
report for 1999, Human Rights Watch reports:

       [I]n 1999 paramilitary [groups] were considered responsible 
     for 78 percent of the total number of human rights and 
     international humanitarian law violations [in Colombia.]

  Human Rights Watch collected this evidence with the help of the 
Colombian Commission of Jurists, a highly respected human rights 
watchdog within Colombia. It has also collected evidence linking half 
of Colombia's 18 brigade-level army units to paramilitary activity.
  In other words, military support for paramilitaries remains national 
in scope and includes areas where units receiving or scheduled to 
receive U.S. military aid operate. This is quite unbelievable. I hope 
all Senators will consider this seriously when they vote on this 
amendment.
  I was also given a book detailing the human rights situation in 
Colombia by the Twin Cities Chapter of the Colombia Support Network. 
This organization is working to establish a sister-city relationship 
with the war-torn town of San Pablo in southern Colombia. San Pablo is 
directly in the path of the suggested push into southern Colombia. This 
is just one of hundreds, if not thousands, of heartbreaking stories:

       A young woman, with a confused and almost hopeless air 
     about her, answered my questions and spoke into my 
     taperecorder. She had been forced to join a military patrol 
     and walk for 13 days through the mountains, guiding the 
     soldiers and carrying their knapsacks. Although she witnessed 
     numerous cases of torture and the destruction and burning of 
     humble campesino dwellings, it was the brutal murder of Jesus 
     Pastrana which affected her the most. I myself had

[[Page S5493]]

     met this campesino leader on one of his visits to Bogota to 
     attend meetings of ANUC (a national peasants organization 
     with strong support during this period). According to the 
     terrible details the young woman gave me, Chucho, as Jesus 
     was affectionately called, died a slow and agonizing death on 
     October 31, 1981. He was hung from a tree as psychopathic 
     soldiers cut off his ears, his fingers, hands, then arms and 
     testicles and finally shot him 21 times.

  Other colleagues have come to the floor to speak, and I want to make 
sure they speak.
  If this were an isolated example and if I did not have in hand the 
evidence from respected human rights organizations and the State 
Department reports of blatant violation of human rights now of these 
paramilitary organizations committing so many of these atrocities, most 
of the violence, with the military acquiescing and sometimes linked to 
it and supporting it, with no evidence the military is taking any steps 
to purge its ranks of human rights abusers, I might think better of 
this dramatic change in our package, 7 to 1 from military to police, 
for a campaign in southern Colombia with American advisers, putting us 
in the middle of the civil war aligned with this military.
  I want to have aid for Colombia. I want President Pastrana to have 
our support, but this effort will not be successful. Moreover, I think, 
we are, on very treacherous ground, moving into this area.
  I will summarize so that other colleagues may speak.
  We could put this money into the demand side. I am simply saying we 
take $225 million, leaving $700 million, or thereabouts, and we put it 
into the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grant program 
which basically is a block grant to our States. Whether or not we are 
talking about the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy or 
whether or not we are talking about the data that is collected in our 
States, we are talking about a situation where 50 percent of adults or 
more and 80 percent of adolescents or more who need treatment are 
receiving no treatment because we do not have the funds for the 
treatment programs.
  Our police chiefs tell us drug abuse is the most serious problem in 
their community. They also identify a shortage of treatment programs as 
a real limitation on their ability to deal with it.

  We know from study after study--and I will talk more about this when 
I have more time--that money put into treatment programs pays for 
itself over and over. I have dramatic statistics and data I will 
present, but the long and the short of it is, if we have this package 
and if there are questions to be raised about the militarization of 
this aid, putting the money into the military for the southern 
campaign, a military directly linked to human rights violations, with 
so many organizations in Colombia saying do not do this, it will lead 
to more violence; do not do this, America, you could be sucked into 
this conflict; at the same time, we could provide a significant package 
into building democratic institutions for economic aid, $700 million, 
and we could take a tiny portion of it and deal with the demand side 
for drugs in our own country, which is also critically important, and 
get the funding to the community level that would help us provide some 
treatment for people, that is a win-win situation.
  I hope this amendment will receive strong support from my colleagues.


                           Amendment No. 3518

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the substance abuse and 
                        mental health services)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 3518.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 143, line 9, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, subject to the 2 
     preceding provisos, of the funds appropriated for military 
     purposes under this heading for the `Push into Southern 
     Colombia', $225,000,000 shall be made available to the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for 
     carrying out subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public 
     Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That amounts made available under the preceding 
     proviso are hereby designated by the Congress to be emergency 
     requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That such amounts shall be made available only after 
     submission to the Congress of a formal budget request by the 
     President that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in such 
     Act''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 26 minutes and has 64 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  I sent this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment that has been offered by my friend and colleague from 
Minnesota. I commend him for his commitment to drug use reduction. He 
and I serve on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee. We have worked on a number of bills having to do with this 
very topic, including the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program.
  Ultimately, however, this amendment is, I am afraid, attempting to 
reallocate resources from one part of our antidrug strategy to another. 
The amendment raises important questions about the effectiveness of our 
entire strategy and opens, I believe, an important and necessary 
discussion about our drug control policy in this country.
  The sad fact is that since almost the beginning of the last decade, 
our antidrug strategy has not worked. More children are abusing drugs, 
and with an abundant supply, drug traffickers are seeking to increase 
their sales by targeting children ages 10, 11, 12, and 13. This is 
certainly an assault on the future of our children, an assault on our 
families, and an assault on the future of our country. This is nothing 
less than a threat to our national values and, yes, a threat to our 
national security.
  All of this, though, begs the question: What are we doing wrong? 
Clearly, there is not one simple answer. However, in 1998, a bipartisan 
group of Senators--myself; the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell; the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley; 
and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein--worked together to 
deal with this problem. We came to the conclusion that our overall drug 
strategy simply was no longer balanced. I want to talk about this 
because I am afraid what my colleague is doing is not helpful as we 
attempt to balance our antidrug strategy.
  We have been working together since 1998 to restore that balance. The 
emergency assistance antidrug package for Colombia contained in this 
bill is part of that effort to restore this balance, but even with 
this, we still have a long way to go.
  The fact is, to be effective, our national drug strategy must have a 
strong commitment in three different areas: No. 1 is demand reduction 
which consists of prevention, treatment, and education. The Federal 
Government in this area shares responsibility to reduce that demand, 
along with State and local governments, local community groups, 
nonprofit organizations, and families.
  When you are dealing with education, when you are dealing with 
treatment, you are dealing with something that is a shared 
responsibility between the Federal Government and the local 
communities.
  The second component is domestic law enforcement. Again, in this 
area, it is a shared responsibility among the Federal Government, the 
local communities, and the States. Again, the Federal Government has a 
shared responsibility to use law enforcement resources, along with the 
State and local governments, to detect and dismantle drug trafficking 
operations within our borders.
  We witnessed a successful return on that investment last week on what 
was called Operation Tar Pit, when the Justice Department announced it 
had worked with State and local law enforcement agencies in 12 cities, 
including 2 in the State of Ohio, to dismantle

[[Page S5494]]

a major Mexican heroin trafficking organization. They did a great job, 
in a coordinated effort.
  The third component in any successful antidrug strategy is 
international eradication and international interdiction. This is the 
sole responsibility of the Federal Government. States can't help. Local 
communities can't help. We are the only ones who can do this. I am 
afraid my colleague's amendment strikes directly at our attempt to do 
this.
  Like our national defense and immigration policies, only the Federal 
Government has the authority, only the Federal Government has the 
responsibility to keep drugs from ever crossing our borders. If we do 
not do it, no one else will. No one else can. The buck stops in this 
Chamber.
  These three components are all interdependent. We need to have them 
all. A strong investment in each is necessary for them to work 
individually and to work collectively.
  For example, a strong effort to destroy or seize drugs at the source 
or outside the United States both reduces the amount of drugs in the 
country and drives up the street price. As we all know, higher prices 
do in fact reduce consumption. This, in turn, helps our domestic law 
enforcement and demand-reduction efforts.
  As any football fan knows, a winning team is one that plays well at 
all three phases of the sport: Offense, defense, and the special teams. 
The same is true with our antidrug strategy. All three components have 
to be supported if our strategy is to be a winning one.
  While I think the current administration has shown a clear commitment 
to demand-reduction and domestic law enforcement programs, the same, 
sadly, cannot be said for our international eradication and 
interdiction components. This was not always the case.
  I think these charts I have will show how our commitment has changed.
  In 1987, a $4.79 billion Federal drug control budget was divided as 
follows: 29 percent for demand-reduction programs, 38 percent for 
domestic law enforcement, and 33 percent--one-third--for international 
eradication and interdiction efforts. This is the way it should be. 
This is a balanced program. This is what we had in 1987.
  Now we fast forward to 1995, and you will see that this balance goes 
out of whack. We no longer had that balance. We no longer had that 
balance today.
  The balanced approach worked. It achieved real success. Limiting drug 
availability through interdiction drove up the street price of drugs, 
reduced drug purity levels, and as a result reduced overall drug use.

  From 1988 to 1991, total drug use declined by 13 percent, cocaine use 
dropped by 35 percent, and overall drug use by American adolescents 
dropped by 25 percent--results. We began to see results.
  This balanced approach, however, ended in 1993. By 1995, the $13.3 
billion national drug control budget was divided as follows: 35 percent 
for demand reduction, 53 percent for domestic law enforcement, but only 
12 percent for international interdiction efforts. International 
interdiction efforts have gone down to 12 percent from 33 percent.
  Though the overall antidrug budget increased almost threefold from 
1987 to 1995, the percentage allocated for international eradication 
and interdiction efforts decreased dramatically. This disruption only 
recently has started to change.
  We have put together, on the floor of the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives, a bipartisan group--a bipartisan group of Senators--
who have said: We cannot have this imbalance. We must begin to restore 
the balance we had a few years ago in 1987. We have to do it.
  Let me go forward, if I may, to this current budget year, the budget 
year 2000. In the budget year 2000, 34 percent has been allocated for 
demand reduction, 51 percent for domestic law enforcement, and 14.4 
percent for international interdiction efforts.
  We are slowly moving in the right direction. Even in this year's 
budget we have a long way to go, with only 14.4 percent for 
international interdiction efforts. We have more work to do, more work, 
such as the assistance package for the Colombians that we are debating 
on the floor today. But we are starting to see some modest progress.
  But what really matters is what these numbers get you, what they buy 
us as a country, what they buy in terms of resources. The hard truth is 
that our drug interdiction presence--the ships, the air, and the 
manpower dedicated to keeping drugs from reaching our country--has 
eroded dramatically over the course of the last decade. We are just now 
starting to restore those valuable resources.
  In fact, with the modest improvements we have made in our 
international drug fighting capability, we have seen progress. In 1999, 
for example, the U.S. Coast Guard seized 57 tons of cocaine with a 
street value of $4 billion. By the way, that is more than the total 
operational costs of the Coast Guard. These operations demonstrate we 
can make a big difference, a very big difference, if we provide the 
right levels of material and the right levels of manpower to fight drug 
trafficking. It worked before. It can work again.
  The emergency assistance package we are talking about today, along 
with investments included in the Senate-passed military construction 
appropriations bill, is designed to build on that success. The 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, while it is very well 
intentioned, simply, effectively robs Peter to pay Paul just as Paul is 
getting back on his feet again. Just look at the example I mentioned 
earlier.
  Through my visits to the Caribbean, Colombia, and Peru in the last 
several years, I have seen firsthand the dramatic decline in our 
eradication and interdiction capability. The results of this decline 
have been a decline in cocaine seizures, a decline in the price of 
cocaine, and an increase in drug use in the United States.
  We have to turn this around. This is why we need emergency assistance 
to Colombia. We need to dedicate more resources for international 
efforts to help reverse this trend. We have to restore the balance.
  I want to make it very clear, as I have time and time again, that I 
strongly support our continued commitment to demand reduction and to 
law enforcement programs in the United States. No one is a stronger 
supporter of these. It has to be a balanced program where we have money 
for treatment, where we have money for education, where we have money 
for domestic interdiction and law enforcement.
  My concern is not that this amendment is not well intentioned, not 
that we should not be putting more resources in this area. My concern 
is what this does to the other side of the component, and that is 
international drug interdiction.
  Let me make it clear. We do need this balanced program. I believe 
that reducing demand is the only real way to permanently end illegal 
drug use. However, this is not going to happen overnight. That is why 
we need a comprehensive counterdrug strategy that addresses all 
components of this problem.
  Let me say again, if the United States does not make an effort to 
stop drugs before they reach our borders, no one else will. It is the 
Federal Government's responsibility. I remind my colleagues that our 
antidrug efforts here at home are done in cooperation with a vast 
number of public and private interests. Only the Federal Government has 
the ability and the responsibility to help deal with the problem at the 
source level overseas. Only the Federal Government has the ability to 
stop drugs in the transit routes. This is our responsibility; the buck 
stops with us.
  It is not only an issue of responsibility. It also is an issue of 
leadership. The United States has to demonstrate leadership on an 
international level, especially in our own hemisphere, if we expect to 
get the full cooperation of source countries where the drugs originate, 
countries such as Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, as well as countries in the 
transit zones, including Mexico and Haiti.
  In conclusion, ultimately what we are striving for is a balanced, 
effective antidrug strategy. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota; 
we can and should do more to reduce demand but not at the expense of 
our sole responsibility to stop drugs abroad. That would not result in 
the balanced approach we are looking for today. That is what we need to 
aim for, balance and effectiveness. It worked before; I believe it can 
work again.

