Drug Control: Delays in Obtaining State Department Records Relating to
Colombia (Testimony, 07/09/97, GAO/T-NSIAD-97-202).

GAO discussed the problems that it has encountered in conducting its
review of counternarcotics activities in Colombia, focusing on the
Department of State's delay in providing timely and complete access to
information that GAO requested.

GAO noted that: (1) GAO's basic authority to access records is contained
in 31 U.S.C. 716; (2) this statute gives GAO a very broad right of
access to agency records for the purpose of conducting audits and
evaluations; (3) generally, GAO does not encounter problems in accessing
agency records in the course of most of its work; (4) in fact, during
the past 2 years, GAO has conducted a number of counternarcotics-related
reviews in Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, and the Caribbean; (5) in
every case, the State Department and embassy officials were cooperative
in providing GAO with timely and independent access to information; (6)
in none of these past assignments did the State Department attempt to
control GAO's independent access to information; (7) for example, in a
1995 review of the Colombia counternarcotics program, GAO's team had
independent and unrestricted access to program files of State's Bureau
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL); (8) GAO
was allowed to review files and obtain immediate access to any document
it requested; (9) furthermore, during GAO's 1995 visit to Bogota,
embassy officials provided similar access to their State Department
files, enabling GAO to develop conclusions based on all readily
available information; (10) GAO was allowed to transmit all classified
documents directly to its agency, in accordance with its established
security procedures; (11) in contrast, throughout this review, the State
Department has delayed GAO and imposed undue restrictions on its access
to documents; (12) the Department has established an elaborate process
for considering GAO's document requests by "screening" documents through
multiple, time-consuming reviews before they are released to GAO; (13)
the State Department has insisted that GAO review, under restrictive
conditions, many of the documents that have been released to GAO; (14)
in some cases, the Department has deleted some information from these
documents; and (15) after several unsuccessful attempts to resolve these
problems, GAO formally notified the Department on June 25, 1997, that
its work was being obstructed by delays in obtaining information.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-NSIAD-97-202
     TITLE:  Drug Control: Delays in Obtaining State Department Records 
             Relating to Colombia
      DATE:  07/09/97
   SUBJECT:  Drug trafficking
             Law enforcement
             Interagency relations
             Classified information
             Records (documents)
             Congressional/executive relations
IDENTIFIER:  Colombia
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs
and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
1:00 p.m., EDT
Wednesday
July 9, 1997

DRUG CONTROL - DELAYS IN OBTAINING
STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS RELATING
TO COLOMBIA

Statement of Henry L.  Hinton, Jr., Assistant Comptroller General,
National Security and International Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-97-202

GAO/NSIAD-97-202T


(711286)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  INL - International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
  ARA - Bureau for Inter-American Affairs
  NAS - Narcotics and Affairs Section

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

As requested, we are here today to discuss the problems we have
encountered in conducting our review of counternarcotics activities
in Colombia.  On March 4, 1997, you asked that we review the progress
of U.S.  and Colombian efforts to reduce drug trafficking activities
and influence and any problems that exist.  Subsequently, the
Chairmen of the House Committee on International Relations and the
Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control also requested that
we address similar issues.\1 Mr.  Chairman, our review has been
significantly delayed because the State Department did not give us
timely and complete access to the information we require to address
the issues you, Chairman Gilman, and Senator Grassley have raised. 


--------------------
\1 In response to these requests, we are in the process of reviewing
(1) the length of time it took the executive branch to determine what
assistance would be affected by the March 1, 1996, decertification of
Colombia and the subsequent impacts of decertification on U.S. 
assistance to Colombia; (2) the status of the proposed $40-million
emergency assistance package being provided to Colombia under section
506 (a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 
2318(a)(2)); and (3) the planning and implementation of U.S. 
antidrug efforts in Colombia. 


   SUMMARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

GAO's basic authority to access records is contained in 31 U.S.C. 
716.  This statute gives GAO a very broad right of access to agency
records for the purpose of conducting audits and evaluations. 
Generally, we do not encounter problems in accessing agency records
in the course of most of our work.  In fact, during the past 2 years,
we have conducted a number of counternarcotics-related reviews in
Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, and the Caribbean for this
Subcommittee.  In every case, the State Department and embassy
officials were cooperative in providing us with timely and
independent access to information. 

In none of these past assignments did the State Department attempt to
control our independent access to information.  For example, in a
1995 review of the Colombia counternarcotics program, our team had
independent and unrestricted access to program files of State's
Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL). 
We were allowed to review files and obtain immediate access to any
document we requested.  Furthermore, during our 1995 visit to Bogota,
embassy officials provided similar access to their State Department
files, enabling us to develop conclusions based on all readily
available information.  We were allowed to transmit all classified
documents directly to our agency, in accordance with our established
security procedures. 

In contrast, throughout this review, the State Department has delayed
us and imposed undue restrictions on our access to documents.\2 The
Department has established an elaborate process for considering our
document requests by "screening" documents through multiple,
time-consuming reviews before they are released to us.  And, the
State Department has insisted that we review, under restrictive
conditions, many of the documents that have been released to us. 
Moreover, in some cases, the Department has deleted some information
from these documents.  After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve
these problems, we formally notified the Department on June 25, 1997,
that our work was being obstructed by delays in obtaining
information. 

Here are some examples of the problems we have encountered. 


