[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7591-7592]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               END OF AERIAL DRUG FUMIGATION IN COLOMBIA

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a recent 
decision of the Government of Colombia to end the aerial fumigation of 
coca.
  Since the beginning of Plan Colombia 15 years ago, the United States, 
at huge cost, has financed a fleet of aircraft, fuel, herbicide, and 
pilots to spray coca fields in Colombia. When this first began we were 
told that in 5 years the spraying, along with billions of dollars in 
U.S. military and other aid, would cut by half the flow of cocaine 
coming to the United States.
  Fifteen years later, that goal remains elusive. While the cultivation 
of coca has been reduced, aerial fumigation was never the solution to 
this problem. It is prohibitively expensive and unsustainable by the 
Government of Colombia. It also defies common sense. One Colombian 
official told me the cost of aerial fumigation is approximately $7,000 
per hectare, while the cost to purchase the coca produced in one 
hectare is $400. In other words, for one-fifteenth the cost of aerial 
fumigation you could buy the coca and burn it.
  The process also ignores the reality of rural Colombia where most 
coca farmers are impoverished and have no comparable means of earning 
income. Absent viable economic alternatives they resort to the 
dangerous business of growing coca, often at the behest of the FARC 
rebels or other armed groups.
  The active ingredient in the herbicide used in the fumigation is 
glyphosate, a common weed killer. It is used by farmers and gardeners 
in the United States and other countries, including Colombia.
  But controversy has plagued the aerial fumigation since its 
inception. It is no surprise that Monsanto, which manufactures the 
chemical, insists that glyphosate poses no threat to humans. But some 
Colombian farmers, whose homes are often located next to their fields, 
have claimed that they or their children suffered skin rashes, 
difficulty breathing, and other health problems after their property 
was sprayed. Others have complained that the herbicide has drifted into 
and destroyed licit food crops.
  Scientists have studied glyphosate for many years and have differed 
about its safety. Some studies have concluded it is harmless. The 
Environmental Protection Agency says it has ``low acute toxicity.'' 
Others have linked it to birth deformities in amphibians. Most 
recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, an 
affiliate of the World Health Organization, reported that glyphosate is 
``probably carcinogenic to humans,'' and that there is ``limited 
evidence'' that it can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and lung cancer.
  I have been concerned for years about aerial fumigation in Colombia. 
While I am no scientist, I have wondered how the people of my State 
would react to the repeated aerial spraying of a chemical herbicide in 
areas where they live, grow food, and raise animals. I have also noted 
the conflicting views in the scientific literature, and we are all 
aware of instances when manufacturers insisted that a product was safe 
only to discover years later--too late for some who were exposed--that 
it was not. And, of course, there have been times when companies knew 
of the risk and chose to either ignore it or cover it up, motivated by 
profit over the welfare of the public.
  It is for these reasons that I have included a provision in the 
annual Department of State and foreign operations appropriations bill 
that requires the Secretary of State to certify that ``the herbicides 
do not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans, including 
pregnant women and children, or the environment, including endemic 
species.'' Each year, the Secretary has made the certification.
  The IARC study changes things. Although glyphosate remains 
controversial and Monsanto points out that the IARC study is not based 
on new field research, President Santos has responded in the only 
responsible way unless further research definitively contradicts it. It 
would simply be unconscionable for the Government of Colombia to ignore 
a study by the World Health Organization that a chemical sprayed over 
inhabited areas is potentially carcinogenic.
  I commend President Santos for this decision. I am sure it was not an 
easy one, as it will inevitably be blamed for increases in coca 
cultivation. But anyone who thinks that spraying chemicals from the air 
is a solution to the illegal drug trade is deluding themselves. It is 
enormously expensive and not something U.S. taxpayers can or should pay 
for indefinitely. It has already gone on for a decade and a half. And 
it does nothing to counter the economic incentive of coca farmers to 
support their families.
  The Department of State reacted with the following statement:

       Any decision about the future of aerial eradication in 
     Colombia is a sovereign decision of the Colombian government, 
     and we will respect that. The United States began eradication 
     at the government's request and our collaboration has always 
     been based on Colombia's willingness to deploy this useful 
     tool. Given the recent suspension, we intend to redouble our 
     efforts to use other tools such as enhanced manual 
     eradication; interdiction (both land and maritime); and 
     improved methods to investigate, dismantle, and prosecute 
     criminal organizations, including through anti-money 
     laundering programs. We will also continue our longer-term 
     capacity building programs, especially those related to rule 
     of law institutions, and continue to help Colombia increase 
     its governmental presence in the countryside as we

[[Page 7592]]

     recognize those to be the real keys to permanent change.

  That was the right response. President Santos has staked his legacy 
on negotiations to end the armed conflict in Colombia. After five 
decades of war that have uprooted millions of people and destroyed the 
lives of countless others, a peace agreement would finally make it 
possible to address the lawlessness, injustice, and poverty that are at 
the root of the conflict. The United States should support him.

                          ____________________