[[Page S5495]]

  If my colleague from Kentucky will indulge me, I will respond to a 
couple comments that have been made by my colleague from Minnesota. 
This bill is full of human rights, if I may say it that way. It is full 
of attempts by the U.S. Government to condition the money we send to 
Colombia and the money that will be spent in the antidrug effort. We 
have doubled the money for human rights monitoring. We have established 
conditions before the money can be released, including the fact that 
human rights violations must be prosecuted in civilian courts pursuant 
to Colombia law; troops will be vetted for abuse.
  Ultimately, the question my colleague from Minnesota is raising is a 
fundamental question: Will we back away from our responsibilities in 
this hemisphere--our responsibility to a fellow democracy, our 
responsibility to our own citizens to protect us from drugs coming from 
Colombia into the United States? Will we back away from that, wash our 
hands of it and say we don't want to get involved in this, or will we 
become involved only in the sense that we condition the money that we 
send to Colombia on very tough conditions, great respect for human 
rights, and see what we can do in that arena?
  I think we are better off staying. We can have more impact; we can 
have more influence; and it is the right thing to do. It is in our 
national interest. With this bill, my colleague from Kentucky brings to 
the floor a balanced approach, a logical approach, an approach that is 
very concerned about human rights, a bill that is concerned about our 
obligations to ourselves and our obligations in this hemisphere.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio for his important contribution to this debate. He is a real expert 
on the drug war. He has demonstrated that expertise over the 5 years he 
has been here. I thank him for his important contribution.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 27\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.


             1Amendment Nos. 3476, 3164, And 3514, Recalled

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the package of amendments submitted 
earlier today, three amendments currently filed at the desk were 
included. I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 3476, 3164, and 
3514 be recalled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The distinguished Senator from Illinois is here and 
wishes to speak, as well as the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I 
have 27 minutes remaining. How much does my friend from Illinois 
desire; 10 minutes? I yield to the Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since there are a lot of Senators here 
on the other side, I will take 2 minutes to respond to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As long as it is on the time of the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased for it to be on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Ohio, this effort to deal 
with the demand side and to get some substance abuse prevention and 
treatment moneys to our States and our communities, I have no doubt the 
Senator from Ohio is very committed to that. I look forward to working 
with him on this because, frankly, I think it is a scandal. We have so 
much evidence--Bill Moyers, the impressive journalist, has done such 
fine work on this--that we can treat this addiction, that we can make a 
huge difference. Senator Moynihan has spoken with such eloquence about 
the whole history of our efforts to constantly try to militarize and go 
for interdiction and not deal with the demand side. It is a completely 
one-sided proposition. I look forward to enlisting the support of my 
colleague from Ohio on this question. I know he will be there.
  I will wait to respond to other Senators. I know Senator Durbin is 
going to speak and Senator Biden. As I listen to my colleagues, what I 
am hearing--and I think we should be explicit about this--is that this 
is not just a question of a kind of war on narcotics. Otherwise, we 
would be doing more on the demand side. This is a question of basically 
saying that we can't just focus on the police. We can't just provide 
help to the government for police action and building democratic 
institutions and economic development and every other kind of 
assistance possible. We have to directly provide the money for the 
military to basically conduct their anti-insurgency campaign in the 
southern part of Colombia with American advisers and support. I believe 
that means we are taking sides. If we are taking sides and we are now 
in the middle of this war, so be it. That is what I am hearing on the 
floor. I wanted to comment on that.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding.
  Sunday afternoon, 3 days ago, I was in southern Colombia in a 
Blackhawk helicopter. We spent an hour going over the treetops of a 
jungle and looking down. A general from the Colombian army was pointing 
out to me the fields of coca plants, the plant that ultimately produces 
cocaine. After a few minutes, I told him he could stop because we could 
literally see them in every direction. I am talking about 600 square 
miles of coca plants growing a product which has one use: to create an 
addictive narcotic. Where will it be sold? Right here, most of it in 
the United States.
  I think we all know the devastation it wreaks on this country. The 
likelihood that one will be robbed or murdered is usually connected to 
narcotics. The safety of American homes, neighborhoods, and communities 
is usually connected to narcotics. The prisons of America are bursting 
at the seams primarily because of narcotics. Eighty percent of the 
cocaine consumed in the United States comes from one country: Colombia. 
That is a reality; that is a fact.
  The Senator from Minnesota is one of my favorite colleagues. I say 
this in all sincerity. Thank God Paul Wellstone is in the Senate. He 
stands for principle on so many issues and reminds all of us of the 
issues of conscience which should be part of every debate.
  I am honored so many times to stand as his ally. This is one of the 
rare occasions when I am on the opposite side and will oppose his 
amendment. As some would like to construct it, this amendment is a 
Faustian choice, an impossible dilemma. Should we allow drugs into the 
United States? Certainly not. Should we support a Colombian military 
that has a record of human rights abuse? Well, certainly not. But we 
have to make a choice here.
  The Clinton administration has come forward, working with the 
President of Colombia, and said we think we can find a way to reform 
the military and we can also reduce the narcotics coming into the 
United States.
  I might add that I salute Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy for 
this fine bill they have brought to us. They went further than the 
administration. Please read the section on Plan Colombia, and you will 
see page after page of efforts by Democrats and Republicans here to 
address the very real human rights concerns raised by Senator Wellstone 
of Minnesota.
  Time and again, they come forward and say we are going to do more and 
make certain, as best we can, that before money comes from our Treasury 
down to Colombia to eradicate narcotics, the people receiving the money 
are not going to collaborate with the narcotraffickers who are guilty 
of things that have been proven in the past.
  I salute the committee. For friends of mine in the human rights 
community in the United States, I hope they will read what has been 
done here by Senators Leahy and McConnell. It is very positive.
  Imagine, for 40 years Colombia has been involved in what has been 
called a civil war or an internal conflict. What does that mean? Forty 
years ago, groups on the left who were inspired either by Moscow, or 
Beijing, or whatever, came to the front and said, we are going to push 
for reform in this country so that the poor people of Colombia

[[Page S5496]]

have a better chance. That sort of revolution was taking place all over 
Central and South America.
  But things changed over 40 years. What started off as a leftist-
inspired, popular uprising to improve life for the poor people in 
Colombia quickly became subsumed and taken over by the narcotics trade. 
The World Bank estimates that there is a billion dollars in money 
coming into Colombia to sustain the narcotics trade. That money is 
going to the leftist guerrillas and the right-wing group, the terrorist 
paramilitaries. They all use the same tactics. They don't go into 
villages and beg for soldiers; they stick a gun to their heads and say, 
``You are now part of our paramilitary group.'' They enslave them. If 
they don't cooperate, they kill them. And they are involved in 
kidnapping.
  The President of that country has been kidnapped. His father-in-law 
was kidnapped and murdered. When we met Saturday morning, the Defense 
Minister said his brother was kidnapped. Everybody there told stories 
about kidnapped people. If you think this is a typical civil war where 
the left is moving for poor people and the government is against it, it 
doesn't fit the description. When we sat down with the human rights 
groups, they said the guerrillas on the left and the paramilitaries on 
the right are just as guilty of human rights abuses in this country as 
any other group. No question about it.
  There are very few good guys in this story. But from the U.S. point 
of view, I think the President is right, and I think this bill is right 
to say we cannot stand idly by and let these drugs flood into the 
United States with all of the negative consequences.

  I totally support Senator Wellstone's premise that if we just stop 
the supply of drugs coming into the United States, that is not enough; 
we have to deal with the demand side of it. America is a great consumer 
of narcotics. That is why those plants are being grown thousands of 
miles away. When Senators Wellstone and DeWine come to the floor and 
say put more money into drug prevention and rehab in the United States, 
they are right. But it is not an either/or situation; we need both.
  This bill addresses reducing and eliminating the supply of narcotics 
coming into the United States. Senator Wellstone believes the military 
in Colombia has a record of human rights abuses, and he is right. The 
State Department stands behind that. This bill addresses that and says, 
we will bird-dog you every step of the way, demand reforms in the 
Colombian society, and we will demand that you not be engaged in human 
rights abuses to be part of this partnership to reduce narcotics in 
Colombia.
  I might also add, to suggest we will give money to the police and not 
to the army really doesn't tell the whole story. They are together in 
Colombia. The national police and the army are together. When I sat 
down with the Minister of Defense, I sat across the table from General 
Gilibert, who is head of the police, and General Tapias, head of the 
army. They work together. We want to use helicopters to secure areas 
where we can send down planes to spray with Roundup these coca plants 
and kill them, so that coca is not turned into paste and white powder 
and sold on the streets of Washington, DC, and Chicago, IL, addicting 
people and sending them to prison after committing crimes. That is a 
good thing to do. I support the administration in their efforts to 
achieve that.
  It is true that Senator Wellstone says we may be taking sides. I hope 
we are taking sides against narcotics and saying to the leftist 
guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries: We have no use for either one 
of you.
  As said to me by the President of Colombia, ``They are both our 
enemies. We have to deal with both of them.'' We should view it that 
way. As I met with the Army and Marine Corps personnel from the United 
States advising these troops in Tres Esquinas, a remote location in the 
Putumayo Province, it is clear that these men in the Colombian Army 
were prepared to put their lives on the line to stop the 
narcotrafficking that ultimately will corrupt and kill so many 
Americans. I think we have to stand behind them. We have no other 
choice. To step back and say we will do nothing now is unacceptable.
  This bill makes it clear that we have not forgotten the poorest 
people in Colombia. I commend again the subcommittee for saying that 
additional assistance is given to the Agency for International 
Development, so that once that coca planter in Colombia has his crop 
sprayed, we can give him an alternative, find some other agriculture in 
which he can be involved. That is the humanitarian and sensible way to 
approach this. This bill does that; it tries to make sure some 
alternative, legal agriculture is available to the people there.
  Is it worth a billion dollars to America to send this money to 
Colombia? I will use my State as an illustration. In 1987, we had 500 
people in Illinois prisons for the possession of a thimbleful of 
cocaine. Today, we have 9,000 prisoners in Illinois for the possession 
of a thimbleful of cocaine. It costs us about $30,000 per prisoner a 
year. The taxpayers of Illinois are spending $270 million a year and 
the story can be repeated in every other State. That is $270 million a 
year in Illinois because of what is growing in Putumayo Province in 
Colombia.

  I think we have to have a coordinated effort of interdiction and stop 
it at its source, to do everything in our power not to let these drugs 
come into the country. Then we can deal with the demand side of it and 
see that drug rehab is available--a sensible and a balanced approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from Minnesota want to respond?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is right, yes. I will just be a few minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. All right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I know Senator 
Biden wants to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to speak after 
Senator Biden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, since we 
are setting a lineup here, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Coverdell from Georgia come after Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his very 
gracious remarks. A lot of times there is unnecessary flattery on the 
floor that may not seem sincere. I appreciate what he said. At the 
personal level, I thank him.