--------------------
\2 These documents include cables, contractor and embassy reports,
and correspondence.  The documents cover a variety of areas such as
progress reports on Colombia's status in meeting U.S.  certification
criteria; the impacts of decertification; concerns about the impact
of Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) funding of unplanned requirements
such as increased coca and opium poppy eradication and the delivery
of certain types of section 506 (a) assistance; weekly reports that
show problems in managing the coca reduction program; the
counternarcotics needs of the government of Colombia; and a variety
of State Department concerns about end-use monitoring and human
rights and the impact that these concerns have on the delivery and
use of counternarcotics assistance by the Colombian police and
military. 


   DELAYS IN OBTAINING DOCUMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Typically, we work with an agency's program officials in identifying
and obtaining records relevant to our review, and we receive most
documents directly from program officials either on the spot or with
minimal delay.  In the present case, all of the documents we
requested from the State Department's INL Bureau and from the U.S. 
embassy in Bogota, Colombia, were subjected to review by multiple
bureau's and offices, including INL and the Bureau for Inter-American
Affairs (ARA), the Office of the Legal Advisor, and the office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Information Management.  This
multiple review process has been extremely time-consuming and has
delayed our access to certain documents for months. 

For example, on April 11, 1997, we requested 35 specific documents
from INL files.  INL did not respond to our request until June 9,
1997--almost
2 months after the request was made--and even then only gave us less
than half of the documents.  We did not receive access to all of the
remaining documents until July 1.  On May 8, 1997, we requested an
additional 115 specific documents from INL files.  On June 11, 1997,
INL provided about half of the documents, and the rest were made
available on July 1--almost 2 months after we had requested them. 

We also experienced delays in obtaining access to information in
connection with our 3 week visit to the U.S.  embassy in Bogota,
Colombia.  About one week prior to our visit, we faxed and telephoned
the embassy, providing them with a list of documents we wanted to
review.  At that time, embassy officials did not indicate there would
be any problem in getting access to these documents.  Upon arrival at
the embassy on May 19, 1997, our team was informed that we could not
begin our review until guidance was received from the Department
about providing our team access to and release of documents requested
in connection with the assignment.  The next day, our team was told
that the embassy had been instructed by the State Department to
screen all document requests; determine the documents' releasibility
based on the Washington screening guidance; and then to send all the
documents to the Department's ARA Bureau in Washington, which would,
in turn, release them to us.  Throughout the visit to Colombia, our
team was not allowed to have independent access to embassy files or
to have the instructions detailing how the embassy was to screen
documents. 

Furthermore, the team was informed that documents screened at the
embassy and sent to State in Washington would not undergo another
screening unless the embassy asked for it.  However, it appears that
all of the documents sent from the embassy underwent a second review
in Washington.  On May 28, 1997, the embassy sent 24 requested
documents to ARA for release to our team; and, on June 5, ARA
informed us that the classified documents had arrived.  However,
these documents were not released to us until July 3, 1997. 
Subsequently, on June 6, 1997, the Embassy sent another 322 documents
that our team had requested during its visit.  As with the earlier
requested documents, these were not released until to us until July
3.  We are now trying to reconcile our request for these documents
with the documents provided by the State Department. 


   RESTRICTIONS ON REVIEW OF
   DOCUMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

After considerable delay, the State Department has now made most of
the information we requested in Washington and at the embassy in
Bogota available to us.  However, the Department is delaying our
review further by requiring that we read all classified
documents--and there are over 100 of them--at the State Department. 
The Department has told us that we cannot have copies of any of these
documents.  We are concerned that the process of reviewing and making
handwritten notes on this large number of documents at the State
Department will create further unnecessary delays in our work.  On
other jobs, we routinely obtain copies of classified documents,
including highly classified national security information and
materials.  We have established procedures for ensuring that we
provide these documents at least the same degree of protection as is
afforded by the originating agency.  Also, it is standard operating
procedure for our office to seek a security classification review
from the Department on a draft of any report that was derived from
classified sources. 


   DOCUMENT WITHHOLDING AND
   DELETIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

Based on guidance from the State Department, the embassy in Colombia
denied us access to four requested documents.  The embassy advised us
that the documents were drafts leading to the completion of the
annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report issued on
March 1, 1997, and as such were part of the Department's deliberative
process.  Based on records we have reviewed in our prior work, these
documents likely contain the embassy's description of the progress
that a country is making in cooperating with the United States in
counternarcotics matters.  While the embassy advised us to pursue our
request with the State Department in Washington, we have not yet been
given access to these documents.  Under 31 U.S.C.  716(a), GAO has a
broad right of access to agency records, and there is no exemption
for internal working papers or documents containing deliberative
communications. 

In addition, the State Department has deleted or "redacted" portions
of some documents.  For example, the Department told us that it has
redacted some documents to delete sensitive information relating to
such things as ongoing law enforcement operations and foreign
relations activities.  We are concerned about these redactions, since
they prevent us from knowing whether all relevant information has
been provided to us.  While we understand the State Department's
concern about protecting sensitive information from public
disclosure, we have a right of access to this information.  Moreover,
we are confident we can protect it through appropriate safeguards. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

In summary, Mr.  Chairman, our concern is with the delay that we have
experienced in obtaining timely and independent access to information
necessary to respond to your request.  We are also concerned about
the extent to which the State Department has controlled our access to
all documents.  We cannot say with certainty at this time that we
have been provided with all of the information necessary to conduct
an independent review of U.S.  counternarcotics activities in
Colombia. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

This concludes our prepared remarks, we would be pleased to respond
to your questions. 

*** End of document. ***