  I was thinking about what my colleague from Illinois said. I want to 
raise a couple of quick questions as long as we are having this debate.
  First of all, in terms of the explosion of the number of men and 
women incarcerated, I couldn't agree more.
  This legislation, which is all about how to deal with the drug 
problem and is being billed as legislation that deals with trafficking 
of narcotics and trying to protect people in our own country, is very 
one sided. I am trying to take a portion of it and say let's deal with 
the demand side in our country.
  Soon in this debate I will lay out all of the studies that have come 
out. It is a real scandal.
  In the State of Illinois and my State of Minnesota, the big part of 
the problem is that people are not getting treatment. I am simply 
saying: Can't we take a portion of this legislation, which is all about 
trying to protect our citizens and trying to deal with this drug 
trafficking, and deal with the demand side? There is no real 
disagreement. I think most people in our country would say: Why don't 
we put money in the demand side and treating people right here?
  My second point is that President Pastrana has made his own judgment 
about what he needs to do. I have tremendous respect for the President, 
but I think we also need to make our own judgment. In all due respect, 
again if we are talking about moving from police to military in a 
pretty dramatic way, and talking about putting ourselves right in the 
middle of this conflict, let's understand that we should be having a 
policy debate about our taking sides in this civil war.
  I couldn't agree more about the left or the right. You have an 
unbelievable number of atrocities and murder being committed by both 
sides. There is no

[[Page S5497]]

question about it. The question is whether or not we have now decided 
we are going to be there with aid and our people supporting the 
military in this counterinsurgency effort. Are we going to take sides 
in this military conflict?
  I hear my colleague from Delaware say yes. I always respect his 
directness. But I think that is really what the debate is about. I 
think probably all of us need to understand, since some who have come 
to the floor have said they are against this amendment, if they are for 
the war against drugs, this is not a debate about only a war on drugs, 
obviously from what colleagues have said. We have been down this road 
before. Now we are going to say we have decided that we have to support 
the southern Colombia military, and we are going to put the money into 
this military effort. If we are going to have Americans there 
supporting it, we are taking sides. OK. As long as that is clear.
  Third, my colleague from Illinois said that the police and the 
military are in this together, and that they work together. I do not 
know. Again, I didn't have a chance to visit Colombia. But I do know, 
at least from sort of the one time I was in Latin America and in my own 
study, that I always saw in these countries a great difference between 
the police and the military. You see the police. They are low-level 
guys who do their job. The military are the ``Rambos.'' There is a 
difference in the groups. They are an entirely different group of 
people and entirely different people.
  In all due respect, the evidence we have right now by one human 
rights organization after another after another after another, much 
less the State Department report, is that about 70 percent of the 
violence has been committed thus far by paramilitary groups to which 
the military quite often is linked. We haven't been able to vet that. 
All of a sudden, we are going to be able to vet it, monitor it. We are 
going to be able to control it. I think that is a dubious proposition.
  I think by militarizing this aid package we make a big mistake. I 
think we could support this amendment which permits extensive 
assistance to Colombia while safeguarding U.S. interests and avoid 
entanglement in a decades-old civil conflict and partnership with an 
army that is implicated in human rights abuses. Moreover, I think we 
could take some of the resources and put them where they could do the 
most good, which would be providing drug treatment programs at home.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is the Senator from Kentucky able to yield 
time to me?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 28 minutes, and he has 17 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time does the Senator from Delaware need?
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand the Senator's dilemma.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 10 minutes on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Delaware 12 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator from Minnesota, 
knowing he was about to give me time, which is his nature. I appreciate 
that.
  Mr. President, my mom had an expression. Occasionally, when I was a 
kid, I think she had a good idea and was well intentioned. She would 
say, ``Joey, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.''
  I have no doubt about the intentions of my friend from Minnesota. I 
know he knows that as the author of the drug czar legislation for the 
past, I guess it is about 14 years, I have issued every year a drug 
report or an alternate drug report laying out a drug strategy for the 
United States, usually as a counterbalance on the Republican 
administration and criticism or one of agreement with the 
administration.
  This debate reminds me a little bit of the position in which 
Democrats have always been put. The Democrats get put in a position 
where we are told there is a dollar left and it can be distributed 
among the hearing impaired, the sight impaired, and those children 
needing emergency medical care. So we have to choose. We have the blind 
fighting the disabled fighting the hearing impaired. Instead of saying 
we can choose between building a highway and taking care of all the 
needs of those in desperate need, or we cannot build a submarine, or an 
air base, whatever, we are debating about whether or not we can walk 
and chew gum at the same time.
  There is no disagreement. I have, as well as my colleagues, pushed--
pushed in the early days when I was chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee--for major increases in treatment. I have issued a total of 
seven major reports on treatment, its value, its efficacy, and why we 
should be doing more.
  I take a backseat to no one in arguing that we do not give enough 
treatment here in this drug war.
  I point out that the President's budget, unrelated to the Colombian 
aid package, has $6 billion in it for drug treatment and drug 
prevention. That total includes $300 million in funding increases in 
this area. We don't have to take away from the money that, in fact, 
would have a significant impact on the reduction of product here. That 
is the bad news.
  The good news is that, as we have debated the Andean drug policy for 
the past 12 years, we used to have to deal with the idea that Colombia 
was a transiting country as well as a country that turned raw product 
into the materials sold, and the laboratory work and product used to be 
produced in Bolivia and Peru.
  The good news is, because of eradication programs, because of U.N. 
leadership, I might add in this area, essentially there has been an 
elimination of the crop in those two countries.
  The bad news is that it has all moved into Colombia. They now are a 
full-service operation. The product is there, the narcotraffickers are 
there, the laboratory laboratories are there, and the transiting is 
there. That is the bad news.
  The good news is it is all in one spot for us to be able to hit it. 
It is all in one spot for us to have a very efficacious use of this 
money.
  I spent days in Colombia. I spent 2 days, 24 hours a day, with the 
President of Colombia. I ended up actually going with him on his Easter 
vacation by accident to his summer residence. This is a guy, as my 
friend from Illinois points out, that is the real deal.

  For the first time, we have a President who understands that his 
democracy is at stake. He is willing to risk his life--not 
figuratively, literally. I went to dinner with he and his children. He 
has seven bodyguards around his children because of the death threats. 
This is a guy who is risking his life. He is willing to do it because 
he understands what is at stake for his country, unlike previous 
Presidents.
  The next point is, we are making this distinction between police and 
military. With all due respect to my friend from Minnesota, 
historically the thugs in South America have been the police. Police 
are not like police here. There is a national police; we have no 
national police. The Federales in Mexico were police, not army. Often 
the police in South America are the biggest abusers of human rights.
  What did we do? We gave the Colombian National Police aid, $750 
million in aid. What did we say? Purge this police department, purge 
the national police, and they did. And guess what. If I stood on this 
floor 5 years ago and said the Colombian police are going to crack the 
Medellin and Cali Cartel, no one would have said that is possible. No 
one.
  Guess what. They cracked the Medellin Cartel. They cracked the Cali 
Cartel. They put them in jail. They are extraditing the police. Why? 
Because we trained their police; they purged 4,000 of them.
  Where are we on military? I met here with every major human rights 
group from Colombia, including the bishops who came up. When we push 
them to the wall and say to them: By the way, you want us out?
  No, no, no, no, no, no, don't do that. Don't do that. You have to 
stay in. You have to be involved. We don't like the balance the way you 
have it here.
  I say: Fine. No problem.
  Tell me, bishop, you want us in or you want us out?
  Stay. Stay.
  Now, civil war. There is no civil war. We are so caught up in the old 
logic of

[[Page S5498]]

how we deal with things. There is no civil war. Less than 5 percent of 
the people of Colombia support the guerrillas. Every other guerrilla 
movement, every other civil war, you go into the village to recruit 
people. They go in, as my friend Illinois said, to shoot people. There 
is no popular sentiment at all. This is not a civil war.
  With regard to the paramilitaries, I called President Pastrana a few 
weeks ago. I said, a lot of the criticism of the plan is you have to be 
sure that you are only focusing on the FARC and the ELN and only 
focusing on the guerrillas. What about the paramilitaries? I said, I 
want a letter guaranteeing that you will, in fact, move on the 
paramilitary simultaneously. You must change.
  He changed it. Here is the letter. I ask unanimous consent the letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Santefe de Bogota, May 8, 2000.
     Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. 
         Senate.
       Dear Joe: Thank you again for your visit to Colombia and 
     your support of my country. I greatly enjoyed our discussions 
     and valued your insights.
       I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate, as I 
     did personally during your visit here, the commitment of my 
     government to attack drug trafficking and cultivation in all 
     parts of the country and not only in the south, no matter 
     what individual or organization may be promoting them.
       This policy has been in effect since the beginning of my 
     administration, generating very important results. In 1999, 
     51,415 hectares of coca and poppy were sprayed, 31 tons of 
     coca and 691 kilos of heroin were seized, and 166 labs and 44 
     airfields were destroyed. Just this past weekend, in an 
     extraordinarily successful operation in Norte de Santander on 
     the border with Venezuela, we were able to destroy 44 
     laboratories and capture 20 persons, in an area linked to 
     illegal auto-defense organizations, but where guerrilla 
     groups and organized drug traffickers also operate.
       Plan Colombia is an integral plan for peace designed, among 
     other goals, to eradicate drug cultivation and to address the 
     social problems created by the violence associated with drug 
     trafficking in all the producing regions with an emphasis on 
     the areas where there is the greatest cultivation and/or a 
     marked increase in cultivation in the recent past--areas 
     close to the Ecuadorian border in the south and to the 
     Venezuelan border in the north. Our priorities and the 
     sequence of eradication will depend on the resources 
     available to us, but you are correct in stating the principle 
     that we want to demonstrate that no trafficking organization 
     is immune.
       Indeed, as you may know the initial effort of the plan 
     marks combined police, military, civilian operations in the 
     Department of Putumayo in the south where not only FARC but 
     also auto-defense organizations are present. In that regard, 
     the coordinated effort at drug eradication alternative 
     development, support for the internally displaced, human 
     rights protection, democratic governance, judicial reform and 
     promotion of the rule of law will work to diminish drug-
     trafficking and violence in this fragile amazon region. We 
     enjoyed your visit and hope to have you again as our guest. 
     Your interest and that of your government in my nation's 
     future strengthens our commitment and gives us crucial 
     international support.
           Sincerely,
                                           Andres Pastrana Arango,
                                            President of Colombia.

  Mr. BIDEN. When I said, do we take sides? The answer is, yes, we take 
sides. We are not putting anybody in the field. What are we doing? We 
are training three battalions. Why are we training them? For the same 
reason we train the police. We want to open up the eyes of the 
Colombian military, who in recent years have been accused of fewer 
human rights abuses. They have been accused of turning their heads. 
They hear the paramilitary coming, they lift the gate, the paramilitary 
comes through, the paramilitary terminates people, and they go back 
out.
  Then they ask, what happened?
  That is what they are doing.
  Plan Colombia does not only involve U.S. participation. This is a 
$7.5 billion plan. The Colombians are coming up with $4 billion; the 
Europeans, about $1 billion and the international financial 
institutions about $1 billion. If we take out our piece, it all falls 
apart. We are not the only game in town. But we are the catalyst. What 
will happen? The whole world is going to be looking to the Colombian 
military, from Japan to Bonn, because they are all in the deal. They 
are all in the deal. If you want to clean up anybody, anything, any 
institution, listen to the dictates of a former Supreme Court Justice: 
The best disinfectant is the clear light of day.
  There will be a worldwide spotlight shined upon this military. I have 
never personally testified on the floor that I have faith in an 
individual leader, but I have faith in President Pastrana. He is the 
real deal. What is at stake is whether or not Colombia becomes a 
narcostate or not. This is not in between. Keep in mind, folks, when 
the Supreme Courts of Colombia several years ago extradited some, they 
blew the Court up; they blew the building up and killed seven Justices. 
When a Presidential candidate took them on, they shot him dead.
  This is the real stuff. It is not like a Member of this body. The 
worst thing that happens to us is we get a drive-by shooting 
politically and we lose office. There, you jump in the sucker and you 
lose your life. This is for real. These are courageous people who 
finally have said: We will take them on.
  I am convinced--knowing the chairman, and my friend from Kentucky is 
a hard-nosed guy--he made a judgment whether these guys are real. He is 
not about to give $1 billion to anybody.
  My colleagues, it is very basic. There is a lot at stake. We have a 
significant increase in funding for treatment and prevention. It should 
be more. But we have an obligation, in the interests of our children 
and the interests of the hemisphere, to keep the oldest democracy in 
place, to give them a fighting chance to keep from becoming a 
narcostate. Folks, if they lose, mark my words, we are going to reap 
the whirlwind in this hemisphere on matters that go far beyond drugs. 
It will include terrorism, it will include whole cadres of issues we 
have not thought about.
  I thank the chairman for his time. I truly appreciate the motivation 
of my friend from Minnesota. At the appropriate time, unless the 
chairman of the committee does not want me to, I move to table. I am 
not trying to cut off discussion.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Delaware for an important 
contribution and assure him at the appropriate time it would be 
appropriate for him to make a motion to table.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
this amendment and for this time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, listening to the Senator from Delaware, 
one would think the Wellstone amendment is taking away all the funding 
from Colombia. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Senator from Minnesota is leaving in place the funding for 
Colombia; that makes good sense. Here is what is left in this bill 
after the Senator's amendment: Funding for interdiction; funding for 
the Colombia police; funds for alternative development and internally 
displaced people; funds for human rights; funds for regional 
assistance; funds to rehabilitate soldiers under the age of 18 who have 
been involved in armed conflict.
  The only thing the Senator from Minnesota is doing in his amendment 
is making sure this country doesn't get involved in a conflict that 
could hurt our people eventually. The Senator from Minnesota is saying 
we are going to help President Pastrana, we will help this country, we 
will help this region, but we are not going to get involved with the 
military.
  I thank the Senator from the bottom of my heart for this amendment. I 
don't care if the Senator gets 2 votes or 22 votes; he is doing the 
right thing.
  I clearly understand the threat that illegal drugs pose to our 
country, to my State of California, and I clearly understand that 
Colombia is a major supplier of the cocaine and heroin that reach our 
shores. But let me tell my friends in the Senate, we need a balanced 
approach to this horrible problem of drug abuse. You could have a big 
supply, but if no one wanted to buy it, it would not hurt anyone. The 
fact is, the people in this country want to buy it. And there is not 1 
cent in this bill, out of $1 billion--not 1 cent to help us with 
education, treatment on demand, prevention. This is a lost opportunity. 
What my friend from Minnesota is saying is, if we in this Chamber are 
sincere

[[Page S5499]]

about fighting drugs, and a war on drugs, then we do not put $1 billion 
into a foreign country and ignore what is happening here at home.
  Let me tell you what happens in California and all over this country 
when someone is arrested for a violent crime. Mr. President, 50 percent 
to 75 percent of those perpetrators of this violence are high on drugs. 
I cannot tell you how many times when I have been in my State--maybe it 
is because my State is a large State--that I have someone come up to 
me, a parent, saying: I have a son or a daughter who wants to get off 
drugs; there is no room in a treatment center; we don't have money; we 
have to spend a lot of money; what are we going to do?
  I look at that person and all I can say is: Send me a letter and let 
me see if we can help you find some treatment program that might have a 
slot.
  Does it make sense to spend $1 billion, as this bill does, and ignore 
the emergency here at home? We are so quick to find the money to send 
somewhere else, but what about our people who are ready, perhaps, to 
take that step to get off drugs? Telling them they have to wait 6 
months to get into a program is consigning them to more months of 
addiction. What happens if we can stop this whole thing before it 
starts, with education, with prevention? I do not quite understand the 
enthusiasm for a bill that does not spend a penny here at home.
  My friend from Delaware is as eloquent as anyone on this floor. He 
says, ``Yes, we are spending more.'' Yes, we are spending more in our 
regular appropriation, but if we are facing such a horrible emergency 
that we have to go in, with $1 billion, I have to say to my friend, why 
can't we see this emergency here at home, when people cannot get 
treatment on demand? You don't have a sale if you don't have a willing 
buyer. Unfortunately, the addicts are here, in this country.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am happy to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Why doesn't the Senator have an amendment to take $1 
billion out of the highway trust fund or $1 billion out of the 
education budget or $1 billion out of NIH or $1 billion out of the 
Department of Energy?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be glad to answer it. Because this is $1 billion 
to deal with the drug problem specifically. That is the point of it. 
The Senator made that point. The Senator from Illinois made that point. 
This is money that we are spending because we are stunned at the drug 
trafficking that is going on--and we should be. All the Senator from 
Minnesota is saying in his amendment, which I am proud to support, is 
we will leave 75 percent of that money intact to do the things we want 
to do to help the good President of Colombia. But all we are saying is 
before we get our advisers caught in a situation over there--you know, 
you may be right. Maybe nothing will ever go wrong with it. But all we 
are saying is, how about fighting a drug war here at home for a change 
instead of always spending the money outside of this country?

  Mr. BIDEN. Will my distinguished colleague yield for another 
question, just 10 seconds?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is aware the President's budget calls for 
spending $6 billion in drug treatment and prevention, including $31 
million for substance abuse block grants; that is $54 million on 
targeted capacity expansion programs, $37 million for research and 
treatment, $5 million--the list goes on. The Senator is aware of that?
  Mrs. BOXER. If I may take back my time, and I will not be able to 
further yield because I have such a restriction, I stated that. I gave 
my friend absolute assurance I understand that. We are not doing enough 
when 50 percent----
  Mr. BIDEN. I agree.
  Mrs. BOXER. Of the addicts in my State are not getting treatment. 
Only 50 percent can get treatment. The other 50 percent, unless they 
are rich, cannot get the treatment on demand.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. For my colleague from California, just so she knows, 
the particular program we are talking about, which is the block grant, 
the SAMHSA block grant program to our States and communities for 
treatment programs, is $1.6 billion.
  My colleague's figure lumps everything and anything together.
  Mr. BIDEN. On treatment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am talking about direct treatment out in the 
community. When 80 percent of the adolescents in this country get no 
treatment whatsoever, and 60 percent of the adults get no treatment 
whatsoever, it is hard to come out on the floor and say we have already 
made this tremendous commitment, there is no reason to talk about some 
additional resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Again, I represent the largest State in the Union. My 
friend represents a smaller State. I would just say, maybe it is my 
State, but when I see these figures coming back--and my friend is a 
leader in the whole issue of crime prevention and being tough on crime 
and all the rest, and he knows it is true that if you look at the 
arrests for violent crime in our country--I could say particularly in 
California, 50 to 75 percent of the perpetrators are high on drugs. So 
all my friend from Minnesota is saying in his amendment is everything 
the Senator said about President Pastrana, everything he said about the 
need to help his country--I don't argue with that. That is why I am 
proud of this amendment. Everything is left in except getting us 
involved in this counternarcotics insurgency, which may well put us in 
a situation where we find ourselves between two bad actors: the FARC on 
the one hand, with a horrible story of violence and human rights 
violations, and the paramilitary on the right-hand side here, with the 
same horrible record. Unfortunately, it ties to the military in 
Colombia.
  So here we are, giving us a chance to do all the good things in this 
appropriations bill that we are happy are in there, but to take out the 
one for $225 million, that could lead us into trouble.

  Here is the Boston Globe. They talk about targeting addiction. They 
say:

       The Clinton proposal for U.S. intervention in Colombia's 
     Civil War----

  And that is what is being supported on this floor. They say it really 
isn't going to work. They finish saying:

       History suggests that increased funding for treatment of 
     addicts and programs for prevention--treatment on demand for 
     drugs--can accomplish more to ameliorate the individual and 
     social pathology associated with the endless war on drugs.

  This is the Boston Globe. We have a number of editorials that are 
very strong on this point.
  This is the St. Petersburg Times. We have these from all over the 
country:

       Have we forgotten the lessons of our involvement in Central 
     America in the 1980s . . .?

  They talk about the fact:

       In an attempt to contain communism, our government provided 
     support to right-wing governments and paramilitary groups 
     that used the aid to slaughter thousands of innocent 
     civilians. This time, America's stated public interest is 
     stopping drug trafficking.

  But, it says:

       It could, however, draw us into a brutal civil war in which 
     civilians are a target.

  This would be a tragedy if we repeated that kind of scenario. We have 
to learn from history. I think the amendment of the Senator is 
protecting us from just this problem.

       Washington should have learned long ago that partnership 
     with an abusive and ineffective Latin American military 
     rarely produces positive results and often undermines 
     democracy in the region.

  That is from the New York Times. It talks about the fact that 
President Pastrana is well intentioned, but all of the programs he 
faces, we are going to be faced with them as well.
  Then, from the Detroit News:

       Colombia: The Next Quagmire?
       The Clinton Administration's proposed aid package intends 
     to break the choke hold of the guerrillas by training and 
     arming Colombia's military. The hope is that returning 
     control to a legitimate government will help curb the 
     illegitimate narcotrade. But this is a naive hope that 
     ignores the other half of Colombia's gritty ground reality. 
     The military is a corrupt institution with close links to the 
     outlawed paramilitary groups that control the drug trade in 
     urban areas.

  It goes on. This is not Senator Boxer speaking or Senator Wellstone. 
These are editorial boards from all over the country.
  We have others from California that I wanted to have printed in the 
Record. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5500]]

      [From the Sacramento Bee, View Related Topics July 31, 1999]

       Five American soldiers were killed in a plane crash the 
     other day in a mountainous region of Colombia. They were on a 
     reconnaissance flight as part of an escalating U.S. effort in 
     support of the Colombian government's war against heavily 
     armed narcotics traffickers.
       The deaths call attention to a U.S. aid program that has 
     grown rapidly, partly because Washington has more confidence 
     in Colombia's new president, Andres Pastrana, than in his 
     corrupt predecessor, and partly because of a perception that 
     the threat to this country posed by Colombian traffickers is 
     increasing.
       That perception is strongly held by Gen. Barry McCaffrey, 
     President Clinton's anti-narcotics chief, who says cocaine 
     production in Colombia has doubled in three years, that 80 
     percent of the cocaine and heroin entering the United States 
     comes from Colombia and that traffickers have amassed so much 
     wealth that they can buy all the weapons and recruit all the 
     fighters they need, especially in a time of economic hardship 
     for most Colombians, to fend off poorly trained and 
     underarmed government forces.
       McCaffrey has called for $1 billion in emergency U.S. aid 
     to combat the drug trade in Latin America, most of it for 
     Colombia, which is getting $289 million this year--triple 
     last year's total. (Colombia now ranks third, behind Israel 
     and Egypt, as a U.S. aid recipient.) The money would pay for 
     technical and intelligence assistance, and training by U.S. 
     advisers of a newly created anti-narcotics army battalion 
     whose mission is to attack guerrilla units, clearing the way 
     for police (who get most U.S. aid) to move in and eradicate 
     coca crops.
       But there are serious obstacles. For one thing, U.S. aid 
     has been meager in the past not only due to corruption but 
     because of rampant human rights violations by soldiers and 
     right-wing paramilitary groups. Thus the new battalion has 
     been carefully recruited and will receive human rights 
     training.
       A larger problem is that U.S. aid is meant to target only 
     Colombia's narcotics traffickers, not a 35-year-old leftist 
     insurgency. Yet the two have become virtually 
     indistinguishable as guerrillas extort tribute from coca 
     growers and traffic in drugs as well. The largest guerrilla 
     group now controls much of the southern half of the country 
     thanks to Pastrana's policy--deemed naive by many Colombians 
     and by some U.S. officials.--of keeping troops out of the 
     region as an inducement to the rebels to negotiate a peace 
     settlement. But the rebels, while enjoying their immunity, 
     have stalled negotiations.
       Despite such troubling signs, McCaffrey appears to have 
     strong support in Congress, and to some extent from the White 
     House, for increasing U.S. aid even as drug prevention and 
     treatment programs at home are given only minimal funding. 
     Those priorities are misplaced.
       The Pentagon insists that U.S. combat troops will not be 
     used in Colombia. Good. But Americans have heard that before, 
     about Vietnam, and rebels say they regard U.S. advisers as 
     targets. While it may be premature to sound an alarm, it's 
     not too early to begin a debate about U.S. interests in a 
     conflict that has at least the potential to suck Americans 
     into another quagmire. Congress and the administration owe it 
     to the country to clarify what's at stake, what is 
     contemplated and what is not, and the sooner the better.
                                  ____


                  [From the Fresno Bee April 5, 2000]

Anti-Drug Folly: U.S. Aid Plan Would Raise Stakes in Colombian Conflict

       By a wide margin, the House of Representatives has approved 
     $1.7 billion to aid Colombia in its fight against drug 
     traffickers who supply the bulk of the cocaine and heroin to 
     the United States. The aim is laudable, but the chances of 
     success seem slight. Before the Senate takes up the measure, 
     which the Clinton administration strongly supports, there 
     must an intensive national debate.
       The legislation bans the use of U.S. combat troops, but 
     allows that U.S. advisers be sent to train Colombian forces 
     in the use of U.S. helicopters and other equipment and to 
     ensure that American aid is used properly--in particular, 
     that human rights are respected by specially trained 
     Colombian anti-narcotics battalions. Such constraint is 
     important.
       But staying within those limits will be difficult, given 
     the immense terrain involved, the history of human rights 
     abuses in Colombia and the legislative mandate that aid can 
     be used only against drug traffickers and not against leftist 
     guerrillas who often collaborate with them. And if right-wing 
     death squads that have been closely linked to elements of the 
     Colombian military continue to operate, some of the blame 
     will inevitably accrue to the U.S. program, fairly or not. 
     Add to that Colombia's endemic corruption, deadly political 
     intimidation and the ease with which drug crops can be 
     shifted from areas eradicated and the task seems 
     overwhelming.
       Undaunted, U.S. officials want funding to be expedited. 
     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott objects, not to aid for 
     Colombia but to folding it into a $12.7 billion supplemental 
     appropriations bill that includes other military aid, 
     domestic flood relief and various pork-barrel projects. He's 
     right; the Colombian program is too critical to be obscured 
     by typical election-year log-rolling.
       Opponents fear, reasonably, that the United States could 
     become ensnared in a foreign civil war that is not a vital 
     U.S. interest and that is probably unwinnable without far 
     more intervention than most Americans would support. Backers 
     say that Colombia's plight is a vital U.S. interest because 
     of the impact among drug-addicted Americans. But every study, 
     and common sense, tell us that the solution lies mostly at 
     home--in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation programs 
     that badly need more funds.
       In short, the onus is on the administration to persuade 
     Americans that this program is not the beginning of an open-
     ended commitment.
       U.S. aid to Colombia may be justified, but only if it is 
     carefully defined and performance-based in terms of military 
     success and democratic reform. Otherwise, it could turn out 
     to be another nightmare that might have been avoided had we 
     paid closer attention going in.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2000]

Colombia Aid Bill Would Escalate a Failed Policy; Drugs: Treatment and 
           Reducing Cocaine Consumption is a Better Way To Go

                            (By Robert Dowd)

       U.S. demand created the drug crisis situation in Colombia, 
     and our military intervention there merely places American 
     troops and civilian contractors in harm's way in an effort to 
     salvage our failed drug policy.
       The Clinton administration has proposed, and congressional 
     Republicans seem prepared to accept, a $1.7-billion military 
     aid package to Colombia. This formiable expenditure builds on 
     existing aid--Colombia is already the largest recipient of 
     U.S. military aid outside the Middle East--and involves us 
     more deeply in a 4-decades-old civil war, as well as 
     perpetuates programs that have failed to control drug 
     production.
       As a veteran, I know the importance of a clear military 
     objective, of having the resources needed for success, and a 
     clear exit strategy. In Colombia, we are sending a handful of 
     helicopters and a few hundred of troops. Yet we were unable 
     to control a smaller Vietnam with hundreds of helicopters and 
     half a million troops.
       The Colombia military intervention seems poorly planned, 
     unrealistic and doomed to fail. After a few years of military 
     support, we will face the choice of accepting defeat or 
     gradually being pulled into an expensive military quagmire in 
     which victory is unattainable.
       The reason the U.S. is becoming more involved in Colombia's 
     internal affairs is that our government's efforts to reduce 
     cocaine availability have failed miserably, and drug money 
     has strengthened the rebel armies. We already spend hundreds 
     of millions of dollars annually to eradicate crops in South 
     America, especially in Colombia. According to a 1999 report 
     by the General Accounting Office, ``Despite two years of 
     extensive herbicide spraying, U.S. estimates show there has 
     not been any net reduction in coca cultivation--net coca 
     cultivation actually increased 50%.''
       Rather than escalate a failed policy, we should recognize 
     that the present strategy cannot succeed and look for new 
     approaches.
       According to the Rand Corp., eradication is the least-
     effective way to reduce drug use. Rand's research found that 
     $34 million spent on drug treatment in the U.S. would have 
     the same effect as $783 million in eradication expenditures. 
     Naturally, the less cocaine the U.S. consumes, the less 
     incentive growers in Colombia will have to grow coca. That 
     would be the best eradication policy.
       Further, we need to face the difficult and politically 
     controversial question of whether prohibition enforced by the 
     drug war provides better control of the drug market than 
     regulation enforced by administrative law. If we want to get 
     international cartels and urban gangs out of the drug market 
     we must determine how to control the market through civil law 
     rather than criminal law.
       The administration's most frequent rationale for pumping 
     millions of dollars in aid and tons of military equipment 
     into Colombia is the need to fight ``narco-guerrillas.'' In 
     fact, there are reports that all sides--including the side 
     the U.S. supports, the Colombian military--have been tied to 
     the drug trade. It seems that we are supporting one group of 
     drug traffickers while opposing another group.
       The Colombian aid package is nothing more than an 
     introduction to a quagmire and an escalation of failed drug 
     policy.
       The administration and Congress should step back and 
     formulate goals they want to achieve in Colombia and then 
     determine how best to achieve them without promoting 
     bloodshed and lawlessness.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does my colleague need more time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator from Minnesota for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield my colleague an additional 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

[[Page S5501]]

  I will continue reading from some of these editorials. These are 
newspapers that have very different editorial policies, usually, from 
one another.
  The Sacramento Bee:

       A larger problem is that U.S. aid is meant to target only 
     Colombia's narcotics traffickers, not a 35-year-old leftist 
     insurgency. Yet the two have become virtually 
     indistinguishable as guerrillas extort tribute from coca 
     growers and traffic in drugs as well. . . .
       The Pentagon insists that U.S. combat troops will not be 
     used in Colombia.

  The newspaper says that is good.

       But Americans have heard that before, about Vietnam, and 
     rebels say they regard U.S. advisers as targets.

  We have the rebel groups already saying U.S. advisers will be 
targeted.
  This is what the Sacramento Bee says. I associate myself with their 
conclusion:

       While it may be premature to sound an alarm, it's not too 
     early to begin a debate about U.S. interests in a conflict 
     that has at least the potential to suck Americans into 
     another quagmire. Congress and the administration owe it to 
     the country to clarify what's at stake, what is contemplated 
     and what is not, and the sooner the better.

  The L.A. Times says:

       The administration's most frequent rationale for pumping 
     millions of dollars in aid and tons of military equipment 
     into Colombia is the need to fight ``narco-guerrillas.'' In 
     fact, there are reports that all sides--including the side 
     the U.S. supports, the Colombian military--have been tied to 
     the drug trade. It seems that we are supporting one group of 
     drug traffickers while opposing another group.

  Let's look at this one. What are we doing? We have the left wing on 
one side killing people, human rights violations, and violent. We have 
the right wing on the other side, with which the Colombian military 
oftentimes sides, and they are doing the same thing from the right. In 
comes the United States of America advisers--and I know we have some 
advisers there already; I am aware of that, but this is clearly an 
escalation of our involvement through the donation of these helicopters 
and advisers--and they are going to become targets in the middle 
between the left and the right wings.
  Even though we say they are there to fight drug trafficking, which is 
laudable, they may well go into the jungles and encounter some of the 
left-wing guerrillas and find themselves in a pretty horrible 
situation, which is something about which we need to be clear and why I 
am so proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and why, quite frankly, 
I am a little surprised there is not more concern in the Senate.
  There is a Fresno Bee editorial that is excellent. It says in part:

       [This amendment] allows that U.S. advisers be sent to train 
     Colombian forces in the use of U.S. helicopters and other 
     equipment. . . . And if right-wing death squads that have 
     been closely linked to elements of the Colombian military 
     continue to operate, some of the blame will inevitably accrue 
     to the U.S. program. . . .

  That is another fear. What could be more important to us as Members 
of the Senate than making sure people do not get hurt in our country, 
in the world, that we work for peace and all the right things? If 
somehow our dollars wind up helping paramilitary groups and they commit 
human rights abuses and killings--and we know the list of these abuses; 
they are horrible--somehow it is definitely going to come back to us. 
It is going to come back to us, and I do not want that on my hands. I 
do not want that on the hands of the people from my State.
  The Senator from Minnesota is giving us today an opportunity to do 
all the good things we should do in Colombia. I will go through them 
again. There are important things he has left in this bill.
  He is only taking out 25 percent of this money and transferring it to 
this country to help us in a war on drugs in our Nation.
  He is leaving in interdiction, $132 million to pay for new aircraft, 
upgrades for existing aircraft, secure communications, sea- and river-
based interdiction.
  He is leaving in $93 million for Colombian police to pay for spray 
aircraft, helicopter upgrade, communications, ammunition, equipment.
  He is leaving in funds for alternative development for internally 
displaced people, $109 million--funds to help displaced people.
  He is leaving in human-rights-boosting government capabilities. This 
funding would provide for the protection of human rights workers, 
judicial reform, training of judges, prison security--all the things 
President Pastrana needs to strengthen the institutions in Colombia.
  He is leaving in regional assistance for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. 
This funding would be used for alternative development programs in 
these nearby countries.
  He is leaving in $5 million to help rehabilitate child soldiers, 
children who got involved in this conflict.
  For people to talk against this amendment as if it is eviscerating 
aid to Colombia, eviscerating aid to President Pastrana, they have not 
read the Wellstone amendment. The only thing he is taking out is this 
involvement on the ground with this counterinsurgency against the 
narcotics.
  As I look around my State and I read the studies from my State--for 
example, in Ventura County, CA, a beautiful part of our State where 
there is a lot of agriculture and open space and it looks like 
paradise, 40 percent of the county's homeless population is related to 
drug abuse or alcohol abuse. A San Francisco study found in 1998 that 
drug abuse was the leading killer of the homeless. There are over 
500,000 drug-related emergency room episodes every year.
  In 1995, nationwide, drug abuse cost $12 billion in health care--$12 
billion in health care costs--and the good Senator is suggesting $225 
million so we can cut down on those expenses. It is an investment to 
cut down on these costs.
  The loss of productivity in 1992 has been calculated at $69.4 
billion. That is a 1-year loss of productivity.
  In summing up, I consider myself someone who is good at solving 
problems, and the way one solves problems is not putting blinders on 
and going in one direction, but looking at the whole problem. With the 
Wellstone amendment, taking $225 million and putting it in this country 
so we can stop people from becoming addicts and, if they are addicts, 
help them get off drugs, this is going to be a really good and balanced 
bill, one that I will be proud to support.

  Again, I thank him for leaving in this package the kinds of things we 
need to do to build democracy in Colombia, to make sure that regime 
succeeds, to train the people who need to be trained in judicial 
reform, to help human rights, to help the child soldiers, and to take 
that $225 million that will involve us, unwittingly, in what I consider 
to be a civil war, to take that out, bring it home--bring it home to 
California, bring it home to Georgia, bring it home to Minnesota, bring 
it home to New Hampshire, bring it home to our cities and our 
counties--and let people get the help they need, the help they deserve.
  So I say to my friend, thank you for your courage in offering this. I 
am proud to stand with you.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield it back to the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know the Senator from Georgia is here. I just want 
to thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes of our 
time and, of course, reserve the remainder of the time when I conclude 
my remarks for our side.
  We have heard a lot of interesting remarks. I rise against the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. I associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Delaware.
  I would like to try to not repeat everything that has been said but 
try to underscore several fundamental basic points with regard to these 
issues.
  The first is that over the last 8 years, funding for drug treatment 
and drug prevention has increased by $1.6 billion. I repeat, it has 
increased over the last 8 years. The amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota would increase it even further.
  On the interdiction side of the ledger, during the same 8 years, 
there has been a decrease in the funding for interdiction. So 
interdiction is dropping and treatment and prevention is growing.
  What happens when the Federal Government moves away from its 
responsibilities to protect our borders and to

[[Page S5502]]

engage international narcotics entities? I can tell you what happens. 
The United States is flooded with more drugs--because there is nothing 
there to stop that--the price of those drugs plummets, and more of our 
children become addicted to narcotics. Almost the reverse of what this 
amendment seeks to achieve happens.
  As of Friday, June 9, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
gave us these alarming figures. In 1991--so this is the same timeframe 
I have been talking about--14.7 percent, about 15 percent, said they 
used marijuana. Who is ``they''? They are 9-year-olds to 12-year-olds--
children 9 years old. By 1999, the figure was 27 percent.
  This is the period we are all talking about here, where our 
interdiction dropped and where we increased treatment and prevention. 
What has happened? We have had more and more youngsters--kids, 
children--using drugs.
  In 1991, 31 percent of students reported they tried marijuana at 
least once. By 1999, when we cut off the interdiction, it had grown to 
47 percent.
  In 1991, 1.7 percent of students said they used cocaine. By 1999, 8 
years later--no interdiction--4 percent said they used cocaine. It 
doubled.
  What we have essentially seen is that, while we have increased the 
prevention, while we have increased the treatment, and lowered 
interdiction, more and more kids have taken up using drugs.
  I have to tell you, the greatest prevention program in the world and 
the greatest treatment program in the world is to keep the student--the 
child--from using them in the first place.
  Point No. 2, our borders and our work with international partners, 
whether it is Colombia or Bolivia, or Peru, or Panama--you name it--is 
the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. No other entity can 
practice the interdiction. Georgia cannot do it. California cannot do 
it. Minnesota cannot do it. Only the U.S. Federal Government can 
exercise the muscle to protect our borders and to work with our 
alliances.
  Prevention and treatment require Federal support, which has been 
growing rapidly, with State support and community support. It is a 
multifaceted effort and should be there. But only the Federal 
Government can do what this underlying bill suggests has to be done.
  Point No. 3, the battle in Colombia is not an ideological battle. It 
started out that way, but it isn't anymore. This is a battle against a 
narcotics insurgency. They have 3 percent support in the entire 
country. In that country, 33,000 people have been killed fighting this. 
And 800,000 Colombians are displaced, as in Kosovo, and we are going to 
turn our back?

  Colombia sits in the center of the Andean region and has already 
pushed its trouble into Panama, into Ecuador, and into Peru. The entire 
region is being affected by this struggle to maintain a democratic 
government in Colombia. War is a very ugly thing. It is particularly 
ugly when it is driven by narcotics and narcotics money, by people who 
care for no life, none of these 9- to 12-year-olds, no person, not even 
their own citizens who would be laced with armaments and blown up.
  Will this be a perfect exercise? No. It isn't a perfect world. And 
this is a very imperfect circumstance.
  We have told the people of Colombia--the President of the United 
States; his representatives, from Ambassador Pickering to General 
McCaffrey--that we understand the scope of this problem, both its 
relationship to Colombia, the United States, and the entire hemisphere, 
and that we are going to help, and that we are going to join the 
Europeans, and we are going to join the Colombians in the struggle; 
that we are going to train; that we are going to work on human rights; 
that we are going to work on social institutions and the fundamentals 
of law and the judiciary.
  Legislation to do that was introduced last October. The President and 
the White House endorsed their version of it--it is very similar--in 
February. Here we are in nearly July and we are tied up in knots. You 
can only say, ``The cavalry is coming'' for so long.
  The funds for drug treatment and prevention that the Senator from 
Minnesota seeks have been growing and growing rapidly. The interdiction 
has been collapsing. When it collapses, more drugs are available. The 
number of kids using drugs has almost doubled--9-year-olds, 10- and 11- 
and 12-year-olds.
  The Federal responsibility is to not allow that into our country, and 
no State can do that. This amendment undermines the sole purpose the 
Federal Government has on this issue. This amount of money can be 
sought in 50 different States in 1,000 different communities, which 
they ought to contribute.
  Interdiction has collapsed; utilization by our children has doubled. 
It is a Federal responsibility to address this problem. We better get 
on with it. Colombia is the heart of it. If we lose there, we lose 
everywhere. You can't win a war by just treating the wounded.
  I retain the balance of my time for the chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
the time will be run off equally from both sides.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Would 
the time be equally divided in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time will be equally charged if neither side 
yields time. However, if the Senator suggests the absence of a quorum, 
it will come off of his time, unless there is a unanimous consent 
request otherwise.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will now run equally.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year's foreign operations bill 
provides $934 million in emergency supplemental funding toward the 
administration's request for plan Colombia.
  I again want to express my appreciation to Senator McConnell, and 
other members of the Appropriations Committee, for supporting 
provisions in the bill that will help protect human rights and 
strengthen the rule of law in Colombia.
  I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the administration's 
proposal, particularly the dramatic increase in military assistance. I 
am troubled about what we may be getting into. The administration has 
yet to give me sufficient details about what it expects to achieve, in 
what period of time, what the long-term costs are, or what the risks 
are.
  What the administration has said is that in addition to reducing the 
amount of drugs supplied from abroad, Plan Colombia is intended to 
prevent increases in drug addiction, violence, and crime here at home.
  Those are goals that I strongly support, and I commend Senator 
Wellstone for his amendment. It would provide $225 million for 
substance abuse prevention and treatment programs in the United States.
  According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug abuse 
kills 52,000 Americans each year. It costs our society nearly $110 
billion annually. It has strained the capacity of our criminal justice 
system and our medical facilities, and brought violence and tragedy to 
families, schools, and communities throughout this country.
  As of 1996, there were more than 13.6 million illicit drug users in 
the United States. Some 50 percent of adults in immediate need of drug 
treatment are not receiving it, and many treatment programs have lines 
out the door.
  Eighty percent of adolescents who need treatment--those who will, if 
not provided treatment, sustain the demand for drugs in the future--
cannot get it.
  We should help Colombia. I support President Pastrana's efforts to 
combat the violence, corruption, and poverty which plagues his country. 
But I am not convinced that the administration's request for Plan 
Colombia will effectively address those problems, nor is it likely to 
reduce the flow of drugs into our country or ameliorate the drug 
problem here at home.
  We do know, however, that substance abuse treatment and prevention 
programs work. A frequently cited Rand study showed that, dollar for 
dollar, providing treatment to cocaine users is 10 times more effective 
than drug interdiction efforts, and 23 times more cost effective than 
eradicating coca at its source. Scientific advances promise to make 
future treatment and prevention programs even better.

[[Page S5503]]

  Ultimately, reducing the demand for drugs--which is what these 
programs do--is the only long-term solution to reducing the flow of 
illegal drugs from Colombia and elsewhere.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Wellstone for his leadership on this 
issue and I urge other Senators to support his amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the situation in 
Colombia and the question of the U.S. role there.
  The situation in Colombia has been correctly described as grave. To 
the extent that ``grave'' can be considered an understatement, however, 
that is the case with respect to the ongoing conflict in that strife-
torn country. The issue ostensibly before us involves the war on drugs. 
What is being contemplated, however, should under no conditions be 
considered a simple extension of that struggle. What is being 
considered is nothing less than an escalated U.S. role in what has 
increasingly become an all-out civil war. The relationship between the 
narcotics trafficking that we seek to curtail and the insurgency that 
we oppose but dare not engage has become dangerously blurred. To 
contemplate engaging one but not the other is to labor under an 
illusion of alarming dimensions.
  Mr. President, the conditions on the ground in Colombia are not in 
doubt. A large, highly motivated, well-armed and funded guerrilla army, 
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the smaller but equally 
lethal National Liberation Front, have emerged over the last two years 
as a serious threat not just to Colombia, but to the entire Andean 
region. The FARC, in particular, has evolved into a large-scale threat 
to regional stability. Look carefully at the operations the FARC has 
carried out over the past two years. What you will see is impressive 
and alarming. Sophisticated battalion-size operations against Colombian 
military and police units, including coordinated multi-objective 
operations spread out across Colombia have become the norm. The March 
1998 battle at El Billar, for example, demonstrated the FARC's ability 
to conduct battalion-size operations employing refined tactics like 
maneuver warfare against Colombia's best trained units. In a separate 
operation, a 1,200-strong guerrilla force successfully carried out 
simultaneous attacks on an anti-narcotics police installation and the 
army base at Miraflores, overwhelming both.
  This should give us pause. The Colombian government's position is 
precarious. Already, the fighting has touched Colombia's neighbors. 
Panama, which lacks a military as a result of the post-invasion 
structure the United States imposed on that country, is now threatened 
by cross-border incursions by guerrillas, whose main arms pipeline 
crosses its border with Colombia. Colombia's other neighbors in 
Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela are all feeling the heat from the war in 
Colombia, the latter in the form of refugees escaping the fighting.
  I point all of this out, Mr. President, because no one here should be 
under any doubt that the path down which we are heading is potentially 
fraught with peril. I don't know anyone who actually believes that Plan 
Colombia is the answer to that country's problems; we support it 
because we are at a loss for viable alternatives. But a guerrilla army 
as capable as the FARC will not be defeated by three specially-trained 
and equipped battalions. Much more is needed, including fundamental 
reform and restructuring of the Colombian armed forces to reverse the 
ratio of combat units to rear-area units--a key reason an army of 
140,000 is stretched so thin against guerrilla armies numbering around 
20,000.

  And the army and police must be thoroughly inculcated with the need 
to respect human rights. This not just a moral imperative, but a 
practical one as well. Human rights abuses by government forces 
increases sympathy for guerrilla armies that otherwise lack serious 
popular support. It is never easy, as we learned in Vietnam, to fight a 
guerrilla army that can melt into civilian surroundings and build an 
infrastructure of support, through force and intimidation if necessary, 
that government forces are hard-pressed to defeat without inflicting 
civilian casualties. But Colombia's army and police must not 
underestimate the importance of maintaining constant vigilance in 
respecting the rights of the people they purport to defend.
  The United States role in Plan Colombia is, to date, limited to 
training the aforementioned special battalions and equipping them with 
modern helicopters. Toward this end, we are sending special forces 
teams into the field in the midst of that civil war. The primary role 
of U.S. Army Special Forces is the provision of such training. But we 
must be assured that their role will not extend to that of active 
combatants. The bond that will surely develop between our soldiers and 
those they are training must not extend to a gradual expansion of their 
role in Colombia.
  And with respect to the issue of helicopters, Mr. President, I find 
it deplorable that the question of which helicopter should be provided 
to Colombia should be decided on the basis of any consideration other 
than operational requirements. Blackhawks were selected for the 
capabilities they provide, capabilities that are not inconsequential in 
terms of the Counter-Narcotics Battalions' ability to deploy to the 
field with the speed and in the number required to confront opposing 
forces. Their substitution by the Appropriations Committee with Super 
Hueys goes beyond the usual fiscally irresponsible approach to 
legislating that permeates Congress. It is, in fact, morally wrong. We 
are talking life and death decisions here: the ability of soldiers to 
fight a war. That decisions on their equipment should be decided on the 
basis of parochial considerations is reprehensible.
  Let me return, though, to the fundamental issue of a counter 
narcotics strategy that is imbued with an inherent flaw: the misguided 
notion that the war on drugs in Colombia can be separated from the 
guerrilla and paramilitary activity that is the threat to Colombia's 
existence. If, as has been suggested, the FARC is reconsidering its 
involvement in the drug trade, it is possible that surgical counterdrug 
operations can be conducted without expanding into counterinsurgency. 
That the guerrillas control the very territory where the coca fields 
are located, however, should continue to cause us concern. To quote one 
unnamed U.S. official in the Christian Science Monitor, ``If the 
guerrillas [so] choose, they don't have to continue to protect the 
narcos, [but] if they do. . .this [aid] will be used against them.''
  This, Mr. President, is precisely the problem. Plan Colombia is 
perhaps a last desperate hope to save a nation. But it carries with it 
the seeds of greater U.S. involvement in a civil war of enormous 
proportions. Those of us who have been witness to our country being 
gradually mired in a conflict in another region, in another time, 
should not fail to bear witness to the choices we make today. Funding 
for this plan will go forward, but the Administration and the 
government in Bogota should not be surprised that many of us will be 
watching the situation there very carefully. To do less would be to 
acquiesce in the possible materialization of that most feared foreign 
policy scenario, another Vietnam.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I reluctantly oppose the Wellstone 
amendment to transfer $225 million from the military purposes of Plan 
Colombia to domestic substance abuse programs. The passage of this 
amendment would endanger the success of the Administration's plan to 
attempt to prevent the democratic government of Colombia from being 
destroyed by narco-traffickers. While I strongly support the goal of 
allocating additional funding to substance abuse prevention and 
treatment programs, this cannot be achieved at the expense of the 
effectiveness of Plan Colombia.
  In solving the difficult problem of drug abuse and its many negative 
effects, the United States must seek a balanced approach. This approach 
must include funding for not only drug abuse prevention and treatment 
programs, but also for international eradication/interdiction and local 
law enforcement. Plan Colombia, which stresses eradication and 
interdiction of narcotics at their source, is a useful part of our 
nation's overall strategy to end drug abuse.
  Colombia now supplies approximately 80 percent of the cocaine and 
heroin consumed in the United States. The Plan Columbia aid package, 
which has been designed by the Administration and the Colombian 
government, is

[[Page S5504]]

a comprehensive attempt to stem this flow of narcotics. The package 
includes important funding for counter-narcotics support, economic 
development, and human rights programs.
  A particularly important goal of this initiative is the promotion and 
protection of human rights in the Andean Region. In this respect, the 
Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bill makes important 
contributions. The bill provides approximately $138 million in funding 
for efforts to protect human rights, strengthen the judicial system in 
Colombia, and support peace initiatives. In addition, all assistance to 
Colombian armed forces is contingent on a screening of security forces 
to ensure that they have not been implicated in human rights 
violations.
  Drug abuse has taken a terrible toll on our country. It has led to 
increased levels of crime, a clogged judicial system, and most 
dramatically, the ruined lives of our nation's citizens and their 
families. It is for this reason that I am committed to effective drug 
abuse and treatment. I have worked hard to win Senate passage of 
legislation which would enable qualified physicians, under strict 
conditions, to prescribe new anti-addiction medications aimed at 
suppressing heroin addiction. I have also strongly supported government 
funding for state and local community-based programs for drug 
treatment. In Fiscal Year 1999, the federal government spent 
approximately $5.6 billion on domestic programs directed at the 
reduction of drug demand.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
  While I share his conviction that we as a country must do more to 
reduce the demand for illegal drugs in our society, I do not believe we 
should undermine our assistance for Plan Colombia to pay for increased 
domestic drug treatment and prevention programs.
  Mr. President, I recently visited Colombia to assess what our aid 
could accomplish. I went to see the scope of drug crop cultivation and 
processing, to look into the political context, the human rights 
situation, the goals of the Pastrana Government, and to assess the 
capabilities of the military and the police.
  I went with an open mind, though I was concerned about the reported 
abuses of human rights and with the effects of Colombian cocaine and 
heroin on the streets of New Jersey and other states.
  I left Colombia convinced that we can help Colombia and help America 
by cooperating in the fight against drug production, trafficking, and 
use.
  Mr. President, aid for Plan Colombia is strongly in the U.S. 
interest. While there can be legitimate differences of opinion about 
the exact content of the aid package, such as what kind of helicopters 
should be provided, we must use the opportunity to cooperate with a 
fellow democracy to fight the scourge of drugs which harms both our 
people.
  Colombia's political will is strong. While the political situation in 
Colombia is uncertain, President Pastrana and the Colombian Congress 
have backed away from forcing early elections and appear to be working 
out their differences. But the Colombian people and their elected 
representatives want an end to the violence. They support peace 
negotiations with the FARC and ELN guerrillas.
  And they know the violence will not end as long as it is fueled by 
drug trafficking and its dirty proceeds.
  The U.S. and Colombia have a symbiosis of interest in combating drug 
production and trafficking. While the Colombians mainly want to end 
financial support for various armed groups, they are highly motivated 
to cooperate with our main goal--eliminating a major source of 
narcotics destined for the United States.
  Mr. President, we absolutely need to improve protection for human 
rights in Colombia. The Colombian people face very real risks of 
murder, kidnaping, extortion, and other heinous crimes, so they always 
live in fear. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the violence. 
The Colombian Government--including the military and the police--take 
human rights issues very seriously.
  We need to hold them to their commitments to make further progress, 
as the Senate bill language Senators Kennedy and Leahy and I authored 
would do.
  Mr. President, was particularly impressed that the independent 
Prosecutor General's Office--known as the Fiscallia--is firmly 
committed to prosecuting criminals, particularly human rights 
violators. But in meeting with Colombian human rights groups, I learned 
that the overwhelming majority of human rights abuses are committed by 
the paramilitary groups, followed by the guerrillas.
  Colombia must sever any remaining ties between its military and the 
paramilitary groups and treat them like the drug-running outlays they 
are. On the whole, winning the war on drugs in Colombia should do more 
to improve security and safeguard human rights than anything else we or 
the Colombian government can do.
  To return to the amendment now before us, Mr. President, I believe we 
need to keep working to reduce demand for drugs here in America, but 
not at the expense of cutting efforts to eliminate a major source of 
drugs to our country.
  We have a tremendous opportunity--if we are willing to devote a 
reasonable level of funding--to drastically curtail the production of 
cocaine and heroin in Colombia, while supporting democracy and the rule 
of law in that country. And, since Colombia is the source of most of 
the heroin and 80 percent of the cocaine sold in the United States, 
this is a real opportunity to help address the drug problem in our own 
country.
  I agree with the Senator from Minnesota that America must do more to 
reduce the demand for drugs, particularly by helping those already 
addicted. But we should not take away from our support of Colombia's 
efforts in the process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the 
amendment I have introduced with Senator Boxer takes nothing away from 
interdiction. It does not take away from this package. We are focused 
on the support for the military in the southern part of Colombia. That 
is what this is about. This is an amendment that would transfer $225 
million from aid to the Colombian military for the push into southern 
Colombia into domestic drug treatment programs. It is that simple. It 
is not about not providing assistance to Colombia. It is not about not 
focusing on interdiction.
  A number of different questions have been raised. To respond to some 
of what has been said, I will respond to the comments of my friend from 
Delaware.
  It is important to note that right now in our country, according to 
ONDCP--General McCaffrey and others have talked about this quite a 
bit--there are about 5 million people in need of treatment and only 
about 2 million receive it, private or public. That means about 3 
million people, more than half of the people who need treatment, don't 
get any at all. Why aren't we dealing with the demand side?
  We have a bill out here, almost a billion dollars, and the majority 
leader comes to the floor and says this is all about the war on drugs. 
I am saying, how about a little bit that focuses on the demand side in 
our country. Let us have some funding for drug treatment programs for 
people in the United States. Yes, we have some money in the budget, but 
it is vastly underfunded.
  The 2000 budget for SAMHSA altogether is $1.6 billion. This is the 
block grant money that goes to drug treatment. The States, which are 
down in the trenches using a different methodology, report that close 
to 19 million people in our country are going without any treatment. 
The ONDCP estimates, moreover, that 80 percent of the adolescents in 
our country who are struggling with this problem are getting no 
treatment at all. For women who are struggling with substance abuse 
problems, 60 percent of them get no treatment at all. In some regions 
of the country, the waiting list for treatment is 6 months long or 
longer. The overall cost to our country for elicit drug use is about 
$110 billion a year, according to the ONDCP. Right now we are spending 
$1.6 billion on a block grant program that gets money down to the 
communities for treatment.
  If anybody thinks this is just an inner-city problem, consider a COSA 
report entitled ``No Place to Hide,'' which showed that drug use, 
drinking

[[Page S5505]]

and smoking among young teens, is higher in rural America than our 
Nation's urban centers. According to this report, eighth graders, 13-
year-old children in rural America, are 50 percent more likely to use 
cocaine than those in urban areas--I remember when I heard Joe Califano 
say this; I was stunned--and 104 percent more likely to use 
amphetamines, including methenamine. Drug treatment is needed to treat 
addiction and to end the demand for drugs. This is not just an urban 
problem.
  We are talking about taking $225 million out of this almost-billion-
dollar package for Colombia. We are saying, cannot any of this be put 
into treatment, if this is going to be called the war on drugs 
legislation, as the majority leader identified it. I think we have had 
a different debate on the floor. What I am saying as a Senator from 
Minnesota is, can't we take some portion of that and deal with the 
demand side? Can't we put some money into the war on drugs in our own 
country? If 80 percent of the adolescents aren't receiving any 
treatment and need some help, can't we get some help to them?
  This amendment is supported by Legal Action Center, National 
Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, National Council 
on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Partnership for Recovery, and State 
Association of Addiction Services.
  Again, I say to my colleagues, this amendment, when all is said and 
done, is basically saying to Senators that we can provide assistance to 
Colombia, and we should.
  We should provide extensive assistance, including interdiction, but 
at the same time we ought to avoid entanglement in a decades-old civil 
conflict and we ought to avoid partnership with an army implicated in 
severe human rights abuses. Moreover, I am saying we can take at least 
a small portion of the resources and put it where it will do the most 
good, and that is in providing funding for drug treatment programs at 
home.
  I just want to echo the words of my colleague from California. It is 
quite incredible to me that we can find the money for the war on 
drugs--close to a billion dollars--for Colombia, but we can't take $225 
million and put it into community-based treatment programs in the war 
on drugs in our own country.
  Moreover, we have in this legislation--and I think in particular this 
may interest the Chair--a shift via a 7-to-1 ratio from money for 
police to military. This is particularly worrisome because, right now, 
one human rights organization after another--and we have our own State 
Department report on violations of human rights abuses by paramilitary 
groups. It points out that we have a country where civilians make up 70 
percent of the casualties in that horrible war, and paramilitary groups 
linked to the army commit over 75 percent of the abuses.
  I say to my colleagues, again, President Pastrana has made the 
political decision that he wants to conduct a military campaign in the 
southern part of the state. All of a sudden, this debate has shifted 
because Senators have come out here and have said: Yes, Senator 
Wellstone, we are taking sides and we should take sides. If President 
Pastrana says he needs money from us to support his military in this 
counterinsurgency effort in the southern part of Colombia with U.S. 
supporters on the ground with them, and if we don't stop this in 
Colombia, then, God forbid, for the whole future of South or Central 
America--I have heard this before--at least let's have this debate out 
in the open.
  I know this is a debate about a war on drugs, in which case I would 
say, yes, yes, yes. I would say, we have in this package support for 
the Colombian Government, but if we are going to have a war on drugs, 
do it in our country and deal with the demand side and put more into 
community treatment programs. I think we win that argument. I am sure 
the vast majority of people in Minnesota agree. If you are going to 
spend money on the war on drugs, put some money into our own country. 
We have a package out here that basically says, for the first time, we 
are going to be directly aligned with the military campaign in 
Colombia, in the southern part of Colombia.
  I have some very real doubts that militarizing this conflict is going 
to somehow be a successful war against drugs. Moreover, as I have said 
earlier, I have some very real doubts, which are expressed by human 
rights organizations and religious organizations and a whole lot of 
people in our country and in Colombia, that we should be taking sides 
and we should be supporting a military which, as recently as this year, 
has been unwilling to change its practice and stands accused by all of 
the reputable human rights organizations of human rights violations.
  Do we want to align ourselves with this military, with these 
paramilitary groups that have committed such terrorism against 
civilians and are responsible for most of the violence in that country? 
I have not a shred of sympathy or support for the guerrillas, the left-
wing, the right-wing, any of them.

  The question is, If it is a war against drugs, don't we want to put 
some money into the war against drugs here? Other than that, do we want 
to take sides in this military conflict? That is what my colleagues 
have been talking about today, and they say we have to. They say that 
if we do, we will be able to--we have language in this legislation that 
will safeguard against human rights violations by the military, that we 
will be able to invest this money in the military operation in southern 
Colombia and make sure everything will be above board. Frankly, I think 
that is problematic at best.
  I am not sure people in Colombia or in the United States have the 
faintest idea what we are about to do. We haven't been able to stop any 
of these human rights abuses over the years. But now, all of a sudden, 
we are going to be right in the middle of this and take sides, and we 
are going to be aligned with this military campaign in southern 
Colombia, and we say we are going to vet it and make sure there aren't 
any human rights violations.
  Never mind that all the human rights organizations on the ground say 
that will not work and the religious community says it is a profound 
mistake; that all sorts of government organizations in Colombia with a 
tremendous amount of credibility say, don't do this; don't align 
yourselves with this military campaign in southern Colombia. We are 
being told, no problem; we can vet this now.
  I also want to say to my colleagues I don't think we have taken these 
human rights abuses, either directly by the military or the military 
assigned with these paramilitary groups, very seriously. Again, that is 
a declaration from social and human rights nongovernment organizations 
in Colombia; there must be 45, 50 organizations, or more. We just 
disregard them. They are saying, yes, interdiction, give us the 
package. But they are saying don't align yourselves with this military, 
with such a horrendous, horrific record of violence, murder, violation 
of human rights--alignment with the worst of the atrocities that have 
been committed Colombia--just as we don't want to side with the left-
wing guerrillas.
  Why are we now taking sides?
  Again, some of my colleagues come out here and say this amendment is 
basically taking away assistance to Colombia. It is not. Senator Boxer 
did a great job on that point. We can take a couple hundred million 
dollars and put it into the war on drugs in our own country. We deal 
with the demand side. It is so naive to believe that all of what we see 
in our inner cities and our rural areas and suburbs, all of the 
addiction, all of the substance abuse which destroys people's lives--it 
is so naive to believe that if we now put money into a military 
campaign in southern Colombia, this is the way to fight a successful 
war on drugs. We have been down this road forever and ever and ever and 
ever. When are we going to get serious about dealing with the demand 
for drugs in our own country and the treatment programs? I don't know.
  My colleagues just sort of give the human rights question the back of 
the hand in this debate. I have here the annual Human Rights Watch 
Report World 2000--I will read it again--talking about the paramilitary 
killers and how stark they are in their savagery, and all the ways in 
which the military has turned a blind eye to it, and sometimes it is 
connected to these groups. And now we want to put several hundred 
million dollars into supporting this military directly in a campaign in 
southern Colombia with some of our people on the ground with them?

[[Page S5506]]

  I have to be concerned about the path we are taking. I am not going 
to bore my colleagues with the statistics.
  Let me ask the Chair how much time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 15 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is a sensible approach 
which permits extensive assistance to Colombia while safeguarding U.S. 
interests and avoiding entanglement in a decades-old civil conflict and 
partnership with an army implicated in serious human rights abuses. 
Moreover, it moves resources to where they will do the most good; that 
is, providing funding for drug treatment programs at home.
  In my State of Minnesota, according to the Department of Human 
Services, there are 21,277 people who have requested treatment for 
substance abuse and have not been able to receive it. An additional 
4,000 received some treatment but then were denied further treatment 
because resources weren't available. Most cited lack of funds to pay 
for the treatment, or they were put on a long waiting list when they 
needed the treatment the most. Others said treatment services were not 
appropriate for their needs--women with children, people with 
transportation problems, people who were trying to find jobs and needed 
treatment. This amendment calls for some balance.
  When we started this debate several hours ago, the majority leader 
came out on the floor and in a very heartfelt way said this is about 
the war on drugs; this is about what is going on in Colombia and the 
ways in which that country is exporting their drugs to this country; 
they are killing our children.
  If it is about the war on drugs, then let's make it balanced. Let's 
support efforts to have a war on drugs in Colombia. But let's also 
support the war on drugs in our own country. Some of this money ought 
to be put in treatment programs.
  It is absolutely naive to believe we are going to be able to deal 
with the substance abuse problem in our country without dealing with 
the demand side. It is shameful that we have so little for the 
prevention and the treatment programs. This amendment takes just a 
little over $200 million and puts it into community-based treatment 
programs.
  I doubt whether there is a Senator, Democrat or Republican, who 
either does not know a friend or even a family member who struggles 
with alcoholism or drug abuse. We ought to be doing a much better job 
of getting the treatment to people. This war on drugs is focused on 
interdiction. It is focused on a military solution in Colombia. I argue 
that it is one-sided. I would argue it is naive.
  Second, I have today read from about five different human rights 
organizations' studies, human rights organizations that I believe 
command tremendous respect, I hope, from all of us. I read excerpts 
from the State Department report of this past year. I read a letter 
signed by 70 nongovernment organization, human rights organizations, 
and people who were down in the trenches in Colombia. They all said it 
would be a tragic mistake for our Government to now move away from 
supporting police, supporting interdiction, supporting a lot of efforts 
in Colombia, and shift a considerable amount of money to a direct 
military campaign in southern Colombia--a military aligned with 
paramilitary groups and organizations that have committed most of the 
violence in the country, a military with a deplorable human rights 
record. It would be a tragic mistake for us now to become directly 
involved in this civil war. It would be a tragic mistake for our 
Government to support this military with Americans on the ground with 
them in southern Colombia. What are we getting into?

  I conclude this way: I do not agree with some of my colleagues who 
have said that if we don't do this, it is the end for Colombia, and 
watch out for all of South America and Central America. I have heard 
that kind of argument before. It is eerie to me. It has an eerie sound 
to me.
  I do not agree that we should take sides in this military conflict. 
Instead, I think we should be providing all of the support we can to 
President Pastrana in his good-faith effort to deal with drugs in this 
country, to build democratic institutions, and to have economic 
development. I do not believe we should turn a blind eye away from the 
blatant human rights violations of the military. I think it is 
extremely one-sided to ``fight a war on drugs'' which won't work, which 
will militarize our foreign assistance to Colombia, which will have our 
country directly involved in this military conflict, away from at least 
providing a small amount of money for community-based treatment 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senator McConnell is controlling time, but 
he is not here. Could I ask how much time is under Senator McConnell's 
control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator McConnell has 5 minutes remaining, and 
Senator Wellstone has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. May I request 3 minutes of the remaining time of the 
opponents of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  I strongly support the approval of this assistance for Colombia.
  For the past 8 months I have chaired, together with General Brent 
Scowcroft, a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on Colombia. This 
bipartisan Task Force released an Interim Report in March of this year 
which recommended that Congress approve the administration's aid 
request for Colombia, with two modifications. The first, that 
additional support should be provided to Bolivia, Peru, and other 
countries in the region, has been incorporated into the bill by the 
Appropriations Committee. The second modification, that additional 
trade benefits should be part of the package, I will address with the 
introduction of separate legislation later this week.
  Let me explain why I, and the Task Force, feel so strongly that this 
assistance package for Colombia needs to be approved.
  There is a crisis in Colombia that demands our immediate attention. 
While Colombia has experienced violence and guerrilla insurgencies for 
many years, the current crisis is unique in several important ways. 
First, Colombia is experiencing record violence which is killing over 
25,000 Colombians each year. More than half of all kidnapings in the 
world occur in Colombia. The FARC and ELN guerrilla forces and the 
paramilitary groups are escalating their violence in ways that have not 
been seen before.
  Second, our success in reducing coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia 
has shifted the production and cultivation of coca to Colombia, with an 
explosion of coca cultivation in southern Colombia in the past five 
years. Over 90 percent of the cocaine on our streets comes from 
Colombia. More importantly, the guerrilla forces operating in Colombia 
have become directly involved in narco-trafficking. Where they once 
provided protection for drug traffickers, they now are directly 
involved in the production and transport of illegal drugs. This 
provides them with an almost limitless source of revenue. For the first 
time we have a guerrilla organization that does not rely on external 
sources of funding.
  Third, the Colombian economy is experiencing its worst recession 
since the 1930s. An unemployment rate of over 20 percent is 
exacerbating social and political tensions. The violence is deterring 
investment making economic recovery more difficult.
  Fourth, Colombians are leaving Colombia at record rates. Last year 
over 100,000 Colombians moved to my State of Florida alone. Hundreds of 
thousands more have come to other parts of the United States to escape 
the violence and instability.
  It is this combination of factors that led President Pastrana, 
working closely with our administration, to propose Plan Colombia. To 
many, Plan Colombia is only about drugs, but in reality it is a broad 
plan that addresses five key areas: the peace process; the Colombian 
economy; the counter-drug strategy; justice reform and human rights; 
and democratization and social development. It is this broad based plan 
to rebuild the Colombian state that needs our support.

[[Page S5507]]

  Some have said that Plan Colombia is only about providing military 
equipment to Colombia. Indeed, Plan Colombia is much more comprehensive 
and far-reaching. But, the United States contribution to Plan Colombia 
is heavily weighted toward military equipment. There is a good reason 
for this. Plan Colombia is a $7.5 billion plan, of which the Colombians 
themselves will provide over $4 billion. They are looking to the United 
States to provide about $1.6 billion and to international community for 
the remainder.
  It is appropriate that the portion of the funding being provided by 
the United States focus on the counter-drug part of Plan Colombia since 
this is of particular interest to us and since we are the only country 
that can supply that type of support. It is also the part of Plan 
Colombia that is most compelling for U.S. involvement, since it 
involves keeping drugs off of our streets.
  Some have argued that there are risks associated with providing this 
type of support to Colombia. That is true, but there are also risks 
associated with doing nothing, and I believe that the risks associated 
with doing nothing are far greater than the risks involved with helping 
the Colombian Government and the Colombian people.
  We have important national interests at stake in Colombia that would 
be critically harmed were the current situation in Colombia to 
continue. First, Colombia is the oldest democracy in South America and 
has been an important partner in bringing democracy and democratic 
values to all of our hemispheric neighbors, with the exception of Cuba. 
We must act to preserve democracy.

  Second, the entire Andean region is threatened by instability and 
Colombia is the center of that instability. Failure to stem the crisis 
in Colombia could lead to increased instability in Ecuador, Bolivia, 
Peru, Panama, and Venezuela. A stronger Colombia means a stronger 
region and a stronger Western Hemisphere.
  Third, a complete breakdown in Colombia would make it even more 
difficult to control the drug trafficking. And the illegal networks 
that are set up by drug traffickers also involve other illegal 
activities that threaten our security, such as money laundering and 
financial crimes, arms trafficking, human smuggling, cargo theft, and 
terrorism.
  Fourth, Colombia is an important trading partner for the United 
States. It is South America's fourth largest economy and the fifth 
largest export market in Latin America for the United States. Colombia 
has the potential to be an economic engine for the Andean region and an 
even bigger market for U.S. goods. The violence and instability in 
Colombia are preventing economic growth, including the exploitation of 
large, newly discovered oil fields that would help to reduce gasoline 
prices in the United States.
  Fifth, the exodus of Colombians, nearly 1 million in the past 5 
years, further exacerbates our own immigration problems. A further 
downturn in the Colombian situation could lead to an immigration crisis 
that would directly impact the United States.
  Finally, for those concerned about human rights, and I consider 
myself in that category, the deteriorating human rights situation in 
Colombia can only be reversed through the implementation of Plan 
Colombia, with the government gaining affective control over its 
national territory. President Pastrana has demonstrated his will to 
improve the human rights situation in Colombia, and has taken concrete 
steps, including dismissing senior military officers, to demonstrate 
his determination.
  With all of this at stake it is hard to understand why we have not 
been able to move faster to approve this assistance package. And there 
are direct costs associated with this delay. Last December I visited 
the first of the Colombian counternarcotics battalions that are to be 
trained and equipped by the U.S. as part of Plan Colombia. The U.S. 
Special Forces soldiers who were training them reported that their 
moral was excellent and they were as capable at their tasks as any 
soldiers they have ever trained.
  Unfortunately, this battalion has been doing very little other than 
calisthenics since my visit, largely because of our failure to move 
this assistance package. They are limited to where they can reach by 
foot, since they have no mobility capability. They have no fuel for the 
helicopters they were given on an interim basis by the State 
Department. The valuable training they received is wasting away, and 
their skills are fading from lack of practice.
  In addition, the second Colombian counternarcotics battalion has been 
vetted but are unable to begin training. Eradication of coca and opium 
poppy has been halted. Crop substitution and alternative development 
programs are also on hold, as are the human rights and judicial reform 
programs that are included in the legislation. Meanwhile, the 
guerrillas and the drug traffickers continue to strengthen and expand 
their operations. The peace process has floundered and the violence has 
escalated. Each day we wait the situation worsens, the regional 
instability increases, the drugs flow out of Colombia, and the money 
and effort required to turn the situation around increases.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to act now and support this vital 
package of assistance for Colombia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________